On Tuesday, 30 January 2007, a Carmelite contacted Steve McInchak, Information Systems/Network Manager with the following request:
Since a web site is only as good as it is up-to-date and current, can you please load Minutes onto the Commissions/Boards web pages to reflect up-to-date information, particularly the Forest & Beach Commission Minutes, since the last Minutes posted date May 4, 2006 and the Historic Resources Board Minutes, since the last Minutes posted date February 27, 2006?
NOTE: The Historic Resources Board Minutes for February 26, 2007 appear on the Forest & Beach Commission Agendas & Minutes page; the latest Minutes for the Forest & Beach Commission are May 4, 2006. The latest Minutes posted on the Historic Resources Board page are the February 27, 2006 Minutes; there are no Agendas since November 20, 2006.
INFORMATION FROM CITY’S WEB SITE:
Steve McInchak,
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Information Systems/
Network Manager
Contact Information:
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Tel. (831) 620-2025
Fax (831) 625-1953
E-Mail: smcinchak@ci.carmel.ca.us
“Steve McInchack has been the Information Systems Network Manager for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea since July 1997. He maintains the city's entire computer network which includes five servers, forty-six workstations and eighteen printers located in five different buildings: City Hall, Sunset Center, Police Station, Fire Department, Public Works and Forest & Beach. Steve is also the City's website administrator and coordinator of its new for 2002 television broadcast facility in City Hall…He is a Certified NetWare Engineer and has extensive knowledge of everything from servers, email, cabling, and the Internet.”(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, “City Hall,” “Network Manager.”)
COMMENTS:
Over one month later, as of today, there had been no response from Steve McInchak, nor have any of the requested Minutes been loaded onto the City’s Official Web Site, except for the Historic Resources Board February 26, 2007 Minutes on the Forest & Beach Commission Agendas & Minutes page.
City employees of Carmel-by-the-Sea do not have an ethic of accountability to the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea. By comparison, contacts with city officials from other California cities have yielded prompt and professional responses.
Showing posts with label Failure to Respond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Failure to Respond. Show all posts
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Failure to Respond: “Organization Study of Library Operations” Consultant John Goss
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
February 6, 2007
XI. Orders of Council
A. Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.
Soon after Consultant John Goss’ power point presentation to the public at the 29 November 2006 City Council Special Meeting, a Carmelite emailed the following to John Goss, Senior Associate, Ralph Andersen & Associates.
Since I was unable to attend the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Special City Council meeting on Wednesday, 29 November 2006, I am writing to ask you for clarifications on your oral presentation to the public at that meeting.
Regarding your recommendations, your first recommendation was the following:
1. Given the city’s tight finances, expenses should be reduced, or revenues increased, to support library services.
Questions:
1. Do you consider an annual budget of $11.75 million and reserves of almost $10 million “tight?”
2. Given the above fiscal condition of Carmel-by-the-Sea, would this information change your assessment that the city needs to reduce expenses to support library services, especially in the context that the city’s General Fund support for the library is already 3.6 times the National Average?
3. The mayor mentioned you would return in a “couple of months;” for what purpose?
Thank you for your time and responses.
COMMENT: Consultant John Goss failed to acknowledge correspondence or respond to questions.
Note: For Highlights of Joss Goss' presentation to the public at the 29 November 2006 Special City Council Meeting, click on the post title above.
Regular Meeting
February 6, 2007
XI. Orders of Council
A. Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.
Soon after Consultant John Goss’ power point presentation to the public at the 29 November 2006 City Council Special Meeting, a Carmelite emailed the following to John Goss, Senior Associate, Ralph Andersen & Associates.
Since I was unable to attend the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Special City Council meeting on Wednesday, 29 November 2006, I am writing to ask you for clarifications on your oral presentation to the public at that meeting.
Regarding your recommendations, your first recommendation was the following:
1. Given the city’s tight finances, expenses should be reduced, or revenues increased, to support library services.
Questions:
1. Do you consider an annual budget of $11.75 million and reserves of almost $10 million “tight?”
2. Given the above fiscal condition of Carmel-by-the-Sea, would this information change your assessment that the city needs to reduce expenses to support library services, especially in the context that the city’s General Fund support for the library is already 3.6 times the National Average?
