On 9 Nov 2012, the Transparency Committee sent the following Freedom of Information (FOI) letter requesting the amount of the expenses paid by Tunica County in Oct 2012 for Tunica National..
DELIVERED Via Email 9 Nov 2012
Dear Mr. Dulaney:
Pursuant to the state open records law, MS Code Sections 25-61-1 to 25-61-17, I write to request a total sum of the Oct 2012 expenses paid by Tunica County for Tunica National. This amount would be over and above the $39,583.33 showing in the Oct claims.
It is provided by the MS open records law that a response is expect within fourteen (14) business days (MS Code Section 25-61-5(1)).
If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely.
Please be advised that I am prepared to pursue whatever legal remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that willful violation of the open records law can result in a fine of up to $100 and all reasonable litigation expenses (MS Code Section 25-61-15).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Barbara R. Tuchel
Cc: Clifton Johnson
Robert Tuchel
On 13 Nov 2012, our the Transparency Committee received the following information:
Andy,
The following is a list of expenses for Tunica National for the month of October 2012:
Salary $ 7,593.24
Ret. Match $ 1,082.80
SS Match $ 559.66
Insurance $ 620.00
Telephone $ 88.20
Utilities $ 14,491.44
Advertising $ 185.44
Serv. Agreements $ 600.00
Appropriations $ 39,583.33
Furniture & Equip. $ 4,681.00
Total Expenses $ 69,485.11
Also on 9 Nov 2012, the Transparency Committee sent the following FOI letter to Tunica County Public Projects, Inc./Tunica National.
DELIVERED Via US Mail
9 Nov 2012
Nolan Canon, President
Tunica County Public Projects, Inc.
PO Box 1453
Tunica, MS 38676
Dear Mr. Canon:
Pursuant to the state open records law, MS Code Sections 25-61-1 to 25-61-17, I write to request a total sum of the Oct 2012 income and expenses of Tunica County Public Projects, Inc. This amount would be over and above and should not include the $39,583.33 received from Tunica County.
It is provided by the MS open records law that a response is expect within fourteen (14) business days (MS Code Section 25-61-5(1)).
If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely.
Please be advised that I am prepared to pursue whatever legal remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that willful violation of the open records law can result in a fine of up to $100 and all reasonable litigation expenses (MS Code Section 25-61-15).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Barbara R. Tuchel
Cc: Robert Tuchel
On 5 Dec 2012, the Transparency Committee received a letter in response to the above FOI letter:
Ms. Barbara Tuchel
P.O. Box 1076
Tunica, MS 38676
Re: November 9, 2012 letter
Dear Ms. Tuchel:
We are in receipt of the letter dated November 9, 2012. However, we do not believe that we are subject to the laws as cited in your letter as we are not a public entity.
To clarify this, I am writing the appropriate official in Jackson to request an opinion. If we are subject to this law, we will certainly respond.
Sincerely,
TUNICA COUNTY PUBLIC PROJECTS, INC.
By Nolen Canon, President
So, in a nutshell it looks like former Boards of Supervisors created Tunica County Public Projects, Inc. as a means of keeping income and expenses under cover? Hmmm, maybe the current Board of Supervisors needs to consider cutting TCPP's funding until they tell the public what their monthly income and expenses are.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Freedom of Information for Tunica County Employees
On 8 Nov 2012, the Transparency Committee sent the following FOI letter to County Administrator Clifton Johnson through the Board of Supervisors' attorney.
DELIVERED Via Email to: Attorney Andy Dulaney 8 Nov 2012
8 Nov 2012
Clifton Johnson
County Administrator
Tunica, MS 38676
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Pursuant to the state open records law, MS Code Sections 25-61-1 to 25-61-17, I write to request that a list of all persons employed by Tunica County as of 1 Oct 2012 be made available to the public by placing a copy of this listing in the Oct 2012 minutes of the Board of Supervisors of Tunica County, MS. If it is not possible to place this request in the Oct 2012 minutes, please place the requested records in the Nov 2012 Tunica County Board of Supervisors’ Minutes. This list would include the name of each employee, the department to which each employee is assigned and the corresponding salary for this employee for the period covering 1 Oct 2011 through 30 Sep 2012. This request is being made on behalf of the Citizens of Tunica County and their right to know.
