Robert's Rule of the night

"I call the question" - More lousy Lake Worth Politics

Comment Up

"I want to call the question." That statement is the Vice Mayor Scott Maxwell's latest bully tactic when he just doesn't want to hear the other side of any argument...when he wants to stop Christopher McVoy or even Ryan Maier from uttering an opinion. He is, once again, abusing his power and to use the latest buzz word of Shelley Vana, urinating on democracy, open debate and transparency.

See Robert's Rules question 11. The attitude is--I got elected by an overwhelming majority so screw you and the horse you rode in on. Passing ordinances/laws that will force all other persons to conform to the Trio's ideas of what is good for them is corruption of power. Calling the question was used last night only to be rude as Maxwell's mind was made up on the Land Development Regulations as was the rest of the Trio's. Mr. Maxwell doesn't care about that. His fans love him.  It's as if he's been taking lessons from Trump.

This Trio does not want to waste time listening to anyone, certainly not the public. They only want to listen to their own bully voices. They are rude and obnoxious and to a big fault. Generally, the presiding officer waits until it's clear no one else wants to speak to the issue; calling out "Question" without first obtaining the floor is just plain rude. But more than that, it is obnoxious politics.

Last night before the meeting resumed after a break, I thanked the mayor for conducting a cordial meeting. Within minutes that all changed. Within a flash, she became agitated. I have never witnessed a more rude body of elected officials.

Procedure when speaking to a Motion

Comment Up

Proper Procedure when speaking to a Motion--

Chapter 4, Robert's Rules.
This is something that the Mayor is NOT doing:

• When speaking to a motion, it is important for the member to first let the assembly know which side of the issue he or she is on. If in favor of the motion, the member states--Member: I speak for the motion and gives the reasons why.

• If opposed, the member states: I speak against the motion and gives the reasons why.
   Doing so helps the chair alternate the debate.

• In controversial issues, the presiding officer should alternate the debate between those speaking for and those speaking against the motion. After someone speaks for the motion, the chair asks: Would anyone like to speak against the motion?

• After someone speaks against the motion, the chair asks:Would someone like to speak in favor of the motion?

This practice ensures that all sides are represented, keeps tempers down, and prevents one side from dominating the discussion.
...................
If the chair followed this procedure, it would allow the public to understand why or why not a commissioner is voting the way that he is and if his reasoning is just or not.  There are way too many items being "rushed" through so that this majority commission can adjourn early. The Land Development Regulations are extremely important and I would suggest, once again, that not one commissioner understands everything in this Ordinance even if a certain feisty citizen who was appointed to the Historical Resources Preservation Board by the Mayor and who spoke to it that night does.

May I Mayor? What about proper protocol?

Comment Up

Mayor, I've had my hand up the whole time.

The Mayor must recognize all commissioners who want to speak. It's at the point of absurdity. And after all commissioners have had a chance to speak, a commissioner can reenter the discussion. If a commissioner is going to address another commissioner, he should be cordial and use decorum--something greatly lacking these days by the Vice Mayor and Mayor. Elected officials should conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner towards one another as well as the public at all times.

If an elected official wants to discuss an item on the agenda it should be his prerogative. Robert Rules will tell you that "the chair (Mayor in this case) should set an example of courtesy, and should never forget that to control others it is necessary to control one's self. A nervous, excited chairman can scarcely fail to cause trouble in a meeting. No rules will take the place of tact and common sense on the part of the chairman."

Mayor, it is all up to you. 

What Commissioner Maier said:

 "I just wanted to address rushing through the agenda and perhaps expecting things that are about to happen.  This is actually, actually it's getting to the 4th or 5th reading of this particular ordinance (2015-12 amending the LDR's) and last time there were definitely some tensions when we were reading this.  We rushed through and actually two of the commissioners did not vote on the ordinance and that's why we're here again voting on it again.

So, I would urge the commission in procedure to please, while we don't have to draw out everything, calling for the vote, seconding the motion, sometimes it's happening a little too quickly and here we've made a pretty big mistake in doing that.  So, I would urge us to be more careful in the future."

Commissioner Scott Maxwell - It was about 76 cents a month, Commissioner

Comment Up

It was all about raising electric rates 76 cents a month or go in the hole.  What did this commission majority do?

