Bay Village Financial Audit

The subject of finances has returned.  It was discussed on another site in September and commented on recently here.  I will review for those that missed the discussions.

Pages 78 and 79 of the city's most recent financial report show material weaknesses*/noncompliance.  It was obvious that some had not read the report, just chose to defend it and questioned the meaning of such findings. The feeling was it could mean that a CPA or a bank teller made mistakes.  The mistakes then compounded by the fact that no one caught them.

The truth is in the report which clearly states this was intentional: "Client Response: It is my understanding per the former Director of Finance that the transfers were discussed and approved within the budgeting process in Finance Committee but however was not included in an appropriation ordinance for council approval."

As a red flag,  the findings in this report caused the state to go back and audit the previous year.

Some even commented -  so what this is common.  It may be common if they were mistakes, but this was done with knowledge of action. Some experts would argue this is systemic. It raises questions regarding intention and ethics.  The questions it raised for me were - why wasn't it presented to council as is required? On what authority was the decision made to bypass council? What were the concerns in getting an authorization from council?  What were the ramifications if council had not approved these illegal moves? Has it caused other problems?

*A significant deficiency in internal controls that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected.  When one or more internal controls, put in place to prevent significant financial statement irregularities, is considered to be ineffective.

http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/Reports/2013/City_of_Bay_Village_12-Cuyahoga.pdf

"Bay Village Mayor Slanders Image Builders"

This came in as a comment but it deserves to stand alone also:

http://mcenteemedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/bay-village-mayor-slanders-image.html?showComment=1383178970357#c8343165959490671800

Charter Review - Question 3

Question 3.)  What is routine in the Mayor’s absence?

A Charter Review Committee member suggested the clause that states the 'President of Council shall become the acting Mayor in the absence of the Mayor' be changed to the Law Director since that has become the routine.

I am unsure what is meant by ‘routine’.  It is not routine in our surrounding communities. Avon, Avon Lake, Westlake, Rocky River, North Olmsted and Fairview Park all designate President of Council as the first order of succession. Since the President of Council in Bay “can elect not to serve as Mayor during a temporary absence, the Mayor shall designate a director.” Is the President of Council electing to not serve and the Law Director serving?  Maybe this is what ‘the routine’ refers to. The statement is unexplained in the notes. And yet, I can't find out who is serving unless I call to ask because...

In the end, it remains to “give the Mayor discretion to appoint a line of succession in the event of absence. . ” Further discussion was centered on the possibility of having that information posted and available to the public. It was determined that the Mayor’s Assistant would direct any inquiries from the public to the Acting Mayor, in the event of the Mayor’s absence. Based on this statement, it does not sound to me like it will be posted.  We have to ask. I have to ask, why?

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/100149/minutes_3-19-12.pdf

Facebook

Don't forget the Facebook page, bvbehindthescenes https://www.facebook.com/groups/538603919551392/

Charter Review - Question 2

Question 2.) Is it self-serving? Is it to limit the participation and challenge of Mayoral candidates? Was this an appropriate time to introduce the idea given the chronic discussion and outsourcing or downsizing due to budget cuts? Is it groundwork for the direction the Mayor wants to go in?

3-19-12 Charter Review meeting opens the door to forms of government. A City Charter allows flexibility to choose novel types of government structures. Mayor Sutherland notes that there are City Managers in and around the state. My research shows there are 4 City Managers in Cuyahoga County out of 57 cities. None from our neighboring west shore communities. The Mayor and Mr. Cruse who both know City Mangers state that they will invite them to come in and speak to the commission.

This administration has steadfastly stated its positive results and accomplishments under the current Mayor and Council form of government. Yet the feedback in the room seems interested, positive regarding this idea.

4-2-12 meeting, the Mayor gives a Power Point presentation defining a City Manager form of government. Including:

“City Managers are compensated on a contractual basis. The average length of stay is five years. It is very competitive and the urban/suburban compensation ranges from $120,000 to $180,000 annually, plus benefits. In some of the very rural communities it is more likely that it will be in the $75,000 to $100,000 range"

In the end, the current form of government was not changed. For now. I have more questions.

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/100149/minutes_4-2-12.pdf

The Mayor and the First Amendment Lawsuit

Many residents of Bay Village may not know that the second highest court in the country (the U.S. Court of Appeals, which sits under the Supreme Court) held that Mayor Sutherland may well have violated the First Amendment in suspending a fire fighter who publicly criticized her in a council meeting.  Here are two online summaries of the case -- summary 1 and summary 2 -- and the actual opinion is posted in its entirety here. 

In this case, decided in 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals held unanimously that the fire fighter’s claim against Mayor Sutherland deserved to go to trial.  Specifically, the firefighter made a strong legal case that his fundamental right to free speech was violated when she suspended him after he raised criticisms about whether the public’s safety was being adequately protected by the City after the tragic drowning of a young boy off the Bay Village coast.  After the Court of Appeals sent the case back for a full trial on this First Amendment violation in 2011, Mayor Sutherland settled the case.  (It isn’t clear how much Sutherland paid to settle, nor whether the money came from tax coffers…..  This isn’t to suggest this litigation was supported by residents’ dollars – the information just isn’t available to illuminate these questions).

Our nation’s Bill of Rights makes it clear that government officials cannot penalize employees who, in their capacity as citizens, raise questions or voice criticisms against the government.  If this kind of retaliation were allowed, then those who work for the government as civil servants would be turning over their right to speak freely as citizens; exactly the kind of tyranny that our founding fathers and revolutionary heroes worked so hard to fight against.   What is even worse, if mayors and other government officials can threaten employees with the loss of their jobs every time they raise questions about their leadership in their capacity as citizens, then government officials could bully employees into silence and control the information that reaches the public.

I suspect that few Mayors in the country have this kind of negative line on their political resumes – a unanimous opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals holding they may have violated the U.S. Constitution in their treatment of City employees.  At the very least, Bay Village residents should know about this important First Amendment case in deciding how to cast their votes next week. 

Charter Review - Question 1

In 2012 the Charter of Bay Village was reviewed for updates, amendments, revisions. The commission appointed by the Mayor, reviews the entire Charter and is assigned specific sections for revision and new sections for inclusion. The Mayor states because of the changing environment in the city, “it is important for the city to have the flexibility to set up the administration as it sees fit.” The Mayor stated that this particular Charter Review Commission has the opportunity to transform the charter into a great, flexible document. The model charter provided by the Mayor contains that ability for flexibility.

Question 1.) Wouldn’t the concept of flexibility go against the point of having an established legal document such as our City Charter? We need to keep up with change and movement but isn’t Charter Review the time and place to update and set new norms in motion? Why the need for such flexibility? The flexibility reference comes up many times in these meetings. Keep in mind this statement – “for the city to have the flexibility to set up the administration as it sees fit.” I believe this comment lays the groundwork for Question 2.

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/media/100149/minutes_3-9-12.pdf