On March 3, 2009 I was a Speaker from the Floor at the City Council meeting and read the following statement:
Honorable Mayor Yvonne Johnson
and members of City Council
I call on our city government to take a giant step forward toward healing the rift that has existed for almost 4 years related to the administration of former Police Chief David Wray and many of the subordinates who served under him.
We have listened to members of this and former City Councils say the public’s opinion would be different if only we – the public – knew what the Council and city manager knew. Members of City Council and the manager stated on numerous occasions that investigations of the Wray administration would show that the removal of David Wray and his experienced staff were called for.
Formal investigations and a recent court trial have failed to show one shred of evidence that David Wray, or anyone who served under him, did anything whatsoever in violation of law, city ordinance, police ethical standards, or any other standard of performance. If there is something we should know, now is the time to step forward and tell us the facts.
It appears the charges and allegations that have been harmful to Wray and his fellow officers – professionally, financially, and personally – lack any element of truth.
For this reason I call on the City Council, at its next meeting, to issue a proclamation offering an apology to David Wray and his subordinate officers for the wrong abetted against them by the city’s inaction and failure to stand behind them; and to undertake prompt reimbursement for legal expenses incurred as a consequence of such failures by the city government to stand by its long-serving loyal employees when it was called for.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Dave Williams
My best friend, Dave Williams, former deputy chief of police for the Greensboro Police Department, died tonight. His loss to the City of Greensboro has been felt for over ten years. We should all grieve with his passing. He was a good man.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Funding the Greensboro budget
I attended the public hearing on financing for the High Point Road property purchases earlier in January. I suggested more cash could be drawn from the Coliseum fund to finance these property purchases. Two separate facts make me believe additional cash for the city's general fund can be found at the Coliseum.
First, the Coliseum receives annual transfer from the general fund ranging from roughly $ 1.5 million to $ 2.0 million dollars to offset losses. Seemingly, in years when it operated in the black (2005) it would not need a cash infusion from the general fund, but it received and retained $ 1.6 million for that year. One year earlier, 2004, was a loss year and the general fund transfer occurred. Again in 2006 a loss was sustained and a general fund transfer occurred. The question is why was the Coliseum permitted to keep $ 1.6 million in 2005 when it was not needed to offset a loss?
Second, over the past eight years the Coliseum has earned $ 1.3 million dollars on invested cash. Why should this cash be kept by the Coliseum?
The Finance Department staff maintains very detailed and accurate records for the Coliseum, and correctly points out that the Coliseum is required by statute to retain a cash balance that is calculated each year. The information I reviewed showed that the Coliseum had exceeded its statutory requirement by $ 441,000 in 2008. Staff says the Coliseum must retain sufficient cash to meet day-to-day obligations, and I agree with this point. The statutory calculation, however, fails to add accounts receivable as a cash source into the calculation even though a deduction for accounts payable is included.
City Council is faced with difficult choices as it begins work on the 2009-10 budget. I challenge the Council to take a hard look at the Coliseum cash position as a potential source of sorely needed cash in the general fund. City Council should require the Coliseum to refund interest earned on idle deposits and also consider its policy on subsidies in years when operations are in the black.
In 2001 the Coliseum received $12.2 million dollars from its customers for events and parking, and that year had a year end cash balance of $ 1.4 million dollars. In 2008, customer receipts had fallen to $ 10.8 million dollars and the year end cash balance (after removing $ 2.9 million dollars held for capital expenditure purposes) was $ 2.9 million dollars. If the Coliseum made it through a number of years on a smaller cash balance when revenue was greater, it should have more than enough cash now.
Council needs to decide if the Coliseum cash should remain intact, or if a more prudent course would be to require the return of some cash. This will not solve the overall city budget riddle, but a few hundred thousand dollars could certainly fill some gaps in expenditures.
First, the Coliseum receives annual transfer from the general fund ranging from roughly $ 1.5 million to $ 2.0 million dollars to offset losses. Seemingly, in years when it operated in the black (2005) it would not need a cash infusion from the general fund, but it received and retained $ 1.6 million for that year. One year earlier, 2004, was a loss year and the general fund transfer occurred. Again in 2006 a loss was sustained and a general fund transfer occurred. The question is why was the Coliseum permitted to keep $ 1.6 million in 2005 when it was not needed to offset a loss?
Second, over the past eight years the Coliseum has earned $ 1.3 million dollars on invested cash. Why should this cash be kept by the Coliseum?