On Tuesday night when this commission was voting on the most important vote for the entire year (a budget of $179,420,309 of your money), Commissioner McVoy introduced some information that NEVER was given to the dais until that day on the electric utility.  There was no explanation from the city manager, Michael Bornstein, as to why it was withheld. In spite of the new information to build up reserves rather than raiding them, Triolo, Maxwell and Amoroso voted to dip into our savings rather than raise electric rates by an average of 76 CENTS A MONTH.

Instead Maxwell didn't even want the information included in the record because McVoy had written on the screenshots in a red marking and added a brief explanation on each scenario. Mayior Triolo was only concerned that they had made a law three years ago for rate parity with FPL and Amoroso's contribution was to call a Point of Order when he didn't like McVoy's "criticism." Not one of the three were going to divert from this hot political potato.

Following are the three Burton & Associates reports.  You can see that the important content is the same. Maxwell, so used to being a bully on the dais, came up with a silly reason not to include Commissioner McVoy's important information in the public record.

RATE PLAN OPTION 1: 1% increases to rates for FY 2017 - 2019
Achieves 3-month reserve target by FY 2020
Click Here

RATE PLAN OPTION 2: 1% increases to rates for FY 2016 - 2018
Achieves 3-month reserve target by FY 2019
Click Here

RATE PLAN OPTION 3: 2% increases to rates for FY 2016 - 2017
Achieves 3-month reserve target by FY 2018
Click Here

This is worth showing again- With the three commissioners, Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso voting  down the increase, puts us in the hole by $1.276 million. As they talked about the budget as being a "living document" with changes to numbers throughout this budget process and we are supposed to accept that as normal, what do they care, right? It's not their money but it is about their re-election.

Maybe we won't lose just $1.276 million--maybe it will be more...What we do know with this bunch, it's hard to save for a rainy day when three commissioners want to play politics.

Lake Worth's Consent Agenda Creep

The city is absolutely certain that the Bond Initiative will pass. Members of the commission have no patience with anyone who disagrees with what they want to do. It even has lobbied and convinced some members of the press. On May 6th, the city voted to pay itself  back for any capital costs for the city's road infrastructure plan, resolution 20-2014. No details. Does this go back to 2001 when they first even mentioned the Park of Commerce? This was placed on the Consent Agenda along with ten other items that the commission did not feel warranted any discussion one of which was the purchase of two trucks for nearly one-half mil. Did we need to spend this money at this time?

SECTION 6. The City will, upon receipt of the proceeds of the bonds (or within 30 days thereof), allocate in writing the amount of proceeds of the bonds (i.e., the reimbursement bond issue) used to reimburse the prior capital expenditures incurred in connection with the Projects (herein, the “Prior Expenditures”). Such allocation will be accomplished within the later of 18 months from the earliest date such Prior Expenditures were incurred or the date the Projects are placed in service (but in no event later than 3 years after the first Prior Expenditure was made).

They don't, however, mention WHAT THEY (expenditures) WERE OR HOW MUCH THEY WERE or what they are even projected to be.  Will they be reimbursing themselves $1 mil, 5 mil, 12 mil,  more?...the free lunch? This is a real clever way to replenish the funds from which they "borrowed." So how much will really go into the roads, sidewalks and lighting?

There was also a resolution, 25-2014, on the Consent Agenda for a second amendment to the 2014 budget:

1.  Water Fund:  Revision to capital projects anticipated for master infrastructure plan--$5,341,297
2.  Sewer Fund: Revision to capital projects anticipated for master infrastructure plan--$3,941,913

Robert's Rules says: The consent agenda allows members to vote on a group of items en bloc (as a group) without discussion. This is a good way to dispose of business that is noncontroversial. Approving the minutes, paying the bills, and approving customary donations are examples of noncontroversial business. For an organization to use a consent agenda, it needs to adopt a special rule of order.

Nothing should be put on consent Agenda unless it is an innocuous piece of legislation that does not affect the taxpayers.  Consent Agenda Creep has afflicted agendas ever since we hired a new city manager and elected a new commission whose goal is to end all meetings early. More and more items that deserve public discussion and review or even just a brief explanation are relegated to the silent zone. State law has now changed where they have to give us time to speak on them. If there were no laws in place, everything would be on the Consent Agenda in Lake Worth. We are relegated to two minutes for the entire Consent items.

