• Revenue from local taxes and fees increased by 120.06%
• Expenditures increased by 120.32%

Expenses:

• Government Admin Expenses increased by 156.35%
• Public Safety Expenses increased by 234.30%
• Public Works Expenses increased by 128.30%
• Parks & Recreation Expenses increased by 315.24%

Revenue:

• Real Property Revenue increased by 156.20%
• Public Service Corporation Revenue increased by 34.39%
• Machinery and Tools Revenue increased by 178.34%
• Penalties decreased by 36.53%
• Interest increased by 0.79%
• Other Local Taxes increased by 173.44%
• Permits, Fees, & Licenses increased by 241.76%
• Charges for Services increased by 374.55%
• Miscellaneous Revenue increased by 1,499.73%

Specific to Local Revenue:

• Local Sales and Use Tax increased by 87.14%
• Business License Taxes increased by 264.35%
• Franchise License Tax dropped by 18.69%
• Hotel and Motel Taxes increased by 359.70%
• Restaurant and Food Taxes increased by 192.83%

Safety Expenses:

• Law Enforcement and Traffic Control expenses increased by 223.16%
• Fire and Rescue Services expenses increased by 322.66%
• Inspections expenses increased by 176.02%
• Overall increase for services 234.30%

Services:

• Maintenance of Highways, etc. expenses increased by 111.23%
• Sanitation and Waste Removal expenses increased by 200.67%
• Maintenance, Bldgs. and Grounds expenses increased by 42.08%
• Total Increase in expenses of 128.30
• Revenue from Local Charges for these services increased by 395.33%

Parks and Recreation:

• Expenses increased by 319.59%
• Revenues from local charges for services increased by 206.04%

Government Operation:

• Personal Services expenses increased by 202.32%
• Fringe Benefits expenses increased by 332.50%
• Contractural Services expenses increased by 287.43%

Gross Debt:

• Total Gross Debt of the town increased by 205.02%
• Other General Government debt increased by 221.49%
• Enterprise Activities debt increased by 181.36%
• Unfunded Debt has increased by 205.47%

Well, there are the numbers. Feel free to go to the APA site and check for yourselves. Do remember however, that these numbers do not include any of the 2010 fiscal year information where a more than $2 million deficit is hanging. Maybe there is something to be said for Mr. Lemley’s ‘pay as you go’ philosophy that didn’t stay around after he left.

The simple fact is that if the ‘goes out’ is higher than the ‘comes in’ things have to change. Keeping this 14 year pattern going in the same direction is only going to worsen the problem. Town Council needs to get involved in decisions involving expenditures and more aggressively monitor what is spent and where. The Town Council get routing reports from the Town Manager and absolutely nothing in this article should come as a surprise to any of them. After all, it only took me a couple of hours to get all the reports and set up multiple spreadsheets for analysis and I am not a high paid professional. In fact, I did it for free. Now, what will the Town Council do about the budget, expenses, and revenue?

Christiansburg council discusses contract for manager – Roanoke.com

Why rush a contract? – Roanoke.com

It appears that someone outside of town government has received a copy of that document. Since it wasn’t me, I had to resort to a more inquisitive approach to try to determine what might be up.

Starting with the assumption that the Town Manager is not an Attorney as well as an Engineer, I went back through the data on the ‘pay the bills’ sheets looking for any organizations that the Town might be paying membership fees to that would offer this type of document.

My first look was to the VML site where I found nothing. After a few more trial and error episodes, I finally landed at the ICMA site online where they have a sample government document “Model Employment Agreement that is a downloadable pdf format. Since I did a fairly extensive search and this is the only model I have found, I feel it is safe to assume that this model document is likely to have formed the basis for the Town Manager’s contract. You can view the document as a pdf here or simply click on the link on the ICMA page above. (Please note that this particular document was generated in 2003 and there is no evidence to indicate updates have occurred. This could mean that parts of the document are no longer consistent with State Codes.)

You will find a lot of blank spots on this document which would be where the specifics of a given contract were denoted such as the length of time that the document is in effect. That could be 3 months, 1 year, 3 years, 10 years, etc.