3. The mayor mentioned you would return in a “couple of months;” for what purpose?
Thank you for your time and responses.
COMMENT: Consultant John Goss failed to acknowledge correspondence or respond to questions.
Note: For Highlights of Joss Goss' presentation to the public at the 29 November 2006 Special City Council Meeting, click on the post title above.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Failure to Respond: Sean Conroy, Senior Planner
A Carmelite emailed the following to Sean Conroy, Senior Planner on 12 December 2006:
Given that the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code does not allow for the approximately 50 lights installed in the medians on Ocean Av. between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av. and given that the City’s Contract Code Enforcement Officer David Wright wrote “only Christmas lights were allowed in the commercial district during the holidays,” what action is the Planning Department intending to take with regard to the lights? Are you writing an amendment or addition to the Municipal Code to be placed on an upcoming public hearing with the intent of retroactively approving the lights or are you recommending the removal of the lights until public hearings are held, and only then if lights are approved, changes to the Municipal Code and an LCP amendment reflecting the lawful nature of the lights in the medians on Ocean Avenue?
Thank you for your time and response.
REFERENCES:
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
Chapter 15.36
ELECTRICAL CODE*
15.36.070 Lighting Requirements.
A. Commercial Buildings/Zones.
1. All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.
2. Lighting intensity shall not exceed eight-candlefoot power at a point two feet beyond the storefront windows as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the ground or public walking surface.
3. Lighting intensity within the interior of the store space shall not exceed 30-candlefoot power at any point visible from the public right-of-way as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the floor or walking surface.
B. Residential Buildings/Zones.
1. All exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and not exceed 25 watts in power per fixture.
2. Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.
3. No exterior lighting is permitted upon City property and may not be directed toward City property.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
28 August 2002
Herb Beckett
W/s Dolores between Ocean and 7th
Consideration of a Commercial Design Review application for exterior design changes consisting of artificial vines and flowers attached to store front, window frames in the Central Commercial (CC) District
David Wright presented the staff report that recommended denial. Herb Beckett appeared to compliment David on his professional approach in dealing with a difficult task. He explained that he decorated his store with seasonal flowers attached to the vine. Chairman Pro Tem Bartron asked Mr. Wright whether seasonal decorations were okay and Mr. Wright responded that only Christmas lights were allowed in the commercial district during the holidays.
Motion of LEPAGE/MANHA TO DENY THE APPLICATION AND REQUEST THAT THE DECORATIONS BE REMOVED BY SEPTEMBER 6 CARRIED ON THE FOLLOWING ROLE CALL VOTE:
AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: Bartron, Manha, and LePage
NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Campbell and Isakson
CONTRACT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: WRIGHT
COMMENT: No Response from Sean Conroy, Senior Planner
Given that the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code does not allow for the approximately 50 lights installed in the medians on Ocean Av. between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av. and given that the City’s Contract Code Enforcement Officer David Wright wrote “only Christmas lights were allowed in the commercial district during the holidays,” what action is the Planning Department intending to take with regard to the lights? Are you writing an amendment or addition to the Municipal Code to be placed on an upcoming public hearing with the intent of retroactively approving the lights or are you recommending the removal of the lights until public hearings are held, and only then if lights are approved, changes to the Municipal Code and an LCP amendment reflecting the lawful nature of the lights in the medians on Ocean Avenue?
Thank you for your time and response.
REFERENCES:
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
Chapter 15.36
ELECTRICAL CODE*
15.36.070 Lighting Requirements.
A. Commercial Buildings/Zones.
1. All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.
2. Lighting intensity shall not exceed eight-candlefoot power at a point two feet beyond the storefront windows as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the ground or public walking surface.
3. Lighting intensity within the interior of the store space shall not exceed 30-candlefoot power at any point visible from the public right-of-way as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the floor or walking surface.
B. Residential Buildings/Zones.
1. All exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and not exceed 25 watts in power per fixture.
2. Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.
