FOLLOW me on my popular Twitter feed. Just click this photo! @hbbtruth - David - Common sense on #Politics #PublicPolicy #Sports #PopCulture in USA, Great Britain, Sweden and France, via my life in #Texas #Memphis #Miami #IU #Chicago #DC #FL 🛫🌍📺📽️🏈. Photo is of Elvis and Joan Blackman in 'Blue Hawaii'

Beautiful Stockholm at night, looking west towards Gamla Stan
Showing posts with label Evan Lukic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evan Lukic. Show all posts

Friday, September 14, 2012

Will upcoming NHL owner's lockout affect the $7.7 million loan from Broward County to Florida Panthers owner Michael Yormark, which he's clearly counting on to prop him up?

Below is a slightly-edited version of an email that I sent this afternoon to Broward County Administrator Bertha Henry, along with some other links that some of you may find of use if you are NOT already up-to-speed on the issue at hand, which, long story short, is a very unsuccessful professional sports franchise getting a multi-million dollar loan from a government entity who also happens to be their landlord.

When and if I hear from Ms. Henry in the near-future with respect to some answers to my questions, I'll share here what she had to say about what's going on with Michael R. Yormark and the Florida Panthers at the newly-renamed BB&T Center in suburban Sunrise, far from most of South Florida, out near The Everglades.

The reason I decided to even write the email and post it here is because of the continuing popularity in South Florida and other NHL cities of a February post of mine about some eye-opening video of Florida Panthers CEO Michael Yormark dodging some very reasonable questions by Channel 10's Bob Norman 
at the Broward County Govt. Center moments after the County Commission meeting, which I watched online.

Some of you who pay attention to such things may well say, correctly, that this video presages the amazing video weeks later in the same building of Broward attorney, flack and lobbyist Bernie Friedman revealing his true nature, and thinking somehow that his clever remarks have more weight than video of what he is doing and saying. 

Yes, the infamous elevator kerfuffle which played out exactly as these things so often do, with the predictable 'kill the messenger ' waterfall of words in the readers comments from staunch liberal Democratic activist and lobbyist Seth Platt, where he posted at least 8 separate posts, as if somehow seven was not enough.

Well, now we now all over again that "Eight is Enough," with Seth Platt in the Grant Goodeve role. Like a certain political commissar here in HB, reading Platt is like water torture. 
Platt seems to be the "Tokyo Rose" of Broward County political social media, at once both everywhere, but also with nothing of substance to say that you're really interested in, instead, also the very picture of a tone-deaf self-promoter.   

If you have not see those two videos, they're really 'must-see' in every respect, and I can tell you with certainty that if Channel 10 embedded their news segments, they'd have been anchors on this blog within minutes of them first airing.
------

Will the upcoming NHL owners lockout affect the $7.7 million loan from Broward County to Florida Panthers owner Michael Yormark, which he's clearly counting on to prop him up?


Dear Ms. Henry:



Are the Florida Panthers and Michael Yormark still legally entitled to the $7.7 million loan from Broward County if, legally, they're NOT a going concern as of the start of the NHL season on October 13th?

During the upcoming strike, which is, of course, more properly called an owner's "lockout," since Mr. Yormark's company will NOT be offering the public a product, service or benefit -or honoring tickets already sold to ticket holders (taxpayers) of this county- if those funds have NOT already been disbursed, wouldn't it be prudent to place them in an escrow account now so that they can't be used to stanch the expected financial bleeding in Plantation once the season comes with no games
being played?

If you have some time this weekend, you might want to peruse his Twitter feed.

Do you want to know a name that rarely if ever appears on his Twitter feed? 
It's "Broward."
Yes, it's true.

Also rarely appearing there: Ft. Lauderdale or Plantation, where the team plays...
In fact, none of those names have so much as appeared once since July if then.
I stopped looking when they weren't mentioned since at least July 31st.  

When you read it you see rather quickly that his is a lifestyle that's full of trips on private luxury jets and expensive steak houses and reading books on business leadership, as if reading about it was a substitute for doing it.

All this after he asks for a handout of over $7 million from taxpayer's elected officials that in my opinion could have been MUCH better used. 
Say, well, for something that visiting tourists to Broward County would actually benefit from, and tell their friends about so they'd come down for a visit, too.

Look at me and my old-fashioned notions about how tourist bed taxes ought to be used!
No wonder I'm not flying on private jets these days and chowing-down at expensive steak houses in LA, NY and Vegas like Yormark and deducting it as a business expense.

-----
Perhaps you were one of the persons in South Florida who got this email from me seven months ago... All links still work.


Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:53 AM
Subject: FYI re WPLG-TV/Miami video: The BankAtlantic shuffle: Florida Panthers president doesn't
want to answer questions about $7.7 million sweetheart loan from Broward County

This video from the Thursday night 6 pm newscast is the perfect follow-up to my previous emails
on this subject, 

My favorite take away is from the last one:

Broward County has gotten the short end of the stick in its financial deal with the Florida Panthers, and a proposed loan would only tip the scales further, the county's auditor charges.
To date, the county has paid more than $90 million for the arena that serves as the Panthers' home, and gotten back just $331,000 in profit-sharing.
The Panthers side of the scoreboard is far brighter, according to county records. Since the doors at BankAtlantic Center opened 13 years ago, Arena Operating Co., the Panthers' sister company that runs the arena, has rung up a reported $117.4 million in profits. That's more than 353 times what the county has banked.

This absurd loan to the Florida Panthers, which is opposed by the Greater Ft. Lauderdale hospitality
industry, a preening, self-important and self-serving group to be sure, but one who has a much better
idea about what tourists do and do not want to do when they visit than the county commission, and
going to a Panthers game on the outskirts of The Everglades near nothing but a huge shopping mall
is NOT one of them.

But first, here's the Florida Panthers' tone-deaf Michael Yormark in a video from Forbes;
Yormark's the clown who who won't answer questions below.

The Channel 10 video, and the antics of the people shown, speaks for itself.
http://www.local10.com/news/blogs/bob-norman/The-BankAtlantic-shuffle/-/3223354/8582968/-/i3du6wz/-/

------------
Also see my post of early February, one of the most-popular of the year:
Bob Norman's must-see video of Florida Panthers president, who DOESN'T want to answer questions about $7.7 million sweetheart loan from Broward County"
http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/bob-normans-must-see-video-of-florida.html

as well as these two pieces from Channel 10

Florida Panthers hockey prez a Twitter twit?
By Bob Norman
Published On: Apr 25 2012 08:28:07 AM EDT
http://www.local10.com/news/blogs/bobnorman/Florida-Panthers-hockey-prez-a-Twitter-twit/-/3223354/11810974/-/xg164e/-/index.html

WPLG Editorial: Fla. Panthers' Pres. rantings
Author: Dave Boylan, VP and General Manager of WPLG.
Published On: Apr 26 2012 11:59:27 AM EDT  
Updated On: Apr 26 2012 12:16:46 PM EDT
http://www.local10.com/station/WPLG-Editorial-Fla-Panthers-Pres-rantings/-/1716906/11983462/-/6r7i0rz/-/index.html

-----


Panthers skate on, despite uncertain labor future
By TIM REYNOLDS (AP Sports Writer)
September 14, 2012

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/panthers-skate-despite-uncertain-labor-172909851--nhl.html

http://nhl-red-light.si.com/

Thursday, June 21, 2012

What's the difference between clean and Broward taxpayers 'being taken to the cleaners'? Bob Norman & Brittany Wallman on firm charging Broward taxpayers a million dollars a month to clean-up Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport


Above, looking NW at the Broward County Government HQ at 115 S. Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. January 3, 2012 photo by South Beach Hoosier.

What's the difference between clean and Broward taxpayers 'being taken to the cleaners'? Bob Norman & Brittany Wallman on the firm charging Broward taxpayers a million dollars a month to clean-up Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport; 

WPLG-TV, Channel 10, Miami, FL
Broward Commission tosses low bid
By Bob Norman
Published On: May 02 2012 08:45:27 AM EDT  
Updated On: Jun 11 2012 11:58:07 AM EDT
http://www.local10.com/news/blogs/bob-norman/Broward-Commission-tosses-low-bid/-/3223354/12481944/-/6dnvn7z/-/index.html
Be sure read the reader comments!

Meanwhile, as the 13-month old Sun-Sentinel article below proves, just like the above, over a year ago, Seth Platt, supercilious flack-for-hire, and a living-and-breathing reminder of much of what currently ails the Broward Democratic Party with moderate voters, was trying to throw his light-weight around and kill the messenger.

In 2011, his target was Broward County Auditor Evan Lukic and in 2012 it's Bob Norman of Channel 10 who pops Platt Junior's balloon full of hot air, bombast and self-importance.

(This blog post today is one of the ones that got delayed by my bad service from AT&T last month, due to their server.) 

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-05-10/news/fl-janitorial-waste-20110509_1_cleaning-contract-airport-director-kent-george-county-auditor
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Broward overpaid almost $1 million to clean airport, audit says
By Brittany Wallman, Sun Sentinel
May 10, 2011

FORT LAUDERDALE — Broward visitors overpaid almost $1 million to clean the airport over the 2008-09 budget years, and the county still pays more than other Florida airport authorities for janitorial work, the county auditor says.

