Minutes 06/13/1961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 13th~ 1961 the Auditor's viewpoint, does not reflect the proper, authorized, application of funds. At some point after 30 April, 1960 the Manager caused the entire amount received from the Tunnel Commission to be entered as revenue received. The Manager had been authorized at the 2nd meeting ~uMarch 1960 to apply $783,862 64 of this amount to wipe'out the previouS (accumulated) deficit. The ~nager wa~ pot given authority to apply the remain- ing $568,684.88 of this lundin anyway. That is was ased to cancel out the potential deficit in the General Fund is obvious. It im equally obvious that the agreement of tbs majority of members of Council to use this difference to fund a pay raise for the next two years was of no effect and that such raises must be paid from future revenue. Calculation: $1,352,547.52 minus 783?862.64 568,684.88 minus 141~101.85 427,583.03 Tunnel Funds Deficit as of 30 June 1959 Balance 30 June 1960 as stated in audit ACtual Deficit General Fund (IInquete) April 12th, 1961, at a regular meeting of Council, I again reminded the Manager of his failure to present an answer to my charges of improper, or misuse, of funds. This was repeated again at the next meeting on April 2.6th, 1961. it is pertinent to mention at this point, that there has been'practically no interest, and absolutely no support, for my efforts to resolve these important fiscal questions. The Manager has accepted this absence of interest and lack of support as tacit approval of his actions, and, as t indicated in my opening remark, his position is at least partially invulnerable, By publicly failing to receive and resolve' the charges the Council has, in fact~ accepted the responsibility for any improper use of $568,684.88 of the Tunnel Funds. The budget we have before us tonight is essentially correct A few appropriations have been squeezed well below last year's Spending (but that doesn't 'mean it won't he spent) and a few revenue items have been padded and the net designed effect of these "built-in" error~ is to reduce the total of new revenue requized to balance it. In fact, it is 'within a few'hundred thousand dollars of what we spent last year in spite of that dishonest 1960-61 budget I referred to previously. In fact, this is the budget we should have been presented with last'year: I pose the following questions. Why did the Manager, without authorization of · Council, remove the Tunnel residue ~from its lawfully directed investment ~and 'use this fund to prevent a major deficit'balance in the'General Fund for the 1959-60 fiscal year? Why did he present a dish6nest 1960-61 budget and ignore all available knowledge in his pessession? And why, eighteen months afber'it was clear, even to a layman like myself, that our fiscal legislation was patently false~ are we now presented with the facts of life an~ asked to fill this void with new and permanent taxes? And not by a temporary tax rate change to produce a temporary increase in revenue for this particular year's excessive spending? I~answer'these questions with the follo~Ying statement and charges: The Manager serves at the pleasure of the majority of this b6dy -- four men. Four Council seats were at stake last June and a slate of candidates, hacked by the people who run this town from outside the government, were certain of election if there were no major issues. A deficit in the General Fund of nearly half-a-million dollars two .mo~ths after the hulk of Tunnel funds had b~en used to wipe out the previouS'deficit would have been hard to suppress, even with the collaboration o~ the Public Relations staff and would have defeated at leaSttwo of the ~ slate: It iS my charge that tlie Manager, with~tacit, but not public and legal, consent o the majority of Council did, u~lawfully, use the Tunnel funds residue of $568,684.88 to prevent a deficit in thel 1959-60 General Fund of $427,583.03 amd that this was done for the express purpose of hiding the fiscal status of the City and postponing both'the deficit issue and ~he search for new revenue ~ntil after the 1960 Council- manic elections: And, that the Manager failed to advise Council in June, .1960 that'the~Tuhnel ~und~residue had b~g~a~appli~d to the 1959-60 Generai ~und revenue to cdver a defic~zt unknown, at that ti~e, to anyone but himsel~ and the auditor, an~I tha~ au'ch funds could n0C be .Considered for the purpose .of defraying the cost of~ am across- the-hoard pay raise for two or more years~ It is further charged that the Manager, by failing to officially advise Council of ~the above noted action and their e~ffects, and by failing to recommend a dhanke in the tax rate in June, 1960, and again in December 1960, to provide the necessary revenue as required by the City Gharter Chapter IV Section 32 amd by Sections 58=844 and 15-575 of the Code of Virginia, has adversely affected the fiscaI~ Status of the City, aided the majority of Council in their d~reliction of duty ~and caused to be withh~ld from the citizems full and current knowledge of the fi~al~cof%dition of their government, an %nherent a~d guaranteed right .of Americans, and required by the languzge and intent of the above-mentioned statutes. Comment pn Section M(c). The language of this section means (as interpreted by me) ~hat the TOTAL amount, the AGGMMGATE of sums that the Nanager is allowed to ~ransfer during the ENTIRE fiscal year, from.-one depsr~men~ rc another, or from any unappropriated surplus is $10,0OO.00. See Notion #1 Commen on Section M (d). If this language is intended to authorize the Nanager re make any other changes in this udget as he deems necessary, then this budge~ is valueless as s fiseal instr ment. If it is intended to suthoriz him to revamp the Governmen~ as he deems necessary es long as it does r~ot increase the expense, it has no placm in this budge~ In either case, it is blanket authority of the kind given ~o kings or dictators, and an improper delegation of authority. Se~{otion #~." ~ by adding a senzence Notion of ~{r. Walker to amend Secti(~h 2-C of the ordinance,~s follows, was lost there being no second: "The ~anager shall repor~ such transfers of funds in the monthly Finance Report following the ~rsnsfer 8 .p a d mznus code shall be used to indi- mn a separate column tztled Transfers' and a lus n cate from and ~o which account transferred." ' Notion! 'of ~r. Walker that'Mection g (d) be deie ~ . ~ .:,.,,~ .: ted from the ordznance was lost, there being no second. Vote being taken on Mr. Weisemsn's motion, the ordinance was approved on firsz reading, and by the following voge: Ayes: amir-h, Barnes, Breedlove, Leery, Seward, Weiseman Nays: Walker 61-149 - "I 'submit the attached ordamance and recommend that it be placed on first reading. This ordinance appropriates funds for the Capital 'Improfement Fund for the fiscal year 196I-6g."