watchdog

Thursday, December 28, 2006

December 28, 2006

Will the City Save Millions as the County Has Done?

Watchdog has finally gotten Shelby County to buy their computers off either the State of Tennessee Contract (Office of Information Resources) or the Western State Contract Alliance (WSCA) at 30% less than they had previously been paying. Now it is time for the City of Memphis and the MLGW to do the same instead of giving the business to various friends and supporters as they have done in the past, spending millions more than they would have spent had they bought from the above sources.

There is an upcoming RFP which is shown below and watchdog will be following this closely. This software can be purchased from the above sources but the City and MLGW have refused to do so in the past, spending millions more than necessary. See the attached file showing how much the City has spent through the questionable ACS contract with certain vendors. The county just saved 30% by agreeing to buy from the State of Tennessee or from WSCA. What is the excuse of the City and the MLGW?

Click here to see the companies and friends of the mayor who have been getting millions in contracts.

Click here to read the upcoming RFP and especially Section 3.1 on page 6 to see how this is set up to exclude buying from the State contracts.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

CONGRATULATIONS TO SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR FINALLY PUTTING THE INTERESTS OF THE TAXPAYERS AHEAD OF SPECIAL INTERESTS!!!

December 20, 2006

Memphis Watchdog has been watching for some time the purchasing policies of the City of Memphis and the MLGW. Back in September of this year I was alerted to an upcoming bid on Dell Computers by Shelby County. I was told that the County could buy from the Tennessee state Dell contract or from the Western State Contract Alliance (WSCA). It was bid No. SBI001230 due on September 12, 2006. I sent an open records letter on September 16 asking for all the information about the bids such as who bid, the prices, the selection process etc. The reason I sent the open records request letter was that in the past Thomas Consultants Inc had gotten the great majority of the County computer contracts in an amount close to $1 million dollars even though Gateway was considerably lower in cost. I kept following up on the bid No. SBI001230 and was finally told that all bids were rejected. I then followed up to see what in fact happened and this is what I found out.

• The computers will be ordered from either the State of Tennessee Dell contract or from the WSCA at a savings of 30%.
• There were some communications concerning Darrell Thomas discussing the Finance and IT departments who did not want to share the business with Thomas unless the County Commission demanded that they do so. Thomas thought that he would get the business as he had in the past based on the county buying through a purchasing agent for Dell rather than Dell direct. See the emails below.
• Thomas has gotten contracts in the past at the MLGW for $1.16 million bidding against Dell direct even though his price was considerably higher.
• Thomas has gotten contracts from the City of Memphis through the ACS contract for $2.35 million from July of 2002 to March of 2006.
• The amount of overpayment to Thomas at the 30% higher price is $1.35 million dollars. Add to this the other ACS contracts to Lesure, Integrate Technologies, Mitchell Technologies, Trinity Technologies you are talking about $3.93 million dollars cost to the taxpayers due to these minority purchase policies.

The reason that this contract disposition is so important is that the City of Memphis has a Request for Proposal that is very similar and is due for bid on January 5, 2007 and is under the ACS cloak like the ones mentioned above. Click on the document below and look at page 6 and you will see that they call for the Dell computers and others to be purchased only from Authorized Resellers (add 30% to price) rather than from Dell direct or from HP direct or other direct sellers. In the current atmosphere of self serving dealings we the taxpaying public must demand honesty and openness is the spending of our tax money.

Memphis Watchdog acknowledges that programs that train formerly disadvantaged people and firms has value but the methods of training and the amount of overpayment to minority firms must be clearly stated and the methods of certifying these firms must be a public function so everything is above board and everyone is treated fairly including the ultimate buyers, the taxpayers of Memphis and Shelby County.

Click here to read what the Shelby County purchasing and IT department have to say about their decision to purchase at the lowest cost

Click here to see how the City of Memphis has favored certain computer vendors under their ACS contract

Click here to see the upcoming City of Memphis bid under which they plan to give the contract to the same group of favorite vendors regardless of price

Monday, December 18, 2006

TAKING BACK GOVERNMENT

December 18, 2006

Watchdog and some other political activist are in the midst of a project to put the contributions to local politicians on a data base so the public can see who has contributed to our local pols. You may not be aware that at the state level, this information on contributors is required to be in electronic form so that it is easy to see who the contributors are. However on the local level, there is no such requirement and therefore to get the information on an electronic database the following is necessary.

