After hearing (but apparent not listening) to the public,
the Fire Board approved the 80% TAX INCREASE. Despite their promise to answer the question posed two weeks earlier, they failed to do so.
A people's referendum to allow the voters to weigh in on the issue is
ready for signatures (1500 needed by October 5)
Gentlemen,
I'm afraid that a many questions from the public were left
unanswered at the continuation of the "truth" hearing Wednesday. I
would also suggest that while Steve Capson gave an excellent
overview of websites that can provide a great deal of information,
there may have been a few, shall we say, inconsistencies with the
declaration that the Fire Department SSD is "transparent."
- Transparent Utah is not optional;
- "Participating
state entities shall
submit detail revenue and expense transactions
from their general ledger accounting system to the UPFW at
least quarterly and within one month after the end of the
fiscal quarter."
- Employee wages ARE
required
- "Participating
state entities will submit employee compensation detail
information on a basis consistent with its fiscal year to
the UPFW at least once per year"
- Wasatch
County Fire district IS listed as a participant, but gives
this result for 2013:
- "We're
sorry, but we did not find any transactions that met your
criteria.
Please
revise your search above, or visit this entity's profile
page for more information:"
- AND the same for 2012
- 2011 does have some figures, but NO names on salaries.
- http://wasatchcountyfire.com/
is a very nice website and provides quite a bit of information
- It does NOT, however include wages and salaries after 2011
- The 2013 budget is not the same as posted on the SAO website,
and shows a deficit.
- Although Utah law requires posting minutes and recordings
shortly (3 days?) after meetings, the only one seen today
under http://wasatchcountyfire.com/public-information/fire-board-minutes/audio-recordings/
is the Aug 7, 2013 TnT Hearing (which might be helpful for
you all to listen to so you can again hear the question which
were asked in public comments.)
- While most minutes may be posted, the 11/29/12 meeting,
wherein the Tax increase hearing was approved, required
several GRAMA requests and the aid of the ombudsman to finally
get a couple of days before the August 2013 hearing.
I could continue, but I hope the point is made -
this is NOT
transparency, either that required by law or that openness
which fosters communication and trust.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that there are MANY well
qualified, competent and available people who are, or would be if
asked or considered, in this county who would be more than happy
to serve.
As noted in the county code mentioned below, this is what your
rules and direction are -
The council is
encouraged to cooperate with and fully utilize the
county's special service districts and special service
areas elected administrative control boards,
appointed boards and commissions, and to give full
consideration to information and recommendations
communicated by such boards and commissions, in order to maximize citizen participation in
county government.
I fail to understand why this is seems so difficult to understand or
to put into place. The more citizen involvement, the better the
government, while we also include the standard that "That government
is best, which governs least."
Regards, in transparency and openness, still looking forward to
answers,