Also, nothing should, however, be placed on the Consent Agenda, that costs a substantial amount of money or policy that affects us all. A consent agenda should be designated to the routine, procedural, informational and self-explanatory non-controversial items together for a single affirmative vote. When it isn't, it's just a way of sneaking in an item under the radar...another reason why we don't fully trust the city and another reason why they will have some difficulty convincing the voters to 30 years of more debt.

Point of Order - Trashing the Process

Comment Up
The Mayor, Pam Triolo, is trying to learn Robert's Rules of Order. It is difficult even for our city attorney to understand the rules as she has readily admitted. Have you ever just tried doing research on a subject that is addressed in Robert's Rules?

Lately, the Mayor has called MANY Points of Order when Commissioner McVoy or Mulvehill have spoken on certain subjects to get their points across during discussion or debate. She has come down hard on their right of free speech and as elected representatives of the residents who voted them into office, we want to hear what they have to say. They have the right to repeat themselves after everyone has spoken to the motion. The "filibuster" complaint is impossible to prove here and in most cases, there is absolutely no reason to delay a vote as this new commission has already made up their minds.

On a Point of Order, there has to be a clear violation of the rules and that person calling the Point of Order should cite the rule that has been broken. And I don't accept some flippant bullet point here. Infraction of the rules, or improper decorum in speaking must be raised immediately after the error is made. The Chair would make a decision and if in doubt, would then ask the commission. Politics should not come into play. Let's get some democracy back into the playbook.

The mayor, along with the commission, have now reduced the time of our general meetings to 4 hours. We will see how long that works out. If the commissioners are on point, they have every right to express their views and can not be shut up just because an opposing side does not want to listen or because it has been discussed previously. I can unequivocally say that if Rachel Waterman pulled these stunts she would have been tarred and feathered by politicos in this city.

In addressing A point of Order, Robert's Rules says:

•Another member can interrupt a speaker who has the floor and call a Point of Order.

•It doesn't need to be seconded.

•It isn't debatable.

So, the next time any commissioner is speaking to the subject and giving reasons for his either being in favor or disfavor of a motion and there is heckling or jeering in the chamber and the Mayor does not quiet the chamber, that commissioner whose rights have been impugned should call it. We have a civility rule in place that is being completely ignored by some and it needs to be in play for every citizen who speaks at the lectern as well. Refer to the city attorney to remind everyone of this civility resolution.

Rules are put in place to protect rights, and when the rules aren't followed, those rights can get trampled. Fortunately, Robert's Rules says that any member who notices a breach of the rules has a right to call immediate attention to the fact and insist that the rules be enforced by raising a point of order. Under no circumstances should "undue strictness" be allowed to intimidate members or limit full participation.

Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives, something the Mayor accused Suzanne Mulvehill of doing when she said that Mulvehill was not asking a question--that she was "preaching." "You're not asking--when I hear you ask something I will answer you," said Triolo to Mulvehill.

It is the Chair who sets the example of how people are treated, not only on the dais but the treatment of those residents in the chamber. No one should ever get trashed in this process.

Kicking the Can and other Lake Worth Commission Games

Comment Up

The Vice Mayor says, "stop kicking the can"
and then kicks it anyway

This beach redevelopment has been going on for at least 12 years and we continue to kick the can down the road. Politicians have an ethical responsibility to put political ideology aside, drop all pretenses of being on the right side of the issue and stop calling each other names so we can start to deal with the tough choices we need to make if we are to avoid the downward path of recent years in Lake Worth. Everyone on our dais has a right to free speech. They were all elected, not just the "visionaries" and therefore they should not be condemned by Mayor Triolo for expressing an opinion.

When it comes to our Casino leases, the Commission members also need to disclose if they have any financial interest in the project or issue before them. Our Casino Leases are what will be the lifeblood of this project. For them, as well as our prospective tenants to be treated in the manner recently displayed at the last city commission meeting, is unacceptable, unprofessional and out of line.

With so many things out of whack in Lake Worth such as our crumbling and pot holed roads, out of control union benefits that are breaking the bank and the growing dependence on special assessments to keep our city afloat, this Commission needs to stay focused by reading and understanding the back-up documents, discuss thoroughly the topic before them and render an intelligent decision. Refer to the city attorney for some legal advice. Not all commissioners are doing this and not all are listening.