• Go to the election commission and buy the records in sheet form. They obviously came from a spreadsheet but the electronic form is not voluntarily available.
• Once you get the sheets on contributors, you must enter the information in a data base which is very labor intensive.

It is obvious that the politicians do not want the public to easily have this information. We must demand that the Tennessee legislature force local politicians to furnish this information in electronic form as they are required to do at the state level so that the public can see easily who is paying for influence. You could say that they are contributing for good government but in light of local corruption that would be hard to believe.
I have shown below an outstanding article that I recently found that states the facts as I believe them to be. The local situation is a reflection of what is going on at the national level. We must pull together as the only thing politicians understand is money and votes. We have the votes if we will only organize and use the leverage that these votes reflect. I ask for your input.

Title: The next "Conservative" movement and the next "Liberal" movement starts here.
Source: None
URL Source: None
Published: Dec 5, 2006
Author: John Q Caucus
Post Date: 2006-12-05 11:50:53 by John Q Caucus
7 Comments

An open letter to ALL conservatives and ALL liberals, and everyone in between:
It pains us to report that the “Conservative” movement in this country is dead. Its expiration coincided with the simultaneous death of the country’s “Liberal” movement.
As evidence of their demise, let us present the myth of the “sweeping change” of the 2006 elections.
True, the control of the House and Senate switched from the Republicans to the Democrats. But when the dust settles and the next Congress is called into session, most of the "sweeping changes" will merely be that when the big money special interests write out their next round of checks they will merely change a few of the names in the “Payable To” section.
Consider this:
* 93% of all federal campaign money raised and spent in 2006 went to Congressional Incumbents, and 95.3% of those Incumbents were re-elected.
* This is the 6th straight election where more than 94% of Congressional incumbents have won.
* Campaign spending in 2002 before the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reforms" was $1.59 billion. AFTER McCain-Feingold was implemented, campaign spending jumped to $1.9 billion in 2004 and now total reported spending in 2006 is already over $2 billion and is expected to hit $2.6 billion when final reporting is in. (For those of you keeping score at home, this means that AFTER these supposed campaign finance reforms were implemented, actual campaign spending has risen over 63% in just the last 4 years.) Campaign finance reform is NOT the answer and will never work.
* While you and I (the general public) seem locked into endless public debates about the merits of “liberal vs. conservative’ or “Republican vs. Democrat”, the majority of special interest groups just give their money to members of BOTH parties…with the only selection criteria being that you must be an incumbent who has demonstrated that you have “played along” and rewarded your special interest benefactors with public money and/or favorable tax treatment.
Net effect?
No matter which party has controlled Congress, the special interest groups that fund the perpetual re-election of the Incumbents have received a staggering return on their “investment”. That return on investment continues to grow every year…and that growth is in direct proportion to the simultaneous reduction in influence that you and I (the general public) have in deciding who can be elected to Congress.
How much has our influence been diminished? In 2004, less than 1/10th of 1% of Americans gave 83% of ALL campaign contributions.
Stop and think about that for a minute: When the other 99.9% of us can only chip in 17% of the money our Congressmen need to get re-elected, how much do you think they care about what we think?
Now that our influence over who can be elected to Congress is co-opted, the “Big Money” special interests have become the de facto 4th Branch of Government.
The demise of the Conservative and Liberal movement is both the cause and the result of our national surrender to this 4th branch of government.
Both movements were successful enough to pay the same price for success. Originally true to their respective agendas, both movements found their agendas were politically inconvenient once they were in power. The agenda got in the way of making deals, gaining more power and collecting money. In time, both ceased to be real movements and became a single “Establishment”, perpetuated by special interest money.
This single “Establishment” is now known as the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, which provides access, influence and resources to those who will play along. While perpetuating the myth that in theory they are different, in the practical day to day business of running a government both parties are one and the same.
The result has been a "conservatism" and “liberalism” in Congress that bears little resemblance to what most of America thought they were fighting for. Is it any surprise that the majority of Americans choose not to vote?
So it is now time for a new movement, and here is what the next movement has to look like:
* PRINCIPLES: The next movement cannot be about being a Democrat or a Republican. It cannot be about Conservatism or Liberalism. Instead, the next movement has to be about uniting simply as Americans with common principles.
* INTEGRITY: The next movement cannot be about raising money and “fighting in Washington”. Big Money has already won that battle. Instead, the next movement has to be about using OUR combined integrity to trump THEIR money.
* PRAGMATISM: The next movement cannot be about political actions like “writing your congressman” or “signing a petition”. Those traditional outlets might have worked in the past but today they only result in a form letter from your congressman thanking you “for your input”. Instead, the next movement has to be singly devoted to the pragmatism of delivering actual votes on election day.
* LEVERAGE: The next movement can not be about forming a 3rd party or forming yet another traditional grass roots organization, as neither approach would succeed. Instead, the next movement has to be about leveraging the size and power of the existing parties into returning control of government back to the general public.
The question then becomes, how do we build this new movement based on PRINCIPLES, INTEGRITY, PRAGMATISM, and LEVERAGE?
In future open letter posts we will explore how this new movement will be accomplished. For now, the good news is this: We see a way to pull this off that doesn't require us to have to contribute money to political candidates.
We welcome your input.
Sincerely, John Q. Caucus
(John Q. Caucus is the public voice of the combined steering committee of The Independence Caucus, which defines itself as "A citizens movement to take our Government back from the "Big Money" Special Interest groups...using our Integrity instead of our Money." More information about the Independence Caucus can be found at http://uscaucus.com/)

