Updated   03/27/05 12:07:16 AM

Video best view in Windows Media - Free Download Click Here

Navigation Bar to Direct Links 

When the campaign manager and neighbor of John Lewis wrote his latest column regarding my call for disclosure relating to what I call a "slush fund", he followed his usual practice of distortion by omitting the primary definition of slush fund which is: slush fund - 1. A fund raised for undesignated purposes. Using secondary definitions, he tries to discredit legitimate questioning of city officials. The current majority on the council does not like to be questioned on anything. 

My point in questioning is that we have seen runaway spending for the past 12 years and our council is not asking questions why.

It was and is my position that the "non-department budgets" and especially the huge "sundries" items are just that - slush funds. This is not the only problem with the budget but it does represent one of the largest budget items that was not questioned publicly by our elected officials. 

The "semi-official" response from the spokesperson for Lewis and Welch - linking to a memo from Cunningham does not refute this opinion. If anyone takes the time to compare Mr. Cunningham's memo to the actual budget you will find a number of "discrepancies". More specifics on these questions follow later in this column in a take off of Mr. Cunningham's numbers verses the actual approved budget. Further there was no real explanation of the non-existent employees. The Cunningham memo raises more questions than it actually answers.

To make this a meaningful discussion consider the following thoughts:

First pass review of the actual budget to Cunningham's response is that the numbers do
not match the final budget approved by the council. This becomes an extremely complicated review but all the points are still valid. Some of the variances are noted in the numbers below and represent significant differences from the approved budget.

If everything is open and honest, why is budget information not available to the public prior to public hearings?

This level of "sundries" is sloppy accounting at best.

Transfers to the self insurance fund should be questioned for merit and cost effectiveness. Why doesn't the city buy insurance coverage like other cities? Is the premium cost so high due to the hiding and destruction of records that we cannot afford it? There is also a transfer from the Aquatic Fund in the amount of $550,000 for liability insurance!

Transfers between various departments and "funds" is difficult to track and the shrinkage between pages difficult to decipher leaving a lot of room for mismanagement. The point is that proper management would yield better - more cost effective and controlled - local government.

The annual audit (CAFR) had an $11 Million error. The City Newsletter overstated tax revenues from TIF#2 by 10 times. Losses projected from the Senior Freeze were grossly overstated to attempt to defeat the freeze. Why should we expect "accuracy" in the budget prepared by the same people?

Ambulance "bad debt" is nowhere in the budget and the $364,000 number would be excessive according to the budget. Must have come out of thin air. How is a write off of non-collected items a budgeted expense? Collections are a separate line item in the budget.

Transfers out of the "non-departments" to reserves and other funds appear to be smoke and mirrors and a way to hide excess tax revenues. See page 65 of budget.

Cunningham's transfers from General Fund and Utilities to "debt service" is troubling. Debt service is usually a separate item. This appears to be a way to pay for some of the Certificates of Obligation (debt without voter approval) issued by the Council. 

Interesting note is that Cunningham shows a $25,000 transfer from the non-departmental budget for the 820 Study when the current year actual budget shows that the $25,000 was to come from General Fund reserves on page 513 of the budget. Is this "double dipping"?

Closed government does not breed confidence. 

With so many different "funds" to move money around, no one probably knows the real story about our city.
Bottom line is that the non-departments budgets are slush funds and the response from Mr. Cunningham neither explains nor justifies the numbers in these budgets. 

If you are interested in doing your own research, the actual budget that was approved is available on the city website and can be downloaded. It is 595 pages long and in Adobe Format Searching for specific items is fairly easy. Maybe you can find how Mr. Cunningham's explanation is justified.

In response to Sapp's attack, I neither recant nor apologize for the prior article. I am disappointed at the lack of response from Council Members and further disappointed at their acceptance of this level of very sloppy accounting in our City. The following table is taken directly from Mr. Cunningham's memo to Council to "explain" these slush funds:

Click here for the table.