Jeff Kohut, 2011 independent mayoral candidate, is calling on fellow taxpayers to join him in a tax strike as the City Council prepares to vote on Mayor Bill Finch’s budget that proposes to sock the average homeowner more than 400 clams to help finance $7 million more for city schools. Kohut writes in an OIB post:
Really, it seems the only answer to this latest City Hall outrage is a TAX STRIKE. If the revenue stream stops, the administration will have to take pause and reconsider this outrage.
We need to put pressure on our councilpersons in the meantime. If they don’t do the right thing for us, then they have to be retired in 2013.
It’s a good time for the Republicans to expand on their anti-tax-increase petition and push the idea of a tax strike. IF enough people participate, it will deep-six the impending tax increase and necessitate an amnesty for all participants, in regard to any late-payment penalties.
Enough is too much.
Kohut, the science teacher/policy wonk/environmentalist referred to city Republicans who recently launched www.stopthetaxincreases.com that beseeches taxpayers to lean on their City Council reps to blowtorch Finch’s spending plan. We’re awaiting word on when the city’s legislative body will vote on the budget. A variety of scheduling conflicts among council members has City Council President Tom McCarthy juggling dates to satisfy a quorum.
Maybe the tax strike will be involuntary if a number of homeowners cannot afford to pay the bill.
Where in the budget is the line for flat-screen televisions? Take a walk around the Annex. There’s a flat screen in every office. Every office that has a friend in Sherwood, that is. Someone want to tell me why anyone besides the mayor needs to have a television in his office, and an expensive flat screen at that?
If we are in such a big fucking budget crisis, why are we buying new televisions?
Bring on the tax strike. Bring it on.
Just think of the ramifications of a tax strike. How do you presume we should pay firemen, police, sanitation workers, teachers, or even you?
TV’s are just a part of the insanity, harley76. How about custom color painting offices and purchasing new furniture in the Annex aka Taj Mahal!!!
You can find this method of spending money and spending taxpayer dollars in the book “How to budget for dummies.”
Question the council on this spending plus the several positions in the FY13 proposed budget indicating new positions and increases.
COB people need to stand up and be counted … someone has to wake up the taxpayers!!! There should be 50 people outside with Gomes holding signs in protest of the tax increase.
That’s right taxpayers of Bridgeport–YOUR DOLLARS are paying for nice flat-screen TVs in many offices at City Hall Annex!!! Why do the people in these offices need a beautiful new TV on their wall? Why? Why? Why? I don’t even care if they are connected–who needs a TV in their office? Everyone knows somebody who works in an office somewhere. Next time you see them ask them what kind of TV they have in their office. Surely they will look at you like you have three heads, but apparently the powers-that-be in this disgusting administration have the balls to say “F the people of Bridgeport. WE want what WE want and WE know WE can’t be stopped.” So remember that, taxpayers, remember the next time you pay your mortgage and realize part of that monthly payment goes directly from YOUR pocket to THEIRS!!! Maybe it’s only a few bucks from each individual taxpayer, but if I came up to you on the street and asked for just a few bucks because I wanted to buy a nice new TV, would you give it to me? No? Even if I’m connected?
Mr. Kohut. If you have a mortgage the bank pays your taxes and that is non negotiable. I’d say 85% of people have mortgages.
Pork City is correct. New flat screens, new office furniture and state-of-the-art everything for offices in the Annex. The average taxpayer does not realize what is happening. Even if you read the budget, you cannot find the pork because it is so well hidden. Trust me, besides the “redecorating” line items, there are new political positions and political salary increases hidden all over the budget. Bob Curwen has been B&A chairman for many years. Shame on him for not recognizing and questioning this wasteful and deceitful budget.
Hey Sherwood:
Where is the accountability when you eliminate three positions in the Comptrollers Office? No Internal Auditing and three fewer watchdogs. Makes it easier to hide the corruption.
By the way, where in the budget is the line for the cable bill? Must be pretty big with all those flat screens.
Fardy and I (and other BOB volunteers) have focused on the City Council powers regarding city finances. Power is one thing but stewardship responsibility is entirely something else. A trustee or steward has an elevated responsibility to the beneficiary, in this case the public. This sense becomes corrupted when members of that body work for the City, have relatives who are compensated through City payroll or programs, or who happen to enjoy a meal now and then or a stipend that can be used without public oversight.
Council members know they have the vote to approve or disapprove the general budget once a year, but only a handful of them have a sense the reports they get, the reports they never get and the extra information they ask Sherwood to provide at budget time, still provide them with less than a full picture of City fiscal activity.