The new audit raises an alarm about a $63 million cleaning contract the county has with Sunshine Cleaning Systems Inc. Its 280 workers wash windows, clean toilets, vacuum carpets, and clean parking garages and sidewalks at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

At about $7.56 of cleaning per square foot, Broward's airport is paying more than twice what Miami's airport pays for similar work, county auditor Evan Lukic says in the just-released audit.

Relatively little in Lukic's audit -- about $15,500 worth -- is tied to alleged overbillings by Sunshine Cleaning. Rather, the mistakes he points to, totaling $950,000, were the county's. And county officials, including Airport Director Kent George, say they'll accept responsibility.

"Our aviation personnel did not do a great job in administrating this contract,'' George said on Monday. "Changes have been made. And it won't happen again.''

County Administrator Bertha Henry wrote to commissioners in a memo Thursday that "the underlying cause for this problem is a combination of staff insufficiency and to a lesser extent, competency.''

County commissioners are scheduled to talk about the audit on Tuesday, though the company has asked for a postponement. They will also consider extending Sunshine's contracts to clean the library and the South Regional Courthouse.

The scope of the problem with the airport spreads beyond George's turf. Sunshine's contract was vetted by county purchasing director Brenda Billingsley, placed on the September 2008 county agenda for Lukic, Henry, county attorneys and others to review at the time, and then approved by county commissioners.

George said the audit didn't shake his support for Sunshine.

"The company's performance at the airport has been very, very acceptable,'' he said on Monday. "They have done a good job with an aging facility and a growing passenger base.''

The contract included annual 4.1 percent raises for the cleaners that were higher than they should have been, Lukic says.

Just a few weeks after the cleaning contract was approved, the county changed its Living Wage Ordinance in a way that could have saved taxpayers $950,000 on the cleaning contract. On top of that, Sunshine paid its employees the lower wage but got to keep the extra that the county paid, Lukic says in his audit.

Lobbyist-attorney George Platt, who represented Sunshine in the contract negotiations, said the county insisted on creating the deal the way it was. He said the extra money was spent on employee benefits.

"It's just wonderful you can have a Monday-morning quarterback who was on the field and is now finding fault with a process he was part of,'' Platt said.

In the Thursday memo to commissioners, Henry says, "gaps still remain'' in county staff's ability to watch over contracts.

She asked staff to review the way the contracts are negotiated and said she will report their findings in 90 days. She also said she agrees with Lukic that the airport cleaning contract must be put back out for competitive bids.

Here's what happened, according to those involved: Inflation was so high when the cleaning contract was in the works, at 5.8 percent, that the county was afraid to pay for a contract that used the Living Wage Ordinance as its basis. The county's Living Wage was tied directly to increases in inflation.

So Sunshine agreed to pay $13.24 an hour in wages the first year, with a flat 4.1 percent raise each of the next four years. The contract was approved on Sept. 16, 2008.

Weeks later, on Oct. 7, the county voted to change its Living Wage to limit annual increases.

Lukic says purchasing director Billingsley knew the Living Wage law was about to be changed and asked George's aviation staff to reflect it in the contract. Yet no one followed up to make sure the contract was changed during negotiations, according to the auditor.

Henry said in her memo that after lots of explanations to her from staff about what happened and why, she heard "none that is acceptable to me and it will be addressed accordingly.''

Friday, February 3, 2012

Bob Norman's must-see video of Florida Panthers president, who DOESN'T want to answer questions about $7.7 million sweetheart loan from Broward County

The must-see Bob Norman investigative video I have for you at the bottom of this post, from Thursday night's Channel 10 six o'clock newscast, is the perfect follow-up to my recent emails to some of you out there in the blogosphere on the never-ending subject of the NHL's Florida Panthers asking the Broward County Commissioners, their landlord at the Bank Atlantic Center, for a multi-million dollar loan, an egregious example of crony capitalism.


It's a subject that I first raised here on the blog in a November 6, 2011 post titled, The Florida Panthers hockey team's owners & mgmt. are about to get a cold dose of economic reality falling on their head -no taxpayer money for you!
http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/florida-panthers-hockey-teams-owners.html


I was wrong about the "no taxpayer money for you" part, though, as on Tuesday afternoon, the Commission caved-in to specious reasoning by a vote of 6-2.


It was the worst sort of crony capitalism, as instead of just picking winners and losers, and in this case, one where one party will profit much sooner at the expense of the other -as so often has happened the past ten years in my own city of Hallandale Beach with CRA loans under the direction of Mayor Joy Cooper- the County Commission was given financial information days before the vote by County Auditor Evan Lukic that the deal as reconfigured from November would make taxpayers 'The Biggest Loser,' they went ahead and voted for it, anyway.


