City financial watchdog John Marshall Lee shares the latest letter he sent to all 20 members of the City Council, questioning the information extended to city taxpayers by the city’s legislative body as it prepares to conduct a public hearing and then vote on an update of its stipend payments. From Lee:
City Council: “Stipend” change? $180,000 from taxpayers? Have your say!!!
Monday evening, June 4, 2012, the Ordinance Committee of the City Council will hold a hearing at 6:00 PM prior to the City Council regular meeting scheduled for that evening. The issue of revising the current Ordinance language was raised recently. The current Ordinance reads:
2.06.040 Reimbursement of council member’s expenses.
Each council member may receive annually reimbursement for expenses incurred in the discharge of duties as a council member subject to budget appropriation. The budget committee shall appropriate an equal stipend amount for each city council member. Said reimbursement is to be paid as follows: the appropriate financial authority shall set up an expense account for each council member. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the annually budgeted amount shall be paid commencing December 1, 1999, and quarterly thereafter; if the recipient has submitted a certified state of statement of the expenses incurred together with supporting documentation or other reasonable and satisfactory evidence of said expenses to the finance department. If the certified statement of expenses submitted is less than the amount received for that quarter, the next quarterly payment shall be reduced by the amount of expenses not certified. Amounts from each council member’s equalized annual budget allocation may be advanced as reasonable and appropriate. There shall be no carry over of unexpended certified expenses at the end of the term. Said expenses will be reimbursed to each council member by the city treasurer no later than thirty (30) days after the submission of said statement. (Ord. dated 11/1/99: Ord. dated 7/2/97 (part): Ord. dated 10/4/93: prior code § 2-30)
On May 22, 2012 five members of the Ordinance Committee met including Co-Chairs Paoletto and Blunt, Bonney, Curwen and Martinez as well as Council members Brannelly and Olson. A proposed resolution, #22-11, to review procedures for Council Members’ Expense Reimbursement (Stipends) was considered. The minutes do not provide a copy of the new resolution language as an Exhibit. The minutes indicate …
“City Attorney Anastasi updated that there was one change to the resolution. He referred to the existing ordinance and the copy where the changes were stricken and the additions were denoted in a lighter color. He explained the changes that were added as they were outlined in the document. He commented that there would be an annual submittal of records for all expenses. He noted the wording change from “quarterly” to “annually.”
** COUNCIL MEMBER CURWEN MOVED TO APPROVE
** COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY **
*Consent calendar
In this matter of revising how $180,000 of taxpayer money is provided to individual City Council members, this is the extent of information provided to the taxpayer. Not exactly ‘full disclosure,’ is it? As a matter of public record, the opportunity for each Council person to use $9,000 to meet necessary expenses in the discharge of duties is the largest “taxpayer provided legislative support” in any town or City in CT. It has never been entirely used by every Council member according to “actual expenses” reported in annual budgets. In most recent years at least one third of this appropriation has been unspent for line item, 2095TPS LEGISLATIVE PERSONAL SERVICE. But taxpayers do not see who spends these funds or on what. Nor do we see where the $60,000 excess does get spent because Council persons have failed to demand the June monthly fiscal report. The funds unspent on “stipends” get swept into the City General Fund, and no one is the wiser. We continue to call that “slush” and a failure on the part of all City elected officials to live the “Charter language.” In the case of the Council, they are failing to monitor the “budget and appropriations” upon which they vote annually.
A taxpayer may reasonably ask all Council persons at this moment of change for the legislative intent for adjusting the current Ordinance? Not only is there no replacement Ordinance in the Committee minutes, but there is no sign of discussion or of reasons for changing the current language. And a “hearing” rarely offers print matter for the edification of whatever public is in attendance. Nor do the Ordinance Committee members usually enter into informative dialogue with public speakers on the subject matter.
B.O.B.’s early acquaintance with the “stipend” process is through the CT Post who occasionally might look at City records and report on the amounts of stipends, covering what expenses and who used the funds. Stipends were reimbursements though it seems as if some funds have been advanced in recent years. But there is no public report made. And a cloud of secrecy shrouds the whole process from public view. Why?
Since the Ordinance is being reviewed, Budget Oversight Bridgeport – 2012 respectfully suggests that Open, Accountable and Transparent language and process might be included in this Ordinance. Filing for reimbursement, of either taxable or non-taxable type expenses, should precede any funds provided by the City, thus eliminating any problems about returning money to the City, confusion about taxability, or concerns about future stipend payments. If an annual rather than a quarterly reimbursement process is preferred by Council persons that will make things easier for the City Finance Department but probably cause cash flow issues for Council persons. Hopefully new guidelines would indicate full reporting to the voters of the City as to what is learned by Council members when they incur thousands of dollars of travel, hotel, local transportation, meals away from home and registration expenses attending conferences. These meetings either provide real City benefit or they do not. Under current circumstances the public has no way to determine. Times are tough. The Council needs to share the burden of proving value to all City expenditures.