To spend 5 to 6 hours on beach leases and then pass the gavel at the end of the night to rescind all votes, is abuse of the Mayoral position and power totally out of control. The Mayor could potentially do this at every meeting as she is on the majority side. Therefore, I question the ethics of such a move and its legality. She ended up kicking the can down the road.

The only times that the gavel is used is to call a meeting to order, or when an assembly has become disorderly, to recess and to adjourn. It should not be used when a motion is or has been adopted.

On page 375 of Robert's Rules it states: ...if the Chair gave ample opportunity for members to claim the floor (speak to the issue) before the Chair puts the question, and no one rises, the right to debate cannot be claimed after the voting has commenced. In the case of the leases, debate was over for hours, the public got to speak as well as the commission body. A vote was taken on some of the leases and NY Pizza as well as Fox Surf were approved. At the end of the night, the Mayor rescinded those votes.

Tonight the can will no longer be kicked down the road. Staff, as well as our real estate broker Snitkin will now make double commission for kicking some old tenants to the curb. Staff and Snitkin did a remarkable job to ensure that our long-time previous tenants, NY Pizza and Lake Worth T-Shop, will no longer feel the pain as they leave our beach bruised and bloodied. They can also be proud that through a bidding war caused by their unorthodox "management" of the project as well as paranoia and belief that they would not have anyone wanting to lease at our building (thanks to a real estate broker who planted that seed), prospects were pitted against one another to an absurdity.

It appears that the new beach merchants will be:

Mama Mias, Units 1 & 2, 1,332 s.f. @ $35 per s.f.
Kilwin's, Units 3,4, 1,332 s.f @ $25 per s.f.
Fox Surf, Units 5,6, 1,348 s.f @ $30 per s.f.
Mulligans, Units 7,8, 5,002 s.f. @ $30 per s.f.

6 and 26 More Days

Comment Up

26 more days, People!

This is my feeble attempt to get excited about this election. There's really no enthusiasm out there on the streets. There is, however, a whole lot of discontent and grumbling, especially about the fire special assessment because every property owner knows it is unnecessary and just a way to grab the cash. We have expressed our outrage to our elected officials who won't buy it other than Scott Maxwell who has now completely seen the light and realizes this tax has nothing to do with fire services.

6 more days, People!

Come next week, Commissioner McVoy will vote for 42B-2011, the fire assessment, thus taking Waterman off the hook. It is close to being criminal in raising taxes right now. It is especially stupid to do so right before an election. But even worse than all of that is just voting for it.

On September 22, 2011, the Commission adopted Resolution 34-2011 establishing the fire assessment. It came back on October 4 due to an error in the notice to 2,350 properties that never got the first mailed notice and was essentially defeated on a 2/2 vote as McVoy was absent. However, the city attorney, who is supposed to report to the City Commission and give it the best legal advice that she can muster, failed to give all the options to the Commission. A very nervous Susan Stanton was sitting on the dais, very worried that this cash grab of $1.45 million would fail because they were one vote short because of McVoy's absence. Her face was ashen. The City Attorney came through for Stanton like a trooper. And why not? She was recommended for the lead attorney position by who other, Susan Stanton, and she was just voted another contract by the Commission.

The City Attorney, Elaine Humphreys, said essentially, "not to worry," that if the vote fails tonight because of a tie, it can come back at the next meeting...commission rule #6. The Commission allowed that to happen. Why didn't Maxwell say that he didn't want it to come back? A motion should have been made to table indefinitely. You can even waive the rules. Who knows if that motion might have died too but it would have forced Waterman to put up or shut up. Therefore, in spite of the vote, 2/2, the dissenters on the Commission inadvertently ended up putting the city taxpayer in jeopardy because of the lack of understanding of Robert's Rules as well as the City Attorney's silence.

The entire process has been faulty from inception. The City never got a bill for pension services. It never got word from the Actuary notifying the City of a pending shortage. This is a bogus tax. I question whether the City can use an Ordinance passed in August 2009 for this fire assessment. This fire, grab the cash, special assessment should be by Ordinance, not Resolution.

Who knows if a new city commission won't over-throw this cash grab.

Fire/Rescue Meeting

Comment Up

The hour long presentation by the Willdan Group was interesting and informative but I was there for the rest of the story and the meat of of it, not to eat dirt -- how much will it cost me for the imposed assessment by the City of Lake Worth? How many times do I have to hear that, "oh gee, because we have lost $1 billion in property values that all of us have to pay for fire/rescue," a premise in which I do believe but vehemently object to the poor subsidizing the rich. Scott Maxwell was the only commissioner who even brought up that aspect. The only problem last night, after three hours, was that we never got that meat and the city manager wanted the Commission to vote on what is a really big deal, without it.

