| 9/2/2009 4:02:00 PM | Email this article • Print this article | Council discusses City Manager spending
Cody Zustiak
Review Staff
An old discussion circled around once again at the Maplewood City Council meeting. And this time, it involves doughnuts.
Council member Erik Hjelle tabled discussion at the Aug. 24 meeting on City Manager spending, which has been a topic of discussion for years.
Currently, the city of Maplewood has an ordinance that sets the level of spending at $5,000 per purchase and a policy that sets the level at $10,000 per purchase.
"It was surprising to me when this came up at our last meeting," council member John Nephew said.
Hjelle said he brought up the discussion again because at the Aug. 10 council meeting the council couldn't recall if there was an ordinance in place, even though all but Nephew originally voted.
It came up at the previous meeting because of a golf cart that City Manager Jim Antonen purchased for this year's National Night Out.
The cart cost $140 over the $10,000 policy limit. Antonen brought the matter to the council prior to the purchase and has since offered to pay the difference himself.
"There was concern that I went $140 over the limit," Antonen said. "If I exceeded that limit, I said I would pay out of my own pocket. They decided I didn't have to, end of story."
But for Hjelle it was not the end of the story.
As the discussion continued, the council was told to consider the hypothetical, yet dramatic picture of Antonen sneaking out to buy $6,000 worth of doughnuts without sufficient council oversight.
The term "micro-managing" was soon bandied about, as the debate started to circle the same territory.
"We do see all the expenditures anyway," council member Kathleen Juenemann said. "We see them. Let's not make the point that we haven't seen them."
Dollars and doughnuts
Hjelle said he is worried that city managers aren't being held accountable for their spending, but Antonen described how the process of a city manager purchasing something is anything but a shopping spree.
He said department heads must first sign off on any purchase, which then needs to be audited by the finance department.
Next, Antonen said he must sign the approval of claims prior to it being brought up to the council.
"I don't want the public to believe that there is an open checkbook and that there aren't checks and balances," Antonen said. "I put my own personal integrity on the line when I sign the approval of claims. I'm not making excuses; these are facts."
Antonen added that most purchases a city manager makes are already on the budget, and there are few cases where they are not.
Once the list of the last two weeks' purchases is brought to the council, it can decide to approve or not approve the purchase, which is merely housekeeping to ensure that the City Manager is doing his or her job. But that doesn't mean if they do find something suspicious that the money can be retrieved.
"If someone bought $6,000 on doughnuts, the purchase would be done," city attorney Alan Kantrud said. "Money wouldn't be given back to the bakery. If you have a legitimate question, then you can explore that. It's just to see where the city's money is being spent, to give you the advising consent after the fact of what the city is doing."
Micro-managing
Hjelle said when it comes to the city budget, the council doesn't have much power.
"It doesn't truly matter at some point, really," Hjelle said when discussing how high or low the spending budget should be. "At the end of the day we have no authority."
Council member Will Rossbach said he wants to see a higher budget, citing that most of the metro cities allow a larger limit.
"I also wanted to make it clear that according to state statute, the City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the city," he added.
Rossbach wants the budget at $20,000, which would be more in line with other metro cities and give the city manager more wiggle room.
"It comes down to discretion versus micro-managing," Kantrud said.
Perhaps the most curious part of the discussion was when Mayor Diana Longrie said she never forgot about the ordinance, although she didn't refer to it at the Aug. 10 council meeting, which sent a ruffle into the city staff and council members.
"Then why didn't you say anything?" Juenemann asked.
"If anybody else on the council is aware of any ordinances that the city has been violating for any extended period of time, inadvertently, please do bring it forward," Nephew said. "Because I think that we all should have an interest of following what's on the books, and that requires being aware of things."
In the end, which turned out to be just the beginning, the council voted for a motion to discuss the topic further at a later meeting.
Cody Zustiak can be reached at staffwriter@lillienews.com or 651-748-7824
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