The most recent South Florida Sun-Sentinel articles on this anti-taxpayer vote:

Panthers deal enriches arena operator, not Broward, county auditor charges
By Brittany Wallman, Sun Sentinel
January 17, 2012  9:26 p.m.
Florida Panthers back at table with new loan request, $7.7 million Broward vote Tuesday
By Brittany Wallman, Sun Sentinel
January 31, 2012  4:10 a.m. EST, 

Broward Politics blog
Lobbyist Watch: Milledge says county shouldn't be looking for profit from Panthers
By Brittany Wallman, Sun Sentinel 
January 31, 2012  02:56 PM
Broward says yes to Florida Panthers $7.7 million loan
By Brittany Wallman, Sun Sentinel
January 31, 2012  6:55 p.m. EST

My favorite take away is from the first one from January 21st:

Broward County has gotten the short end of the stick in its financial deal with the Florida Panthers, and a proposed loan would only tip the scales further, the county's auditor charges.

To date, the county has paid more than $90 million for the arena that serves as the Panthers' home, and gotten back just $331,000 in profit-sharing.

The Panthers side of the scoreboard is far brighter, according to county records. Since the doors at BankAtlantic Center opened 13 years ago, Arena Operating Co., the Panthers' sister company that runs the arena, has rung up a reported $117.4 million in profits. That's more than 353 times what the county has banked.

This absurd loan to the Florida Panthers, via the use of the county's hotel bed tax,
is opposed by the Greater Ft. Lauderdale hospitality industry, a preening, self-important and self-serving group to be sure, but one which most people would agree has a much better idea about what tourists do and do not want to do when they visit Broward than the County Commission, and going to a Panthers game on the outskirts of The Everglades near nothing but a huge shopping mall -Sawgrass Millsis NOT one of them.

My last bit of context for you to absorb before watching Bob Norman's eye-opening video is this Forbes.com video featuring the Florida Panthers' smug and tone-deaf president Michael Yormark.


Yormark won't answer reasonable questions from an actual reporter from the area like Bob Norman, someone who WONT feed him marshmallow questions like Forbes.com's Executive Editor Mike Ozanian does.



Forbes.com video:, Winning Panthers Look To Cash In. January 11, 2012.
http://youtu.be/wCld3dhT3V0


SPORTSMONEY 
January 12, 2012 @ 3:12PM
Panthers Skate Towards More Revenue

Article at: 


The Channel 10 video, and the antics of the people shown, speaks for itself.



WPLG-TV
Bob Norman's Blog
The BankAtlantic shuffle
Published On: Feb 02 2012 08:03:45 AM EST  
Updated On: Feb 02 2012 08:26:55 AM EST

http://www.local10.com/news/blogs/bob-norman/The-BankAtlantic-shuffle/-/3223354/8582968/-/i3du6wz/-/

Coming tonight on Channel 10's 11 p.m. newscast, Bob Norman asks, Where are the profits?

Monday, August 25, 2008

re Vote on Broward County Auditor's Future Role in Charter Votes

Trying to make some sense out of something I'll be voting on tomorrow along with tens of thousands of other Broward voters, I spoke this afternoon with Dee Platt in Broward County Commissioner Sue Gunzburger's office today, and she was her usual helpful and friendly self, reconfirming the info I had about the June 10th Broward County Commission's meeting, where the question of having the Broward County Auditor weighing in on charter questions in the future was first broached by Commissioner Ilene Lieberman.


That process by County Auditor Evan Lukic and his staff would begin immediately if approved in tomorrow's vote for November's charter questions. http://www.broward.org/auditor/


As always, I wish everyone I dealt with in local South Florida government was as professional and friendly as Dee Platt!

She's such a pleasant breath of fresh air to deal with, quite a contrast to many down here who are always secretive, un-communicative and generally of a mind to thwart the public's interest in getting the true facts out.


(At last Wednesday night's Hallandale Beach City Commission meeting, a HB resident and his son who are involved in a dispute with the city regarding some property the family owns, and possible city fines, spoke at length about the myriad problems they've had with HB City Hall in getting the city to comply in a timely fashion with FOIA requests they made in January, for what seems to be years worth of documents, in order to buttress their legal argument.


Even if the specific request may've been -perhaps- a tad unwieldy or wide-ranging, given what I heard that night, you'd think the city could do better than only manage to produce 8 pages of docs in 7 months.

The city promised to do better in the future with regard to the FOIA requests, and City Manager Mike Good promised to meet with the resident in question to get the matter dealt with in a more expeditious fashion, though they are still at loggerheads over the larger issue.)