It is provided by the MS open records law that a response is expect within fourteen (14) business days (MS Code Section 25-61-5(1)). This is not necessary if you will just make the above request available to the public as stated.
If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely.
Please be advised that I am prepared to pursue whatever legal remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that willful violation of the open records law can result in a fine of up to $100 and all reasonable litigation expenses (MS Code Section 25-61-15).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Barbara R. Tuchel
cc. Andy Dulaney
Robert Tuchel
On 13 Nov 2012, the Transparency Committee received the following response from Andy Dulaney.
I have this request. Certainly you can request and received a list of the county’s employees and their salaries.
As to the issue to include that information in the requested format in the Board’s minutes, I think that is a Board decision outside of the public records act.
If you would like this list, let us know and we can get it.
Thanks,
Andy
On various occasions, the Transparency Committee has spoken with Clifton Johnson about this annual inclusion. It is my understanding that the Board of Supervisors decided to only include this listing when raises are involved. We can not find this decision in the public records.
Additionally, the Transparency Committee has found more then one error in the listings we do have. When we found these errors, we reported them to the County Administrator and were never given confirmation that the records were corrected.
The Transparency Committee will go to the Board of Supervisors on 14 Dec 2012 and request this information be included in their records as of 1 Oct each year.
Good news. We made our presentation tonight at the Board of Supervisors' Meeting and the Board voted to make this information a part of their minutes each January. Making this listing a part of their minutes will put this information in the Public Records and therefore available for all to see.
Thanks to the Board of Supervisors for taking this action.
DELIVERED Via Email to: Attorney Andy Dulaney 8 Nov 2012
8 Nov 2012
Clifton Johnson
County Administrator
Tunica, MS 38676
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Pursuant to the state open records law, MS Code Sections 25-61-1 to 25-61-17, I write to request that a list of all persons employed by Tunica County as of 1 Oct 2012 be made available to the public by placing a copy of this listing in the Oct 2012 minutes of the Board of Supervisors of Tunica County, MS. If it is not possible to place this request in the Oct 2012 minutes, please place the requested records in the Nov 2012 Tunica County Board of Supervisors’ Minutes. This list would include the name of each employee, the department to which each employee is assigned and the corresponding salary for this employee for the period covering 1 Oct 2011 through 30 Sep 2012. This request is being made on behalf of the Citizens of Tunica County and their right to know.
It is provided by the MS open records law that a response is expect within fourteen (14) business days (MS Code Section 25-61-5(1)). This is not necessary if you will just make the above request available to the public as stated.
If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely.
Please be advised that I am prepared to pursue whatever legal remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that willful violation of the open records law can result in a fine of up to $100 and all reasonable litigation expenses (MS Code Section 25-61-15).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Barbara R. Tuchel
cc. Andy Dulaney
Robert Tuchel
On 13 Nov 2012, the Transparency Committee received the following response from Andy Dulaney.
I have this request. Certainly you can request and received a list of the county’s employees and their salaries.
As to the issue to include that information in the requested format in the Board’s minutes, I think that is a Board decision outside of the public records act.
If you would like this list, let us know and we can get it.
Thanks,
Andy
On various occasions, the Transparency Committee has spoken with Clifton Johnson about this annual inclusion. It is my understanding that the Board of Supervisors decided to only include this listing when raises are involved. We can not find this decision in the public records.
Additionally, the Transparency Committee has found more then one error in the listings we do have. When we found these errors, we reported them to the County Administrator and were never given confirmation that the records were corrected.
The Transparency Committee will go to the Board of Supervisors on 14 Dec 2012 and request this information be included in their records as of 1 Oct each year.
Good news. We made our presentation tonight at the Board of Supervisors' Meeting and the Board voted to make this information a part of their minutes each January. Making this listing a part of their minutes will put this information in the Public Records and therefore available for all to see.
Thanks to the Board of Supervisors for taking this action.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Independent Audit Request
15 Oct 2012
Hand Delivered to the Tunica County Board of Supervisors at their 5p Meeting
This letter is being written to request an independent audit of each and every department, commission, facility and component unit attached to or established by the Tunica County Board of Supervisors.
Recently, the Tunica County Board of Supervisors voted to levy a tax increase on its residents. At your Public Hearing prior to voting on this tax increase, the public voiced their concern over the debt inherited by this Board of Supervisors as well as the past decisions made to spend the monies of the residents of Tunica County.
