Not to toss kindling into last nights camp fire -- but Montpelier's Mayor Hooper somewhat abandoned the "we did everything right" posturing yesterday, and is now admitting that they should have mentioned this on May 1, 2008.
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20091014/NEWS01/910140339/1002/NEWS01 *"She guessed the increase would be less than $100 per household per year, "and actually substantially less than that.""* Wonderful. Stan On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM, T. Andrew Hooper <[email protected]> wrote: > I can’t imagine how many CV mailing lists are lighting up with this > story. > > As a Montpelier City Council member since 2006, I may as well add my piece. > > > > Executive Session is allowed by Vermont Open Meeting law for situations > where public disclosure could have negative effects. It can only be used for > contract, real estate or personnel issues and was appropriate in this case. > > > > This loss was two years old when it came to our attention, and our highest > goal at that point was to recover as much of the taxpayer’s money as we > could. Scott informed us thast he was in a poor cash position, and that > publicity could cause notes to be called and the business to fold. We worked > out a repayment plan that worked for a while. Things didn’t improve – we got > a secured interest in a property that was valued at 4x it’s forclosure sale > value, and the first leinholder (the bank) took all of the proceeds and also > ate a loss. > > > > Council Minutes are available on the City website once they are approved by > the council (generally at the next meeting). I am a huge advocate of > transparency in the government, I have pushed for an archived mailing-list > so that all of the back-channel conversations can also be available for > public perusal which has not yet been implemented. However in this instance > I was convinced by legal council, city auditors, city staff and other > councillors to persue a private arrangement first. > > > > I would appreciate it if people would read the entire TA piece from last > Friday before adding their 0.00002 to this conversation. The specifics of > the cause of the overpayment, the role of the auditors, the timing of > events, etc. are all laid out VERY clearly by City Manager Bill Fraser. > > > > > Regards, > > Andy Hooper > > District 1 > > > > > > *From:* David Hardy [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2009 1:33 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Wheres my $400,000? > > > > The city council here and the mayor need to be throughly investigated. Not > the first time the council has pulled shenanigans like this. And how do we > know if the minutes are accurate, let alone the annual report? These > people, at this level, and, of course, higher and much higher levels, just > do whatever the hell they want and are apparently unaccountable to anyone > for our tax dollars. > > > > I think we'll slide by that meeting tomorrow night. > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Stanley Brinkerhoff <[email protected]> > wrote: > > All, > > I know this list has members in the Montpelier/surrounding areas. Incase > you missed the articles -- apparently Montpelier overpayed a contractor in > ~2005 to the tune of $400,000. It wasn't noticed until ~2006, and the city > council, nor the mayor have been entirely forthright about its occurrence. > They do cite that they their legal requirements by putting it in their > counsel minutes (only available on paper via request) and in the "annual > report". They also note repayment was ongoing from the vendor who was > over-payed, which made them feel as though the "issue was resolved". > > *Appropriate links* > > http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091010/NEWS/910109998/ > http://www.montpelier-vt.org/story/241.html > > *City Council* meets this Wednesday to review the situation "publically" > http://www.montpelier-vt.org/community/313.html > > Stan > > >