As much as I unload on the Herald on my blogs, and trust me, what I've written and posted here and at South Beach Hoosier is far less than 10% of the problematic things that I notice and discuss with family and friends -and reporters- on a weekly basis, even I'm surprised that the Herald's Editorial Board is recommending a vote tomorrow in Broward County in favor of an issue that the paper has NEVER actually written about.


Ten weeks after the June 10th meeting -nothing.


Before contacting Ms. Platt this afternoon, I double-checked my sources -again- and unless the Herald has printed something and suddenly deleted it from independent databases, they haven't written word one about this issue, compared to what the Sun-Sentinel's Scott Wyman has written, though I wish there'd been more in his pieces, too.


Having written earlier this afternoon about Broward County Democratic honcho Mitch Caesar appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning, I'll be watching C-SPAN's coverage of the DNC, since I'm more likely to see friends of mine from back in D.C. there, than on the nets, who, no doubt, will be constantly on the prowl for camera shots of celebs or wanna-be celebs!



By the way, FYI, in case you hadn't noticed it, Thursday night is shaping up as a real schedule logjam, since that night is also:

a.) the Dolphins last exhibition game at the Saints, on Channel 33,

b.) the U-M season-opener against Charleston Southern at Dolphin Stadium, on ESPN360.com, whose video player I downloaded over the weekend, so I can watch it, and

c.) Obama's acceptance speech.




As to the vote itself tomorrow on the Broward County Auditor's involvement in future Broward County Charter issues, I'll be voting AGAINST it, since based on what I've seen with my own eyes at the Broward County Charter Review Commission's work, http://www.broward.org/charter/ the subject of numerous past posts here.


Personally, I want the county's voters to have sources of information that are NOT tied to the county or any person on S. Andrews Avenue, regardless of supposed independence.

None!


Nothing personal against Mr. Lukic, whom I'm sure is very honest and dedicated, I just don't like the idea of government employees weighing-in on votes, as my recent letter to the State Attorney General about the Broward County School Board's recent antics makes abundantly clear.

(The Herald's Nirvi Shah posted something about my concerns at their Naked Politics blog on August 12th.)



Following my conversation with Ms. Platt this afternoon, I sent an email expressing my own concerns about the Auditor issue to a member of the County's Charter Review Commission.

They sent along a response which I excerpt here and agree with 100%:


"I believe this is an attempt by Commissioner Lieberman to undercut several of our initiatives, including the MTA. The Charter Review Commission took a leadership role on the issue of public transit and tried to fashion the strongest transit board we could under county and state law—I wish we could have done more. I hope you will join me in stopping any inaccurate estimate concerning the MTA from reaching the November ballot."


Exactly my thoughts!


Read the specific details of November's MTA proposal yourself at: http://www.broward.org/charter/pdf/res_001_mta.pdf


I spoke in favor of the MTA proposal at the last public meeting on April 9th, though the transcript is not, of course, 100% accurate.


Coincidentally, that very afternoon, immediately after I spoke, HB Mayor Joy Cooper, speaking on behalf of the Broward League of Cities she then headed, urged the CRC to defeat the proposal and NOT let Broward County voters decide the issue for themselves in November.

This from someone who is the mayor of a small Broward city that is the absolute epitome of South Florida's traffic gridlock.

A city that has nobody from it on either the Charter Review Commission or the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and whose own city hall never thought to contact the SFECC and request a formal presentation be made in its city in 2006 or 2007.


This, despite the fact that a future FEC commuter train might help Hallandale Beach more immediately than just about any other city in Broward County, and help reduce traffic along both 1-95 and U.S.-1 to points north and south, especially to downtown Miami and Ft. Lauderdale.


For those reasons and many more, I urge you to vote NO on the Auditor question in Broward's election tomorrow.
___________________________
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=30036&sid=9



This is from the June 10, 2008 meeting of the Broward County Commission.

Minutes are not 100% accurate.



115. MOTION TO CONSIDER adoption of a Resolution 2008-370 to place a proposed amendment to the County Charter on the August 26, 2008, Primary Election which requires the County Auditor to prepare a financial impact statement for all proposed Charter amendments. (Commissioner Lieberman)



ACTION: (T-5:50 PM) Approved. (Refer to minutes for full discussion.) VOTE: 8 – 0. Commissioner Rodstrom was not present.
______________________________

Item Number 115.COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Move 115.

COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN-RUBIN: Second.



MAYOR WEXLER: Thank you. Been moved by Commissioner Lieberman; seconded by Commissioner Wasserman-Rubin, I think?



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible.)



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Keechl, followed by Commissioner Jacobs.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: A couple of questions. I like the concept, I understand the concept.