Page 1 of the document (page 3 of the pdf), under Section 3: Compensation subsection C provides information on an annual basis to increase compensation with 4 options available. All of the options address pay increases or bonuses (read the document for more details).

Oops! Sorry got ahead of myself. Start with the Table of Contents. Here is where you can get an overview of everything covered in the document. For example:

• Section 6 Automobile

• Section 7 Retirement

• Section 8 General Business Expenses

• Section 9 Termination

• Section 10 Severance

• Section 11 Resignation

• Section 12 Performance Evaluation

• Section 13 Hours of Work

• Section 14 Outside Activities

• Section 15 Moving and Relocation Expenses

• Section 16 Home Sale and Purchase Expenses

I included those examples because if a precedent is set whereby such a contract is used in the future for the hiring of any new Town Manager, Section 15 and 16 could be particularly important.

Section 9 includes a lot of Termination related details such as #2:

2. If the Employer, citizens or legislature acts to amend any provisions of the [charter, code, enabling legislation] pertaining to the role, powers, duties, authority, responsibilities of the Employee’s position that substantially changes the form of government, the Employee shall have the right to declare that such amendments constitute termination.

So, not only the Town, but the citizens and EVEN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA are limited in making any legitimate changes to the Town Managers functions without the Town Manager being able to decide he has thus been terminated and is entitled to all benefits under the terms of termination.

No reduction in pay can occur unless it is applied equally to all department heads. (How does that encourage good performance?) There are several options listed there which all have the Town as the short end of the financial stick. However, Section 11 gives the Town Manager the right to resign any time he wants without having the town for any inconvenience or extra expense the town incurs due to his actions.

Section 10: Severance, recommends a minimum of one years salary at current pay to be paid in a lump sum. (Glance back at termination section to see that virtually any reason for the Town Manager leaving his position, including breach of contract by either party, warrants this severance pay.)

Section 17: Indemnification, even requires that the Town go beyond the applicable Federal, State, and Local Law to provide legal coverage for the Town manager “against any tort, professional liability claim or demand or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring the the performance of Employee’s duties”… This even includes independent legal council for the Town Manager at the Town’s expense.

Please read this document. If you have any information as to how accurately this reflects the contract that the Town Council is currently working on, I would love to hear about it.

I cannot believe that this sort of manipulation is under consideration by our Council. At first, I was irate about the timing. Now, I am just disgusted in general.

I want to know what Town Council members knew about this before it was presented by the Mayor in those nice little manilla envelopes. I want to know what Council members may have even provided feedback in setting up the final copy that includes all of the dates and rates.

If Town Council and the Town Manager had any hopes of restoring trust with citizens, this should just about ‘sink that ship’. But, obviously, it is business as usual with no respect for citizens.

This just totally STINKS!!! Read it and form your own opinion.

CMA site online where they have a sample government document “Model Employment Agreement

As to a roughly 3 year contract, there are citizens who have complained to the Town Manager about problems for years without the problem ever being addressed. Maybe that contract should include something whereby he is responsible for paying for the damages to property from sewer and stormwater, for devaluation of homes because of that and because of poor decisions made (i.e., Aquatic Center expansion). Maybe he needs to cover the costs for every time DCR has had to come in and enforce the very laws that the Town is suppose to be enforcing concerning Erosion and Sediment Control.

Maybe, just maybe, if the Council and Town Manager had paid a bit more attention to what citizens wanted instead of what they wanted, citizens would be a bit more agreeable to this contract.

This should make it a lot easier for those of you who are using this as a way to look up information. However, let me remind you that while the Charter gives certain powers to the Mayor and Town Council, the Town Code then takes those powers and distributes them to others, well, one other, the Town Manager.

