|
Jul 30
|
I just completed my online interview with George Wenschhof. It is posted here:
Air-It-Out with George online interview
Thanks, George!
|
Jul 26
|
The City of Frederick has had to consolidate 12 voting precincts into six locations. If you have voted in a school in previous elections, you will NOT be voting there for this election. There are other changes as well. You can find your polling place by visiting the city’s website here:
FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE FOR 2009 CITY ELECTIONS
You can also view the changes on a map here:
|
Jul 26
|
We’ve been busy getting signs up in neighborhoods all over the city. Perhaps you’ve seen them!
|
Jul 09
|
The campaign is well underway, thanks to your help and support. I have been attending tons of local events, neighborhood “Meet and Greets”, and I am excited to report that support for the campaign is growing! As the primary election date of September 15 approaches, we are taking it to the next level. During the next few weeks, we will be distributing literature to folks who may not have had the chance to get to know me yet.
We understand that everyone’s time is valuable, so we’re offering two ways to participate. First, we are setting dates for groups to gather and hit the streets en masse. Our first gathering of “Kelly’s Heroes” will be on Saturday, July 18, at 10:00 am. We will meet at 301 College Avenue for a quick briefing, and then hit the streets. To energize you for the work, I will have coffee, juice, and yummy treats from Cakes for Cause!
To sign up to volunteer, we’ve made it as easy as pie (or cake)! Just click this link for VolunteerSpot and enter your email address. You will be sent a link with instructions on how sign up. It’s just that simple. You will receive email confirmation, and a reminder as the date approaches. Isn’t technology wonderful?
For those who cannot participate on that date, we offer an alternative. We will provide you with the literature and a list of addresses where we would like it dropped. That way you can distribute when you have a couple of available hours. Our target date for completing this round of literature is August 8.
Jean O’Connor is my point person for these drops. She will be with us on July 18, and will also be in charge of confirming volunteers and providing literature to those who would rather do it on their own schedule. You may contact her directly at magnumrn2@verizon.net, or 301-696-9428, to coordinate getting your materials.
The citizens of Frederick deserve leadership that is open, honest, and uses common sense. That is the cornerstone of this campaign. I hope you can help make this happen!
|
Jun 28
|
By now it is apparent to most of Frederick that the Early Retirement Incentive Plan (ERIP) was a mistake. Around June of 2008, articles began cropping up questioning this action by the Mayor and Board. Since this issue is one that I have been hearing concern about as I talk with Frederick residents, I’d like to share with voters the actions I took last spring to halt the implementation of the ERIP.
I was present at the workshop when the ERIP was introduced for discussion. Within days of that meeting I began voicing my objections to Aldermen and asking pointed questions about the plan. I made it clear to them in discussions before the approval that I believed the financial assumptions to be flawed, and that the human resources effects would be detrimental to operations. My opinions were based on my 22 years of service with the city, in particular nine years as the Commander of the Human Resources Division of the Frederick Police Department. My concerns unfortunately, were not heard.
After the plan was approved, I focused on finding a way to undo the damage. I found that the Rules of Procedure for the Board of Alderman allow for a “Motion to Rescind” in the event they wish to annul an action. I went to one of the Alderman and proposed such a motion. I also provided a list of 33 questions about the plan that I felt needed to be answered.
At the May 15, 2008 Mayor and Board meeting, Alderman Koontz made such a motion to rescind the approval and reconsider the plan. He also requested answers to the list of questions I had composed and distributed. Here is an excerpt from the minutes of that meeting of May 15:
Alderman Koontz had concerns about the recently passed early retirement plan and had compiled a list of questions. He made a motion to reconsider the early retirement resolutions, with a second by Alderwoman Kuzemchak. The vote was 2-2 with Aldermen Koontz and Kuzemchak voting for the motion and Aldermen Hall and Smith voting opposed to the motion. Mayor Holtzinger broke the tie by voting against the motion, making the vote 2 for and 3 opposed to reconsideration.
I spoke at the August 7, 2008 Mayor and Board meeting regarding the ERIP. The video is available at http://cityoffrederick.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2. My testimony begins at 2 hours and 30 minutes (2:30) into the video. Here is the full text of my remarks:
“My name is Kelly Russell. I am a 25 year resident of the City of Frederick, now residing on College Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to make public comment. For the record, I speak tonight as a taxpayer and resident, and in no other role. In accordance with the city’s Ethics law, Section 21-3 (a) (4), I am not representing any party before the Board of Aldermen.
