Richardson City Council notes: August 18, 2008

by Nathan Morgan of Richardson City News

RICHARDSON — Monday night's special meeting of the Richardson City Council played to a near vacant gallery. The number of grass-roots citizens was about equal to the number of Richardson Coalition cohorts in the room. The Council, Staff, Board and Commission Members, and Chamber of Commerce operatives made up more than the other half the people in attendance. Of course, many of those are also cohorts of the Coalition. A good time was had by all fiddling with the pages of the budget presentation handout for the first hour of the ordeal. Then came the "public may speak to us for five minutes now" section.

One of the most sincere and dedicated people in town, Cheri-Duncan Hubert, who has made what can only be described as diligent efforts to be a model citizen through understanding how the Administration at Richardson City Hall functions, was shamefully rebuffed by City Manager, Bill Keffler, in public last night. In a fit characteristic of what has become a common reaction to any member of the public who dares to mount a challenge in Council meetings, the audience witnessed a despicable display of public servant arrogance as Keffler derided Hubert for spending too much time trying to find holes in the budget.

The response customarily given to questions at the horseshoe that the nail-biters either can't or don't want to answer is, "Write 'em down, or make an appointment, and we (the staff) will get the answers for you". The questions posed during the public hearing tonight caused silence of the Council that was deafening. Absolutely amazing it was to see how dumbfounded every member looked, as if they were saying, "Don't ask me. I don't have a clue. We're just here to look good, cast a vote, and get the free meal. We came along for the ride. How 'bout dem Cowboys! YeeHaw!" Partial credit for saying something intelligible goes to Murphy, who said, "The office has thick notebooks full of lots of documentation on that stuff".

This public response is almost laughable compared to the private response when questions are asked. The standard response given those persona non grata in the community, such as editor-in-chief, is the suggestion of submitting a public information request. And, if that isn't worded ever so carefully, such that there could be no plausible denial, the sure answer to that will be (after an inexplicable 9.5 day delay), "We have no documents responsive to your request." And, oh, by the way, our lawyers says we don't have to answer your questions either. A few citizens have funded a new source of revenue for the staff slush fund through the fees exacted by those in control attempting to discourage requests for public information. So much for open government in Richardson. It's enough to make you want to spit.

The tough questions just kept coming before finally Keffler pounced. One of the last questions made the best point of all. After pointing out how the Charter mandated specific disclosures in the City Manager's annual budget message, and the absence of any presentation of these required documents for several years, including tonight, Keffler had had enough. But, in the middle of attempting to trivialize the concern Keffler's rhetoric fell silent.

Hubert: Where's the TIFF (Tax Increment Finance Fund)?

Keffler: It's in there.

Hubert: Where?

Keffler: It's uh, (flipping pages) uh, Dan, help me out. What's that page number?

Johnson: (flipping pages) Uh...(unintelligible)

Keffler: Dan!

Johnson: Uh...(pages flipping)...(unintelligible)

Keffler: We'll have to get that for you.

During the exchange Keffler made reference to an e-mail sent to the members of the Council pointing out omissions in the City Manager's budget message. Sadly, the public already knows this year a mediocre performance of duties will have to suffice once again. The text of the message to the Council follows.

-------------

To the Council:

The founding fathers intended for the City budget to be the tool used to establish and track financial activities of the municipality. Last year at the public hearing, I asked our City Manager, Bill Keffler, if what he presented as his Charter-mandated City Manager budget message was comprehensive and included all sources and uses of public funds. The "yes" answer he gave doesn't appear to have been completely truthful.

The estimate of all revenue from taxes and other sources (Article 11, Section 11.02(b) is intended to disclose all revenue from all sources held in any public coffer. Some funds are being obscured and not fully disclosed to the public in the budget process.

The all-inclusive term "fund" used in the Charter mandate to prepare and submit a budget (Article 11, Section 11.02 (c), was intended to include each and every fund, as the reference neither includes or excludes funds of any character. The founding fathers did not intend for the report to leave out piles of public money or any financial activity being carried out in the name of the City for any reason. "All" means everything.

As you may have recognized, many years have passed since the City Manager's budget message has included the obligatory proposed expenditures, service type, object of expenditures, and comparisons to actuals from previous years in regard to several very active public funds. The reason given for these exclusions in past reports is that the city does not adopt budgets for some funds.

Whether fund budgets are formally adopted or established ad hoc, as needed, funds are funds. The Charter makes no distinction between formal and informal budgeting with regard to the obligation to report all fund activities as specified. A full disclosure of financial activity is mandated by the Richardson City Charter by August 15th of each budget cycle.

We are, once again, on the eve of adopting another budget based on a report that is flawed and incomplete. We have witnessed this illegitimate process for several cycles with hopes that the new additions to the Council who replaced the Mayor would correct the errors of the past and set a course toward open and honest municipal government.

Will the public financial business be fully disclosed in this budget report or not? Will you insist upon documentation and open discussion of all funds in the same manner as the chosen few? The public is watching closely for your answer.

Good luck.

• Staff
• Verified User
• Anonymous