A pack mentalitiy

I am so sick of the wild assumptions and imaginings that fly around the typical crew of doom and gloom sayers.

Among the latest wild ramblings are:

The city is nearly bankrupt.

The city is not planning for long term needs.

The city is short on cash and can't get insurance.

The city would do better with a part time or hourly attorney than a full time one.

Jack Porter will run for mayor.

That Steve Pauken wanting to use a city vehicle amounts to theft.

I am tired of stupid allegations based on ignorance or malice being discussed as fact. Even when someone answers their idiotic questions these blowhards just keep on yapping. They are about as popular as a pack of inbred toy poodles. The only thing that is certain about them is that they will bark alot and piss on everything.

Rainman wrote:

I am so sick of the wild assumptions and imaginings that fly around the typical crew of doom and gloom sayers.

Among the latest wild ramblings are:

The city is nearly bankrupt.

The city is not planning for long term needs.

The city is short on cash and can't get insurance.

The city would do better with a part time or hourly attorney than a full time one.

Jack Porter will run for mayor.

That Steve Pauken wanting to use a city vehicle amounts to theft.

I am tired of stupid allegations based on ignorance or malice being discussed as fact. Even when someone answers their idiotic questions these blowhards just keep on yapping. They are about as popular as a pack of inbred toy poodles. The only thing that is certain about them is that they will bark alot and piss on everything.

The 'ramblings' are:
#1 and #2 combined -- Bisbee's operating funds are to an alarming extent based on the availability of grant or other outside funds. Things are gonna get tight as the economy further slows. Why are we making no apparent provision for all this?
#3 -- I have no idea about the City's insurability. About the City's shortness of cash, we have only to listen to the talking heads tell us they can't afford to fix the streets and other such small matters.
#4 -- The assertion is that this City does NOT NEED a full-time attorney whose major talent seems to be the losing of cases and the complication of city affairs.
#5 -- Deponent knoweth not, though believeth the rumors.
#6 -- No; Steve Pauken telling the Council, "That one's mine!" and the Council saying, "Oh; okay." That's wrong. It's the arrogance and blatant arrogation which ticks me off, coupled with the Council's blithe acceptance that if he wants, he gets.
Those are the responses of a "typical inbred toy poodle" (who is at least not a rude anonymous guest), and until those concerns are addressed rather than simply ignored in the hopes they'll go away, those will continue to be the responses of this poodle WITHOUT a bladder problem.

Maybe it is time to take a poll of city employees
as to City Manager Style and whether Yandow
Arrogance is preferable to Pauken Arrogance.

How quickly you forget.

The key word in #1 and #2 is 'apparent'. Apparently nobody consulted Grima Wormtonque and his group. The city knows more than he does about what's on the chopping block. Somehow I have greater faith in those who know over those who enjoy criticism as a hobby.

As to #3...simply because Grima doesn't know what is in the works doesn't mean much. As to street repairs, the choice is similar to that between a bandaid or a cast for a broken leg. One costs slightly more than another and takes a bit longer to apply. The city is farsighted enough to know that slapping down asphalt over a crap substructure only means more potholes in the future. That is no small endeavour, but the folks will get more than a bandaid from this administration.

#4. If you had 6 cases that were pending and needed adjudicated and knew that they were going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in billable hours, which would have made more sense; leaving a position part time then having to pay out hundreds of thousands in subcontracted legal fees OR hiring a full time attorney at 90K?

#5. Believeth not all that reaches you on the wind...especially when it is methane fueled.

# 6. If you are offered cupcakes, expecting to receive one isn't arrogance nor is taking one theft.... even if they were set aside for the church social; however since nobody knew that at the time the error was a faux pas not a crime. Blame the mistake on a faulty assumption.

Excuse me if I leave the paper on the floor.

Grima Wormtonque. HA HA HA HA.

Rainman wrote:

The key word in #1 and #2 is 'apparent'. Apparently nobody consulted Grima Wormtonque and his group. The city knows more than he does about what's on the chopping block. Somehow I have greater faith in those who know over those who enjoy criticism as a hobby.

As to #3...simply because Grima doesn't know what is in the works doesn't mean much. As to street repairs, the choice is similar to that between a bandaid or a cast for a broken leg. One costs slightly more than another and takes a bit longer to apply. The city is farsighted enough to know that slapping down asphalt over a crap substructure only means more potholes in the future. That is no small endeavour, but the folks will get more than a bandaid from this administration.

