Right out of the paper:
Council Member Directs City Staff to Issue Payment WITHOUT Council Approval
Council approved the amended budget by a vote of 3-2 with Cash and Rassmussen dissenting. During the discussions, Mayor Ouzts asked Don Ives WHO directed him to make payment which paid for the 2004,2005, and 2006 taxes incurred and tax preparation costs for the volunteer fire department. Mr. Ives responded that SUE MILLER had stated that IT WAS the majority of the council's opinion that the coity should cover the cost. At a previous council meeting, during which the item was addressed, councilman Rasmussen had requested from city staff an ESTIMATE of the cost of the services and then with that information council could provide for the OPTION to pay for the TAX SERVICES, due to the cities error. The item was NEVER brought before council with the requested information for PROPER VOTE! Council never OFFICIALLY voted to pay for these services; the payment was inappropriate at the time. There is a question legality in reference to the Texas Open Meetings act, because she DIRECTED staff to make the payments telling them she had the vote of the majority of the council, as well as in reference to the City Charter, in that a "councilmember CANNOT direct staff members to take any such action since this had not been approved by a Council vote NOR were the payments AUTHORIZED in the city budget. If the item had been brought back to council for a vote, then payment would have been made LEGALLY. Mayor Ouzts informed Mayor Pro Tem Miller that it was illegal for her to speak on behalf of other councilmembers, and that he would be filing with the District Attorney. Mayor Ouzts went on to state, "this was a CORRUPT action and it shakes our faith in ability to be good stewards for the community."
| Comments:| | Haha 
nope, they can't 29.05.07 18:29 RAG
OK, whycantwegetalong,le ts look at it from your perspective. You say that going by the book causes problems, Right? So, are you saying that the city charter and all established rules and procedures should be chucked out the with bath water? I am sure Sue wanted to help the fire fighters. That is why she gave the orders to pay the bills. But, why did she wait as long as she did? Why did she not do anything at all during the months of June - July - August - September - October - November - December - January - February ? Can you explain that? 29.05.07 17:15 Haha
I found it, this is VERY interesting!!!
What has become of it, did any charges get filed? 29.05.07 12:57 whycantweallgetalong
Goin by the book is what got Ouzts in trouble before. There is a difference between the letter of the law and spirit of the law. I am sure the firefighters appreciate the payment, some of them have quite a bill to pay on the back taxes I am sure, if the city didn't pay them by the 15th of April. Ouzts and the Yay teamers love to stall on paying out any money to anyone. At least Sue wanted to help the firefighters out and get the matter over with and not put them through any more grief than they were already going through over the matter.
I pity anyone that needs City Hall to help them out with the JO yay teamers in office, they will stall as long as possible on each and every matter....I can recall many businesses in the last couple of years that were put on the back shelf for 6 months or more while they waited for the city(boards etc.) to approve whatever it was that they needed...meanwhile the bills/taxes etc. pile up and they cannot use their property to make any money.
If say a firefighter has amassed, over a ten year period, a paid water bill of say 12,000 dollars....that is around (at 30percent tax)around 3600 dollars. Not easy to come up with that kind of money for back taxes now is it?
Making them wait and wait and wait on payment for back taxes, till hell freezes over, is not what I would consider reasonable. Yet this is what JO and his yay teamers did all the time. This is why our roads and creek and many other city properties are like they are, red tape approach to problems does not get anything done. 24.05.07 11:44 Hey!!!
this is good news, maybe now we can rid WS of the filth od Sue Miller??? 24.05.07 09:11 Rumor has it
What!!! 22.05.07 15:49 DOC H
IT WOULD SEEM SIR RICHARD THAT THOU ART AS FOUL OF MOUTH AS YOU ARE OF HEART. 21.05.07 22:39 oh give me a break
same o same o coming from the other side of the fence. i will believe it when i see it. same crap as someone saying that sue was going to be arrested during a council meeting. 21.05.07 21:18 sarge
I wonder if Nolan will make contributions to her " commisary" fund? Guess Sue-eee can get her "boys" to tell her all about "the life". 21.05.07 18:12 To Nolan from Richard
And it would appear that you Doc H think with your ASS and not your brain!!
Then again, it would expected from someone who worships the ground Sue walks on, right Nolan?? 21.05.07 17:01 DOC H
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR. "To Nolan from Richard" HAS TROUBLE THINKING OF ANYTHING TO WRITE ON HIS OWN.....BLESS HIS HEART! 21.05.07 16:39 To Nolan from Richard
Did you read this again Nolan, its good news for the citizens, maybe now they can get rid of Miller!! 21.05.07 15:09 oh give me a break
no it is you who do not like the truth. like i said, if outz had done this everyone of you would be applauding him and patting him on the back for a job well done. and it would just give him another excuse to sit up on the podium and say "look at me and everything i have done" 17.05.07 15:18 ex employee
Ouzts used to direct staff all the time before I went to another city. 17.05.07 15:14 resident
Wonder why we haven't seen or heard from Alan Price since his plan BACKFIRED!!!! 17.05.07 14:46 resident
whats wrong, don't like the truth? 17.05.07 14:41 oh give me a break
if your precious mayor had done this every single one of you would have been applauding and patting him on the back saying what a good guy he was for doing this for those ungrateful volunteer firemen. 16.05.07 22:25 NEWSFLASH!!!!!
SOMEONES ASS IS IN DEEP SHIT, AND I DON'T MEAN BECAUSE OF BAD PLUMBING!!!! 16.05.07 21:59 |
Add comment
| |