Stanton has been meeting with the Fire Chief as she was told to meet with him directly, not any PB County Commissioner. What does Scott Maxwell do? He reveals, in his cunning way, that he has been meeting with Palm Beach County Commissioners (names unknown) in secret and says that he is "sensing a shift" in their thinking on the Supplement payment. He did not get into details as it was, well, secret. Any sort of unofficial talks should not be condoned by the Commission as they can undermine the City's position. The Commission should have had stronger objections to this rouge act as the City has been in serious discussions that affect all of us and just one word, one comment, could sabotage all of the hard work put into these negotiations no matter how good the intention.

Back in March, Fire Chief, Steve Jerauld, spoke and he was the one who gave Stanton the idea to put the supplement payment on the non-advalorem part of our tax bill. Right now we have not paid PB County the Supplement for 2011 Budget and according to the Contract, we will owe $1.3 million for every subsequent year going forward. The City Manager took the Chief's advice to heart and now wants to put the whole damn thing on a special assessment. She did say near the end of the meeting, as things were slipping away, to take the pension cost of $1.8 million a year and put that on the special assessment.

We did learn that starting up our own fire/rescue again will cost us about $1 mil more than we are now paying Palm Beach County for the same service. Start-up costs always are costly so I don't have a problem with that element. I would like to see, however, the cost projections for the next five years and a comparison with PB County. Vice Mayor Mulvehill asked for this information. We also need to know how we are going to pay for it all.

After three hours, with Chanel 12 there the entire time, a vote was taken to Table the Fire and EMS decision until July 28th meeting where the millage will be set. The vote was 3/2 vote with Maxwell and Waterman dissenting. I saw nothing wrong in the motion to Table as the only other choices were to accept or reject. We were told by the city manager, however, that we still will not have the numbers that have been requested in order to make an informed decision. Why not? We still won't know what the assessment will be and the city manager said that much of it will be explained in her tentative Budget set for release some time today. Then why not explain it last night?

Those in the Chamber who were sitting there all of this time did not get a chance to speak to the issue. The Vice Mayor, after her second on the motion to table, asked the city attorney if there could be discussion and comments from the residents. She gave some sort of explanation and said "no." The vote was then taken. The Fire Chief was the only person in the chamber who was allowed to comment after the vote. Why him and not anyone else? He gave a superb sales job on why we should stay with the County. The Dais did not want to be rude to him after sitting for three hours but those who pay the bills--let them eat dirt.

Robert's Rules are extremely challenging to learn. The vote had not been taken and the Chair could have called for public discussion. Also, the Commission could have made a motion to waive the rules to allow public commentary. Waterman did her best and relied on the city attorney for advice. The City Attorney did not give all of the facts.

Waterman had to ask for "quiet" in the Chamber three times during the meeting. The incessant chatter and complaints from a few continued for the entire three hours and after they learned they could not speak, several people behind me got loud and left angry.

Finance Advisory Board Monday

FAB Agenda for May 16.

Insurrection in our City. What else do you call it when a City Board makes up its own rules and defines a calendar year as something it is not. All of a sudden the Georgian Calendar begins and ends in April because the FAB says that is when the Board started. I hate having to come down hard on the FAB as every single member is smart and has something to contribute. But after attending 99% of its meetings, I honestly believe that this Board has been a total waste of time and money.

Under discussion tomorrow will be the Willdan Homeland Solutions Feasibility Study on keeping the PBSO or going with our own police force. This is worthy of the Board's time because it involves the Budget and over $3 million in costs to Lake Worth taxpayers--the difference in keeping PBSO and having our own police department. Notice I said "discussion." This means just that--no vote should be taken until after the workshop on Wednesday and all the facts are laid on the table. There should be public discussion on this before any vote is taken as the public very much fits into the FAB's mission statement.

As no Secretary was elected at the previous meeting, this Board is in violation. According to the City Attorney, proper minutes must be taken or the Board should not meet until such time someone is elected to the secretarial position. There will be an election of a Secretary at tomorrow's meeting. In fact, I believe that the entire election process was in violation as it was not a votable item and no public notice of an election was given at last week's meeting. Robert's Rules was not followed allowing public comment after the second of the Motion during the process. It was all flawed.