We have reviewed the last two Audited Financial Statements and Special Reports contracted for with Williams, Pitts and Beard, LLC and have found certain entities were not audited by Williams, Pitts and Beard, LLC. As stated in the above Report, these would be “the financial statements of Tunica County Airport Commission, Tunica County Public Projects, Inc., Tunica County Tourism Commission, and Tunica County Utility District.” These Component Units were audited by other auditors and submitted to Williams, Pitts and Beard, LLC. Specifically, we are asking for an independent audit as stated in the opening paragraph. One audit, one report.
Overwhelmingly, the voters of Tunica County chose to replace three members of the former Board of Supervisors. Along with this fresh start, we the undersigned organizations are making this request for an independent audit to know exactly the state of our finances. By fulfilling this request, the Tunica County Board of Supervisors will establish a path forward for our County.
Barbara R. Tuchel
Tunicans for Transparency in Government
Mark E. Hudson, President
Tunica County NAACP Branch
Robert Hall, President
Concerned Citizens for a Better Tunica County
Hand Delivered to the Tunica County Board of Supervisors at their 5p Meeting
This letter is being written to request an independent audit of each and every department, commission, facility and component unit attached to or established by the Tunica County Board of Supervisors.
Recently, the Tunica County Board of Supervisors voted to levy a tax increase on its residents. At your Public Hearing prior to voting on this tax increase, the public voiced their concern over the debt inherited by this Board of Supervisors as well as the past decisions made to spend the monies of the residents of Tunica County.
We have reviewed the last two Audited Financial Statements and Special Reports contracted for with Williams, Pitts and Beard, LLC and have found certain entities were not audited by Williams, Pitts and Beard, LLC. As stated in the above Report, these would be “the financial statements of Tunica County Airport Commission, Tunica County Public Projects, Inc., Tunica County Tourism Commission, and Tunica County Utility District.” These Component Units were audited by other auditors and submitted to Williams, Pitts and Beard, LLC. Specifically, we are asking for an independent audit as stated in the opening paragraph. One audit, one report.
Overwhelmingly, the voters of Tunica County chose to replace three members of the former Board of Supervisors. Along with this fresh start, we the undersigned organizations are making this request for an independent audit to know exactly the state of our finances. By fulfilling this request, the Tunica County Board of Supervisors will establish a path forward for our County.
Barbara R. Tuchel
Tunicans for Transparency in Government
Mark E. Hudson, President
Tunica County NAACP Branch
Robert Hall, President
Concerned Citizens for a Better Tunica County
Monday, September 24, 2012
Vision or Transparency?
Note: This letter was sent to both newspapers this morning.
This letter is being written in response to the “On the Doorstep” column that appeared in the 21 Sep 2012 issue of the Tunica Times.
While agreement can be made about most of the article, one paragraph jumped out at me and I have another opinion about the following statement: “Unlike others, I don’t fault former county officials for trying to make Tunica County better, for trying to give our people amenities that they had never had, for dreaming that Tunica County could reach beyond its ‘poorest county in the nation’ reputation.”
When I talk about former county officials and what they left behind, I’m not talking about their vision. I’m talking about their transparency.
Since 2008, the Transparency Committee has spent untold hours just trying to make sense of why so many government business transactions were set-up the way they were. For instance, why is the Battle Arena a 501c3? Why do we need a Healthcare Authority to run our Clinics? Why are there so many “commissions” standing in the way of the public’s right to know? Why, why, why? And why, when we started to ask questions did our former government officials act like we were an intrusion into their private business?
And as for the economy both nationally and locally, we should have known. We just weren’t paying attention. We trusted our elected officials and they let us down. Nationally, we had two wars that were not “on the books”; two tax cuts that were not paid for; and a Medicare prescription bill that was not paid for.
Let’s look at the facts. The first national tax cut was passed in Jun of 2001. Then 9-11 happened. The second tax cut was in May of 2003. We invaded Iraq on 19 Mar 2003. When has the United States of America simultaneously cut taxes and fought a war? Isn’t this sort of what happened here in Tunica County? When we had money flowing in from gaming revenues, why did we borrow so much money?
This is just a very short list of “whys”. It isn’t about the vision; it’s about the transparency. Ultimately, it is the people’s fault for not paying closer attention and the government’s fault for not being more open to our questions.
