John Musolf responds to blogger (OVMom) query about "morale building" parties.
*************************************************************************************
Art
I think OV Mom raises a valid question in her comment responding to my original posting on Thursday, August 19, 2010, “John Musolf Questions Oro Valley’s Balanced Budget”:
OV MOM
I'd like to thank Mr. Musolf for his service in analyzing the budget.
One thing that hasn't been addressed: OVDad stated that "The fact is, [a party] costs little to nothing, especially comparing it to other items of the budget, while it builds morale, that a few years or months ago was almost nonexistent."
It seems to me that these parties have indeed been held over the past few years and months. So if the parties have been held, and morale has been "nonexistent," then how do parties build morale?
Also, does anyone know which of these line items paid for the parties for the former mayor who was voted out in the primary?
August 24, 2010 1:15 PM
My answer to OV Mom (and other people who have commented on this subject) shows just how difficult it is to obtain information on how our tax dollars are being spent by the town. I did try to obtain information on the Town Picnic and Town Dinner.
This is the Request for Information that I sent to the Town Clerk prior to the May 21, 2010 Picnic:
REQUEST FOR RECORDS TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA
Phone (520) 229-4700 Fax (520) 297-0428
Name: John Musolf Date: May 7, 2010
Item(s) requested:Information for Picnic to be held on May 21, 2010:
1) Department Personnel & Planning Time Spent on Picnic 2) Estimated amount of email invitations sent to Town Personnel (include sample of email invitation) 3) Estimated Materials & Cost for Picnic- Food, Refreshments, Utensils, etc. 4) Estimated Facility Cost – Rental, Set-up, Clean-up at Riverfront Park 5) Estimated Entertainment Cost 6) Estimated Attendance and hours of picnic 6) Estimated Total Cost and Source of Funding.
Who authorized the Town Picnic and did the Mayor and Council approve it? (added this question to revised Request for Information after May 7, 2010)
Date(s), if known: May 21, 2010
This is the Request for Information Response I got from the Town Clerk:
Dear Mr. Musolf,
Please find attached a copy of the invoice in the amount of $3,121.39 showing the food cost for the employee farewell picnic held for former Mayor Loomis and Councilmember Carter. The food cost of the picnic was within the scope of approval by the Town Manager and was not required to be approved by the Mayor and Council.
Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC
Town Clerk
Town of Oro Valley
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
(520)229-4740
KCuvelier@orovalleyaz.gov
I have attached a copy of the picnic invoice to this email.
The response from the town clerk to my Request for Information certainly doesn’t clarify much except to list the invoice for the tax dollars spent. There is no line item listed showing what account or which department the tax dollars were charged to.
Also, one extra fact I never requested from the town clerk about the picnic: All town employees (300+) were allowed an extended lunch hour (2-3 hours) if they desired to attend the picnic (probably another planned morale booster).
*************************************************************************************
Note from Art--- John included the invoice for the party. Suffice to say, it was from a Tucson caterer (that's Tucson, not Oro Valley) in the amount of $3,121.39 as noted by the Town Clerk.
One may question if there was no Oro Valley entity that could have supplied equally as good food at a competitive price for this gala event? At least that would have kept taxpayers money in Oro Valley and met the program requirements promoted by the town---"Shop Oro Valley."
As to the "other party," Loomis' "Farewell Dinner," that was also addressed. Although it was less costly, John writes: "The response from the town clerk to my Request for Information certainly doesn’t clarify much except to list the invoices for the tax dollars spent. There is no line item listed showing what account or which department the tax dollars were charged to."
Oh well! Some may say that's a small price to pay to keep the morale up in Town Hall!
It might be time to have a party for the citizens. The more we know, the more we could use a morale boost!
14 comments:
OV Mom is right, these parties have been going on for years. Parties do not raise morale. Good leadership raises morale and that’s what Oro Valley lacks. I read Jerene Watson's interview in the Explorer and laughed at the statement that she's "a strong believer in full communication". If the people of the town are frustrated about getting information imagine what the employees, who's morale is non-existent, are dealing with. My bet is they would trade a party for a safe, healthy, stable, cooperative and productive work environment.
Desertdweller has touched on only "the tip of the iceberg."
At this point, we'll not talk about details, but others are welcome to say what they will---whether they be within or outside of the town government.
It appears that the blog is dancing around issues again. By dancing I mean that the blog would hint at and suggest something without providing any proof. Prior to this, Art was insinuating that there were election irregularities involving the town council. Now, to me, it seems that Art is insinuating there are "details" or problems at town hall. If there is more to the "iceberg" and there is substantiated proof, I believe it should be made available to the citizens of Oro Valley.
