State auditor cites Brentwood in Sunshine Law report

1. Maureen…Just so everyone on here understands. The Auditor compiled a report on past audits; I think Brentwood’s audit was based on the year 2011. I think if the city of Brentwood was audited today, the results would be drastically different. I believe it is everyone’s responsibility to know what is going on in the city of Brentwood. But I also believe the residents of Brentwood should not be misled into thinking that this report is about Brentwood today.

   • Mike, thank you for publically clarifying this about the past audit. I believe that a comprehensive review of all areas of administrative functions falling under the Sunshine-Laws should be part of the next Mayoral election. A clean slate audit of both finances and adherence to standing ordinances (or the waiving thereof) to accomplish agenda items with exceeding limited public in-put imo, still would well serve Brentwood residents. This is a matter of giving B’wd back to the residents via allowing the Sunshine-Laws to do what they were intended to do.

     Additionally as a City, we to stand up for the resident’s whose lives were changed when ordinances continue unimpeded to be breached. For example, the family who has yet to get satisfaction from the breach of the noise ordinance coming from the kennel located adjacent to their property. Or the woman who had such a hard time selling her house because there was a commercial bar patio added onto a restaurant adjacent to her property. Or the lady whose property was next to a newly built structure that breached the distance between buildings ordinance, and had a brick wall staring back through her window. She was told to “put up some curtains.” I have other examples, but the gist is that THIS administration has STOPPED LISTENING. It’s time to find someone who WILL LISTEN–and at the same time ratchet down the animosity factor through consensus building. That means resident input.

     People spend a lot of money to live in Brentwood–and we need an administration that will insure fiscal conservation and attention to standing ordinances. And the heck with so many closed sessions. Residents have a right to know the inner-workings of what they are paying for, which is defacto transparency. Thank you again, Mike Marshall for your clarification.

     I am coming from the POV that the Sunshine Laws are for the protection of the people, once the Administration ceases to listen. And this administration has CEASED TO LISTEN. I do think we need a ‘clean slate audit’ of both finances and policy/ ordinance adherence. (a couple more posts like this and I won’t have to attend the next BOA mtg!) Thank you again, Mike. maureen wheat

     • Maureen…I understand your concern, but you have to listen to everyone, not just one person. The lady with the noise issues is the only one complaining, and this is not the first noise complaint from her. They have had issues for probably 10 years with other businesses in the court. The city has paid money to have the sound levels of several businesses tested and the results proved it does not reach the level that constitutes a nuisance. While I understand the concern of this lady and the noise; if you live above an industrial park you’re going to hear noise. I would also like to point out the industrial park was established long before that group of houses. As a previous alderman, I learned fast that you can’t please everyone. You have to do the best you can and move on to the next of many issues at hand. I believe the Sunshine Law was a good start. But my issue is with the vagueness of the law. If you ask 10 different lawyers to interpret something you usually get 10 different answers. When the law was written, they should have used absolutes; and not left something’s up for debate or interpretation. I usually would defer to the city attorneys opinion when faced with these issues. In some cases there was a question of liability coverage if you went against legal counsel. As for the clean slate audit, I disagree with you. The MO state Auditor stated that he believed there was nothing to suggest ongoing criminal activity. The city of Brentwood spent over $80,000 plus on the state audit, for the financial year of 2011. The clean slate audit you speak of would be a Forensic Audit of multiple years, how much money would that cost, $200,000 to $300,000 plus would be my guess. As a resident I would be upset if my elected officials spent that kind of money on an investigation they were already told was not criminal. Again, as elected officials they have to do the best they can and move onto the next of many issues faced with running a municipality, you can’t please everyone. Thank you Maureen!

       • Hello Mike. FR’s and DPW are excluded from areas of concern.

         I understand that as a former alderman you cannot please all the people all the time. I hold off from an expensive forensic***** audit–but continue to want more transparency. I also see a disaffected administration calling shots without proper resident agreement. According to City Hall, the P&Z ordinances are not any longer available on line. As P&Z ordinances are at the root of many of the issues, this makes more work.