The Town Charter puts the burden of doing these things squarely upon the shoulders of the Town Council and the Town Manager. In giving those responsibilities to the Town Manager, the Town Council & Mayor DO NOT give up accountability. They are accountable for how the Town Manager performs. The Town Council and Mayor have a responsibility to followup, to audit, to monitor, and anything else necessary to insure that the tasks that they have delegated to the Town Manager are being performed properly. Should they find that this is not being done, then they have a right and a responsibility to make the necessary changes to correct the problems. This includes actions up to and including removal of the Town Manager from his position. The Town Manager works under a year to year contract and all that is really involved is for the council to vote against reinstating his contract again.

That said, once again I will point out that it is the responsibility of Town Council and Mayor to monitor the Town Manager’s performance. If they are not doing this, that is not a problem that would go away with removal of the Town Manager. It would simply establish the dynamics whereby similar problems would lead to discontent with any future Town Managers.

Over and over again, in the minutes, at the Town Council meetings, and in discussions with citizens, I have heard where problems have been brought to Town Council’s attention, the problem has been referred to the Town Manager, sometimes (not very often) a followup question asking in the problem was resolved was asked, and the answer was “Yes”. Then, months, and sometimes years later, the problem is again brought forward with citizens asking when the issue is going to be fixed.

This would indicate that there is no index of problems/complaints with documentation noting actions taken by the Town to correct or review the situation, measures taken (or not taken), and verification with the complainant that the issue has been resolved. However, since they are required by law to keep just such a record and to hold complaints in an active file until they are resolved, there must be one somewhere. Obviously, there is no verification by the Town Council other than to ask the Town Manager. It might be a nice step for Town Council to start something new and do followup with citizens to see if things are corrected to the satisfaction of citizens for a change.

Have fun with the Town Charter, it is quite informative.

I just love the Richmond Sunlight site, not only can I see the bill, I can choose to track it and put it in a list that I can quickly access to see what progress has been made.

While the full document has been available at MyVAResources.com for over a year (including all 3 Articles), the Town had only posted Article I (Erosion and Sediment Control. Article II (Stormwater Management) and Article II (Illicit Discharge) were omitted from the Town’s website.

Once the Town loaded the missing sections, I decided to compare it to what I had received to see what changes had been made. There were absolutely NO changes to Articles II and III. Those had just been omitted from the website for months with no apparent reason.

There were, however, a few changes found in Article I which had been previously posted but has now been reposted with those changes included. It appears that some of those changes may have been related to the DCR report I have been writing about. In summary, here are the changes that I found:

Article I. Erosion and Sediment Control

Sec. 10-1 Definitions

Added:

Department means the Department of Conservation and Recreation

Development means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling units.

Natural channel design concepts means the utilization of engineering analysis and fluvial geomorphic processes to create, rehabilitate, restore, or stabilize an open conveyance system for the purpose of creating or recreating a stream that conveys its bankfull storm event within its banks and allows larger flows to access its bankfull bench and its floodplain.

Peakflow rate means the maximum instantaneous flow from a given storm condition at a particular location.

Permittee means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed.

Person means any individual, partnership, form, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town, or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity.

Program Authority means the Town of Christiansburg which has adopted a soil erosion and sediment control program that has been approved by the Board.

Runoff volume means the volume of water that runs off the land development project from a prescribed storm event.

Single-family residence means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family.

Water quality volume means the volume equal to the first one-half inch of runoff multiplied by the impervious surface of the land development project.

Sec. 10-4. Local program; adoption of state standards and regulations.

Added:

(f) In accordance with, §10.1-561 of the Code of Virginia, stream restoration and relocation projects that incorporate natural channel design concepts are not man-made channels and shall be exempted from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or man-made channels.

(g) In accordance with §10.1-561 of the Code of Virginia, any land-disturbing activity that provides for stormwater management intended to address any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels if the practices are designed to (I) detain the water quality volume and to release it over 48 hours; (ii) detain and release over a 24-hour period the expected rainfall resulting from the one year, 24-hour storm; and (iii) reduce the allowable peak flow rate resulting from the 1.5, 2, and 10-year, 24-hour storms to a level that is less than or equal to the peak flow rate from the site assuming it was in good forested condition, achieved through multiplication of the forested peak flow rate by a reduction factor that is equal to the runoff volume from the site when it was in a good forested condition divided by the runoff volume from the site in its proposed condition, and shall be exempt from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels.

