Council Agenda Dec. 9, 2014
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KeWRTwfxJTzdt8qs8P0x_uIfn5D7C0XSqGTXxtOWPOY/preview” title=”Agenda12-9-14″ icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_11_document_list.png” width=”100%” height=”800″ style=”embed”]
Scroll Window
The Chamber of Commerce came ill prepared in requesting their 19k. They did not expect any opposition and it was intimated that it’s time once again to pay up. In fact the 19k went up to 20k this year. While South Daytona only pays 5k per year.
I never was comfortable with the “coziness” of the Chamber, Ms. Connors and the relationship with the city. It was great to observe some form of accountability. Very interesting scenario took place here.
South Daytona is a much smaller city. Proportional cost is likely correct. Was mistified that Ted suggested that “higher ups” at Chamber shouldn’t try and influence political races. Since when did citizens that serve on Chamber boards check their citizenship at the door? I agree that Chamber staff shouldn’t take political stands, but board and members are citizens and voters. Actually thought Drew showed some inexperience by attacking the chamber. The cities inability to enforce or monitor a contract reflects negatively on the state of the city, not the chamber. And ultimately, the council is responsible for the operations at city hall. Drew basically hilighted the failures of his council.
Drew did not highlight the failure of “his” council…he has never had a chance to vote on the contract or even know about it, since the last time a contract was voted on was 2011. Drew attacked a very questionable contract. Would Onlooker like to defend the contract as worthy of being enacted? I would be delighted to hear the defense.
The activists have long complained about the lack of contracts, behind the scenes dealing, too cozy relationships between contract monitors and contractors. Interestingly they were savaged constantly for being too negative.
The ones responsible for all these problems which this contract is an example the council majority that was in power until recently that included Drew’s opponent in the 2012 election.
If the Council failed to vote for the Chamber of Commence contract for the past 3 years why did the Chamber continue to receive $19,000 each year?
And who at city hall authorized those payments. Also should not the Chamber by required to repay the city for any Unauthorized payments?
In addition it is sad that the Executive Director, Debbie Connors was hiding under her desk and did not have the courage to show up at last nights council meeting. She sent her lawyer instead.
What I watched was Drew attacking the Chamber, Bob Ford was the one, after Drew spoke, that identified it as a bad contract.
One of the most important traits of a leader is to own a problem. Once you own it, then you can begin to work towards righting the ship. If Drew owns that, under prior watches as well as his, the city has let many things fall thru the cracks, he can then begin to clean up those types of issues so last nights discussion would have never happened. The city staff would have had quarterly benchmarks to analize and make sure the chamber was keeping to the contract. Bob, who looks to be much more well thought out than Drew, said it well. It is a terrible contract that needs to be cleaned up. Also, someone on council, couldn’t identify who it was on the TV, said at the end of the discussion that it wasn’t the chambers issue the contract wasn’t being followed. That was an honest comment about the failure of the city on this issue.
Make no mistake about it, the Chamber is getting one sweet deal, and it seems no one at the city is really sure why? The chamber gets what is probably about a $3,000 a month land lease for $100 a month, the city pays them $19K – $20K a year (and doesn’t monitor to see if the contract is fulfilled) and the city takes care of all of their landscape maintenance. I’d say that is about a $55,000 a year gift package from the tax payers to the Chamber. I would challenge anyone who reads this blog to find another city in our area that gives such a sweet deal with little to no oversight of what is being gained in return.
This is another example of how bad oversight and accountability had gotten over the past 5 or so years. It will take years for things like this to get identified, cleaned up and back to being monitored as they should. I would think that this is something the Chamber would openly support and agree is a problem that needs to be correct before moving forward. Watching a Chamber board members get up and talk to council last night as if he were in a position to bully them into giving away tax payer money, without a legitimate contract, was laughable, and should be very embarrassing for the Chamber. Further, his suggestion that $20,000 of tax payer money is insignificant and does not warrant scrutiny was amazing to see. Wonder what kind of business he has?
Honestly not sure if I were a business owner in Port Orange or South Daytona that I would want anything to do with that group.
I agree that the members present last night didn’t do well representing the Chamber. Ray crafted his words, like attorneys do, and the answer about $20,000 being but a nickel of a $100 to the city doesn’t seem to be wise to state. Shawn G was a bit aggressive when tact may have been the better course.
Also, we must understand that 21 years ago, the city made the decision to enter into that land lease. The Chamber shouldn’t have to apologize for that. They do serve a good purpose, but all groups can be improved.
But, what would still solve that entire discussion last night is the city having good enforceable contacts and doing so. Sometimes when you’re mad, you accomplish more by looking in the mirror instead of yelling at others.
I think what we saw was the new regime of accountability in the form of the trio vs. the duo.
They are beginning to question things that in past years have been merely rubber stamped and approved.
The Chamber has been playing a political game and while I agree that such an organization is vital, that their role needs to be more defined.
The local realtor (Shawn) who jumped up aggressively to speak made an ass out of himself and the Chamber which he claims to represent. And Ms. Conners ? In my mind, she is just a socialite not a strong representative of the local business community.
This is not the last we will hear of this deal. As far as the building, land deal etc. that is a non issue.
How to proceed forward ? New scrutinized contract, factors that can be measured and quantified. ie: what is the Chamber actually doing for the business community ? Not an annual breakfast or tea and crumpets but Eastport maybe ? How much involvement did they have in all the growth of the Dunlawton corridor?
This is yet another example of needed consolidation. Nobody wants to give up their piece of the pie. Daytona Chamber, Ormond Chamber, Port Orange Chamber, Oak Hill etc.
I thought Drew was right on in his approach to the number of inconsistencies in the contract offered him to approve. I am surprised some on this blog took exception with his questions and comments. Perhaps I will have to review that segment of the video tape.
I read that some people are writing that it is ok for a chamber of commerce to be involved in politics. Ok by me, but let’s acknowledge that it is what it is and not complain as that one citizen did that the chamber is being attacked because of its politics. The Port Orange chamber of commerce has been a favorite auxiliary of the city council and it takes its consequences when it supports and oppose political candidates. The chamber has been very comfortable with the old crowd and I have found it more concerned with supporting its coziness with the political in crowd, rather than supporting businesses. The scrutiny the chamber deserves has finally arrived.
Hank your are correct:
When an organization as a group supports and promotes certain political candidates and regimes while demeaning opposing candidates, they should not be surprised if they get bit in the ass after there is a regime change.
By their very nature, groups like the Chamber of Commerce should always be non-partisan.
Hopefully they will learn a lesson by recent events.