This letter is being written in response to the “On the Doorstep” column that appeared in the 21 Sep 2012 issue of the Tunica Times.
While agreement can be made about most of the article, one paragraph jumped out at me and I have another opinion about the following statement: “Unlike others, I don’t fault former county officials for trying to make Tunica County better, for trying to give our people amenities that they had never had, for dreaming that Tunica County could reach beyond its ‘poorest county in the nation’ reputation.”
When I talk about former county officials and what they left behind, I’m not talking about their vision. I’m talking about their transparency.
Since 2008, the Transparency Committee has spent untold hours just trying to make sense of why so many government business transactions were set-up the way they were. For instance, why is the Battle Arena a 501c3? Why do we need a Healthcare Authority to run our Clinics? Why are there so many “commissions” standing in the way of the public’s right to know? Why, why, why? And why, when we started to ask questions did our former government officials act like we were an intrusion into their private business?
And as for the economy both nationally and locally, we should have known. We just weren’t paying attention. We trusted our elected officials and they let us down. Nationally, we had two wars that were not “on the books”; two tax cuts that were not paid for; and a Medicare prescription bill that was not paid for.
Let’s look at the facts. The first national tax cut was passed in Jun of 2001. Then 9-11 happened. The second tax cut was in May of 2003. We invaded Iraq on 19 Mar 2003. When has the United States of America simultaneously cut taxes and fought a war? Isn’t this sort of what happened here in Tunica County? When we had money flowing in from gaming revenues, why did we borrow so much money?
This is just a very short list of “whys”. It isn’t about the vision; it’s about the transparency. Ultimately, it is the people’s fault for not paying closer attention and the government’s fault for not being more open to our questions.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Board of Supervisors' Meeting 17 Sep 2012
All was not lost…
At the Board of Supervisors’ Meeting on 17 Sep 2012, the Board voted to approve the 2012-2013 Budget and an ad valorem increase of 15.77%.
There were some budget changes from the original presentation. One of these changes was an increase to the budget for an Animal Control Officer and a vehicle. Thank you to the Board of Supervisors for this.
I do disagree with the Board in comparing what is budgeted for Health Care to what is budgeted for the Tunica Humane Society. We need both. I for one would not do what the volunteers at the THS have done and are doing. These volunteers saw a need in Tunica County and they provided it.
It is my understanding that the Supervisors have received many nasty letters and phone calls about this budget item. There is no excuse for this behavior. This is not the way to bring together the citizens of this County for the communal good.
What is being asked of the Supervisors is to take another look at the Road Department budget for monies needed for the Tunica Humane Society. This no kill shelter is good for our community and we need it much more then we need those 2 snow plows.
At the Board of Supervisors’ Meeting on 17 Sep 2012, the Board voted to approve the 2012-2013 Budget and an ad valorem increase of 15.77%.
There were some budget changes from the original presentation. One of these changes was an increase to the budget for an Animal Control Officer and a vehicle. Thank you to the Board of Supervisors for this.
I do disagree with the Board in comparing what is budgeted for Health Care to what is budgeted for the Tunica Humane Society. We need both. I for one would not do what the volunteers at the THS have done and are doing. These volunteers saw a need in Tunica County and they provided it.
It is my understanding that the Supervisors have received many nasty letters and phone calls about this budget item. There is no excuse for this behavior. This is not the way to bring together the citizens of this County for the communal good.
What is being asked of the Supervisors is to take another look at the Road Department budget for monies needed for the Tunica Humane Society. This no kill shelter is good for our community and we need it much more then we need those 2 snow plows.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Here it is...What are we going to do about it?
This is the MS Code covering the tax increase being talked about in Tunica County. We need as many eyes as possible reading and understanding this. In addition to MS Code 27-39-321 printed below, we need to read MS Code (27-39-305); (27-39-320); (27-39-329). Within each of these codes you will find additional references. It's quite a lot of reading. Look these up and study them by Googling MS Code.