3. No exterior lighting is permitted upon City property and may not be directed toward City property.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
28 August 2002
Herb Beckett
W/s Dolores between Ocean and 7th
Consideration of a Commercial Design Review application for exterior design changes consisting of artificial vines and flowers attached to store front, window frames in the Central Commercial (CC) District
David Wright presented the staff report that recommended denial. Herb Beckett appeared to compliment David on his professional approach in dealing with a difficult task. He explained that he decorated his store with seasonal flowers attached to the vine. Chairman Pro Tem Bartron asked Mr. Wright whether seasonal decorations were okay and Mr. Wright responded that only Christmas lights were allowed in the commercial district during the holidays.
Motion of LEPAGE/MANHA TO DENY THE APPLICATION AND REQUEST THAT THE DECORATIONS BE REMOVED BY SEPTEMBER 6 CARRIED ON THE FOLLOWING ROLE CALL VOTE:
AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: Bartron, Manha, and LePage
NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Campbell and Isakson
CONTRACT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: WRIGHT
COMMENT: No Response from Sean Conroy, Senior Planner
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Failure to Respond: City Administrator Rich Guillen
UPDATE: 111896 12/5/06 RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOC. $ 5,121.37 LIBRARY STUDY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total City Expense: $12,252.62
On Friday 24 November 2006, a Carmelite contacted Heather Renschler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ralph Andersen & Associates, with questions on the Carmel-by-the-Sea Library Study, as follows:
As a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea, I understand you have assigned John Goss to conduct the “Library Operations Study” for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the completion date is 31 December 2006. I also understand that the City paid Ralph Andersen & Associates $7,131.25 in September 2006 for a Library Study estimated to cost $14,000.
Questions:
1. Will the Library Study be completed by 31 December 2006?
2. Since the Agreement of Consulting Services was dated 1 October 2006 and the Resolution entering into an agreement with you was passed on 7 November 2006, what was the $7,131.25 cost to the city for?
3. Did you begin the Library Study prior to 1 October 2006?
4. Will the final cost to the City be approximately $14,000?
Thank you for your responses.
On Wednesday, 29 November 2006, John Goss, the man Heather Renschler assigned to conduct the Library Operations Study, presented a power point presentation of the Library Operations Study to the public at the Special City Council meeting.
On Thursday, 30 November 2006, Heather Renschler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ralph Andersen & Associates, replied, as follows:
“Thank you for your inquiry. I have referred your questions to the City Administrator.”
COMMENTS:
I. As of today, City Administrator Rich Guillen has failed to respond in a timely and professional manner.
II. “Library Operations Study” Check and Resolution
Carmel-by-the-Sea
September 2006 Check Register
111405 9/19/2006 RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOC. 7,131.25 01 64051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LIBRARY STUDY
City Council
Regular Meeting
November 7, 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A CITY LIBRARY OPERATIONS STUDY
The Resolution reads in part, as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize the City Administrator to execute an agreement for Consulting Services with Ralph Andersen & Associates on behalf of the City for the preparation of a City Library operations study.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7th day of November 2006...
III. Correspondence with city Financial Directors produced unanimous agreement that a signed contract is required prior to payment. Yet, the Carmel-by-the-Sea public record indicates that a Resolution authorizing “the City Administrator to execute an agreement for Consulting Services with Ralph Andersen & Associates on behalf of the City for the preparation of a City Library operations study” was passed on 7 November 2006, but a check was written 19 September 2006 to Ralph Andersen & Associates for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LIBRARY STUDY.
Reference:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 2.08
CITY ADMINISTRATOR*
2.08.060 Powers and Duties.
F. Control of Expenditures and Purchasing. It shall be the duty of the City Administrator to supervise and control expenditures of City funds. The City Administrator shall be responsible for the purchase of all supplies and services for all departments.
IV. Although touted as a comprehensive study, public speakers Angela Irvine and Lani Fremier revealed flaws in the methodology. For example, John Goss did not consider computer use, nor did he consider the total number of visitors to the library, even though this data was available.
