On the 15th of July 2010, the Newburyport Daily News 'banned' me from posting my opinions on this issue. I wonder why?
The following are comments that I had posted, but the editor saw fit to ban.
1.What the public is not being told in this story is that all legal bills are first sent to the Mayor's office, copied, then forwarded to the department responsible for the bill. In this particular case, these bills needed approval from the Sewer Commission, the Mayor, Treasurer and then the City to pay bills that are not Current Year Budgeted bills. Statements from Mr. Tuccolo, who is new to any senior management roll and does not understand the financial process, should check with his Sewer Commission and especially The Chair Mr. Hanlon, who held up these legal bills, with the knowledge of at least one city councilor, from the Low Street legal challenge that is still ongoing. Dumping this issue on Mr. O'Regan and his staff is convenient for unqualified managers to do. Laws do not allow billing accounts when thers is no money in them.
2. Axel_Pup,First of all the person was not 'Fired'. His contract was just not renewed. Being an employee at will either side could have ended the relationship at any time. Differing situation than if he was a union member. No charges were brought or accusations made that he was not doing a good job. Only the Mayor stating that their management 'styles' did not match. That could mean she may have been asking him to do something wrong and he said no to it, couldn't that be the case? Could mean many things. When any employee leaves a company they are entitled to a severance package. This is what she has offered him for his many years of service. The employee has a right to over ride the Mayors decision. They chose not to.
3. The accusation from the 'acting deputy director' (who was a one year employee as a collection system foremen with no degree in management or experience or the educational background in managing a financial department before his very sudden rise to fame by appointment and stipend) surprises me with accusing the Sewer Commissioners or other departmental employees of "sweeping things under a rug", and stating that these bills were 'legitimate' due to the fact that only the Sewer Commission can approve or deny a charge or voucher to the Sewer Budget approved by the city council. Not being financially savvy in municipal finances or good accounting practices, he also would not know that a bill dated 2009 could still be payable in fiscal 2010 funds, if monies were properly transferred by the Mayor and City Auditor, ear marked for this expenditure (but not in fiscal 2011 funds). And he certainly would not know that some legal bills for acquiring the property at 115 Water Street and such were encumbered before the loan for the plant upgrade was received and would need to be paid at a date when the funds became available through the borrowing by the City Treasurer. But the person hired to oversee the project would be in charge of that. So all together, Mr. Tuccolo's statements just cloud the story and ascertain his ability to perform in such a manner that is above his capabilities will be challenging for him in his future.
4. Councilor Ives and the Sewer Commission were working on a plan to present a transfer request to recognize the needs of legal representation costs of the Low Street Suit. One only needs to communicate with the proper authorities to get answers to things they do not know. That is if one is not inclined to cover their own tracks or implement a personal agenda. I am surprised she was not consulted prior to the presentation for transferring the funds to the council. As anyone can research, through the Auditor, it is very common for departments to request such transfers to pay bills from prior years or for unexpected expenses that expended the allotted funds by the council.
The real headline should have been "Cost Of Low Street Betterment Fight continues to rise and needs to be addressed", or does someone have an axe to grind? lol
No comments:
Post a Comment