On April 18, three of the five Aldermen voted to approve amendments to the city retirement plans that would allow for an Early Retirement Incentive Plan, or buyout. Why, some wondered? Apparently, some senior employees had asked the Mayor about actually paying the city to retire early. Finance and HR were tasked with researching the possibility. The next thing we know, an attorney for Aetna is presenting a plan that would actually pay the employees to retire early. I sat in disbelief at that meeting and wondered how this could be. After what amounted to a paltry excuse for discussion by the Aldermen, and a few very cursory questions, the amendments were approved. I was astounded.
As the days passed, questions started to develop about the plan, and I began to write them down. By May 7, I had made a list of 33 questions. Here are just a few:
If we use retirement funds to payout the early retirements, how does that affect our status with GASB requirements?
Will the long-term payback into the retirement fund come from the fund balance, department operating budgets, or somewhere else?
How much more will be paid back over the course of the amortization than was initially borrowed?
What is the projected point of diminishing returns; when the City will no longer be saving money from this buyout?
I took my 33 questions and handed them to two Aldermen, and placed a 3rd copy on an Alderman’s chair just before their workshop on May 7th. Surely, I thought, our elected officials were beginning to ask questions themselves, and surely, they would take action. I was wrong.
So I began to research if and how it could be undone. I found the answer right in the city’s Rules of Procedure for the Mayor and Board. Section 5.3.4 (C) says, “When the group wishes to annul some action, a motion to rescind is in order at any time.”
I shared this nugget and through discussion with a city official, I learned that an Alderman who voted on the amendments would have to make that motion. Lo and behold, at the next Mayor and Board meeting, one did. The motion to rescind the buyout was made, and it was seconded, but there was a tie vote of 2 for and 2 against. The Mayor decided at that point to vote, and his vote broke the tie, clearing the way for the buyout to continue. An Alderman then stated he had list of questions he had been given laying on his desk and demanded answers. Here are three of those answers, which he received days later:
Q. How much more will be paid back over the course of the amortization than was initially borrowed?
A. ‘$13.87 Million will be paid in excess of the first year payout over the 30-year amortization.’
Q. What does that cost translate to in terms of an interest rate?
A. ‘The interest translates to approximately 6 3/8%.’
Q. What is the projected point of diminishing returns; when the City will no longer be saving money from this buyout?
A. ‘It starts with 5 years of savings, then 9 years of losses, 5 years of savings, and 11 years of losses.’
Ten years of savings but 20 years of losses? How is that good? Yet more questions developed.’
How will the plan affect the City’s bond rating in the future?
Where is the actual documentation of savings; the clearly articulated variables, dollar amounts, and other specifics used to make the assumption of savings?
Then there is the glaring question of conflict of interest.
The City’s Ethics Law, Section 21-3 “” states, ‘Officials and employees who are subject to this chapter shall not participate on behalf of the city in any matter which would, to their knowledge, have a direct financial impact, as distinguished from the public generally, on them…’
In addition, early on there were warnings from the consultants, Bolton Partners, Inc. and I quote, ‘Under GASB rules, you would have to disclose in your financial statements the increase in liability for the incentive program. It appears that you would be able to amortize the increase in liability over thirty years, although we would strongly recommend that you amortize it over a shorter period … and discuss this with your auditor. Keep in mind the significant drain that the lump sum and annuity payments will have on existing assets.’
‘Also, please note that we have not considered the cost increase that would be realized in the retiree medical plans.’ They go on to say, ‘Increasing the liabilities by the amounts shown in the table above would have a significant negative impact on the funded status of the plans (about 10% reduction in the 25-Year and 30% in the 30-Year)’.
My time tonight is limited, so I cannot speak in lengthy detail, but I must also say that, this is not just a financial boondoggle. The human resources damage done is inexcusable. I find this aspect of the issues perhaps even more repugnant than the millions of wasted tax dollars. When asked my opinion by others I have, and will continue to describe this buyout as the worst HR and financial fiasco I have ever seen. I now challenge you, the Mayor and Board, to find a remedy to restore the city’s financial and human resources health.
On the last page of the retirement plans is this language: ‘Overall responsibility for the operations and funding of the plans rests with the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City.’