§ 27-39-321. Limitation on increases of property taxes; special ad valorem tax to cover shortfalls
(1) With respect to ad valorem taxes levied for each fiscal year, no political subdivision may levy ad valorem taxes in any fiscal year which would render in total receipts from all levies an amount more than the receipts from that source during any one (1) of the immediately preceding three (3) fiscal years, as determined by the levying governing authority, plus, at the option of the taxing authority, an increase not to exceed ten percent (10%) of such receipts. The additional revenue from the ad valorem tax on any newly constructed properties or any existing properties added to the tax rolls or any properties previously exempt, which were not assessed in the next preceding year and cost incurred and paid in the next preceding year in connection with reappraisal may be excluded from the ten percent (10%) increase limitation set forth herein. Taxes levied for school district purposes under any statute and taxes levied for the maintenance and/or construction of roads and bridges under Section 27-39-305 shall be excluded from the ten percent (10%) increase limitation set forth herein. Taxes levied for payment of principal of and interest on general obligation bonds issued heretofore or hereafter shall be excluded from the ten percent (10%) increase limitation set forth herein. Any additional millage levied to fund any new program mandated by the Legislature shall be excluded from the limitation for the first year of the levy and included within such limitation in any year thereafter. The limitation imposed under this paragraph shall not apply to those mandatory levies enumerated in Sections 27-39-320 and 27-39-329.
§ 27-39-321. Limitation on increases of property taxes; special ad valorem tax to cover shortfalls
(1) With respect to ad valorem taxes levied for each fiscal year, no political subdivision may levy ad valorem taxes in any fiscal year which would render in total receipts from all levies an amount more than the receipts from that source during any one (1) of the immediately preceding three (3) fiscal years, as determined by the levying governing authority, plus, at the option of the taxing authority, an increase not to exceed ten percent (10%) of such receipts. The additional revenue from the ad valorem tax on any newly constructed properties or any existing properties added to the tax rolls or any properties previously exempt, which were not assessed in the next preceding year and cost incurred and paid in the next preceding year in connection with reappraisal may be excluded from the ten percent (10%) increase limitation set forth herein. Taxes levied for school district purposes under any statute and taxes levied for the maintenance and/or construction of roads and bridges under Section 27-39-305 shall be excluded from the ten percent (10%) increase limitation set forth herein. Taxes levied for payment of principal of and interest on general obligation bonds issued heretofore or hereafter shall be excluded from the ten percent (10%) increase limitation set forth herein. Any additional millage levied to fund any new program mandated by the Legislature shall be excluded from the limitation for the first year of the levy and included within such limitation in any year thereafter. The limitation imposed under this paragraph shall not apply to those mandatory levies enumerated in Sections 27-39-320 and 27-39-329.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Hamp needs anger management
He did it again. This morning at the Board of Supervisors' Meeting, Sheriff Hamp started yelling at the Board of Supervisors because the Board decided that the three new employees he had already hired would not be placed on the County payroll because the Sheriff was over his budget.
Apparently, Hamp doesn't have a good grasp of what he can spend and what he can't. The Sheriff's budget this year under department 200 is $6,358,375.11 and from what the County Administrator stated, Hamp is over his budget. And...Hamp didn't think he had to come back to the Board and ask to increase his budget? He thought he could just spend it and not be questioned?
Go back and read the 15 Aug 2012 entry on this blog. From memory, I think this posting has Hamp saying he has never come back to the Board for more money. No kidding. Apparently, Supervisor Burnett thinks if gas, etc. goes up, we need to just automatically give the Sheriff more money. How long has this guy been a Supervisor?
And so, just why didn't Board President Dunn tell Hamp he was out of order? Citizens aren't allowed to act like that so why can the Sheriff? President Dunn, this is a Board of Supervisors' Meeting. Please tell the Sheriff to take a seat with the rest of us and shut his mouth.
Apparently, Hamp doesn't have a good grasp of what he can spend and what he can't. The Sheriff's budget this year under department 200 is $6,358,375.11 and from what the County Administrator stated, Hamp is over his budget. And...Hamp didn't think he had to come back to the Board and ask to increase his budget? He thought he could just spend it and not be questioned?
Go back and read the 15 Aug 2012 entry on this blog. From memory, I think this posting has Hamp saying he has never come back to the Board for more money. No kidding. Apparently, Supervisor Burnett thinks if gas, etc. goes up, we need to just automatically give the Sheriff more money. How long has this guy been a Supervisor?
And so, just why didn't Board President Dunn tell Hamp he was out of order? Citizens aren't allowed to act like that so why can the Sheriff? President Dunn, this is a Board of Supervisors' Meeting. Please tell the Sheriff to take a seat with the rest of us and shut his mouth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)