Total City Expense: $12,252.62
On Friday 24 November 2006, a Carmelite contacted Heather Renschler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ralph Andersen & Associates, with questions on the Carmel-by-the-Sea Library Study, as follows:
As a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea, I understand you have assigned John Goss to conduct the “Library Operations Study” for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the completion date is 31 December 2006. I also understand that the City paid Ralph Andersen & Associates $7,131.25 in September 2006 for a Library Study estimated to cost $14,000.
Questions:
1. Will the Library Study be completed by 31 December 2006?
2. Since the Agreement of Consulting Services was dated 1 October 2006 and the Resolution entering into an agreement with you was passed on 7 November 2006, what was the $7,131.25 cost to the city for?
3. Did you begin the Library Study prior to 1 October 2006?
4. Will the final cost to the City be approximately $14,000?
Thank you for your responses.
On Wednesday, 29 November 2006, John Goss, the man Heather Renschler assigned to conduct the Library Operations Study, presented a power point presentation of the Library Operations Study to the public at the Special City Council meeting.
On Thursday, 30 November 2006, Heather Renschler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ralph Andersen & Associates, replied, as follows:
“Thank you for your inquiry. I have referred your questions to the City Administrator.”
COMMENTS:
I. As of today, City Administrator Rich Guillen has failed to respond in a timely and professional manner.
II. “Library Operations Study” Check and Resolution
Carmel-by-the-Sea
September 2006 Check Register
111405 9/19/2006 RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOC. 7,131.25 01 64051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LIBRARY STUDY
City Council
Regular Meeting
November 7, 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A CITY LIBRARY OPERATIONS STUDY
The Resolution reads in part, as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize the City Administrator to execute an agreement for Consulting Services with Ralph Andersen & Associates on behalf of the City for the preparation of a City Library operations study.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7th day of November 2006...
III. Correspondence with city Financial Directors produced unanimous agreement that a signed contract is required prior to payment. Yet, the Carmel-by-the-Sea public record indicates that a Resolution authorizing “the City Administrator to execute an agreement for Consulting Services with Ralph Andersen & Associates on behalf of the City for the preparation of a City Library operations study” was passed on 7 November 2006, but a check was written 19 September 2006 to Ralph Andersen & Associates for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LIBRARY STUDY.
Reference:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 2.08
CITY ADMINISTRATOR*
2.08.060 Powers and Duties.
F. Control of Expenditures and Purchasing. It shall be the duty of the City Administrator to supervise and control expenditures of City funds. The City Administrator shall be responsible for the purchase of all supplies and services for all departments.
IV. Although touted as a comprehensive study, public speakers Angela Irvine and Lani Fremier revealed flaws in the methodology. For example, John Goss did not consider computer use, nor did he consider the total number of visitors to the library, even though this data was available.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
And Yet Another Failure To Respond: City Forester Mike Branson
Fallen Monterey Pine Tree Over Mission Trail Nature Preserve Trail
Location: Across secondary trail beginning from the Fire Lane between the Flanders Mansion Driveway and Serra Trail towards the Meadow between Flanders Mansion and Martin Road.
And yet another failure to respond...in June 2006, a frequency walker in Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Mission Trail Nature Preserve, sent an e-mail to Mike Branson, City Forester, Parks & Beach; the e-mail communicated concerns about the park. Specifically, a fallen large Monterey Pine tree over the secondary trail off of the Fire Lane between the Flanders Mansion driveway and Serra Trail towards the Meadow between Flanders Mansion and Martin Road. And the substantial undergrowth of overgrown weeds, etc. over all of the secondary trails in Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
Needless to say, City Forester Mike Branson did not acknowledge, nor respond to the individual’s concerns. Furthermore, the large Monterey Pine tree remains over the trail, making it difficult to navigate the trail between the Fire Lane and the Meadow, and the overgrown undergrowth was never cut away from the secondary trails, making it more of a fire hazard this past summer and for summers to come in the future.