So last year when they passed the 2012 budget with over 60 “ghost positions” and equivalent “ghost line items” they are now realizing as they question the 2013 positions, they have funded up to $10 Million of spending by the Finch administration they cannot account for in the monthly reports. And because they never held a full meeting with an outside consultant to review the CAFR, the Management Letter and City responses, only now are they realizing it has answers to questions they ask at budget time, year after year, but they don’t know how to find the answers. And because the monthly reports are not timely (last Friday was the fourth Friday of April and the March report was due but at least this year they have come monthly), they also do not include two helpful bits of regular information: a small chart showing employee status in each department, where they could see the “ghost positions” extending month after month; and an actual expense number from the previous year to indicate variance information. They can ask for this, or anything else that would please them, but they do not. Therefore the “secret money machine” persists.
And the City Attorney office oversees the FOI process, so even when you FOI it does not mean info is forthcoming in a reasonable period.
And Budget and Appropriations has announced no plans to change any part of their process, info flow, or monthly oversight because of the thrall and control by the Finch administration. It all gets down to the vote this year. However it comes down, they are operating with a broken process they seem loath to reform. Most of the public is shut out by their rules. Tax increases, more difficult economic times coming at State and Federal levels, more self-reliance demanded, public sector total compensation outsized relative to services performed and to private sector will all feature in pushback potential at coming elections. Look at their own Legislative Department report in the 2013 budget offering: $398,000 can be reduced by one vacant position, empty for over seven years at $50,000 with benefits currently; unspent stipend allowance averaging better than $60,000 annually for many years that could reduce the overall amount to $120,000 in terms of sharing the suffering and limiting redeployment to unseen expenses by the administration; and at least $90,000 of Other Expenses that show no legislative use of consequence for multiple years. Total $200,000 savings from a $398,000 budget. The funds that are unspent for the budgeted items do not end up as surplus in the City fund balance as Tom Sherwood tells the Council. They are spent elsewhere. The 12th-month report would provide a hint of where and that is why it is not provided to the public. The Council may be asking a few more intelligent questions than in previous years, and a few are trying to do so, but it is like putting up a local T Ball team against the Yankees. Overmatched and unaware, because they are in the game. This is a lousy spectator sport, especially if they keep raising the cost of the spectacle. Time will tell.
Well said harley, and thank you JML for spelling out exactly what these b*st*rds are doing with the numbers, and shame on the puppets who sit on the city council (not all, but most of them).
Nine years ago the City Council created an Ordinance that directed the “internal auditor” to perform an annual audit of City activity in the purchasing department and perform an audit every three years. Surprise, it did not get done because originally the City system, Advantage had limitations. By then there was no internal auditor but there was a new MUNIS computer but purchasing had lost half or more of its staff.
The Ordinance is still on the books. It makes sense. It calls for a record of the items purchased by City departments in 2011 excluding things like salary, benefits, etc. I am not sure the Council remembers the ordinance or has asked for such a report. But there are variances between what is being reported in 2013 as Actual 2011 expenses and purchasing records. Some of that may be because of differences between Grants budgets, Capital budgets, and general funds, but not all of it. Some of this is also an indication of why the whole City should be hearing annual comments from the external auditor and Mayor Finch’s responses. It may also indicate an overdue reason to call for an outside fiscal review of City finances and governance procedures may be in order. As part of the 2013 budget process it seems that there is a wholesale fiscal department management change being presented to the Council. If this was necessary, why hasn’t it been showcased by Mayor P.T. (Partial Truth) Finch as part of management initiatives? What efficiency is going to cost us more and give us less information? The fact Finch has not used public relations to feature the changes causes me disquiet, and the Council is just learning some of the facts last night, as some of the various fiscal budgets were reviewed and reorganization of departmental personnel including vacant positions was discussed.
Capital budget presentation, review and vote tonight. Anybody know what amount is being floated at this time? And does anybody remember how the City Council acts out City Charter Chapter 9, Section 6(c) “The city council shall solicit suggestions, comments and recommendations from city officials and the members of the public regarding the proposed capital budget and shall conduct at least one public hearing” Have any of you been solicited lately? Have you seen a copy of the Capital Budget posted on the City website? What do you think of this? Time will tell.
*** You can’t get enough voters to the polls for local elections, imagine getting any type of taxpayer cooperation on a tax strike! *** ZOMBIELAND ***