The Finance Department staff maintains very detailed and accurate records for the Coliseum, and correctly points out that the Coliseum is required by statute to retain a cash balance that is calculated each year. The information I reviewed showed that the Coliseum had exceeded its statutory requirement by $ 441,000 in 2008. Staff says the Coliseum must retain sufficient cash to meet day-to-day obligations, and I agree with this point. The statutory calculation, however, fails to add accounts receivable as a cash source into the calculation even though a deduction for accounts payable is included.
City Council is faced with difficult choices as it begins work on the 2009-10 budget. I challenge the Council to take a hard look at the Coliseum cash position as a potential source of sorely needed cash in the general fund. City Council should require the Coliseum to refund interest earned on idle deposits and also consider its policy on subsidies in years when operations are in the black.
In 2001 the Coliseum received $12.2 million dollars from its customers for events and parking, and that year had a year end cash balance of $ 1.4 million dollars. In 2008, customer receipts had fallen to $ 10.8 million dollars and the year end cash balance (after removing $ 2.9 million dollars held for capital expenditure purposes) was $ 2.9 million dollars. If the Coliseum made it through a number of years on a smaller cash balance when revenue was greater, it should have more than enough cash now.
Council needs to decide if the Coliseum cash should remain intact, or if a more prudent course would be to require the return of some cash. This will not solve the overall city budget riddle, but a few hundred thousand dollars could certainly fill some gaps in expenditures.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Greensboro City Attorney
The city's present staff attorney, Terry Wood, is an expert in municipal legal matters, experienced, and well spoken. Mr. Wood has been able to restore confidence and trust in the legal department, following years of behind the doors wheeling and dealing and treacherous tactics.
Terry Wood returned out of retirement to assume the City Attorney position, and for that we owe him a great debt of gratitude. However, Mr. Wood will need to or want to retire fully at some point in the forseeable future; he is doing a first rate job, but his heart could be elsewhere. It is time for the city to begin planning for a competent replacement who can handle the legal affairs of a complex, middle sized metropolitan city.
The City Manager should determine if Mr. Wood has a timetable in mind for his current turn as city attorney. Due to the length of time he has already served, and his otherwise retired status, it is prudent for the city to begin planning for an eventual successor, with some certain date in mind. Mr. Wood can serve a valuable role as adviser to this process when a job description is created, as well as establishing a planning process that will culminate when his replacement is found.
Mr. Wood could agree to serve as an outside consultant to the city legal department after a replacement begins, until the new individual is firmly planted in the new position. Deliberate planning now might avoid crisis planning at some date in the future.
Terry Wood returned out of retirement to assume the City Attorney position, and for that we owe him a great debt of gratitude. However, Mr. Wood will need to or want to retire fully at some point in the forseeable future; he is doing a first rate job, but his heart could be elsewhere. It is time for the city to begin planning for a competent replacement who can handle the legal affairs of a complex, middle sized metropolitan city.
The City Manager should determine if Mr. Wood has a timetable in mind for his current turn as city attorney. Due to the length of time he has already served, and his otherwise retired status, it is prudent for the city to begin planning for an eventual successor, with some certain date in mind. Mr. Wood can serve a valuable role as adviser to this process when a job description is created, as well as establishing a planning process that will culminate when his replacement is found.
Mr. Wood could agree to serve as an outside consultant to the city legal department after a replacement begins, until the new individual is firmly planted in the new position. Deliberate planning now might avoid crisis planning at some date in the future.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Bad Timing for a Greensboro Bond Issue
The upcoming $206 million bond vote comes at a time when various governmental units are delaying or withdrawing new bond referendums due to the faltering economy and unstable condition of our financial markets. Consider the following:
Under a banner heading, Crisis on Wall Street, The Wall Street Journal has reported in an article, “municipal money market yields are soaring as investors flee tax-exempt debt in a rush to safety across the credit markets.“ The article went on to state, “debt investors are nervous lately. Borrowing is expensive and hard for cities, states, hospitals and turnpikes nationwide. Such extra costs will likely be met by raising taxes in coming months.” The article goes on to mention difficulties associated with money market funds that historically have been big buyers of obligations in the municipal-bond market, but now find themselves frozen out. More than just the news article, there have been numerous warning signals that we may be headed for deeper economic times.
I suggest therefore that, given the unsteadiness of our national economic picture, it would be prudent for the city to defer the bond referendum until market conditions are stabilized. If voters approve the bonds and they are sold at auction Greensboro potentially could pay sharply higher interest costs. Unless the City Manager and Financial Services Director can offer assurances to the contrary that we have nothing to worry about, the bond package should not be placed to a vote in November. If there is no plan to use the bond proceeds for the foreseeable future, then perhaps the matter should not be on the ballot in the first place. Furthermore, a postponement would allow time for questions and concerns about the bond package to be addressed.