#4. If you had 6 cases that were pending and needed adjudicated and knew that they were going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in billable hours, which would have made more sense; leaving a position part time then having to pay out hundreds of thousands in subcontracted legal fees OR hiring a full time attorney at 90K?

#5. Believeth not all that reaches you on the wind...especially when it is methane fueled.

# 6. If you are offered cupcakes, expecting to receive one isn't arrogance nor is taking one theft.... even if they were set aside for the church social; however since nobody knew that at the time the error was a faux pas not a crime. Blame the mistake on a faulty assumption.

Excuse me if I leave the paper on the floor.

To begin with the important stuff: God, I love the way you write!

Now: #1-- what we're asking about is whether anyone is gonna let the citizens and voters in on the crap that's coming down in the newar-term future.
#3 -- slapping down (cold) hotpatch is all we've seen for the past couple years! And we've seen no indication of anything better; on the contrary, all we have heard is poor-mouthing over what we can do with 600K in HURF funds....
#4 -- Sorry; ye'll never convince me that McKinnon is worth the Kleenex it would take to blow his nose. On this point, I will admit to being a bit unreasonable, but I've watched this creature carefully, and am NOT impressed either with his legal acumen or with his worth to the community.
#5 -- I repeat, deponent knoweth not.
#6 -- He was not OFFERED a cupcake! He decided it was HIS cupcake, and informed the Council thus; the council then rolled over, put its legs in the air, and acceded. This is wrong.

Leave the paper on the floor; when you learn to read, you can pick it up. I've been house-trained.

In response to the important stuff. Thank you and ditto.

#1. I think this argument can be attributed to an ideological difference in management; I don't micromanage things I have assigned to others, do you? I suspect the city will do what you or I would do in similar circumstance; look for additional income or cut expenses. Time will tell.

#3. The bandaid I am speaking of is resurfacing roads not simply applying cold patch. Cold patching and street crews are included in the regular budget for the street department (along with other things). My analogy was between repaving or replacing streets. Slapping down a new surface without replacing what is beneath is a superficial and temporary fix. If it were your house and you had the choice of adding another layer of shingles to a one hundred year old roof or replacing everything with new plywood, felt, and 30 year shingles, which would you do?

#4. I doubt you know about the issues that were pending before your residence; a bad outcome with those could have cost the city much more than the salary they offered for a full time attorney to get rid of them.

#6. Actually the cupcake was his contract. The council merely approved his request because as far as they knew there was no reason not to. I repeat it was a faux pas by both. In the final analysis he didn't get to use the SUV but the city sure did during that fire.

For someone who claims they're house trained you really are fixated on that paper. Don't worry, I've already read it.

In regards to #4

Rainman, you seem to think that the City hires a big league, outside law firm ONLY when the City Attorney is part time (or at least not Full Time like MacKinnon).

But, is not the City paying big league, outside lawyers now ----- even with MacKinnon on the full time payroll?
I forget their names but the city writes checks, big ones, to outside lawyers for work Johnny cannot or will not handle.

Check it out !!!!!!!

#4.

No I don't think that the city hires outside law firms ONLY when the city attorney is part time, nor did I say it. There are times when every city must hire outside help, certain things just can't be done by regular staff, but outside help is expensive and when practical that expense should be avoided. Needing outside help isn't an argument against the city avoiding it when it can.

Rainman wrote:

In response to the important stuff. Thank you and ditto.

#1. I think this argument can be attributed to an ideological difference in management; I don't micromanage things I have assigned to others, do you? I suspect the city will do what you or I would do in similar circumstance; look for additional income or cut expenses. Time will tell.

#3. The bandaid I am speaking of is resurfacing roads not simply applying cold patch. Cold patching and street crews are included in the regular budget for the street department (along with other things). My analogy was between repaving or replacing streets. Slapping down a new surface without replacing what is beneath is a superficial and temporary fix. If it were your house and you had the choice of adding another layer of shingles to a one hundred year old roof or replacing everything with new plywood, felt, and 30 year shingles, which would you do?

#4. I doubt you know about the issues that were pending before your residence; a bad outcome with those could have cost the city much more than the salary they offered for a full time attorney to get rid of them.

#6. Actually the cupcake was his contract. The council merely approved his request because as far as they knew there was no reason not to. I repeat it was a faux pas by both. In the final analysis he didn't get to use the SUV but the city sure did during that fire.