Wednesday, December 13, 2006


December 14, 2006

MONUMENTS TO STUPIDITY AND GREED AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE

Watchdog decided to visit two monuments to the greed and stupidity of two Memphis City Council members who are lately much in the news. At Whitehaven, the course was open on a beautiful golf day with no more than a few golfers and no customers in the huge clubhouse in which most of the rooms were locked. At Riverside, the clubhouse was closed. Who is responsible for these $5.5 million dollar blunders?

• TaJuan Stout Mitchell who will soon take a high priced job ($85,000) with the Herenton Administration as a replacement for Gale Jones Carson as executive assistant. She is obviously interested in raising her pension under the 2001 pension resolution.
• Edmund Ford who is under investigation for taking bribes.
• The City Council who voted for these two projects.

The monuments are the Whitehaven golf course and clubhouse (TaJuan Stout Mitchell) and the Riverside club house (Edmund Ford).

Since no city council seats are elected city-wide any more, each council member concerns himself/herself primarily with what is good for the district in which each is elected. It makes it easier for them to get re-elected. As a result, council members divvy up pork barrel projects for each one’s district with little regard to real city needs. Here are the two recent examples of poor use of taxpayer money to benefit individual council members.

• Whitehaven Golf Center

$4 million for a golf course very few will play plus $700,000 a year to maintain it.

When the city council eliminated the Memphis Park Commission they said it was because the citizen-board disregarded the council priority list for park projects.
One such project was the board’s refusal to rebuild the recently purchased Whitehaven Country Club property into a city golf course, as desired by council woman Tajuan Stout Mitchell.

The board refused to do so because the $200,000 master plan for Memphis parks submitted by the park board (and approved earlier by the city council) called for that property to be turned into a multi-use, neighborhood park to replace McKellar Park, which had been sold to the airport authority. Outside experts who prepared the master plan recommended against any new city-owned golf facilities.

The council approved the golf center in Ms. Mitchell’s district and allocated more than $4 million for a nine-hole golf course and community building. The parks division included $700,000 in next year’s operating budget for maintenance and operation of the facility.

After revenue from operations, this new center should place an additional half-million dollars a year burden on the city’s operating budget.

When one former councilman was asked why it was approved, he answered, “Oh, we just had to give Tajuan her four million dollars.”

• Riverside Golf Clubhouse

$1.5 million for a “Taj Mahal” at a little-played golf facility

After Mitchell got “her $4 million” for Whitehaven Golf Center, Councilman Edmund Ford then demanded a new clubhouse for Riverside Golf Course in his district, and the council, of course, approved.

