There was another bit of "weird" information stated by (if my memory serves me correctly) Commissioner Amoroso at the NAPC Candidate Forum when he said that we hadn't had an internal auditor in ten years and that they (the trio) had to fund one...putting the blame of no IA on a past commission and former city manager Stanton. Now, I realize that it is impossible to stay on top of everything going on in our city but an elected official needs to be on top of the facts.
It was a totally false statement in every respect. As stated in a previous blog, the city did not fund for an internal auditor in the 2010 budget because the city, due to the economy and lack of ad valorem, could not afford the position and relied on the OMB. Prior to that budget year, we had an internal auditor who was totally independent (not an employee), Scot Menke. At that time, the city totally relied on the audit conducted by the external auditors. Scot Menke was great and he would never allow any city manager setting himself up as God. But here in Lake Worth, the incumbents treat Michael Bornstein as a demigod; they hired him. Our internal auditor remains invisible to the public eye and gives one public report a year.
Hiring an internal auditor is a good thing as long as he is totally independent but nowhere in the Ordinance below does it say that the city must hire an internal auditor. Positions were being eliminated right and left back then and the IA position was one that bit the dust.
The appointive officers shall be the city manager, city attorney, internal auditor,
city clerk, police chief, fire chief, and such other officers as may be
provided for by ordinance. Any of the above officers which are, or may
become, under civil service shall be subject to civil service
regulations. All of the appointive officers under the charter, (except
the city manager, city attorney, and internal auditor) shall be appointed by the city manager and all appointive officers shall hold office subject to provisions of law.
(Ord. No. 96-34, § 1, 12-5-96)
The question is, do we have to have an internal auditor by law? I can't find anything in our Muni-Code that says so. We must have an external auditor. He is fed all the information by the city who hires him or his firm and reports to the city manager.
The Internal Auditor provides an independent assessment function within our city. It is non-political and he assists the management team. The Internal Auditor conducts performance and compliance audits in order to provide accountability to the public and promote the efficient and effective use of city resources and operations. He can investigate all financials and departments independent from what information that the city wants to provide.
24 comments:
The more incorrect Amoroso gets on any issue the more arrogant he gets. He got louder and more sure of himself as he misrepresented the facts at the candidates' forum.
It is in the city charter, not an ordinance. Stanton decided to "not fund" a charter required position. And the majority at that time thought that was fine. The reasoning at the time was from Stanton, "I don't need anyone telling me how screwed up our finances are".
What I quoted is from the charter. So if you can find it, post it here, ok?
Lynn, trying to get truth out of or into Amoroso or any of his handful of remaining supporters is like trying to bail out a sinking ship with a teaspoon.
Stanton was manager for 2 and 1/2 years. She has not been the manager since 2011. If everything she did in 2 and 1/2 years was wrong, inept, stupid, etc. haven't we have had a new city manager for twice that length of time. He's not new anymore, the majority commission group are not new anymore, they have had plenty of time to address these issues.
I'm also not saying that the current administration can correct our problems (maybe they can't b/c we simply don't have enough money), but if they can't correct the problems in 2015-2016 then stop blaming Stanton or anyone else in power in 2010-2011 (when our city had even less money due to the great recession).
Lynn,
We are constantly reminded at meetings to listen to what the people want. History shows us that what the people want is a moving target. As you posted an earlier thread on your blog, in 1996 the people wanted to put in the charter the height limits that was in our codes, and LDR’s relating to height limits of 65’ east of Dixie Hwy and 100 ‘ west of Dixie Hwy at that time. They did that to try and encourage potential investors building regulations that are predictable, without having to worry about which side in the city had the majority at city hall. That was an unusual ordinance to put in a city charter. But the people in Lake Worth were looking for something to try and assure investors that building codes were predictable and would be consistent into the future. Since then, (1996) there have been what, just 3 buildings built in the city over 50’ tall. Even with all the new investment and development that has happened since then in PB County all around us we’ve only had 3 new buildings that came close to those height limits. Getting back to the statement listen to what the people want, what people are we talking about? The people in 1996? The people in 2013? The majority of people who attended the last two commission meetings who spoke about their support for unifying the zoning of the southern part of the vacant lot owned by the investors of the Gulfstream Hotel so the hotel can be redeveloped to meet the demands of todays travelers and be competitive with the competing hotels in our county? Most of the people who spoke at those commission meetings that spoke against the change said they weren’t against the hotel being reopened they just wanted the city to respect the vote of the people. The people now seem to say that they want the city to approve the zoning change, even people who said they voted for the height limits in 2013 are saying it.
The amendment wording that was on the 2013 ballot as you know read;
AMENDING CHARTER BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN DESIGNATED DOWNTOWN AREA, WITH EXCEPTIONS
Should the Charter be amended to limit building height to 45 feet between Golfview Road and F Street and 35 feet between F Street and A Street within a designated downtown area (between a southern boundary of 1st Avenue South; northern boundary of 2nd Avenue North; western boundary of A Street North and South; and an eastern boundary of Golfview Road North and South), providing exceptions for existing buildings and already approved building permits?