If any Board should have been and should have stayed neutral by keeping politics out of the equation, it was the FAB. It hasn't.

The Mayor's Chair

Comment Up
Pelican Pete has been around City Hall for what? 20 years or so? He still has it all confused and he still does not know that the Commission operates under Robert's Rules.

When the Mayor is absent, the Vice Mayor takes over the Mayor's duties and the obligations of the Mayor's chair. The Vice Mayor does not move her chair to the Ladies Room. She moves to the Mayor's chair.

So this old bird needs to take the time to bone up on Robert's Rules and perhaps then he would not be such a smart azz, I mean bird.

Last Night's Commission Meeting

Last night Suzanne Mulvehill was voted in as Vice Mayor and Jo-Ann Golden as Vice Mayor Pro-Tem.

Liaisons:

Metropolitan Planning Organization -- Rene Varela
PB County League of Cities -- Scott Maxwell
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council -- Jo-Ann Golden

Greater Lake Worth Chamber of Commerce -- Suzanne Mulvehill (What a bitter sweet liaison to have considering the Chamber was against her re-election by allowing a billboard across from the Chamber at the Cultural Plaza)

FMPA -- Christopher McVoy
IPARC Issue Forum -- Jo-Ann Golden
Downtown Cultural Alliance -- Jo-Ann Golden

The Mayor addressed the Consent Agenda issue. He said that the Public still does not get to speak on those items that are pulled off Consent for Discussion, further stating that this procedure was correct according to Robert's Rules. Mayor Varela said that someone borrowed his Robert's Rules of Order and has not returned it. He needs to get his book back as soon as possible so that he can quote the section in it that supports his statement. Once an item is OFF Consent, it is no longer ON Consent. It is open to discussion and comments from the Public.

Realizing that city governments have no patience with the public when it comes to them expressing their points of view or on how they spend our money, we need to be up on the issues and keep them in check. Two minutes to speak during Public commentary is often insufficient time when there are many points you want to convey. Even the Mayor got annoyed with the City Manager who implied that he was not conducting his meeting properly when it came to the "angry" public. She wants more decorum from the public and said that it was the "tone of voice" not the subject matter. It is a free speech issue but "tone" can be challenged. As Commissioner Maxwell said, "it is subjective."

Because The Chamber of Commerce supported candidates and opposed a state-wide issue in the last election, I spoke to the subject last night asking for a complete cut-off of any city funding, whether cash, grants or use of city property or services to the Chamber of Commerce. I also mentioned the Chamber Director's illegal political sign that was installed subsequent to the election that is in front of the Chamber. Assuring us that the Chamber is not political, Beth Johnston, the Director, gave a presentation prior to public speaking and had the gall to say that she was all for enforcing our Sign Ordinances. Me too, Beth, and that is why I just turned you into Code Enforcement this morning. Our Commission had no cojones by ignoring the fact that Beth Johnston has broken our Sign Ordinance and that she had a hell of a nerve to do what she did during this past election. No more public give-aways to the Chamber. If our Commission won't take action, I will.

One thing that the Commission will take action on is drafting a Resolution that will disallow any entity, whether leasing a city building or not, from engaging in politics if it accepts any money or in-kind services from the City such as what the organization, For The Children, did in this last election when it involved itself in the Carla Blockson campaign. The entire Commission agreed that a Resolution was appropriate and this will be brought back in two weeks. It will include any organization that the City supports whether it is financially or it is In-Kind services. Scott Maxwell asked if any entity had ever done this before (not to my knowledge) and why was it being brought up now. Two wrongs don't make a right, Commissioner.

One point that I didn't get to last night was the promise that the Mayor made during his campaign of getting a Forensic Audit of the Utility. Barbara Jean spoke to that issue during public commentary. As the Chamber was packed with residents dragged down to City Hall by the Genesis NA President to talk about their exorbitant utility bills, it would be appropriate to get an Audit. There was one gentleman there from Palm Springs who was very agitated. It was highly suggested by the Commission that these people get a free energy audit to see what is going on. The Utility has always been our "black hole," as Katie McGiveron describes it. The Mayor gave some song and dance about getting the State Auditor General to conduct an audit but it takes years for action. Let's just hire an Auditor, Mayor.