A new $1.5 million, 5,000-square-foot club house and snack bar at Riverside.This facility is more than twice the size of the clubhouse at the 18-hole golf course of the most expensive private country club in Memphis.

Maintenance and operating costs, which already exceed revenue at Riverside, will now go up annually for taxpayers.

Monday, December 11, 2006

THE MLGW HONEYPOT

December 12, 2006

As we approach Christmas it is a good time to sit back and think about what is going on in the City of Memphis.

• The corruption in the City of Memphis and Shelby County is well entrenched and getting worse. Who knows who will be the next public figure to fall.
• The City Council, the City Administration and the MLGW are changing fast as people run to secure a higher salary or pension as they are unsure who will be the next figure to fall.
• The only thing that is in relatively good financial shape is the MLGW. As of December 31, 2005, they were sitting on $192 million in unrestricted cash and cash equivalents as compared to $151 million as of December 31, 2004. They have stated that they only need cash to cover 30 days purchases and this would be an average of $94 million. Why do they not return this $98 million dollar excess in lower rates?

But you have to ask yourself why are they in such good shape? The obvious answer is that they are a monopoly and they can charge whatever they and the City Council choose. They always look good in their statements because they have ghost positions in their budget which they do not fill and therefore they come in under budget. If they make a mistake in gas purchases, they simply pass the mistake along in their purchased gas adjustment (PGA). A current analysis shows that the gas rates in the last five months are running up to 65% higher than the Henry Hub Natural Gas Price index used as a standard for spot gas purchases rates. But you will only be able to know late next year if you have been ripped off because the MLGW is always very late in publishing their annual financial statements and they do not publish their annual budgets on their website as the City and the County do. WHY do they hide this information?

According to the law the MLGW is supposed to operate at a break even position with any profits returned to the rate payers in lower rates. Section 7-34-115 of the Tennessee Code states:

Operation of utility systems- Disposition of revenue. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, as a matter of public policy, municipal utility systems shall be operated on sound business principles as self-sufficient entities. User charges, rates and fees shall reflect the actual cost of providing the services rendered. No public works shall operate for gain or profit or as a source of revenue to a governmental entity, but shall operate for the use and benefit of the consumers served by such public works and for the improvement of the health and safety of the inhabitants of the area service. The law further states that “any surplus remaining, after establishment of proper reserves, if any, shall be devoted solely to the reduction of rates.”

Year after year they keep piling up profit when they should be returning these profits to the ratepayers in lower rates.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

December 6, 2006

THE CHARTER COMMISSION IS THE SOLUTION TO OUR ETHICS PROBLEMS IF THEY WILL ACT ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS

As I have been interested in this subject for some time, I would like to suggest the results of several years of intense study on this matter. I hope that they will give serious consideration to the following major subjects for needed changes to make for a better local government.

To these listed below I would add the following.

• A charter section like the Shelby County charter sections as listed below.

C. Voters of the county may frame and proposed amendments to this charter. They may propose any such amendment by a petition addressed to the board of county commissioners and containing the full text of the proposed amendment. Any petition proposing a charter amendment must be filed with the clerk of the board of county commissioners and must be signed by qualified voters of the county equal in number to at least 15 percent of the persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election in Shelby County. The clerk shall immediately deliver it to the county election commission. When such petitions have been determined sufficient, the county election commission shall submit same to the voters of the county in accordance with this section.
Editor's note: The Charter, § 5.05C., which states "at least 15 percent of the persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election" is superseded by the state law, T.C.A. § 2-5-151(d) which states "at least fifteen percent (15%) of those registered to vote in the ...county."
D. The county election commission shall submit to the voters of the county any charter amendment proposed and delivered to them in accordance with the provisions of this section. They shall submit any such amendment to the voters at the next regular county election if one occurs not less than 60 and not more than 120 days following the delivery to such authorities of the ordinance or petition proposing the amendment. Not less than three weeks before any election at which a proposed charter amendment is to be voted on, the election authorities shall publish a notice in a daily newspaper of general circulation. The form of the ballot for submission of proposed charter amendments shall be governed by state law concerning referendum elections. If a majority of the voters of the county voting upon a proposed charter amendment votes in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective at the time fixed in the amendment or, if no time is therein fixed, 30 days after its adoption by the voters of the county. Any charter amendment shall be published promptly after its adoption in the manner provided in this charter for adopted ordinances.