So even if the state legislators didn’t pass a bill making that kind of voter initiative null and void, the wording of the referendum would allow the exception to the height limits by its expressed language; AMENDING CHARTER BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN DESIGNATED DOWNTOWN AREA, WITH EXCEPTIONS.
Either way what the city did during the hearings on this approval was; listen to what the people wanted.
The voters have the right to change the charter. As heights are in the charter, they had the right to change them.
The EXCEPTIONS that you refer to deal with those buildings already erected. "... providing exceptions for existing buildings and already approved building permits.
Good try but you are reading something into the Charter Amendment that just isn't there.
I finally agree with you on two points. The language in the amendment didn't make the downtown a exception and now, possibly the only argument against the State making the vote null and void is that we changed a prior charter language.
That may or may not hold up as there was no language specifically addressing the former charter amendment which we the people voted on. The most recent vote did not rescind the former amendment unless it is automatically rescinded or overridden by the new one.
Either way, trying to stop HH from developing the site to make any new addition non-complying with surrounding buildings is counterproductive.
Again, many people who wish to keep Lake Worth "low rise" would vote to allow this hotel to be built.
You seem to have a lot of faith in HH doing anything there. I find it all so sad that one group here, the developer crowd as I like to refer to you all, believe everything HH tells you.
They can build to 45 feet and still get the number of rooms that they say they need to be successful. Why did they buy it to begin with and said they would renovate and open the existing building?
Even when they get their site plan approved, it is still against the Charter Amendment. They are taking a gamble. And once they get it, every lot in those blocks can get it too. Ordinances can be changed. The Comp Plan can be changed. LDR's can be changed. You open the can of worms for one property owner, you open it for all. 65 foot buildings can spread all over once the economy is right for development and an ordinance can be written that it does not have to pertain only to a hotel.
The intent of the Charter Amendment was to keep that area no higher than 45 feet or a 4 story building.
I'll believe in this hotel opening for business when HH starts work on the existing hotel. Haven't seen one thing happening. Sure hope all of those behind this upzoning are making a lot of money...someone(s) must be to screw democracy to the level this trio commission did.
"The intent of the Charter Amendment was to keep that area no higher than 45 feet or a 4 story building."
You state this as if that area has no structure higher than 45 feet. Almost ALL the surrounding buildings are taller than 45 feet. So are you "keeping" the area 45 feet or are you "making" it 45 feet?
You are also right that any existing vacant lot in that "zone" if zoned multi-family, can be re-zoned downtown mixed use. That will limit that property to 45 feet unless it can fit a hotel of 50 rooms or more, which is almost impossible, per William Waters.
I don't care if there are 100 foot buildings there. So what? We don't want more of them.
And I said that an Ordinance can be written that will not be exclusionary to hotels. You do know that, right?
A developer can come in and buy up contiguous properties.
"trying to stop HH from developing the site to make any new addition non-complying with surrounding buildings is counterproductive."
No one is trying to stop HH from restoring the Gulfstream. We just want them to follow our laws. 45 feet max in this area was the will of the people and is the law right now in Lake Worth.
You know what's really counterproductive? Ignoring an election by the people and having to waste money on a law suite that could easily be avoided by making HH follow the law.
"A developer can come in and buy up contiguous properties."
And the problem with that would be........? That we get another brand new hotel? In our "hotel district"? And chances of someone buying up already built properties to to tear them down to accumulate enough to get an extra 20 feet of height is almost lottery odds. And even if they did, wouldn't it mean that Lake Worth was worth that type of investment?
We sure don't want any of that, do we?
At what point does this hypothetical argument become too absurd?
What is not hypothetical is HH invested in the Gulfstream and wants to make it a good investment. Even though they are doing everything they need to do to start the process, you somehow think they will not. So tell me how this plays out. They get re-zoned, get plans approved and then what? Sell the plans?
This blog has diverted from its original intent. HH comments should be made on an appropriate blog. Thanks. There is really no sense in arguing about this. We have heard from you folks that our vote is simply "not fair."
Lynn, you said yourself when discussing ordinances in our charter about the city having a internal auditor the ordinance didn’t say we “must have” an internal auditor. That’s how you and maybe other understand that ordinance to be. If that’s the case, in the height limits ordinance back in 2013 it did not say that “other exceptions” could not be added later to the 2 that were in the ballot language, did it?
Yes, Andy’s math on the number of years the city was without an auditor was a little off but it is factual that when he became a member of the commission the auditors position was brought back. What was more than “misspeak” was when his opponent said Andy “voted for putting a convention center at the beach.” That was not misspeak, that was a bold face lie. You know that too.
Greg--I don't remember Frank McAlonan saying that Andy "voted" to put a convention center at the beach.
Lynn to quote you, "listen to the video of the debate". Frank CLEARLY said Andy voted to put a convention center on the beach.
I think the audience CLEARLY made him aware of his mistake and it affected the rest of his closing comment.