What I want to -- before I vote on this, I want to discuss two brief things. Number one, is there a legal ramification from the County Auditor or whoever is attempting to codify the amount, making a mistake?

And the second question is should it be the County Auditor as opposed to OMB, Kayla?

So I think -- I think that the concept is absolutely accurate. The whole idea behind this, obviously, as Commissioner Lieberman has said several times, is so that the people of Broward County know the financial ramifications of what they’re voting on. It’s just the unintended consequences of this I’m just a little bit concerned about.



MAYOR WEXLER: Okay. Commissioner Jacobs, followed by Lieberman. And please recognize, and my apologies, I know Commissioner Lieberman, this is you item that you brought forward. I’m excited about getting at the end of the agenda here. Commissioner Jacobs.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: You know, I forgot, too, and I would defer to the Commissioner that introduced it, because –



MAYOR WEXLER: I know, I just –



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: -- I would want it if it was me, too, so.



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible.)



MAYOR WEXLER: Thank you. I should have called on Commissioner Lieberman first.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: The reason this item is in front of you, as you may recall, the state has a provision where if there is a state Constitutional amendment, people should know what the cost is of what they’re voting on. That’s all this does. And, Commissioner Keechl, you raise a good point about OMB and the Auditor. I actually thought through that issue. The reason I thought about the Auditor is because the Auditor, I believe, is more independent and is perceived as more independent, besides actually being more independent. And so, if you want people to look at the number and say, you know, this person didn’t have a dog in this fight, but did the best job, I don’t think anybody can quarrel with Evan. We get Evan’s unbiased audit opinion, whether staff likes it or not, whether we like it or not. And so, in trying to see who the most appropriate party was, because Evan is independent, we just approved his five year contract and he’s here for five years, I wanted to give this as much independence as I could. And, frankly, it’s truly no different than the way the state does it. It’s not done through an outside consultant, it’s done through a state agency that provides that number.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: So -- so let me just follow up on that, if I may, Mayor. Under the state process, does it go -- does it go to Supreme Court for review for the accuracy? So what -- I just want to make, and I think we’re almost there, what happens is we have a ballot question and someone -- someone attacks it saying, the Auditor’s numbers were too low and therefore the people didn’t realize the appropriate financial ramification, or is that not an issue?



MR. NEWTON: It’s not an issue.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: Okay.



MR. NEWTON: We haven’t come across any -- any case law wherein the estimate -- understand, it is an estimate –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Right.



MR. NEWTON: -- was attacked as a reason for -- for –



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Invalidating.



MR. NEWTON: -- invalidating the –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Right.



MR. NEWTON: -- ballot -- ballot initiative.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And every one of these items would say estimated impact. Because, as -- you know, as we know, we can only give our best estimate. Depending on how something eventually comes forward, it could be more or less, but at least it’ll give someone a basis. And, I guess because of Amendment 1 and everything that we’re going through with Amendment 1, and -- and I think it was Commissioner Jacobs, we were at a -- I tend to think it was Commissioner Jacobs -- when I had said something about if all of these people who are coming in to us now and saying don’t cut this, don’t cut that –



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Right.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: -- wasn’t it you? I feel obligated to say to these people, did you not believe us when we said there was an impact? So, because the people have said less government, we want to know the cost, it just gives them the cost. And -- and for me, Evan’s the most impartial.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: Commissioner Lieberman, just to close this out, I’m going to support this item. I just think that looking at some of the ballot questions that came out of Charter Review, I don’t know how Evan -- and he’s a very talented person -- is going to put -- and I’d like hear from you briefly -- how you’re going to put a number on some of these things.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: In some cases, he’ll probably do what the state says, which is indeterminate.



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Indeterminate. Exactly.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Well –MAYOR WEXLER: He can use those words. Commissioner Jacobs, and then I’d like Evan to –



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: That’s exactly what my concern was, because in my conversations with Evan, there are some things that are indeterminate, that we can’t really wrap our arms around, and there are some things that I have a concern that we may attempt to do that and be incorrect. And be perceived as -- as skewing it, even though he is our independent auditor.

And then, finally, the one issue that hasn’t been mentioned here, though, is does Evan feel he can do this? And in my conversations with him, he said, depending on the questions, he may lack the expertise in his staff to be able even -- he doesn’t have the -- the -- what is the word -- well, it’s late in the day; I’ve lost it. He may not have the subject matter expertise on his staff and -- and have to go outside.



So, in his budget, you know, how do we handle that, if it comes up? And you’re right. I mean, I have a list of -- where is it? Right here. The -- the Charter Review Commission questions, and, you know, some of these things, I wonder whether Evan’s going to be able to do that. So right away we’re looking at some issues.



