(5) What was the council’s biggest mistake?
Alston: Success or failure in politics is such a relative proposition. Usually, there is a bit of perspective involved. It is easier to look at matters after the fact and see whether measures succeeded to their intended level. I have tended to support measures which I believed would pay long term dividends for the city. I am hard pressed to come up with an action taken by the council, within your stated time frame, which I deem a mistake. There are some financial matters which we are presently working through, but most of the actions which collectively have created our current financial situation occurred outside of your time window. Additionally, the biggest contributors were not of the council’s doing. They are primarily the result of an economic downturn in the state’s economy.
Gupton: Not having a contract with the Embassy foundation that spelled out the use and eventual payback of the $1.8 million of the taxpayers’ money.
Harper: As an observer from the audience of many meetings, it seemed that some issues got a lot of time and attention while other major issues were not considered at all. For example, more than an hour was spent last August on a request to reduce the city’s minimum housing code. When this was requested of the legislature, they determined it was unconstitutional. On the other hand, there does not seem to be any discussion of a long-range plan for the city – which seems very important.
Daeke: This may predate some of the sitting council, but when the fund balance began to drop due to building initiatives and programs, and with the state cutting off funds, along with the obvious decline of local major industries, someone continued to spend beyond a reasonable fund balance. Now we’re working from few funds with incredible needs.
Yount: Our biggest mistake involves the Embassy South Project finances. The city overspent on this project by $400,000 before I came on the council. We can argue whether this was spent for the DAV property or for professional services, but the fact remains and is clear that $400,000 was overspent. What faced us this year was the reality that we had to finally account for the money. This money was like a huge elephant sitting in the corner of the room that everyone ignored. Well, this year we could ignore the elephant no more. It was time to pay the piper. Because we had ignored the fact that $400,000 was overspent, we did not plan or budget for this payment that we knew had to be made. In addition to this money, we had to account for the $1.2 million that was also outstanding. These financial mistakes have contributed to our dismal fund balance. In short, our savings are shot. Why is this such a serious mistake? Our budget is not just a financial plan, but the legal gauge against which expenditures MUST be measured. Our budget has internal controls so that actual expenditures cannot exceed appropriations. There are ceilings, and line items, and budget ordinances to prevent the misapplication or the extravagant expenditures of public funds. Our internal controls failed us. In October of 2004 some of the council members were aware of our impending fund balance catastrophe, but this knowledge was not shared with the entire council until January. I believe this was purposefully done so that the dire economic outlook would not prevent the immediate construction of the library. Not paying attention to expenditures affects our ability to provide quality services to our citizens and increases our taxes and user fees. This is where we find ourselves today. This has also caused many citizens that I talk to to lose faith in their local elected officials.
Wester: Micromanagement has undermined the ability of both elected officials to do the work we were all elected to do and that the staff was hired to do. Department heads work for the manager, not the council or the mayor. Only the manager, the city attorney and the city clerk are by law supposed to answer to the council AS A WHOLE.