The beauty of 'teasers' is that either they end with 'I told you so' or they disappear into the night; that way the tongue of the 'speaker' can never be refuted. I suppose it's okay to disavow 'hanging chads' when one has an axe to grind about one issue such as the 'parting' of former Town Manager David Andrews, but it's okay to 'let 'em hang' when there might be an issue relative to an unresolved issue over which some person(s) might drool in glee.
Usually the 'teaser' WANTS bad for someone or something in order to puff their own persona but, whatever the result might be, that kind of 'wishful thinking' simply is not good for the Town!
My understanding is that the vast majority of attendees at the Mayor's farewell dinner paid their own way.
The fact that very few (if any) commenters on this blog felt inclined to discuss ANY of Mr. Musolf's "findings" on the budget except for the minor issue of "parties," shows a lack of intellectual curiosity. There's a reason for this (called Parkinson's Law of Triviality) because everyone understands parties and catering, but no one understands expenditures for more complicated things like stormwater runoff control or community policing or other programs with much more money involved.
Yes, you need to dig deep into the iceberg and not deal with the "easy-picking" top layer if you really want to learn.
By my calculations, Mr. Musolf asked 12 questions:
1) How much time did personnel spend planning the picnic?
2) How many e-mail invitations were sent?
3) Include a sample of the invitation.
4) How much was spent on food, drinks, utensils, etc.?
5) How much was spent on renting the facility?
6) How much was spent on set-up and clean-up?
7) How much was the entertainment cost?
8) How many people attended (estimate)?
9) What is the estimated total cost of the party?
10) What was the source of the funding?
11) Who authorized the picnic?
12) Did the Mayor and Council approve it?
Ms. Cuvelier answered only 3 of them:
#4) The food cost (caterer's bill) came to $3,121.39.
#11) It was approved by the Town Manager.
#12) It was not required to be approved by the Mayor and Council.
Why did Ms. Cuvelier refuse/neglect to answer the remaining questions?
Once again, AstuteGal shows a lack of awareness.
Allow me to quote her comment of Aug 21 (prior Musolf posting)
Astute Gal wrote...
"One question: If the volunteer appreciation event and the so-called employee holiday party were eliminated from the budget, how would it affect you?"
I responded: "I'll tell you what "Astute Gal"--- Forget about the damn party and the extra days off.
Why not show some "astuteness" and comment on ALL the other ways John Musolf shows how WE, the taxpayers can save money if this council would only listen."
Her response was basically not liking my use of the word "damn," but not much else of substance.
Now she complains about people talking about the wasteful use of taxpayer's money for a party for two defeated candidates.
I can't believe I'm the only one that sees this contradiction.
Good point, Art. I fell into the same trap in discussing the "party" expenses, but I'll stand by my closing question: How does it affect anyone in OV? That question was never answered by anyone.
And VC exemplifies the Law of Triviality to its max--asking about petty funds instead of spending the time and intellectual might that it takes to get into much larger budget items that no one seems to want to tackle.
Like someone's grandpa once said, "Go for the easy pickins'."
Astute Gal: You are correct that the dinner attendees did pay for most of the dinner.
We taxpayers only got stuck with a measly $28.09 for dinner. However, according to the Town Clerk the taxpayers did get stuck with $746.08 for invitations/postage and $308.63 dinner programs.
Response from Town Clerk on Request for Information on Town Dinner.
Dear Mr. Musolf,
Please find attached invoices for former Mayor Loomis' farewell dinner. The first is for $746.08 for the cost of invitations and postage. The second is in the amount of $308.63 for the cost of the Dinner Programs.
The cost of the dinner was $2,348.09, which was offset by invitees paying $20.00 per person. So the cost of the dinner to the town was $28.09.
The cost of the invitations, postage and dinner programs was within the scope of approval by the Town Manager and was not required to be approved by the Mayor and Council.
Kathryn E. Cuvelier
It was probably naïve of me to expect that the department and account to be charged in the budget for the taxpayer cost of the Picnic and Dinner would be identified on the Invoices.
Astute Gal, you also made a keen observation:
“The fact that very few (if any) commenters on this blog felt inclined to discuss ANY of Mr. Musolf's "findings" on the budget except for the minor issue of "parties," shows a lack of intellectual curiosity. There's a reason for this (called Parkinson's Law of Triviality) because everyone understands parties and catering, but no one understands expenditures for more complicated things like stormwater runoff control or community policing or other programs with much more money involved”.
Yes, it is sad that very few citizens dig into the significant expenditures and then wonder why their local, state, and federal taxes keep rising. There is also no reason not to look at small expenditures since it is possible they could grow into larger ones if not reviewed or checked! I have expressed my opinions (about subjects large or small) many times on the LOVE Blog and will continue to do so as factually as possible. I would expect all citizens to express their opinions as well.
