The LDN reported in Monday 10-24-2011 inside my 'interview':

 

He (Rotta) said the city’s charter states, ”Each city councilor is to be paid $50 per year, the mayor $300, and this can only be changed by special ordinance, which it hasn’t. Each councilor, however, gets paid a salary of $3,600, 72 times what the law allows, while the mayor receives $4,800, only 16 times what he is supposed to.”

The charter, approved in 1992, states the councilors will be paid $50 per year and the mayor $300 a year unless the council changes those amounts by ordinance.

Those wages were changed by ordinance — approved by a 7-0 vote of the council in November 1993. The new wages are $3,600 a year for councilors and $4,800 for mayor and they took effect in 1994 for mayor and 1996 for councilors after the terms of the voting councilors ended.

 

That last paragraph is not mine, if you couldn't guess.  But it was interesting to find out, because I had repeatedly made FOIA requests for such an ordinance as was my usual method.  The on-line municipal code has no such 1993 ordinance, nor is there any other portal to such an ordinance.  Back in January 2011, a FOIA request from us asked for such an ordinance:

 

 

You would think there would be a lot of records if you get charged over $100 for a request of ordinances where the City Council salaries are raised.  This apparently wasn't the case, as his reply said that the records didn't exist!

 

No further explanation was given.  Since we only asked for one thing (ordinances and the corresponding minutes of the meeting they were passed), it was assumed that the City Clerk had not found anything after a lengthy search. 

 

But I needed to verify that because it seemed too arrogant even for City Councilors to raise their salaries without an ordinance.  So shortly, I sent an E-mail myself to verifythat fact:

Yeah, there I am, wanting to get into City Hall to look at ordinances.  Remember this is around a month before they began manufacturing a special policy for me.  This was labelled as a FOIA request, and here was his reply:

This reply itself was outrageous, because State law says that anyone can go into a City Hall to look through a City's ordinances, as you would expect, without incurring such an outrageous charge.  This has been John Shay's trademark, however, and what he says indicates that ordinances made to raise City Councilor's and Mayor's salaries should be available.  They aren't.

 

So at one point he says no such records exist, at another he says if they did they would be publicly available on the municode website, which they aren't.  Twice, he has denied the presence of such a record.

 

But now the LDN comes to the rescue and says there was a November 1993 ordinance which raised the mayor's rate in 1994 and the City Councilor's rates in 1996 to their current values.  That doesn't fit the records either.  Here's a counterproof to the LDN's assertion, that was supplied by a FOIA later on:

 

The budget for 1994 was $21,950 for the salaries and wages for one mayor and 7 CCs.  If only the mayor's salary was raised that should be $5150.  Same for 1995. 

 

So here's the scandal:  John Shay denied the existence of any such ordinance twice back in January.  The LDN, wherever they got this information did not attribute it.  Was their really an ordinance, and was it passed in a legitimate Open Meeting?  Raising salaries by a factor of 72 should have gained quite a bit of scrutiny by locals at the time, but I surely don't remember it.  Does anyone else?  I am going to review the LDN archives for that period to check on this mystery ordinance.

 

 

Views: 300

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So the LDN made up a blatant lie and then published it as fact. Did they even have the sense to ask for proof from COL? of course not.

 

I wish there was profit to be made (as bankruptcy is more likely) in publishing a new newspaper for this area that was actually able to fact check what they write.

I wonder if the LDN can explain there way out of this one. If it shows that their reporting is based soley on word of mouth and not actually digging into archives and records then they have earned the booby prize this year instead of the other awards they proudly display.

There are shades of truth all over the place on this one.  I reviewed the November 1993 LDN archives at the Library.  Fun stuff about NAFTA and a local mom accused in the death of her baby. 

At the beginning of November, there was a poignant editorial commentary about the recent City elections.  Six City positions were up for election, and of those six, there was no opposition to the established candidate.  Six uncontested races.  The writer wondered whether it was apathy or just contentment with the status quo.  The writer of the piece, current twelve year City Councilor Paul S Peterson.

 

The City made a big push to increase the salaries of their officials the meeting after the election 11-8-2011.  And some articles in the 15th, 16th, and 19th of November, clarified that the City Councilor's car allowance would be incorporated into their salary.  Check out the transportation allowances the City taxpayer's granted to the Councilors in previous years.

 

That $22,000 in 1993 was some indefinite car allowance, which had varied in the years before, but were substantial.  The City Councilors have to live in the City, they all live within walking distance of the City Hall, why do they need $2400 for a car allowance?   Do you get $2400 from your employer for a car allowance?

 Effectively, the ordinance enacted in November 1993, added this car allowance directly to their salary, and so the crooks wearing City Councilor suits, gave themselves an automatic $2400 'raise' as you and I might understand it.  But just a re-defining of parameters to them.  Notice the last line. 

 

 

 

Point is, there never was an ordinance that raised the $50 rate of councilors.  Their raises were granted to them by a corrupted allowance for transportation that really has no justification.  The LDN reported a falsity, that their rate was $2450 as of 1993.  It wasn't at that point.  Shay's hands were actually tied here, as there was no such ordinance, just a sleazy transfer of 'allowances' into wages by Miller and crew. 

No car allowance is ordered through the City Charter.  I will look to repeal that ordinance that went against the intent of the City Charter. 

The cost for a mayor and seven city councilors is $700 per year, but they each have a transportation/car allowance for forty-eight times their salary? 

How much does LMTA charge to go from a house to City Hall and back twice a month?

 

 

Considerably less.  Thanks, Willy.
Excellent work X.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service