End run around State Statute?
.
Good morning Margaret and thank you for your fine efforts in ensuring that full deference is given to the Statutory provision affording the people the opportunity to address Council on specific issues prior to any vote on those issues — as regards the School Tax endorsement and the new accounting Manager position.
As regards the Halifax Paving/ Fill dirt issue I am way confused as to the “ public meeting has been scheduled for Thursday July 10 at 1:30 pm in the city manager’s conference room” wherein “The agreement shall be considered by the city manager and city attorney to determine whether it will be approved”
I am likewise confused as to why the City’s web site references tomorrow’s as being “pursuant to the authority delegated by the City Council in the regular meeting of June 30, 2014 “. There was no regular meeting of Council on June 30th only a Special meeting during which the Mayor announced he would not allow public comments …. Which is where this thread started.
Accordingly I would ask
- *- What body is this public meeting of ? ( If as the City web site suggests it is meeting of the Manager and Attorney sitting in for the Mayor and Council please site the specific authority for such an unusual arrangement as I can see no such authority in City Charter 3.06 and Ordinance 2-32 that are referenced in this regard )
- *- Was this meeting properly noticed ?
- *- Will it be recorded for public viewing ?
- *- Are the Manager and Attorney empowered to approve contracts of this nature by Charter/ existing Ordinance/Resolution, OR BY A vote of Council on June 30th that authorized you and Greg to decide this matter – as the City website indicates ?
- *- If it is the latter then can you point me to where the public was afforded the opportunity to be heard prior to that vote ?
Even if the possibility of improprieties did not exist in this instance which is un-likely, this is a matter on which reasonable people could well be expected to disagree.
As such I would caution all concerned from attempting any end runs around State Statute in this matter.
Ted Noftall
**********************
From: Roberts, Margaret [mailto:mroberts@port-orange.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 4:18 PM
To: Ted Noftall (ted@americanforwarding.us)
Cc: City Council; Kisela, Greg; Fenwick, Robin; Lewis, Shannon
Subject: Halifax Paving Inc. agreement for dirt excavation and stockpiling
Please be advised that the agreement provided to city council is not final. A public meeting has been scheduled for Thursday July 10 at 1:30 pm in the city manager’s conference room. Please feel free to attend and ask any questions you may have. The agreement shall be considered by the city manager and city attorney to determine whether it will be approved.
Margaret T. Roberts
City Attorney/City of Port Orange, Florida
Phone 386 506-5525/Fax 386 506-5530
mroberts@port-orange.org
from: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@TedNoftall.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:56 AM
To: Margaret Roberts (mroberts@port-orange.org)
Cc: gkisela@port-orange.org; Robin Fenwick (rfenwick@port-orange.org); Bob Ford (rford37@cfl.rr.com); Dennis Kennedy (dkennedy@port-orange.org); don@amlsfl.com; Drew Bastian (db2070@cfl.rr.com); Mayor Green (agreen@port-orange.org)
Subject: FW: Was State Statute breached.
Thank you Margaret,
The far more serious matter arising at that evening was the Mayor’s announcement that he would not allow the people to question their representatives in an open meeting as to how a fill dirt contractor became indebted to City taxpayers to the tune of $ 500,000.
We are not talking about a 90 dump loads like were diverted to a project in South Daytona earlier this year, And in which the contractor reimbursed the City with a check. Rather we are talking about thousands of loads.
IS any of this above board, or is it all above board ??
Is this yet another failure of internal controls, or was it caught and properly reported and allowed to continue, and if so by who ??
We do not know because the people were denied the opportunity to inquire.
That is a problem …….. Do you have a proposed solution ???
Ted Noftall
From: Roberts, Margaret [mailto:mroberts@port-orange.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:20 AM
To: Noftall, Ted; Kisela, Greg
Cc: City Council; Lewis, Shannon; Fenwick, Robin; Jones, Matthew
Subject: Public participation
Mr. Noftall, On June 30, 2014 after the meeting you made comments as follows::
The public was not given the opportunity to speak on the issue of the account manager.
The council discussion resulted in the city manager indicating that he would bring back a job description for the city council’s consideration. It is my understanding that the city manager has intends to provide the city council the job description and a budget amendment before the city manager adds the new position of account manager to the city organization. You may wish to watch for the July 22 agenda items as referenced herein and request to speak at that time.
Margaret T. Roberts
City Attorney/City of Port Orange, Florida
Phone 386 506-5525/Fax 386 506-5530
mroberts@port-orange.org
From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@TedNoftall.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Margaret Roberts (mroberts@port-orange.org)
Cc: gkisela@port-orange.org; Bob Ford (rford37@cfl.rr.com); Dennis Kennedy (dkennedy@port-orange.org); don@amlsfl.com; Drew Bastian (db2070@cfl.rr.com); Mayor Green (agreen@port-orange.org)
Subject: Was State Statute breached.
Good afternoon Margaret,
On Monday evening past Council made several important decisions on two important matters in a 15 minute special meeting that one could argue was designed so as to preclude public comment as it was closely followed with another scheduled meeting.
You attended that meeting in your capacity as City Attorney in which the Mayor stated he would take ‘no public comment as this was a business meeting’
In so doing I believed the City failed to comply with State Statute regarding the right of the people to be heard on all matters on which their representatives are deciding.
If you concur I would ask that you propose a remedy which in my mind would be acceptable if action on these matters were delayed until the public was afforded an opportunity to be heard and another vote taken.
Thank you
Ted Noftall