Sec. 10-5. Erosion and sediment control plan—When required; exceptions.

Added:

(h) Variances: The plan-approving authority may waive or modify any of the standards that are deemed to be too restrictive for site conditions, by granting a variance. A variance may be granted under these conditions:

1. At the time of plan submission, an applicant may request a variance to become part of the approved erosion and sediment control plan. The applicant shall explain the reasons for requesting variances in writing. Specific variances which are allowed by the plan-approving authority shall be documented in the plan.

2. During construction, the person responsible for implementing the approved plan may request a variance in writing from the plan-approving authority. The plan-approving authority shall respond in writing either approving or disapproving such a request. If the plan-approving authority does not approve a variance within 10 days of receipt of the request, the request shall be considered to be disapproved. Following disapproval, the applicant may resubmit a variance request with additional documentation.

   (I) In accordance with the procedure set forth by §10.1-563 (E) of the Code of Virginia, any person engaging in the creation and operation of wetland mitigation banks in multiple jurisdictions, which have been approved and are operated in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance, laws, or regulations for the establishment, use, and operation of mitigation banks, pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality, the Marine Resources Commission, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, may, at the option of that person, file general erosion and sediment control specifications for wetland mitigation banks annually with the Board for review and approval consistent with guidelines established by the Board.

Sec. 10-9. Monitoring, reports and inspections.

Added:

(f) Inspection frequency shall be in accordance with 4VAC 50-30-60.

——————————————————-

Those are all of the changes that were made when Article I was updated, but as you will note, they were some fairly important issues. I have added links to the specific codes referenced so that you can look further into the issues if you wish.

The most significant issue all of this (DCR Corrective Action, updating of codes only when forced to) brings to me is one question. How common is this type of issue throughout the Town Code? What other areas are audited and by whom? If these types of changes were initiated by the State years ago and only now being applied (by force) to the Town of Christiansburg, what other issues have been treated the same way?

This disregard for keeping codes current that are so closely related to health, welfare, safety, property values, insurance rates, etc. is unacceptable. Reading the full document, it shows clearly exactly how impotent the Town Council is once a property has been rezoned. Virtually nothing can be done by way of enforcement of these ordinances without the willingness and action taken by the Town Manager. The Town Council has no control except to control the behavior or OR the identity of the Town Manager.

These changes are a least part of the ones that were voted on back in December as updating the ordinance following a DCR audit. It is nice to see that something has finally arrived to show what Town Council voted on at that meeting. But, I can’t help but wonder, given the pattern of behavior here, if there are not possibly other changes the Council voted on at that time that still haven’t seen the light of day.

Think about it for a minute. How many times would you return to a doctor who’s responses were “Yes, you are sick but I have some medicine to make you better.” Me, I would have a few little questions to ask: (1) If I’m sick, what is the ‘sickness’ called? (2) Is it a terminal, chronic, or short term illness? (3) Are the symptoms I have now likely to get better or worse? Will I get new symptoms also? (4) What is the prognosis? (5) This medicine you want to give me, how will it affect me? (6) Are there any other treatment options?

When you talk to your doctor, you know that you are talking about things that have a direct effect upon your life and your family. You, quite naturally, want to know a reasonable amount of what the issues are so that you can begin wrapping your brain around how to deal with things. Well, when you talk to government representatives (elected, appointed, or otherwise) about government issues in your area (city, town, county, or country), you are also talking about things that will have an impact upon your life and the lives of your family, friends, neighbors, and other citizens you do not even know.

It only makes sense to me that asking for all the information that you need to feel comfortable with what is going to happen should be a right that you exercise often. In a May 20, 2009 article on the New York Times Opinion Section, Happy Days, The Pursuit of What Matters in Troubled Times, is an blog article by Daniel Gilbert, What You Don’t Know Makes You Nervous.