And so, I guess, Evan, can you quantify whether, A, it should be you or the Office of Budget that should actually do this, in your opinion? And then second of all -- and do you have a list of the Charter Review questions that are coming up immediately?



MR. LUKIC: Yes, I have them.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: You do? Okay. Because I was going to carry them over there. Then there -- there are ten of them that I think we need to understand whether, if this passes, and I believe it’s going to, do you need additional outside consultants of some sort in order to be able to bring forth the recommendation on an estimate?



MR. LUKIC: I think -- I think -- I haven’t gone through the analysis of all of the questions -- some will be either the cost will be insignificant, and I certainly would have to work very closely with the County Attorney’s Office to be able to articulate our position, because you do -- words are very important in these things.



I am glad to hear that the word indeterminate was used by the state, because in some cases, the items before us, the cost would be indeterminate, and I wouldn't want the misuse of a word to discourage people, or influence people's decisions in the wrong way.

So it would be closely working with the -- with the County Attorney. Also the Administration, because the Administration, particularly the Budget Office, has resources I don't have. There may be occasions, and I haven’t gone through to look exactly, there may be items that might involve an estimation process that I don't have skills to do. In which event, I would have to have some outside help to do that. For instance, could involve some economic forecast or something like that. So those issues would be there.



I mean, I’m -- I’m willing to do what the will of the Board.

It -- it will be challenging, but I believe that with cooperation of the Administration and the County Attorney’s Office it's doable. So it’s -- it’s very -- one of the things we did discuss, it's much more akin to what the Budget Office already does. And I do understand your concern about the perception of independence, real -- real or perception.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: So, if, to follow up, the very first question that the Charter Review Committee puts forth is the transit -- what is it -- the Transit Authority –



MR. LUKIC: That’s correct.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: -- is that -- I mean, so, right off the bat, is that something that we have, I guess, amongst the three, is that something that you feel that you’d be able to quantify, or do you need to go outside?



MR. LUKIC: I -- I -- the way I would approach it is I’d first look at the item, I’d look at what the intent of the Charter Commission was. If I could determine if they had put some limitations on what was meant by creating the authority, I might be able to give an estimate. If they haven't, or they haven't defined where the --where they authority may go, it would be a question to talk about legal counsel is, and we’re simply talking about creating authority, and there may not be much cost to that, but long term, there may be a significant cost. It depends on how -- what the intent of the charter was and where the authority goes.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Right. So in that case, because it would be indeterminate, would -- would it be deemed, I guess, appropriate to do that? Because are you talking costs near term or long term? There’s a lot of other questions out there when you start to answer this, and you’re putting this -- as you said, words matter.

So I guess I’m supporting the item, but my concern is that which Commissioner Keechl raised, which is even if legally we can’t --someone can’t go after us for saying the wrong thing, the perception that we skew it because we’re looking at it short term, long term, or however we choose to do that, I would think that we would, as a Board, want to err on the -- on the more conservative side of that. And if we’re not sure, and the Auditor and Attorney and the Office of Budget are not sure, that we err on the side of it’s indeterminate, and that we not shy away from the ability to sidestep that issue.



MR. LUKIC: Like I said, every issue from my office would be in consultation with the County Attorney, because it’s not a simple -- it’s not necessarily a simple indeterminate or non-indeterminate; it’s really defining -- making sure there’s a clear definition of what was meant by the -- by the Charter Review Commission, and what that would mean.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Okay. So, I guess, then, finally, as the item passes today, I would be interested in knowing that you take a -- just an interim look at it and just let us know if there are any of these questions that you think you need to go outside of existing resources in order to be able to make a determination.



MAYOR WEXLER: Thank you. Commissioner Lieberman.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Yeah. For me, I don’t see this much different than the way Evan does an audit. When he does an audit, he has to go meet with the department, he has to get data from the department, they provide him with invoices, they provide him with ledgers, they provide him with a ton of documents, which he then takes back and analyzes. This is the same thing.



It doesn’t concern me that he may not be a transit expert, because I expect that what he would do is ask the necessary questions to get the data in hand. And he’s got a range of things he can say. He can say “difficult to estimate,” “indeterminate,” “estimated between this range and that range.” But for me, it’s better than going to the polls and guessing. And since the state has already taken the lead in doing this, why would we not want to give our residents the same opportunity?



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah.



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Keechl.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: Commissioner Lieberman, I’m going to support this. but I have -- I have some concerns, and you haven’t alleviated them. To me, the -- our Auditor does a great job, but there are times when he audits things that -- that are not in his area of expertise, and we disagree with regard to what he is auditing. I think that some of these questions are -- and I think he’s being honest -- are outside his area.