So far the Ordinance revision process seems to be secret rather than OPEN, out of public sight rather than TRANSPARENT, and avoiding rather than providing ACCOUNTABILITY. What will you decide to do on Monday evening? Pull it from the Consent Calendar? Discuss your reasoning in public in a real debate? Commit to a public process that does not require Freedom of Information language? Remember B.O.B. is not asking you to cut this allocation at this moment. We are asking that you be businesslike and responsible. Time will tell.
*** Revising new ordinance language still leads to the same old stipend madness and abuse of council member record keeping, no? *** New words for an old tune! ***
If we can’t trust the smaller decisions it is impossible to trust the bigger ones. Bridgeport’s tax rate is approaching 42 mils; so every decision is important. I just checked the city website. The text of the resolution still isn’t there, yet the hearing is Monday night. Bad form all around.
Is this $9000 per Councilperson considered taxable income?
For too long these expense payments have been treated as a kind of publicly funded slush fund, which City Council members were free to used as they pleased. That needs to change.
There are several changes to the expense allowance system that the Council should adopt. First, public funds should only be used for public business. Second, to the extent equipment (laptops etc.) or services (internet, cell phones, printing etc.) should only be used for official purposes. Third, those types of equipment and services should be purchased, and owned, by the City and provided to the Council members. Fourth, payment for out-of-state travel and conference expenses should not be permitted. Instead, a single line item for Council travel and conferences should be established and, in order to reduce the number of members attending such conferences, should be budgeted at a level substantially below current levels. Fifth, the amount available for expense payments should be reduced. Sixth and finally, quarterly public reporting of expense payments, by member, should be required.
Phil,
Thanks for your input on Ordinance language. My general point is we are getting the most self-serving and secretive behavior because of what I will call “City Council Culture” (CCC). I believe they have lost their way and forgotten their Mission, if that was ever shared with them as they went through their run for office.
I will spend some time on that subject soon in another essay, but I introduce City Council Culture here to stimulate some comment from OIB readers to suggest what they think the “general objectives of a City Council person” might be. What should such a Mission Statement (that they might read before every meeting on behalf of the public) look like?
Plainly they have lost their way this year. They eliminated a real position necessary to their tasks (with a real City employee, Tom White) and a ghost position, but kept over $80,000 of phantom expense in their budget they fail to use annually so it becomes “Sherwood Forest slush.” Council voices urging reduction in expenses were smothered by the majority, including folks who are employed by the City, who have no truly independent voice, but who refuse to recuse themselves on City budget votes.
The review of the stipend Ordinance, such as recorded in the Minutes above without one Council person commenting on problems or intent is an example of Council cowardice. For them to place the matter prospectively on the Consent Calendar for Monday evening without providing a revised Ordinance for public view shows how arrogant CC culture has become.
Let me spell it out further for you. During the Budget & Appropriations hearings, usually a public stenographer was present to maintain a public record (minutes filed with the City Clerk office) to accompany Exhibits identified and entered into the record, as well as to record votes. Are you aware there were at least three meetings in the 10 days before the May 7 budget vote where there was no stenographer? Those meetings included concluding fiscal discussions of both the HUD-CDBG and General budgets as well as review of department budgets including their own Legislative budget. Look up Bob Curwen’s interpretation of comments and recording of votes as he attempted to be “secretary.” Very interesting!!! No steno to save taxpayer money as an explanation? Or to save embarrassment and publicity?
At two of the meetings held on Saturdays a hot breakfast was available at 10:00 AM and a substantial lunch at 12:30 PM. According to budget documents these were additional expenses added to the Legislative budget this year because Councilpersons do not choose to use their “stipends” for mealtimes. (As an active volunteer for a Bridgeport food pantry I observed with dismay significant leftover food the taxpayer is funding.) Why???
I WOULD PREFER THE COUNCIL HAVE MINUTES PREPARED FOR ALL MEETINGS INSTEAD OF MEALS PREPARED if you are using my tax money!!! It serves a broader public. If taxpayer funds are to be used for CC meals, $9,000 per CC is plenty to apply and report back to the taxpayer.
When the IRS position on ‘reimbursement payments’ was investigated about 10 years ago, the “expense must be an ORDINARY and NECESSARY expense” and “be neither lavish nor extravagant.” So far, so good. For reimbursement the expense might be “accountable” and “non-taxable” like attendance at a seminar or conference (along with travel and hotel), newspaper subscriptions, bulk postage and printing. For reimbursement of ‘non-accountable’ and TAXABLE expenses, receipts and certification form were to be sent to Finance Department for: Car Rental, cell phones, computers, constituent, local and conference meals, donations, local mileage, office supplies, regular postage, printers, scholarships, cab team sponsorships, telephone, testimonials, and local travel. There seems to be a pattern of moving TAXABLE expense items otherwise reimbursable to Legislative Committee expenses. The pattern may be: enjoy the item, but duck the tax (on meals, for example) by failing to reduce the $9,000 stipend allowance. How does that help the taxpayer???
Come out to the Ordinance Meeting on Monday evening. Raise your voice on this issue. Enough taxpayers need to be present to get the CC culture to change. No pushback from the public, they figure we don’t know and don’t care. Let them eat OATs (Open, Accountable and Transparent process)!!! Time will tell.