Commissioner Scott Maxwell gave some numbers that were erroneous according to the City Manager as to how much money is being taken from the utility and used in the General Fund. She is coming back in two weeks with a complete report. Let's put this to bed once and for all as so many lies were spread during this last election and this surely will be an election campaign issue for 2011.

Lake Worth Finance Advisory Board

Comment Up
Lake Worth Finance Advisory Board
to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Commission and the City Manager. The Board shall serve to promote transparency in the City of Lake Worth budget process and allow for additional citizen input on major financial decisions. The Board shall consult with and advise the City Manager and the City Commission in matters affecting the annual operating budget, capital improvement program and all financial policies.

That is the Mission of this Board. After reading it, it is impossible to know whether this Board should be pro-active or reactionary. It has also been impossible for them to function because they have not received anything but a Wish List of capital improvements from the various departments that want a budget and grab the cash. They do not have the knowledge nor do they have the time to delve into every desire of every department on the CIP. Anything given to them thus far is subject to change.

They have been stopped by Staff that has not yet generated the information they need to make recommendations. Union negotiations, if there have been any, are top secret. I agree with Thrasher when he said “this problem is solvable and the Board can be both proactive and reactive.” I disagree with him when he inferred that the Board should revert to Staff as “Staff has some ideas.” Staff has been the problem in this City spending our tax dollars on unnecessary projects…bringing them forth to a City Commission that relies on their expertise with the normal outcome of voting yea every time. Perhaps this is why their liaison, Susan Stanton, chose to attend Bike Night instead of the Board meeting. The Commission has said that she does not interact with the public enough. The Commission is her boss as it is to the FAB.

There were fears that we would belly-up. We have $9 million in reserves so we are not going bankrupt. The County would not “take us over” as Board member Plotkin suggested. If there was a financial emergency, the State would do so under “very specific criteria,” per Steven Carr, Finance Director. John Pickett asked a few times what Chapter 9 would look like. Staff needs to be 100% candid and truthful with this Board.

On May 19 , Board member Bill Thrasher made suggestions as to what he believes will turn our city around—drastic measures. At last night’s Board meeting, he was clearly frustrated that no one had addressed his analysis of one week ago. He seemed upset last night and some of it had to do with protocol. Exline did not follow protocol when he spoke in front of the Commission giving an opinion of what the Board discussed rather than a stated motion. Jessica Plotkin was wrong in calling out the Chair for this error in front of the City Commission. It was finally agreed that it will be only the Chair that speaks for the Board and if the Commission asks anyone else to speak, the Board should decline and follow proper procedure. It was Mr. Exline who asked that John Pickett and Jessica Plotkin speak at the Commission meeting still trying to maintain a "friendly" Board.

Perhaps now Exline has learned that this is not a relaxed Board but one that is driven to make some substantial decisions and everyone should follow protocol and Robert's Rules 100%. Mr. Thrasher stated that he was the ONLY one with financial experience on the Board. This statement did not set well with some members of the Board. What he probably meant to say was that he was the only one with government financial experience and even that would not have been completely the case. The Chair now needs to regain control of this Board and even limit discussion on some items if necessary.

This Board is only going to be as good as the information it receives and the direction from the City Commission. As member Laurel Decker said, “to be pro-active, we need Staff time and get clarification from the Commission.” This Board can spend 5 million hours on a segment of the Budget or the CIP and it may be just spinning wheels. Chair Exline stated the same thing when he said, “We are here to listen to the Commission wants….you don’t have to agree. It is the Commission’s authority to put the budget together."

When this Board was formed, I thought it would be pro-active. I thought that they would be taking every line item and “tearing it apart” as Jessica Plotkin believes. There are still members of this Board who say we should be “looking at the bigger picture.” There are others who believe that they are there to help the Commission and therefore need to know what the Commission needs from them.

The Chair has said from inception that he wanted a “friendly board” and that he will be an unbiased Chair allowing the Board to develop and reach its conclusions. He continues to ask for motions and not one Board member has ever proposed one until last night when John Pickett, Vice Chair, made the first motion of this Board after ten meetings:

The Financial Board directs the liaison to the FAB to request a meeting with the Finance Advisory Board and the City Commission of Lake Worth, as soon as possible, by schedule, to ask for and discuss its role as it relates to the Commission.

Perhaps this will be settled once and for all.