The author discusses some of the current issues facing Americans and some historical eras that are similar to what is faced today. Then, he moves into addressing what it is that people are ‘really’ upset about. In paragraph 8 of the blog article, he begins to identify the real culprit:

Then in the last paragraph, he sums up this theme again:

This ‘not knowing’ or ‘uncertainty’ can exist in all levels of government. The less people are told, the more they are likely to worry about the possible outcomes. We Americans are a pretty tough group. We have survived bad times, tough economic times, war, internal strife, disease, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, the untimely loss of some of most beloved citizens, and a myriad of other challenges. I believe we can survive most anything IF WE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT!

I understand it is not possible for government to give us clear and concise answers on every issue. Where it is possible to do so, then it should be done. Where it is not possible, then simply be honest enough to say that you do not know, but this is what we are doing about the issue.

Keeping people informed helps to keep people grounded in facts NOT in perceptions that may not accurately reflect the facts. Most of us know that elected officials are just as human as the rest of us and can make mistakes. Acknowledging and owning the mistakes allows all of the gossip and rumors to die off and we can all get on with the business of living our lives to the best of our ability.

Most people that know me know that if I am given a few minutes, I could apply Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to eating a tuna fish salad. I am a firm believer in that Hierarchy and the relationship to was I have just discussed is clear.

In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, there are established levels of ‘Needs’ that most people have in common. These needs begin at a very basic survival level and progress into the very alturistic. The government (whether town, city, county, state, our federal) is directed by the U.S. Constitution to insure certain of these needs: Health, Welfare, Safety & Convenience. (See Wikipedia’s: Supreme Court Case Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887)). (See also: Health, Safety, Welfare & Convenience.)

Citizens not only have a right to know, but it is good for them to know, the good and bad of government. Not knowing leads to uncertainty and fear. Those, in turn, lead to misperceptions, rumors, gossip, and misinterpretations. The more open government is the more likely it will be that citizens will come together and strive to work through any problems that we have. Open government IS good government because it reduces the fear and uncertainty.

Happy Birthday to the Freedom of Information Act! As it has grown, it has now become a tool for everyone, not just the media. FOIA helps to keep government open in much the same way putting a lock on a door protects your home. It serves to keep honest people honest. Just as there will be those who will break into your home regardless of the presence of locks, there will be those who will try to keep things ‘hidden’ from the public. Having some safeguards in place (lock on the door, the FOIA) helps to prevent that scenario from becoming the status quo.

However, there are tremendous differences  between how jurisdictions handle this new era of ‘openness’. I have been looking at various websites around the State of Virginia for more than a year now. Some jurisdictions make it incredibly easy for information to be found. Other jurisdictions make finding some information easy and other information more difficult to locate. Still others, offer a lot of self-promotion to encourage the home buyer or business, but the ‘meat and potatoes’ of local government is all but missing in action.

I believe that the last paragraph of that blog clearly identifies some of the opportunities that are before us and within the hands of our lawmakers:
“If all of Virginia’s counties and school boards met these standards we would be a much more informed and aware citizenry, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Simply following through on these measures, while a significant upgrade over the hodge-podge collection of documents that passes for transparency throughout much of the commonwealth, doesn’t take full advantage of power of the internet. There are a lot of additional things that governments can do that enable their citizens to get much more out of online transparency. From video archives to real time data feeds, innovative governments are making themselves more open and their constituents better informed. Next issue we’ll take a look at what the best practices in this new online world look like.

I am looking forward to that next issue. I have some ideas of my own, first and foremost, that standards should be established for all jurisdictions (state, county, city & TOWN) and that those standards should be developed based, in large part, upon citizen input. Let the people who will be using the devices have a part in determining what is needed, not just the lawmakers. Find out what people want. Oh, yeah. That’s what government is all about anyway, right?

Anyway, on June 16, 2009, the blog article “Shining a Spotlight on Transparency” was rolled out. I had to check my audio to be sure I didn’t miss a drum roll because it sure deserved one! The opening two sentences set the tone: The legitimacy of government is based on the consent of the governed. As owners of our state government, every citizen of Virginia is entitled to full and complete information about how their government acts and what their Representatives do.”