Fiscal accountability dictates that this matter be placed on top of the next City Council update session. The City Manager or Financial Services Director should speak on this matter at an open meeting of City Council and ask for reconsideration of the earlier Council vote that authorized the bond referendum.
Under a banner heading, Crisis on Wall Street, The Wall Street Journal has reported in an article, “municipal money market yields are soaring as investors flee tax-exempt debt in a rush to safety across the credit markets.“ The article went on to state, “debt investors are nervous lately. Borrowing is expensive and hard for cities, states, hospitals and turnpikes nationwide. Such extra costs will likely be met by raising taxes in coming months.” The article goes on to mention difficulties associated with money market funds that historically have been big buyers of obligations in the municipal-bond market, but now find themselves frozen out. More than just the news article, there have been numerous warning signals that we may be headed for deeper economic times.
I suggest therefore that, given the unsteadiness of our national economic picture, it would be prudent for the city to defer the bond referendum until market conditions are stabilized. If voters approve the bonds and they are sold at auction Greensboro potentially could pay sharply higher interest costs. Unless the City Manager and Financial Services Director can offer assurances to the contrary that we have nothing to worry about, the bond package should not be placed to a vote in November. If there is no plan to use the bond proceeds for the foreseeable future, then perhaps the matter should not be on the ballot in the first place. Furthermore, a postponement would allow time for questions and concerns about the bond package to be addressed.
Fiscal accountability dictates that this matter be placed on top of the next City Council update session. The City Manager or Financial Services Director should speak on this matter at an open meeting of City Council and ask for reconsideration of the earlier Council vote that authorized the bond referendum.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
David Wray Legal Defense Fund
A legal defense fund for David Wray - without his foreknowledge - has been established for contributions being held by a local law firm. All donations to the fund (non-tax deductible) will be considered gifts to David Wray, and will be held in trust by the law firm for him, to be disposed of at his direction.
This is a fitting way to honor former police chief David Wray with a tangible expression of support for his many years of dedicated service to the people of Greensboro, particularly at a time when the disingenious cases and stories written and directed against him have fallen apart.
Donations to former chief David Wray's trust account can be mailed in confidence to the law offices of:
Clifford, Clendenin & O'Hale, LLP
Attorneys at Law
415 W. Friendly Avenue
Greensboro, NC 27401
made payable to the David Wray Trust Account
This is a fitting way to honor former police chief David Wray with a tangible expression of support for his many years of dedicated service to the people of Greensboro, particularly at a time when the disingenious cases and stories written and directed against him have fallen apart.
Donations to former chief David Wray's trust account can be mailed in confidence to the law offices of:
Clifford, Clendenin & O'Hale, LLP
Attorneys at Law
415 W. Friendly Avenue
Greensboro, NC 27401
made payable to the David Wray Trust Account
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Police Consultant Study
I attended the special City Council meeting this week to hear the Executive Summary presentation by Carroll Buracker & Associates of the consultant review of the police department. I have been able to read Chapter 1 of the detailed report, and will read the remaining chapters 2-9 as time allows.
Chapter 1 (p.25) discussed a city internal audit department review of Federal Asset Forfeiture Funds from 2003 through May, 2007. Apparently a substantial amount of forfeiture funds was sent to the U. S. Department of Justice, to the dismay of the police chief. One of the City Council members has questioned the forfeiture fund in recent months and whether it could be put to use in the police department. Observation: the City Council was asked by me to to have all city internal audit reports posted to the city website. I suspect enough citizens visit the website on a regular basis for someone to call attention to reports of this nature if they are posted.
The consultant report (p.23) discussed overttime pay policies within the police department and found several lower ranking officers being compensated more than higher level positions, taking into account overtime and off duty pay. The consultant apparently saw a problem with the total number of hours worked and paid in some positions.
In 2003, the city (police department) was sued by a large number of current and retired police officers for alleged unpaid overtime during the years 2000-2003, the White/Kitchen era. Corrective steps to improve overtime management were undertaken during the Wray era, and by now overtime pay management should be a thing of the past. Apparently this is not the case.