Having said that, with the -- the concerns that we have expressed, I think the Auditor will be very careful with regard to the number he comes up with when he’s going through this process, working with the County Attorney. The more -- obviously, the more often we say indeterminate, the less it really –



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: It doesn’t –



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: -- gets us towards our goal.



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: -- it doesn’t resonate with the voters.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: So, you know, we can do it. And I’ll support it.



MAYOR WEXLER: All right. Mr. Lukic. I’m sorry, I didn’t see your hand.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: I didn’t know he was (inaudible). I was just going to point out that some things that the Charter Review Committee, just because we’re on them, bring forth are so lacking in data, and -- and I -- at the risk of -- well, it wouldn’t be the current Charter Committee, but they brought forth something that didn’t have any real logic. It said -- used words like even the appearance of and things that even the County Attorney had difficulty quantifying what we should do. So that’s -- that’s my concern, Commissioner Lieberman.

I support the item. I’m just concerned that -- that -- that where we don’t think we can really iron this or lay this down, that we -- we stick on the conservative side of it and say we don’t know, it’s indeterminate.



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Lukic. I’m sorry. I’m just joking.



MR. LUKIC: Just –



MAYOR WEXLER: Mr. Lukic.



MR. LUKIC: Just a point of clarification. With respect to -- with respect to auditing versus analyzing future costs. One is looking at -- and when we do our reports, we look at data and we look at existing information, prior history, actual financial information. What we’re looking at here is a little different. You’re really looking at forecasting. Forecasting and auditing are little bit different thing. You have less -- less concrete examples, necessarily. Some of it will be easy. If you’re -- if you’re going to add, for instance, there was a proposal in there for a while adding two Commissioners. That would be pretty easy to estimate what the cost of Commissioners are, because we simply take what the cost is today and -- and can forecast that out. There’s other ones that are much more nebulous in terms of the outcome, require different forecasting skills, and it’s not simply auditing. So I just make that point.



(COMMISSIONER EGGELLETION LEFT THE ROOM.)



MR. LUKIC: The second part is, it is extremely important about the legal side of it, to make sure that -- that we stay on the legal side. Having said that, you know, it’s not impossible. We can do it. Other people do it. I just tell you there’s -- it’s a little bit of different bent on -- on how things are done, from my perspective.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Mayor, I’d like to move the item, but I also want you to understand it --I expect that if this passes Evan would be getting numbers from the Office of Management and Budget. I mean, it’s really -- I’m not expecting him not to get information in before he puts the number together. So I’m going to move it.



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Gunzburger.



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: Perhaps a way to -- to do it on those that you don’t have an exact number, indeterminate, I don’t think, tells the voter anything. Because it could be as little as a hundred dollars, it could be –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: He could always put a range on it.



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: That’s exactly where I was headed.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Well, that’s what Evan said.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: That’s -- that’s -- he said –



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: I -- I was thing, you know, put a range, between one and three million, that would get their attention, or whatever.



MR. LUKIC: The problem is in the details. Indeterminate, to me, if I can establish a range, I’ll establish a range. But when I conclude that it’s indeterminate, it’s because –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: It’s because you can’t figure it out.



MR. LUKIC: -- I can’t establish a range.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Right.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: (Inaudible.)



MAYOR WEXLER: I would also encourage you to look to other counties that may have created the same experience –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And the state.



MAYOR WEXLER: -- for some data, as well, and –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And the state.



MAYOR WEXLER: Yes.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: This is our model. This is not rocket science.



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Jacobs, did you have a comment, or are you --



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: No, I’m just -- I’m really sensitive to the issue that -- that we not be viewed as trying to skew an outcome of a ballot question. And that -- that’s -- I’m really -- I just am real sensitive to that. So I think what Commissioner Lieberman has outlined is a way for us to get there. And, you know, at the risk of sounding repetitive, it’s, to me, taking a more conservative route on this issue, and I’m okay with it.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And, Commissioner --



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: So, with that, do you have a second or not?



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: -- Commissioner, I have the same concern you did. I actually really gave a lot of thought to who should be generating the number to put on the ballot, which is how I keep coming back to Evan.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Right. But, you know, Commissioner, we do things that are so straight, and it is what it is, and it’s not anything different --



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And some (inaudible).



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: -- and then they go and skew it off in another direction.



MAYOR WEXLER: We’re coming to the end here. Let’s not get all excited about --



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: Second.



(Inaudible cross-talk)



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: I think the Vice Mayor second my motion.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: (Inaudible.)



MAYOR WEXLER: She did. The item has been moved and seconded. I have no public speakers. All those in favor, indicate by aye. Opposed, like sign.


VOTE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

-------------------------------------