I would have to go back and listen to that exact part of the presentation to state so emphatically exactly what Andy's opponent, Frank McAlanon said. It seems someone has done just that, which makes me wonder if the gang of 3 isn't getting a little hot under the collar already about the coming election. Perhaps a slight hint of a doubt that their developer dynasty will squelch all these nasty superfluous voters who think they have a voice in their government or their beach and development height and density in their town? Andy's involvement with the secret ITN process is more than evident since he nominated himself to be on the committee. If you want to examine under the microscope another speech with missed cues look back and watch the video of the commission meeting that began the ITN. It was certainly not presented honestly as what it's intent was: to get HH one the beach. That's why it had to be secret as everyone knows now. Chris McVoy spoke out of turn in their prescripted scenario before the public. He was definitely not to be allowed anywhere near that committee. The mayor, Scott, and Andy are suddenly on stage with lines not in the play and there is a definite pause____
while they try to recover and carry on the plan predecided to get HH a piece of ocean front pie. So while the plan to do this ultimately backfired on them, I would say the gang of 4, then 3 took every action to put this in motion. They failed when the true story came out. Andy voted himself into the committee. The whole thing blew up in their faces when exposed and the chamber was filled with a majority of Lake Worth so angry and rightfully so--they were unable to pull it off. It was ultimately disbanded in a putrid cloud of smoke and mirrors. If you want to get technical: Andy DID vote himself into the committee founded to install HH on our beach. And I will give anyone credit for standing up against this well oiled machine of money, developers, realtors, and the commission stooges who act as though this is all that matters. More than a few in the audience noticed the questions slanted to favor incumbents, and that said incumbents certainly spoke again as if they already had the script.
For those who said they didn't remember Mr. McAlonan saying Commissioner Amaroso voted to put a convention center over at the beach. A quick internet search on the number 2 search engine will perhaps jog your memory. We all know a lot of false things are said at people's front doors during election time can't be proven but telling lies from a stage at a publicly noticed meeting that's being recorded makes you wonder just what they'll say when no one else is around. Here it is so you won't have to search yourself.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/share?url=https%3A//www.youtube.com/attribution_link%3Fa%3DoMBugyy8bKA%26u%3D%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DodRjdjOxb7Y%2526feature%253Dplayer_embedded&source=yt&hl=en&soc-platform=1&soc-app=130
That link takes me no where but creating an account which, of course, I already have???
A better word to have used was "misspeak" rather than calling out someone as a LIAR and then accusing everyone else for being one. :(
Greg Rice, you have one hell of a nerve saying what you did. Right now I will vote for anyone opposite of who you like. Count on it. Bring back your banner now that you are a Hudson Holdings groupie.
Greg--Thanks for a link that works that I have posted:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=odRjdjOxb7Y
Next, I am not going to post your smart-azz comment. No name calling. Let's leave that to the other blogger and some of your friends :) Thanks.
I cannot pull up anything on that link. I find it odd that Andy "misspoke" and the other candidate must be a bold faced liar. A little prejudiced are we?? "...telling lies from a stage at a publicly noticed meeting that's being recorded makes you wonder just what they'll say when no one else is around." There we have it folks straight from one of the Hudson Horse's mouth. Now you know for a fact that everyone who contradicts the gang of 3 or HH has now been proven to be bold faced liars--just ask Greg the horse. Apparently he could not understand my previous entry re Andy voting himself onto the secret process to install HH at the beach. Not to mention making a violation of Florida ethics law when he and William Waters openly discuss the fact that "if this gets out, Szerdi's history." And then one more meeting is scheduled to avoid any disclosure of same until after the election. Along with the whole gang laughing along with the IG rep that the "public participation or public good requirement" can be taken care of tee hee, tee hee, by selling one or two $2500 memberships to the beach club to residents of Lake Worth. Go back and listen to that and decide who is shady here. I don't really care if Frank McAlanon did misspeak a bit as far as Andy voting for HH on the beach. There simply was no final vote for that. He did everything possible to bring this to fruition in the dark. Plans foiled when the (gasp)(ack!)electors (those dastardly people) found out. With the entire city up in arms it was wisely decided to officially close the ITN. It was to late to save prescripted plan. I doubt that Frank McAlanon has taken a full 2 days to listen to these sordid tapes as I have. Few people have. The present majority commission vehemently denies having listened to them and at a publicly noticed and recorded meeting Scott Maxwell called me a liar for stating what is on those tapes for all to hear. Now that puts you in excellent company. Unless you had followed this whole mess in great detail I think it perfectly possible to believe Andy did have a hand in voting for this since he was the designated ring leader of the entire sordid process to get HH on the beach complete with private beach club, parking garage, and Convention Center. All the while HH did nothing but wait on getting a piece of this pie before doing anything on the Gulfstream. It was to be a hotel and private beach club. Yea, you're right Greg. We must all be liars. Sure. We have a sitting commissioner who commits ethical violations that are recorded...and one statement from a new candidate makes us all proven liars. No exaggeration here.
Post a Comment