The buyout could have, and should have, been stopped.”
|
May 06
|
Frederick County elected officials are proposing to withhold over $1,000,000 (one million) of a tax equity payment that it owes to The City of Frederick. City residents pay taxes to the county for services that the city provides, such as the police department, planning, and parks and recreation. The tax equity law provides for reimbursement (”tax setoff”) of these tax dollars to the city every year. 6 -306: County Tax Rate in Certain Other Municipalities
Frederick County is proposing to help close their budget deficit by not paying the reimbursement due to the city and its taxpayers. Failure by the county to turn over that money to the city translates directly to a deficit of over a million dollars to the proposed city budget that city officials are working to resolve. Unfortunately, the city may choose to lay the brunt of the deficit on the shoulders of the police department through layoffs. Reducing the number of police officers in Frederick is not the solution!
The Frederick County Board of County Commissioners are holding a public hearing on their budget tomorrow evening, Thursday, May 7, at 7:00 p.m. in first floor hearing room at Winchester Hall. Please attend the meeting to voice your opposition to having this reimbursement withheld from city residents. If you cannot attend, please take a few minute to send en email to them to voice your opposition. E-mail all Commissioners
This is money that is owed to The City of Frederick - your voice can make a difference!
|
Apr 20
|
Despite the pouring rain, I am thrilled to report that there was a good crowd at the announcement today! I can’t thank folks enough for braving the downpour to show support. For those who couldn’t attend, here are my remarks:
“Good afternoon! Thanks so much for being here today. My name is Kelly Russell, and I am a Democratic candidate for Alderman!
For those who know me, this comes as no surprise. Since moving to Frederick 25 years ago, I have spent my career in public service to the citizens here. I had the privilege of serving 22 years with the Frederick Police Department. I currently serve as an appointed Coordinator for the Neighborhood Advisory Council, and have been a member of the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals for over two years. My current position is that of part time Special Vehicle Coordinator for the police department. I am at heart, and in vocation, a public servant. It is that mission, and a desire to help shape the future of Frederick, that has led me here.
We all know that Frederick is a terrific place to live, work, and spend our leisure time. However, it is not by mistake, nor by chance, that we have such a unique and special city. Our present has been the result of the collaborative efforts of lots of people, over many years, who cared about our future. Elected officials, city agencies, local businesses, concerned citizens, and many others have worked together over time to accomplish this. The people who have made these contributions, in all of their different roles, understood the importance of bringing together resources to reach goals. I am grateful for their vision.
In order for Frederick to continue evolving, and to ensure that we leave an even better city to our future generations, this kind of collaboration is critical, and must be nurtured. This is one of my core beliefs. I am committed to the idea that our elected officials should not only be partners in this venture, but should be proactive supporters of “community government.” What this means to me is that government works in partnership with residents, businesses, and other groups to identify, prioritize, and solve problems. Collaboration makes use of the expertise and innovations of all those who can help develop creative solutions. This encourages more participation by citizens in shaping decisions that will directly affect them. These partnerships enhance our quality of life.
Part and parcel to that philosophy is the requirement that our elected officials be accessible and responsive. Any citizen that has a concern must have the opportunity to air that concern, and must be able to trust that it will be heard, and steps will be taken to work toward resolution. Any citizen who wants to contribute ideas to improve the quality of life in Frederick must be heard, and their contributions taken seriously. Elected officials must take the time to listen to new ideas, research and learn new approaches, and implement “best practices” for our city.
I also believe that it is important for our elected officials to speak up and take a stand when decisions are being made poorly, or too hastily and without adequate information. I think it is critical to ask questions, and ensure that issues are weighed in the context of the common good. This is how I have conducted business during the course of my career, and this is how I will do things if elected. So, common sense for the common good is my not only my campaign slogan; it’s my way of operating. Every issue that comes before the board is important, even if it seems dull or remote. Each decision made by the Aldermen affects our citizens; though some have more obvious impact than others.
My pledge to you is that I will approach all issues with an open mind, with fairness, and with curiosity. I will work to build a collaborative environment in City Hall to deal effectively with concerns. I will work to improve and open up the information flow between City Hall and residents. I will actively seek input from others to get the most comprehensive view of issues. I will use common sense to make decisions.
