Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Current Watch: City of Glenwood Springs City Council "Spell it out"

This post is brought by 'gws44' on behalf of 'smalltown7'.

Buzz, spin, twisted play on words to meet individual spin machine goals brings to our attention continued complaints re: our lack of clarity.

'What do they want?'

Let's go over what remains  to be answered by council:

1.  Never once has the public been made aware of the results of a forensic audit (not the calculator tape run from 2005) on the funds feeding into the tourism marketing contract. Yet, years upon years worth of concerns and discrepancies have been not only voiced by the public, those concerns show up in dozens of city council meeting minutes and taped video recordings of council meetings.

Request:   Publically disclose all the results, from all audits, including forensic strength from third party, on all funds feeding into the tourism marketing contract since it's inception.

2.   It's public record the battle that took 14 years minimum to get done with Ordinance #12 Series of 2010.  Now that it's here, there are 3 sitting chamber directors on the new tourism board.  The secretary taking minutes is a chamber employee.  The chamber's CEO sits meetings at her discretion and the board's.  That makes 5 out of 11 people present who have a vested interest in the accommodations tax.  As defined by the city attorney in a recent council meeting:   "Jan Shute explained the Conflict of Interest statute deals with not only financial interests, but whether there is an interest that would cause a person not to make an objective decision. That’s a personal decision question."

With all the public record history of the tug-of-war with the chamber over the marketing contract for the past 14 years (or more) and the ethical propriety concerns of a non-profit in a position of trust repeatedly skating under the public eye radar on serious allegations; the new tourism board should hold only one chamber representative seat.

The issue of abysmal performance for 3 years and refusal to publically disclose answers to legitimate public questions, such as Strawberry Days has severely undermined the trust needed for someone in a position to hold one of the most important marketing functions we have.

Request:  This is a public RFP that nowhere on city website does it state fair and equitable coverage of inside information to all bidders. 

There are very clear statutes in place regarding conflicts of interest. 

Disqualify the chamber's current bid until all questions over forensic auditing, current investigations, current contract performance and Strawberry Days contractual arrangements are publically answered.

3.  Ethical propriety.  Publically taped evasion by council to address ethical propriety and public unrest has now been ongoing for over two years.  With the ending now confirmed as legal liability for the city and others.

Request:  The city needs to publically address exactly why we have been put in this position. 

Then stay on top of every concern in a public, forthcoming manner until all matters are cleaned up. 

The city needs to issue city controlled, not local reporter controlled press releases that publically clear up the entire decades old problem that have created all ethical impropriety.

smalltown7 keeps talking.