• A charter amendment requiring resignation of an elected official if they are under indictment.

• An open records charter amendment requiring election commission reports of donations and expenditures to be submitted electronically in spreadsheet format so that they can be entered into a unified database and published for notification and verification of information.

The following proposed changes were submitted and proposed to the elected charter commission in August of this year after the election. Hopefully they will address these recommendations. Judge Brown said “If it aint broke, don’t fix it.” Well it is certainly broke and now you and your other six members have a chance to fix it.

THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED IN THE CITY OF MEMPHIS CHARTER AND EXAMPLES OF WHY CHANGES ARE NEEDED. HOPEFULLY THE CHARTER COMMISSION WILL ADDRESS AND ENDORSE THESE NEEDED CHANGES?

Here are some of the most important items that need to be addressed by the Charter Commission in the upcoming discussions with the public. There will no doubt be many more issue and questions, the following issues illustrate the most egregious problems that certainly need solutions.

• TERM LIMITS- Prevent elected officials from getting the tenure that gives them the position to sell their influence to developers and other buyers of political influence exhibited by Tennessee Waltz.

• NO SALE OF MLGW WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL- Because MLGW is piling up cash at the ratepayers expense, politicians want to get their hands on the cash. As of December 31, 2005, MLGW had $167 million in unrestricted cash, up from $111 million in one year. The law says that any surplus remaining after establishment of proper reserves, shall be devoted solely to the reduction of rates. SEE THE ATTACHMENT TO SEE HOW MUCH OF YOUR RATE MONEY IS BEING KEPT IN UNRESTRICTED CASH BY THE MLGW.

• THIGHTEN ETHICS RULES- No election official should be able to serve if he benefits from any contract involving City taxpayer money even if he recuses himself from voting on that particular contract or issue.

• PENSION REFORM- the January 2001 pension change has cost millions of dollars to date and will go on costing millions more as these elected and appointed officials retire. Since hardly any of the taxpaying public has a defined benefit pension plan anymore, a defined contribution plan should be instituted in the future for all newly hired public employees.

• OPEN RECORDS- Only by putting all important contract bids, purchase orders, personnel salaries and benefits on the internet and by making open records access easier, can we keep the sunshine on government practices which politicians like to conceal. The current no bid purchase orders given under the ACS contract shield is an example of gross abuse and lack of transparency in bidding and awarding contracts.

• APPOINTEES- There were over 400 appointees whereas the charter, according to Sara Hall’s reading, only allows about 110. This needs to be defined and limited to much less. The January 2001 pension resolution allowing elected and appointed officials to collect pensions and health benefits after only 12 years regardless of age has already cost millions and has the potential to cost $60 million if all of the current eligible elected and appointed people retire under that provision.

• RESTRICT ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM VOTING MEMBERSHIP ON CITY AND COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS- This is where the influence peddling starts and needs to be stopped. As an example, Rickey Peete is chairman of the Center City Commission and is on the Center City Development Board and on the Pilot committee of the Industrial Development Board. Barbara Swearengen Holt is on the Center City Commission board. Scott McCormick is on the Pilot evaluation committee. There are so many boards and commissions that it is difficult to get a full picture of all of the members.

• CONTRACTING AUTHORITY- Prohibit the Mayor, any Mayor, from signing any contract unless it has been approved and funded by the City Council. The Linebarger contract given to a firm charging 20% commission for the collection of delinquent taxes when the County Trustee offered to collect the same money for 2% is a good example of abuse.

Monday, December 04, 2006

December 4, 2006

THE REST OF THE RICKEY PEETE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES AND DONATIONS GOING BACK TO 1996

As promised watchdog has gone over the files for Mr. Peete and here are the high lights and complete files for your perusal.

• In a 1/30/02 statement of interest under sources of income Mr. Peete stated three sources, Beale Street Merchants Association, the Tennessee Technology Institute and RWP and Associates. The Beale Street Merchants Association we know about but do not have any information about income. The Tennessee Technology Institute we cannot find anything about it. RWP and Associates is apparently a deal to get money from candidates to get on a sample ballot sponsored by Peete.