Wow! That pretty much says it for the backbone of the FOIA at all government levels. WE are the government. Government is not just elected officials and fancy buildings! It is “WE THE PEOPLE”. The government works for us, not the other way around.

The article then goes on to discuss recent events in Federal FOIA and Virginia FOIA. I really like the way that it is pointed out that accessibility to information alone is NOT enough. That information MUST be in a format that citizens can understand. We do not need tools that we can’t use. We need consistently organized, understandable information. Clothing information (or cloaking, if you prefer) in a manner that make it available but not useable is atrocious.

It is further noted, that the THOMAS JEFFERSON INSTITUTE is initiating an awesome project. They will examine the current FOIA practices of jurisdictions and use that data to develop standards and best practices. This concept could bring a degree of uniformity to jurisdictions that would be a tremendous service to citizens. I know that every jurisdiction wants to keep its “individuality” but there is no reason why they can’t do that while still having uniformity in those areas that all jurisdiction have in common. It’s too bad that the study will not include Towns, but perhaps that is coming.

This has particular interest to me as it could apply to the internet. If every jurisdiction used a certain part of their website that was consisten across all jurisdictions but allowed for independence in other parts of the website. It would make it so much easier for citizens. We are becoming such a mobile society, with people moving several times during the course of their lives. If there were some degree of uniformity, it would be so much easier for citizens to access information.

It could also save a ton of taxpayer’s money! Part of the website would be prepackaged saving development costs and making it easier for employees to use. The remainder of the website could be used as the jurisdiction wishes to promote its unique features and events. It would also make it easier and more cost effective for small jurisdictions to have a website.

The article closes with this: By providing usable data governments allow citizens to improve their quality of life and make government more efficient.” What a wonderful concept! Increase efficiency of government while improving citizen access. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

The 2nd of these 2 articles will be discussed tomorrow.

1. You could do one of several things in response:
2. You could walk away and just give up. (Free)
3. You could  read the FOIA codes for yourself to see if you should get access to those documents. (Free)
4. You could contact the Virginia Coalition for Open Government and request they provide you with some guidance. (Free)
5. You could contact the Virginia FOIA Advisory Council for an opinion. (Free)
6. You could simply contact an attorney to see if legal action is appropriate. (Fees are often charged for that initial contact just to find out if you have a case.)

Let us assume you make the decision to get some research done before you invest any money in attorney fees. You take the steps to contact either #4 or #5 above, giving them ALL of the information you can on your situation. Either one (or both) come back with information that reveals that you do not have the right to access to what you have requested. Now, you at least know what you can or cannot do, and it has cost you no more than a little time.

On the other hand, if #4, #5, or both of them advise you that you do have the right to that information, you may now wish to proceed to an attorney and pursue legal actions to obtain the records that you request.

There is one very good reason to do your homework before you jump into a ‘writ of mandamus’ seeking a Court order to have your jurisdiction give you the requested information (provided at the Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project website):

Definition: Attorneys’ Fees, Requestors (Public Records)

Capsule:

If a court finds a public body violated the open records law by denying the inspection of a record, the requester of the record shall be entitled to recover “reasonable” attorney’s fees from the public body. The fees are to be awarded if the requester “substantially” prevails unless special circumstances would make an award “unjust.” A court may, among other things, consider the reliance of a public body on an opinion of the attorney general or a decision of a court that “substantially” supports the public body’s position. VA. CODE ANN. § 2-3713.D (2007).

In other words, if the jurisdiction has violated FOIA, you have the right to have the jurisdiction pay your legal fees. The Court does have the right to evaluate those fees and, if you have gotten a bit exorbinate, hiring Benjamin A. Civilette, whose rate is $1000.00 per hour, I think you can count on the Court reducing the awarded amount substantially.

By using the Virginia Coalition for Open Government website’s Opinions section, you can find out if there are any cases similar that the jurisdiction could be basing their argument on, thus finding  out if there are any cases where the jurisdiction was “substantially supported” in a similar case.

Doing these things will certainly not guarantee that you get your legal costs reimbursed, but you can increase the likelihood of that happening. A little bit of homework could save you a lot of money!