For someone who claims they're house trained you really are fixated on that paper. Don't worry, I've already read it.

My last entry in this dialogue follows, since it seems in your post that you have moderated considerably the inflammatory language with which you opened.
#1: My original point (and the basis of my somewhat querulous attitude) is that it would be nice if we had any clue that City government is even thinking ahead to the almost-inevitable tightening of the funds it needs. As tax revenues fall pursuant to the general slowdown, as grant funds tighten up. . . .
#3: I have failed to see even a single incident of actual road-building in the almost three years I've been here (except for what PD is doing) -- not one. We agree that road-building is a better response to the ungodly condition of our streets. . . but there's "no money", and apparently no experience.
#4: You're right; I know little about what happened before I got here to impel Bisbee to sign this yoyo on. What I've seen SINCE I've been here is less than reassuring! This guy can't even stop Jeff. . . .
#6: We agree that it was a faux pas! Your assertion that The Magnificent Seven saw "no reason not to" give Steve his toy -- even though it was 'bought' (Leased, it turns out!) for BPD -- is yet one more reason I am less than impressed with both TMS and Pauken. The fact that the City got to use it during the fire is irrelevant; it was acquired for them to use.

I am glad you noticed that during a discussion I am less inflammatory than when I am posting a personal opinion. There is a reason for that. I am having a discussion with another intelligent adult and I choose to leave my personal feelings out of it. That makes my responses different. It does not however alter my underlying opinion that finds politically driven allegations and assertions nauseating.

#1. Personally I am confused as to why you feel the need for constant updates and reports from the elected bodies we have chosen to represent us. Council meetings are open to the public specifically so constituents can know what is going on. Selecting not to exercise that option does not obligate the city to take extraordinary measures to overcome that failing.

3. Road building requires money. The reason you haven't seen results is that from what I hear the money allocations aren't formalized. I believe it takes almost as much time to collect the funds as it does to do the work. If you would like to donate 20 or 30 million I am sure the city would be more than willing to accept it and start construction tomorrow. The other option is to levy a tax increase to cover the needed work. I doubt anyone wants that.

#4. There were other cases that were resolved in the city's favor apart from the Harris matter. If you want specifics I direct you to the minutes of when they were discussed in session. Harris on the other hand is proof that justice is blind and why appeals are an option, because even judges are capable of mistakes.

#6. No body, particularly one comprised of laymen on a small town council are up to the minute on all laws and ordinances. Even attorneys with their 7 years of education and clerkship tenures of 1-3 years do not know every law by rote; that would be impossible and explains why attorneys spend hours in research and accrue such huge legal bills.
Generally both rely heavily on common practice. Only when an assumption is questioned does deeper research show that a prior practice was either incorrectly remembered or faulty. Anyone who expects perfection from the average group of people serving on a small town city council is either hopelessly optimistic or a political opponent.
A general rule of thumb. If you are really looking for signs of trouble in a public body look for one that never corrects mistakes not for one that does.

The City of Bisbee has not hired ANY outside Attorneys since I have worked here. Period. I have been here since January, 2006.

Regards,
Steve Pauken

I believe that it is in the City Manager's contract that he is entitled to a City owned vehicle. But, the vehicle provided to the City Manager can not be one purchased using RICO money. Someone, who we all unfortunately know of or about , has told many people that John MacKinnon told Steve Pauken that he could not use a RICO purchased vehicle. I don't know if there is any truth to that at all. I think Steve is a great person and would not do anything inappropriate. Steve gave back the vehicle once the conflict was realized. It is just people like the Chicken Herder who want to grasp at any straw to attempt to make those at the helm look bad.

It is true that my contract provides for a"suitable vehicle for business use". When I negotiated my contract for employment with the city, I offered to use my personal vehicle in exchange for a "vehicle allowance" like I had in my previous city. If there's one thing we have here, it's vehicles. Because of that, it's more cost effective to use a city vehicle than to pay me for the use of my personal vehicle. I've used 4 different vehicles since I've been here, because 3 of them have been less than dependable. The vehicle I currently use is a 1993 Chevy Trail Blazer, which was seized from a drug dealer with 700 lbs. of marijuana on board. It's had its problems with ignition problems, but it has been running well lately. These drug seizures are usually cars that are used hard for a short period, and it shows on this vehicle.