I really appreciate you taking time out of your day to spend a few minutes with me. I hope that my message and philosophy resonates with Frederick residents. I look forward to having more conversations with lots of folks in the future. I encourage you to visit my website at votekellyrussell.com, and to reach out to me with your concerns. I will also be out and about in the community, and want to hear from you. One small caveat though; as a City employee, I am not permitted by the City’s Charter to conduct campaign activities while at work. So if you happen to reach out to me while I’m working, I will respectfully ask you to “hold that thought” until my off hours. It’s important to me to adhere to the legal requirements of our Charter, and I appreciate your cooperation on that. Thanks again for your time! I look forward to serving Frederick into the future.”
|
Apr 20
|
Despite the rain, I will be at City Hall today at noon to make my announcement. While I do hope to see supporters there, I understand that the weather makes it more difficult for many of you. No worries - I will post my remarks on this website later today. If you are not there in person, I know you are there in spirit!
|
Apr 08
|
I am pleased to let you know that I will be making a formal public announcement of my candidacy for Alderman at noon on Monday, April 20, 2009, in front of City Hall. I would be honored and delighted if you could take a few minutes out of your day to join me! As always, I appreciate your support, and hope to see you there.
|
Mar 28
|
The Mayor presented his budget for the city on Wednesday, March 25. The City’s budget process is a bit convoluted, and is not understood by many citizens. Having been a command level official with the police department for nine years, I have participated in the process, and in the development of budget requests for my area of command. Because of that experience, I have an understanding of the nuts and bolts of the process.
One important point to understand is how the Mayor’s budget is developed. The budget as submitted by the Mayor is HIS budget proposal, and is NOT that of the Aldermen. They do not see it until the Mayor presents it. In order for the Mayor to put it together, each department in the city is required to present its requests to the Mayor for funding. For example, the Planning Department, Police Department, etc. put together a proposed budget for their respective areas. These requests are submitted by deadline to the Mayor.
Usually then, department heads are told to revisit their requests, and given a percentage to cut. This gives them the opportunity to screen the cuts themselves to keep funding for the most critical things, and cut back on the lower priorities. This is a cumbersome but critical piece of the puzzle. Many more hours of analysis and collaboration then result in a bare bones budget, prioritized by the department head, based on his or her expertise. This is resubmitted to the Mayor.
However, once the Mayor receives these “bare bones wish lists,” he has the sole power to determine which things to include, and which to cut, when developing his budget proposal. Quite often, these decisions are made by the Mayor’s office without further consultation with the department heads. I have seen examples where money is cut from an item that the department head deemed the #1 priority, and moved to fund items in the same department that were not deemed the most critical. I have seen decisions made to change types of equipment to be purchased, after a department has very specifically researched the type needed to meet the unique needs of that agency. The hard work and prioritization based on professional expertise is often ignored in the final product. This is an unacceptable flaw in the process.
Now here is the misleading part of the budget presentation. Once the Mayor has given each department their piece of the budget back after his changes, the department heads are then made to present it at a public hearing as if they had developed it. This method of presentation creates the impression that the budgets being presented are fully supported by the presenter. This is not always the case, but they are prohibited to let the public know what their original requests were, because the Charter restricts them (see below). Not even the Aldermen are privy to the department’s original budget submissions. This leaves the Aldermen without critical information that they need and should have when they make their changes and recommendations. I also find this unacceptable.
One other thing that is important to know. Each department’s budget is largely made up of salaries, benefit, and insurance costs. Because these large sums are included, and are usually increasing, it appears quite often that department budgets are growing because the operating costs are not being managed frugally. However, if you look at operating costs for most of the departments, the increases are usually quite small, and sometimes are even held or decreased. This is the money that the city has direct control over to fund the way the city does business and provides services to you on a day-to-day basis. I believe that the personnel related costs should be removed from individual department budgets and separated into a different budget. This change would cause a bright light to shine on exactly how much (or how little) departments are working with to serve the public. When the administration tells us that a department’s budget has increased by large amounts, it is usually because of these required personnel costs, not the money that goes directly to fund each department’s activities. This is misleading and needs to be changed.
Sec. 90. Same–Public stand by city officials, etc.
No director or head of any office, department, or agency shall take any public stand on the items of the proposed budget except when called before the hearings of the board of aldermen on the budget. Appearances of directors or heads of any office, department, or agency at budget hearings may be requested by the mayor, the board of aldermen, or any alderman. (Acts 1951, ch. 539, § 90)
