Too many comments before all the facts are in
To the editor:
I was in attendance at the council meeting two weeks ago when Mr. Pavlos presented the council with his report/response to Mr. Martin’s report. He only had three minutes, which was obviously not enough time, to explain his report or answer the questions posed by some on the council over the last few months. Being a concerned taxpayer and observing an allegation of what appeared to be $1.6 million in mismanaged city funds, I obtained a copy of Mr. Pavlos’s report and Mr. Martin’s report.
In the week that followed I went through both reports. The first observation was that Mr. Pavlos’s report was voluminous and contained supporting information for all activities in question and one that wasn’t, swales. There was a four page introduction with 25 attachments in all. One attachment alone was 14 pages long. These were dated starting in Sept. 27, 2010.
Mr. Martin’s report was eight pages long, three type written with attachments consisting of two pictures of trash on the ground and three copies of maps of parts of the city.
My experience as an employee of a metropolitan city for three decades, 12 of those years in administration and having authored like reports, I was somewhat surprised at the brief analysis and solutions submitted by Mr. Martin for such serious allegations. This in no means is to demean Mr. Martin, it is merely an observation.
Mr. Pavlos’s report contained many pages of explanation and supporting documentation regarding the areas of concerns that Mr. Martin was examining.
One thing that seemed out of place was attachment 24 dealing with swales which seemed to be informative on the history of swales, production and a request to fill vacant positions in order catch up with a backlog of work. I could not find any reference to swales or recommendations in the copy of Mr. Martin’s report that I have.
In the three typed pages, Mr. Martin references reports examined, interviews with staff, a review of dredged material, equipment required, hours of operation, maintenance costs and budgeted expenses. This ended with his conclusions and solutions which were also brief considering the breadth of the subjects.
Unlike Mr. Pavlos’s report, there were no attachments of substantial supporting data for his conclusions that you might expect. To be fair to Mr. Martin I did note a memo from the City Manager, attachment 25, to the Mayor and City Council stating that Mr. Martin’;s conclusions were “backed up by substantial supporting data that I have reviewed with him at length.” Mr. King closed with, ” I will keep you informed.” I got the impression from various statements made by some on the council and from Mr. Pavlos’s presentation to the council that this may not have been done. The supporting data the City Manager references has been described as a box of notes by some. Until and unless it is made available I guess we will not know what it is or if it accurately supports Mr. Martin’s conclusions.
After reading both of the reports I was left with many unanswered questions. I was made aware of a meeting of the Civic Association where Mr. Pavlos would speak. I attended that meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 22, where many of the questions were addressed.
The dredging report by Mr. Martin, according to Mr. Pavlos, seemed not to take into account the other duties of assigned employees, the different requirements and procedures in the totality of the dredging operation. Later, a statement by someone familiar with and having some expertise in dredging, Mr. Barth, seemed to say that the expectations of the Martin report for dredging were unrealistic. He was cut off so his entire thought wasn’t finished.
Street sweeping was called into question by Mr. Martin. His conclusion was, “sweepers are operating inefficiently and unnecessarily on streets that do not require sweeping. “The explanation by Mr. Pavlos was something that apparently Mr. Martin did not know. Because we are a community with storm drains that drain into our canals, we are required to sweep streets for contaminants and pollutants that may not provide, for a photo, a large amount of debris but is none the less required and effective in keep our canals clean.
Another issue for Mr. Martin was the $27,000 for budgeted for maintenance on the sweepers. He states, “It is unclear why the 2011 budget forecast includes $27,000 for maintenance, as the current rental agreement includes all maintenance costs.” I don’t know if Mr. Martin communicated with Mr. Pavlos but his answer for this made sense and seemed self explanatory. The maintenance agreement did not cover expendable supplies like the sweeper brushes. That is what the budget item was there to cover.
Mr. Pavlos also addressed the report and resulting turmoil over the missing fuel. In my opinion turmoil largely caused by unneeded negative public comments from some council members about possible theft before any investigation was concluded. It was not appropriate for these unsubstantiated conclusions and opinions to be aired in public before a thorough investigation.
As it turns out, according to Mr. Pavlos, apparently you cannot pump gas into any vehicle which does not have the installed security device which is present on city vehicles. The description of the device makes it clear this is not something that can be easily removed from a vehicle or bypassed.