Clcik here to read about selling spaces on the Peete ballot

• Campaign donations to Janis Fullilove ($1200), Joe Cooper ($500), A. C. Wharton ($1000), Brent Taylor ($500)
• A number of large payments to James Sellers as a campaign consultant and for other services.
• Many contributions for tickets and other favors to the City of Memphis Credit Union.
• $500 to Shep Wilbun Jr. for campaign consultation.

On the donation side we note the following well known individual donors and lawfirms

• James and Virginia McGehee Jr. and James III
• Farris, Mathews, Brana & Helen, PLC
• Cynthia Hyneman
• Joe Cooper
• Dean Jernigan
• John Bobango
• John Farris
• Barbara Hyde
• J. R. Hyde III
• Kevin Kane
• Anne Stokes
• The Harold Ford Group
• Mike and Sharon Ritz
• Kevin Hyneman
• John Elkington
• Gail Schledwitz
• Deidre Malone
• Henry Turley
• Rusty Hyneman
• Committee to Re-elect Mayor Herenton
• Mr. or Mrs. Jalenak Jr.
• Wallace Madewell
• Mr. William Orgel
• Dan B. Turley Jr.
• Gail R. Schledwitz
• Russell Gwatney
• Harold E. Ford
• J. Kevin Hyneman

There is one other interesting item which goes back to 1996. Apparently there were some loans made to his campaign during the period from November 1995 to December 1996. They were from Rusty Hyneman, $1750, Thomas Farnsworth, $1300, Jackie Welch, $2000, Ralph B. Smith, $750, John Elkington, $3000, Harold E. Buehler, $600, Dan Turley $250 and Alex Parish, $2500.

It takes a lot of money to win a $30,000+ Memphis City Council seat. Good, honest government-PRICELESS.

Click here to see who contributed to Peete's campaign form 1996 to 2003

Click here to see what the doantions were spent on from the money in Peete's campaign chest

Friday, December 01, 2006

A LESSON IN HOW POLITICS REALLY WORKS

December 1, 2006

For some time, watchdog has been gathering campaign financial disclosure statements from the Shelby County Election Commission. With the recent scandal involving Edmund Ford and Rickey Peete I thought this would be a good time to display some of the information. I will publish additional information later but will start with the income and expenditure reports for the October 9, 2003 election of the City Council for Rickey Peete. As you know he won.

The expenditure side has some fascinating entries.
• Shep Wilbun Legal Defense Fund $250
• City of Memphis Credit Union, $4000 for entertainment tickets
• James Sellers Legal Defense Fund $1000
• American Scandia Fund, Boston, Ma, $34,979.03 to cover market loss on investment in mutual fund, net loss $23,016.99.
• Committee to Elect Michael Hooks $1000
• Committee to Elect Roscoe Dixon $1500
• James Sellers, constituent services, coordinator, political consultant, $6850
• James Sellers, political strategist consultant, campaign coordinator, $5000
• Roscoe Dixon Senatorial Campaign $400
• Janice Fullilove Campaign Donation $500
• James Sellers, political strategist and consultant $6500
• MNBA, entertainment tickets for constituents $3500

The donation side has a lot of familiar names.
• Kathleen and Dick Hackett $250
• Mr. L. R. Jalenak Jr $150
• Robert Fogelman $300
• Sam Dattel $250
• Gail Schledwitz $1000
• Mrs. Anne Stokes $1000
• Joe Cooper $250
• J R Hyde III $1000
• Dan Turley Jr. $250
• Arnold Perl $250
• Ricky Wilkins $250
• Robert Lanier $250
• Rick Masson $250
• Michael Heisley $500
• Federal Express Political Action $500
• Shelby County Election Commission $100
• Time Warner Communications Employee PAC $1250
• Gregory Duckett $250
• Deidre Malone $400
• Henry Turley $1250
• Arnold Perl $1000
• Barbara Hyde $1000
• Andy Cates $500
• Michael Turley $1000
• Memphis Electric Sign Association $1000
• Practically all the signs companies in town $$$$
• John Elkington $1000

I guess they all were interested in promoting good honest government. More later.

Click here to see how Rickey's campaign money was spent

Click here to see who donated to Rickey's campaign for good government