For Trail Map, Click on Title of Post above, or copy, paste and click on the following link:
http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/images/missiontrailmap1.jpg
COMMENTS:
• A Comparison between Carmel Beach/Scenic Road Beach Bluff Pathway and Mission Trail Nature Preserve is like a comparison between a favored child and an unwanted step child; the former receives all of the attention, concern and care, while the later receives little to no attention, concern or care. Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the city’s largest park (35 acres), and its enthusiasts deserve better! Imagine: If a Monterey Cypress fell over the Beach Bluff Pathway, would it take the city 3 months and counting to remove it?
• Yet another example of the “City” turning the city’s credo, “THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City,” on its head to read “THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a visitor/tourist destination City.”
• “...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863.
Contrariwise, in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, it is the government of the City Council and City Staff, by the City Council and City Staff, for the City Council and City Staff.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Another Failure to Respond: Brian Roseth, Principal Planner
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MINUTES
23 January 2006
PRESENT: Julie Wendt, Chairperson
Erik Dyar
Kay Holz
Erling Lagerholm
Paul Coss
Selected excerpts from the HRB’s 23 January 2006 Minutes, as follows:
VIII. ORDERS OF BUSINESS
1. Consideration of recommendation to the City Council identifying one goal for the Historic Resources Board to incorporate into the City’s fiscal year 2006-2007 budget.
Board member Holz move to send a recommendation to the City Council identifying an updated Context Statement for Post 1940 to 1960 homes be incorporated into the City Fiscal year 2006-2007, seconded by Coss and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Meeting Date: 6 June 2006
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Principal Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City’s Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
City Funds: $21,750 ($19,775 for Consultant plus 10% contingency).
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 13th day of June 2006 is by and between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City", and ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE, HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant".
ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE:
Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner and Principal Historian
Charlene Detlefs Duval, Partner and Principal Historian
Franklin Maggi, Partner, Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner
Jessica Kusz, Preservation Specialist
MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
June 13, 2006
B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City's Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
Mayor McCloud announced that Item B. had been pulled from the Agenda.
August 2006 Correspondence with the City, as follows:
An e-mail originally sent to Franklin Maggi, Partner, Archives & Architecture, then forwarded to Brian Roseth, Principal Planner, requesting clarification of the Consultants Services Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Archives And Architecture on the 13 June 2006 City Council Agenda yielded the following response from Brian Roseth.
“Leslie's contract is for review of alterations to historic resource properties only. She has not been engaged by the City to do any work on the Historic Context Statement. The City Council will be reviewing consultant proposals in September or October to contract for the Context Statement update project."
In reply, the writer wrote to Brian Roseth, as follows:
“As you are aware, the information provided the public for the 13 June 2006 Special City Council meeting included an Agenda Item Summary (dated 6 June 2006) prepared by you recommending authorization by the City Administrator "to enter into the Agreement" with Archives & Architecture for the preparation of an update to the city's Historic Context Statement for the period 1940-1965. Additionally, the 5 page "CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT, dated June 13, 2006, was included.
QUESTION: Why was the contract with Archives & Architecture not signed on June 13, 2006? And will Archives & Architecture be considered when the City Council reviews consultant proposals in September or October?”
No Response from Principal Planner Brian Roseth.
COMMENTS:
The Historic Resources Board, in January 2006, unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that an update to the City’s Historic Context Statement be included in the city’s Fiscal Year 2006/07 budget. Since the beginning of FY 2006/07 on 1 July 2006, an Agreement with a consultant for the update of the Historic Context Statement has not been executed and has not been placed on the September or October 2006 City Council agendas, as Brian Roseth stated.
It is axiomatic that unresponsive local government is symptomatic of a failure to understand that all public servants should treat their positions as a public service and a public trust. And again, when a city government is seen as acting to protect staff from public accountability, rather than protect citizens from unaccountable public servants, then there is citizen disrespect and distrust of government.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MINUTES
23 January 2006
PRESENT: Julie Wendt, Chairperson
Erik Dyar
Kay Holz
Erling Lagerholm
Paul Coss
Selected excerpts from the HRB’s 23 January 2006 Minutes, as follows:
VIII. ORDERS OF BUSINESS
1. Consideration of recommendation to the City Council identifying one goal for the Historic Resources Board to incorporate into the City’s fiscal year 2006-2007 budget.
