To conclude an old thread ... incase anyone missed it.. the Vermont League of Cities and Towns who provided errors and omissions insurance to the city paid out on the claim for the $400k loss.
http://www.montpelier-vt.org/story/267.html (ps -- really on the uri? can I haz my semantic URI's in 2009?) Stan On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:49 AM, T. Andrew Hooper <[email protected]> wrote: > It’s probably true. The disclosure issue was one of gradualism – I think > that attempting to proceed with Scott without attracting attention to his > financial difficulties was correct in 2006. As things deteriorated we should > have revisited that conclusion (to proceed NOT in public), and did not take > the time to step back and ask if we should still be dealing with this as a > confidential matter. > > > > Mary is right, that was an oversight – and I think people would be less > pissed if we had. Some people, and somewhat less pissed – but if you can at > least have the sensible people thinking you did the right thing that’s a > good start. > > > > Andy > > > > *From:* Vermont Area Group of Unix Enthusiasts [mailto:[email protected]] > *On Behalf Of *Stanley Brinkerhoff > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:43 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Wheres my $400,000? > > > > 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 > > > > >