Thanks
John Musolf
AstuteGal-- I appreciate your last response, and as such, I will try to give you a "civil" reply.
John Musolf certainly raised any number of important areas where he (I, and I suspect many others) understand the the town government wastes OUR money by not being conscientious in the ways they spend.
One example most certainly was having not one, but two parties for the outgoing mayor.
For me, it was a matter of principle. The Interim Town Manager---now the Town Manager, Jerene Watson made a number of UNILATERAL decisions that I and others that were privy to those decisions, thought were an error in judgment. That may be too kind on my part.
Those decisions may not have been thought out totally, and if nothing else, cost the taxpayers.
One of those decisions, which is not yet in the public domain, may be more costly than some of the other decisions.
So---from my standpoint, it was not so much the decision to have two parties, but the culmination of the other decisions.
Let me just say this. While those few at Town Hall that were promoted by the new council Super Majority may have high morale, ( don't believe you'll find that to be the case among the "rank & file."
I don't mean to be "coy," but at this point, it is best to not be too specific.
Hopefully, if this this explanation doesn't satisfy you, it will at least explain my point on the issue.
Astute Gal,
You asked how would it affect "you" if holiday parties were eliminated from the budget? Well, I believe it would affect me (and all the other taxpayers) in the form of not continually having our taxes raised or new taxes added on, (eg. the utility tax.)
Our tax money should be used for town services (NEEDS vs. wants.) No one NEEDS a party! You spend $3000 unnecessary dollars here and $3000 unnecessary dollars there and next thing you know someone is trying to figure out a way to raise taxes instead of CUTTING EXPENSES.
So let me ask you...How would it affect YOU if parties were ELIMINATED from the budget?
Next you claim that my questions were trivial, asking about petty funds. Actually, the only question I asked was why did Ms. Cuvelier refuse/neglect to answer ALL of Mr. Musolf's questions.
Next you claim that if I were an "intellectual" I would take the time to understand the larger budget items. I have stated numerous times on this blog that budgeting/bookkeeping are not my strong suit. I stated that I was an A/B student but still failed bookkeeping TWICE!
My English professor, however, did write on my final exam..."Your work has always been scholarly." I mention this because I'm not going to be told by someone who's never met me and by someone who is "rating" me on ONE ISSUE, that I'm not intellectual simply because I'm not a whiz at designing a town budget.
Are you an expert at EVERYTHING?
What's also funny about your comment is that Mr. Musolf HAS dissected the budget, HAS spent many hours researching it, HAS the proper background to do such work, and yet he is ridiculed for his research and opinions on this topic.
Astute Gal.
I seldom comment on the Mooseman's posts because I don't think that anyone in Town Government, gives his well researched documents much attention. I thank him for his interest in the Oro Valley soft machine, but I do not think what we post here will change anything.
I will comment, however, on your statement:
"The fact that very few (if any) commenters on this blog felt inclined to discuss ANY of Mr. Musolf's "findings" on the budget except for the minor issue of "parties," shows a lack of intellectual curiosity."
Well, THAT is quite a statement. There are many reason for a lack of response to certain posts, but, Astute Gal, I do not think a lack of intellectual curiosity is one of them.
My position is that anyone who reads the LOVE Blog, with or without leaving a post, has indeed exhibited SOME intellectual curiosity. Nicht War?
NW
Didn't our new town manager, Jerene Watson, just say --
"I'm a strong believer in full communication. Part of my role is to facilitate that good government is happening right here."
Where is the "communication" between the town and the citizens when a citizen asks a dozen questions and only gets answers to three of them?
Is it considered to be "good government" when the town clerk is evasive in answering questions received from the public? What is she trying to hide?
I can think of a few reason why she didn't answer Mr. Musolf's questions.
She doesn't know how to research the information.
She couldn't find the information because no records were kept or they have mysteriously disappeared.
She is deliberately withholding the information because if citizens knew the truth of how their tax dollars were being mismanaged and wasted, there might be a revolution in the sleepy town of Oro Valley.
Does anyone have any other ideas as to why the information is being withheld?
I'm not sure if its arrogance or ignorance when it comes to full disclosure.
Towns across the country are now under the microscope when it comes to them spending the taxpayers money. The "oh well" expression stated by the ordinary citizen in the past has been replaced by "what the hell".
I'm afraid malfeasance will be the new buzzword in describing what the citizens think of public officials.
Hopefully our town will avoid the problems other towns face, and come out provide full disclosure so we can move onto more productive matters. The truth shall set you free.
Post a Comment