I believe this would have been the third year the Mayor would have brought to the City Council a request to continue to retain a Lobbyist for Peru at the cost of $24,000 per year. To be truthful I never thought it necessary but continue to follow the work done by obtaining the quarterly reports sent to the city by the Lobbyist. If you are interested in past comments just put the word MrAnarney into the search bar on this blog and you will get those posts and reports from past years.
Last year there was some hesitation on the part of several of the Aldermen but they agreed to see what happens in the next year spanning July 2016 to July 2017. This year I began watching City Council minutes to see when a discussion about this hire would appear and it did not but a friend told me that is was strange that the amount of $2000 a month was appearing on the disbursements to the Lobbyist but no contract was found or any discussion about the issue was found or heard.
This was my foia to find out why we were paying an individual each month but we did not renew the contract. Now how many people would look to the budget under Administrative Expenses for the Mayor to find the answer. Evidently the Mayor did not wish to bring up the hire up at a City Council meeting. And we should all be asking Why. I believe I know Why but you are free to make up your own mind.
10 comments:
I too have wondered when and where the McNarney contract was voted on and approved. The last I found was that his current contract ended in May or June of 2016. So, being he is listed as a line item in the budget are we assuming he no longer needs to be or is under contract? What I still have trouble understanding is why the mayor has discontinued having the council vote on renewing his contract, after all he has been a line item in the budget at least since 2015. I do remember that previously some of the aldermen were uncertain as to whether or not his contract should be renewed. Lack of votes???
Interesting Information:
The minutes of the June 27, 2016 city council meeting reflect the last time Mr. McAnarney's 1 year contract was renewed. The vote was tied and the Mayor broke the tie by voting "aye". Could this have anything to do with why he is still on the payroll but not under contract?
A quote from Mr McAnarney from a report dated July 19, 2017. I am interacting daily with the decision makers who can impact matters of importance to Peru. I, of course speak with Mayor Harl almost daily, so I know what Peru needs and wants from Springfield.
What exactly is the mayors job description? The City has already hired the Peru Police Chief to be their Administrator,(a job done by the Mayor in all previous administrations), so administration has been hired out. The Lobbyist evidently handles everything else. Even tho Rep. Jerry Long and Sen. Sue Rezin have said they would be glad to give assistance to our mayor.
Just for your information, you can easily do a foia and obtain all the reports sent to the city from the Lobbyist. They are very interesting.
So 9:38 are you saying that at the last vote to renew his contract half of the aldermen were opposed and maybe, just maybe, one year later another alderman indicated he might change his vote to "nay"? Did the aldermen 4 aldermen who voted "no" in 2016 agree to keeping him on the payroll or did they have no choice?
From the information I've been gathering it appears as though the Springfield lobbyist's salary has become a line item in the budget and therefore (supposedly) no contract is needed and the only way that can be questioned is by failing to approve the entire budget. The problem I have is that, upon further investigation, the lobbyist's salary has been a line item in the operating budget since 2015 and he was under contract until the middle of 2016. The budget posted above and on facebook is FY2018. Stumped!!
My question is if the lobbyist is no longer under contract, and not appointed by council, is he then an employee of the city of Peru?
What is the entire annual cost of the lobbyist to the city? Failing to approve the entire budget maybe the point of leverage needed in Peru. Don't the costs of FOIA's seem insignificant in comparison to the city expense of a Springfield lobbyist whose idea from creation on is strictly under the liability of Mayor Harl, the same person who is labeling FOIA's too costly.
Mayor Harl why don't you climb the food chain of importance to discover which the federal gov't feels there is more a need of, your lobbyist or their FOIA.
Lois failing to approve the entire budget could possibly be a good thing. At the present I am not concerned with the pail Jack and Jill are carrying up the hill but what is in the pail. Recent terms of transparency have become very hard to determine what in the city is transpiring and where it is leading us to.
To have a non budgeted position costing Peru at least $24K/year created for the wants of a elected city official is upsetting especially when that same official is petitioning the council for a trip to China for a party of _ ? but as CEO of Peru City Hall questions certain citizens about their financial expenses over FOIA's? Tare down that wall of non transparency Mayor Harl, tare down that wall!
1:43 Oct. 22
Even if the lobbyist is now a city employee aren't they usually voted on and approved by full council?
Great question 8:59 AM, Yes administrative appointments are voted upon by the city council at a city council meeting to determine and obtain the approval or disapproval of the Mayors appointment. In the last number of years many questions such as yours have been passed by without a answer because of this administrations lack of a solid base of honesty with a general feeling that the number of the Peru populace who care is at a all time low. Sadly this is when Peru to progress needs its greatest interest of the populace.
To be frank I personally am not aware if the council has voted upon the lobbyist issue. Some day soon Peru may once again live under a government which does not search for "super majority clauses" which skirt around the wishes of those it represents and "Meetings of a Whole" which have eliminated the ability of the interested citizen to have any knowledge or input of what his elected government has selflessly intended for his city.
It is disgusting that this administration worked so hard, even travelling to Springfield, to prove who owned Test to develop a open, honest transparent government and look at it now. What ever happened to the open forum city meetings promised by Harl every 3 months to inform the public of what was going on with Peru government and city progress.
OPEN HONEST TRANSPARENT
Post a Comment