It is also true that one of the 9 vehicles that we purchased last year was intended for assignment to the city manager. As in all transactions we have made for vehicles since 2000, payments come froma variety of sources, including RICO, Federal Vehicle Asset forfeiture funds, and funds generated from vehicle auctions, which end up in the General Fund. The cars that we auction off come from seizures of drug dealers and transporters of illegal aliens. Both the vehicle purchases of 2004 and 2007 will use all 3 funds to pay for the lease-purchase plans we used for them. We will be more vigilant, however, to document the funds that pay for each vehicle in 2007 than we did in 2004 (prior to my arrival). As I stated last year, I will not accept the assignment of one of these new vehicles to me because of the politics that ensued surrounding that purchase. The vehicle in question has been assigned to a police officer.

Ironically, the vehicle I currently use is not as fuel-efficient as the new vehicles. That was a goal of the city, and because of the politics surrounding this purchase, it was assumed that this decision was going to lower our average fuel-economy.

On the Budget...I read an earlier post that said something about the city going bankrupt. That could not be further from the truth. In 2006, we ended up about 30,000 in the hole. In 2007, we ended up with a $140,000 surplus, and at the end of 2008 (in June) we will end up with a projected surplus of $200,000. While we're going in the right direction, we're budgeting for the next fiscal year (starts July 1st) to account for the recession I believe we're already in. The funds we recieve from the State of Arizona are going to be reduced by about $23,000, and the state pension fund has hit us with an additional $160,000. Our cost for Health Insurance premiums for our employees has increased by $26,000 The state also eliminated the share they invest in the Bisbee Bus, so we will have to transfer over $20,000 from the General Fund to keep this important service running. And, while our locally-generated revenues are strong, we have to be conservative in our estimates assuming we will be affected by the recession in the coming year.

I believe this recession will affect the city budget for the next two fiscal years. So, we're bracing for it. We have about $1.4 million banked in reserves right now, and it's my goal to keep it in the bank. Prudent management requires a healthy reserve fund for emergencies, and the money we have in reserve is not enough in my opinion. It would not even take a medium-sized catastrophy to wipe that out. We got lucky with the 30 Moon fire, because the State Land Department is paying the bill for all the wildland crews that showed up to keep us safe.

In short, we're in good shape financially, but we're taking a cautious approach for the next year or two. And we're definitely not going bankrupt! This recession will slow down our efforts to make critical improvements to our streets (except the Arizona Street project which is already funded) but it is a small price to pay for fiscal stability.

I know this was a long post but hopefully it is also informative.

Regards,
Steve Pauken

Thank you! You've answered a lot of questions, and addressed some other concerns -- and (speaking for myself) given me some things to re-adjust in my own head. I am genuinely grateful for your post, and hope that others pick up on the practice.

Jack wrote:

Thank you! You've answered a lot of questions, and addressed some other concerns -- and (speaking for myself) given me some things to re-adjust in my own head. I am genuinely grateful for your post, and hope that others pick up on the practice.

If only you had been so open-minded BEFORE you opened your mouth and accused him of theft.

Avenger. Well said.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Jack wrote:

Thank you! You've answered a lot of questions, and addressed some other concerns -- and (speaking for myself) given me some things to re-adjust in my own head. I am genuinely grateful for your post, and hope that others pick up on the practice.

If only you had been so open-minded BEFORE you opened your mouth and accused him of theft.

. . .and if only you didn't feel the need to be so cute. . . .

What I posted does not affect my view of the events surrounding the SUV incident. Those were (it turns out) leased for the Police Department, the public information is that the "purchase" was funded by RICO bounties. Either of those conditions being true, Pauken was not entitled to one of them.

Much of the rest of his post, though, was responsive to a number of other concerns I (and others) have voiced here and elsewhere. Now I notice in the Observer that at least two of TMS have the same script -- finally. Wouldn't YOU have loved to have the script during the SUV flap, Binky?

Thanks Steve for taking the time to put the truth out there. I think we are all lucky to have you as Bisbee's City Manager. People who are intelligent enough and open-minded enough see you for the great Manager you are. Unfortunately, there are a few who try to spread lies. Best Regards.

As you wish, sir. I have made my final attempts at civil discourse with you, and will now proceed as seems indicated in the circumstances which arise.

One note: You have little idea how offensive it is to be referred to as "Jeff Lite" -- or mayhap you do, and thus carefully selected that particular epithet. Yeah, that's probably it. . . .