Board member Holz move to send a recommendation to the City Council identifying an updated Context Statement for Post 1940 to 1960 homes be incorporated into the City Fiscal year 2006-2007, seconded by Coss and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Meeting Date: 6 June 2006
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Principal Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City’s Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
City Funds: $21,750 ($19,775 for Consultant plus 10% contingency).
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 13th day of June 2006 is by and between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City", and ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE, HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant".
ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE:
Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner and Principal Historian
Charlene Detlefs Duval, Partner and Principal Historian
Franklin Maggi, Partner, Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner
Jessica Kusz, Preservation Specialist
MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
June 13, 2006
B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City's Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.
Mayor McCloud announced that Item B. had been pulled from the Agenda.
August 2006 Correspondence with the City, as follows:
An e-mail originally sent to Franklin Maggi, Partner, Archives & Architecture, then forwarded to Brian Roseth, Principal Planner, requesting clarification of the Consultants Services Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Archives And Architecture on the 13 June 2006 City Council Agenda yielded the following response from Brian Roseth.
“Leslie's contract is for review of alterations to historic resource properties only. She has not been engaged by the City to do any work on the Historic Context Statement. The City Council will be reviewing consultant proposals in September or October to contract for the Context Statement update project."
In reply, the writer wrote to Brian Roseth, as follows:
“As you are aware, the information provided the public for the 13 June 2006 Special City Council meeting included an Agenda Item Summary (dated 6 June 2006) prepared by you recommending authorization by the City Administrator "to enter into the Agreement" with Archives & Architecture for the preparation of an update to the city's Historic Context Statement for the period 1940-1965. Additionally, the 5 page "CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT, dated June 13, 2006, was included.
QUESTION: Why was the contract with Archives & Architecture not signed on June 13, 2006? And will Archives & Architecture be considered when the City Council reviews consultant proposals in September or October?”
No Response from Principal Planner Brian Roseth.
COMMENTS:
The Historic Resources Board, in January 2006, unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that an update to the City’s Historic Context Statement be included in the city’s Fiscal Year 2006/07 budget. Since the beginning of FY 2006/07 on 1 July 2006, an Agreement with a consultant for the update of the Historic Context Statement has not been executed and has not been placed on the September or October 2006 City Council agendas, as Brian Roseth stated.
It is axiomatic that unresponsive local government is symptomatic of a failure to understand that all public servants should treat their positions as a public service and a public trust. And again, when a city government is seen as acting to protect staff from public accountability, rather than protect citizens from unaccountable public servants, then there is citizen disrespect and distrust of government.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Failure to Respond: City's Finance Manager Joyce Giuffre
While Joyce Giuffre, the City’s Finance Manager, was out of her office in City Hall September 13-20, another week elapsed without acknowledgement of e-mails or, needless to say, answers to fiscal questions posed to her as the Finance Manager.
Content & Questions sent to Finance Manager Joyce Guiffre and their implicit answers:
Recent reading of Research Briefs and articles by the National League of Cities and the Government Finance Officers Association (ex. Appropriate Level of Unreserved Fund Balance in the General Fund (2002) http://www.gfoa.org/services/rp/budget/budget-appropriate.pdf) has stated that nationally, reserve levels among all cities, except New York, have been 18% - 19.6% over the past six years. And the GFOA has recommended General Fund reserve levels of no less than 5% - 15%. And that reserve policies “are just important as the reserve levels.”
Questions:
1. “Accountants also sometimes report a designated portion of unreserved fund balance to indicate that the governing body or management have tentative plans concerning the use of all or a portion of unreserved fund balance.” (Source: GFOA, as above.)
Since the city’s Balance Sheet, Governmental Funds, June 30, 2005, page 4, enumerates amounts for 12 “Unreserved Designated” Fund Balances, what are the city’s tentative plans concerning these reserve funds?
Implicit City Answer: The City has no tentative plans concerning the “Unreserved Designated” Fund Balances. And if the City had plans, the “City” would say “I don’t think I have to tell you.”