What was discovered is that when a city vehicle is taken out of city service and removed from the system, the fuel record in the system is also removed and sent to an inactive file. Mr. Pavlos said this information will be in a report by the county auditors to be issued in April 2011. So, apparently the public accusations and concerns over theft are baseless.
We also learned that Mr. Pavlos is a licensed Professional Engineer and Mr. Martin is probably not. Mr. Pavlos has 13 years of experience in city government and Mr. Martin does not. Again, no disrespect to Mr. Martin. What has happened is another example of people who have no experience in operations of public facilities or city operations and tasked with reporting on those events can draw incorrect conclusions. Not intentionally but none the less incorrect. I have seen and experienced it before and will likely see it again. To draw another analogy, it would be like sending Mr. Pavlos to review and make conclusions on Mr. Martin’s former job which I am sure he is a very qualified expert in and Mr. Palvos is not.
To be fair to Mr. Martin and the employees who were subjects of his report, I would ask that the City Manager disclose to the council his supporting data to clear up the inconsistencies and questions members of the City Council and the public have.
There were many questions from attendees at the end of Mr. Pavlos’s presentation. Also noted were several standing ovations that Mr. Pavlos received. I asked somewhat of a rhetorical question. I asked if it wasn’t true that unnecessary unsubstantiated statements or opinions, in public, regarding issues like the Martin report and the fuel question, cause undue turmoil and concern among our city employees. Mr. Pavlos agreed.
This is something I have addressed with the council on several occasions. The last time was regarding the officers who may owe the city money and in a letter to the editor regarding other city employees eating at Popeyes. My comments about unneeded speculation and public comment on that and other issues was not only directed at the City Council but in the case of the officers, their bargaining unit representative as well.
Then, on Wednesday the day after the Civic presentation, in another newspaper, there is a story on a woman suing the city/police department. Someone from the media had Mayor Sullivan view a video for comment. The mayor stated that he was going to reserve judgment until the investigation is complete. He apparently reserved his judgement for about 30 seconds, changed his mind on waiting for due process and made the following statement. “I find it hard to believe that a (18) year-old who looks like she’s about as skinny as a toothpick could possibly be a threat to one of the officers. She didn’t look like she gave any resistance.”
The reference the mayor made to the officer feeling threatened does not address the fact that the subject officer is also a female. Mr. Mayor, if you had any experience in police work you would know that some of the most physical encounters are with individuals suspected of being intoxicated. Some of those happen to be females. Decades ago, two officers got a call regarding an intoxicated female in a restaurant. The officers arrived and were directed to a female sitting at a table who appeared not to be a threat to anyone. On contact the result was the two male officers and the (skinny) female suspect crashing through four to five tables all in an attempt by both male officers to handcuff the subject after she assaulted them. Another fight to get her in the car with one officer getting kicked and injured. Another fight in the jail and a fight to the cell. I was there. Your conclusions based on what you think or saw on a video without any other evidence at this point are baseless, unnecessary and unfair to the officer and the department. Did you see the entire contact with the officer and the subject from the time it was initiated until concluded, I doubt it. Were you aware when you made your statements that an internal investigation in ’08 cleared the officer?
There are way too many public statements made by public officials about city employees, opinions on their performance and threats of termination or even suing them before those employees have a fair hearing. This is in no way meant to assert that officers or other employees should not be disciplined. Discipline, yes, if required after a fair and thorough investigation. Not a trial by innuendo in public by city officials.
While some on our city council continue to deal with the above subjects, our millage rate remains unacceptably high. As a taxpayer I am waiting for relief from that not the continuing mantra that the city administration is bloated and studies like this come out with a flawed examination of alleged problems and ineffectual solutions for things that may not be a problem in the first place. Audits on MWH at more taxpayer expense and adding yet another for what the mayor estimates, $180,000 to $200,000 do not have my support. I can and we will live with the reality that our city agreed to a contract that was not good for the city. Just like many homeowners now owe more on their house than it’s worth. It’s time to move forward.
I am not like those who would roll the dice for as Mr. Brandt put it at his town hall meeting, “The pot at the end of the Rainbow.” He said we will pursue MWH until we know. Unfortunately it will be with taxpayer money used for an unknown outcome and more debt.
John Miehle
Cape Coral