The consultant report includes considerable statistical data in tabular and narrative form, much of which seems unnecessary. The Greensboro Police Department website includes a statistical section that reports the same kinds of data found in the Buracker report, as far back as 1980. In addition, the city website has an excellent 5 year Major Budgetary and Economic Trend Report that includes the same demographic and background data as the Buracker report. To give further credit to the city website, it contains a Management Study on patrol staffing, done in late 2003 and early 2004 by the David Wray administration. I will attempt to attach the report to this blog, but failing that it can be found on the City of Greensboro official website and is worth reading (City of Greensboro/Departments/Budget and Evaluation/Management Studies). The report was in direct response to part of the charge given Wray when he became chief by then city manager Kitchen and assistant manager Johnson regarding issues they felt needed prompt attention by the new chief.
The management study was conducted by the police department in collaboration with the Budget and Evaluation Department. It totals 28 pages, and concludes, in part, that "perceived deficiencies within the patrol function are based mostly on the expectations Greensboro Police Department has set for its officers in terms of patrol and proactive activity. " The study goes on to note that GPD officers answer approximately the same number of Calls for Service per employee as those in similar jurisdictions (NC), and spend approximately the same amount of time answering these calls as similar jurisdictions. The study noted that GPD had lower staffing levels than the average in similar jurisdictions, and slower than average response times. It concluded that additional officers were required to increase the amount of time spent on proactive functions and patrolling.
David Wray was attempting to justify the need for additional officers in order for the city manager to carry the request to City Council. The Council eventually responded with a limited number of new positions, but less than the number requested.
I bring this 2004 report up because it addressed head on many of the issues contained in the current outside study. It calls into question the attentiveness of the manager's office and City Council to important matters called into attention by the police chief.
I hope you will take time to read it because it is every bit as professional in quality of content and presentation as the new study, and was done without additional expenditure of city funds. It makes me wonder about the necessity of the Buracker study.
Chapter 1 (p.25) discussed a city internal audit department review of Federal Asset Forfeiture Funds from 2003 through May, 2007. Apparently a substantial amount of forfeiture funds was sent to the U. S. Department of Justice, to the dismay of the police chief. One of the City Council members has questioned the forfeiture fund in recent months and whether it could be put to use in the police department. Observation: the City Council was asked by me to to have all city internal audit reports posted to the city website. I suspect enough citizens visit the website on a regular basis for someone to call attention to reports of this nature if they are posted.
The consultant report (p.23) discussed overttime pay policies within the police department and found several lower ranking officers being compensated more than higher level positions, taking into account overtime and off duty pay. The consultant apparently saw a problem with the total number of hours worked and paid in some positions.
In 2003, the city (police department) was sued by a large number of current and retired police officers for alleged unpaid overtime during the years 2000-2003, the White/Kitchen era. Corrective steps to improve overtime management were undertaken during the Wray era, and by now overtime pay management should be a thing of the past. Apparently this is not the case.
The consultant report includes considerable statistical data in tabular and narrative form, much of which seems unnecessary. The Greensboro Police Department website includes a statistical section that reports the same kinds of data found in the Buracker report, as far back as 1980. In addition, the city website has an excellent 5 year Major Budgetary and Economic Trend Report that includes the same demographic and background data as the Buracker report. To give further credit to the city website, it contains a Management Study on patrol staffing, done in late 2003 and early 2004 by the David Wray administration. I will attempt to attach the report to this blog, but failing that it can be found on the City of Greensboro official website and is worth reading (City of Greensboro/Departments/Budget and Evaluation/Management Studies). The report was in direct response to part of the charge given Wray when he became chief by then city manager Kitchen and assistant manager Johnson regarding issues they felt needed prompt attention by the new chief.
The management study was conducted by the police department in collaboration with the Budget and Evaluation Department. It totals 28 pages, and concludes, in part, that "perceived deficiencies within the patrol function are based mostly on the expectations Greensboro Police Department has set for its officers in terms of patrol and proactive activity. " The study goes on to note that GPD officers answer approximately the same number of Calls for Service per employee as those in similar jurisdictions (NC), and spend approximately the same amount of time answering these calls as similar jurisdictions. The study noted that GPD had lower staffing levels than the average in similar jurisdictions, and slower than average response times. It concluded that additional officers were required to increase the amount of time spent on proactive functions and patrolling.
David Wray was attempting to justify the need for additional officers in order for the city manager to carry the request to City Council. The Council eventually responded with a limited number of new positions, but less than the number requested.
I bring this 2004 report up because it addressed head on many of the issues contained in the current outside study. It calls into question the attentiveness of the manager's office and City Council to important matters called into attention by the police chief.
I hope you will take time to read it because it is every bit as professional in quality of content and presentation as the new study, and was done without additional expenditure of city funds. It makes me wonder about the necessity of the Buracker study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