2. Since reserve policies “are just as important as the reserves levels,” what is the city’s reserve policy?
Implicit City Answer: The City does not have a reserve policy. And if the City had a reserve policy, the “City” would say “I don’t think I have to tell you.”
3. With the excessive deferred maintenance requirements of the city, what rationale is the city using to justify 70% - 80% of the annual budget in reserve funds? Note: “As of June 30, 2005, the City’s governmental funds had a combined fund balance of $8,898,422, an increase of $266,264 from the previous year.” Pg. –a- Management’s Discussion and Analysis.
Also, as is the convention, while discussions of fund balances focus on the General Fund, balances in other funds “should also be considered in assessing the adequacy of unreserved fund balance in the general fund.”
Implicit City Answer: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not have a rationale for 70% - 80% of the annual budget in reserve funds. And if the City had a rationale, the “City” would say “I don’t think I have to tell you.”
COMMENTS:
Sadly, Finance Manager Joyce Giuffre’s failure to respond to a resident’s request for information on city fiscal policy is just one example in a pattern of conduct by city staff and city council members; specifically, a pattern of ignoring residents’ concerns and specific questions regarding city government. One Carmelite stated her letters were met with SILENCE...SILENCE...SILENCE! Needless to say, unresponsive local government is symptomatic of a failure to understand that all public servants should treat their positions as a public service and a public trust. Moreover, when a city government is seen as acting to protect staff from public accountability, rather than protect citizens from unaccountable public servants, then there is citizen disrespect and distrust of government.
Content & Questions sent to Finance Manager Joyce Guiffre and their implicit answers:
Recent reading of Research Briefs and articles by the National League of Cities and the Government Finance Officers Association (ex. Appropriate Level of Unreserved Fund Balance in the General Fund (2002) http://www.gfoa.org/services/rp/budget/budget-appropriate.pdf) has stated that nationally, reserve levels among all cities, except New York, have been 18% - 19.6% over the past six years. And the GFOA has recommended General Fund reserve levels of no less than 5% - 15%. And that reserve policies “are just important as the reserve levels.”
Questions:
1. “Accountants also sometimes report a designated portion of unreserved fund balance to indicate that the governing body or management have tentative plans concerning the use of all or a portion of unreserved fund balance.” (Source: GFOA, as above.)
Since the city’s Balance Sheet, Governmental Funds, June 30, 2005, page 4, enumerates amounts for 12 “Unreserved Designated” Fund Balances, what are the city’s tentative plans concerning these reserve funds?
Implicit City Answer: The City has no tentative plans concerning the “Unreserved Designated” Fund Balances. And if the City had plans, the “City” would say “I don’t think I have to tell you.”
2. Since reserve policies “are just as important as the reserves levels,” what is the city’s reserve policy?
Implicit City Answer: The City does not have a reserve policy. And if the City had a reserve policy, the “City” would say “I don’t think I have to tell you.”
3. With the excessive deferred maintenance requirements of the city, what rationale is the city using to justify 70% - 80% of the annual budget in reserve funds? Note: “As of June 30, 2005, the City’s governmental funds had a combined fund balance of $8,898,422, an increase of $266,264 from the previous year.” Pg. –a- Management’s Discussion and Analysis.
Also, as is the convention, while discussions of fund balances focus on the General Fund, balances in other funds “should also be considered in assessing the adequacy of unreserved fund balance in the general fund.”
Implicit City Answer: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not have a rationale for 70% - 80% of the annual budget in reserve funds. And if the City had a rationale, the “City” would say “I don’t think I have to tell you.”
COMMENTS:
Sadly, Finance Manager Joyce Giuffre’s failure to respond to a resident’s request for information on city fiscal policy is just one example in a pattern of conduct by city staff and city council members; specifically, a pattern of ignoring residents’ concerns and specific questions regarding city government. One Carmelite stated her letters were met with SILENCE...SILENCE...SILENCE! Needless to say, unresponsive local government is symptomatic of a failure to understand that all public servants should treat their positions as a public service and a public trust. Moreover, when a city government is seen as acting to protect staff from public accountability, rather than protect citizens from unaccountable public servants, then there is citizen disrespect and distrust of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)