         The foundational complaints I cited were breeches in P&Z ordinances and how the City paid or received from the transactions. I know the City has done noise studies. But I used to work for a major healthcare facility, and when we knew we were going to be nationally audited (Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation Organization –JCAHO) I had to laugh at all the ‘spit shine’ work done to prepare and pass that inspection. Unfortunately, things went back to ‘normal’ post-inspection. I believe your position that multiple studies have been done (for the noise breech ordinance) resident, but would be interested to know if the facilities knew when the testing was done. I can’t even begin to imagine that woman showing up meeting after meeting with a consistent complaint to the taped and televised BOA meetings, only to have her problem unresolved.

         I continue to believe that this family should not be paying for the failure of our system of P&Z ordinance enforcement. Then there is the woman whose P&Z ordinance allotted her “x” amount of yards between her home and the establishment of any other home — falling under the zoning restrictions. This also was breeched and she is the woman whose residence was told to “put up a curtain” over the window now buffered up against a brink structure. “Put a curtain over the window”? Why not just a bag over the family’s head? THE P&Z ORDINANCE WAS BROKEN. That family PURCHASED a home with specific ordinances in place. Then by the wave of the hand, or more accurately a waive of the ordinance what she was “promised by law” was gone. Then there is was the P&Z ordinance dispute when BHGH, a multi-family structure over came the existing “single family dwelling” P&Z ordinances, once again– against the owners of the ‘single family dwelling residents. PEOPLE PAY BIG TO LIVE IN B’WD.

         The common denominator is a COMPLICIT ADMINISTRATIVE DEVIATION FROM STANDING P&Z ORDINANCES–without residential hearings. It is easier to waive an ordinance that to fight a waived ordinance. So here am I.

         I believe the lady with the adjacent kennel has a fair complaint. I believe the lady who was told to “just put up some curtains” when the new structure put a brick wall within feet of her window has a legitimate complaint. The right thing to do would be to hold the builder accountable for sealing off that widow and giving her a new window—but that would cost the City a contract*****(re forensic audit).

         In these, I find grounds to look at the cost to residents re how the Administration and P&Z are co-jointly responsible for routine waiving of long standing ordinances; the same ordinances that induced the decision of these residents to purchase in B’wd. People pay big money to live in B’wd and to have the rules so fluid is like buying a property in a flood plane—BUT NEVER BEING TOLD it is a flood plane.

         I am for the best interests of B’wd. I also see the current administration’s non-adherence to prior commitments. So putting any “past history” forensic audit to the side, why is P&Z so fluid? WHO MADE MONEY in the deals? Would you buy a tract of land not knowing it was a flood plane? Unlikely. Why put B’wd citizens under a different code? I repeat: PEOPLE PAY A LOT TO LIVE IN B’WD. They deserve what they are told they could expect. Again, Mike, thank you for your input on a Forensic Audit. I am not going after anyone—but I believe that B’wd could do a lot better. regards, maureen

2. Very well said Maureen.

3. I am SO frustrated, that I am going to my first ever BOA meeting to present my list of grievances against the Administration and some BOA failing to LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. I have never been to a meeting, as the jabbing and animosity is more noticeable and distracting than the business of running the City. My plan is to reflectively identify my opinion of how the residents have not been heard, and the obfuscation of individual agenda’s have been a source of City failure to respond to the residents. The shoving down the resident’s throats that agenda is wrong.

   I am GLAD the Sunshine Laws are resurfacing as problematic in Brentwood–BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. I am waiting to see who runs for mayor and how they plan to address the disgraceful antagonism evinced at the meetings. Why is Maureen Saunders ALWAYS in the hot seat when the questions she asks go to the heart of the failure at public transparency. Why is SHE the bad guy, when she is working to nail down numbers and processes active in B’wd Administration? I want to know WHY month after month the same lady gets up, much to her credit, to cite the noise ordinance created by the kennel backing up to her property, posted by another (David anonymous) poster. NOTHING has been done.

   The other poster also cited how the very City ordinances that attracted residents to their personal homes are so cavalierly waved when it suits that private agenda, regardless of resident wishes. What does that do to the residents’ expectations about their property values. I have no doubt this will make some people very uncomfortable. But the City STILL belongs to the people–not the politicians. In fairness to anyone wanting to run for B’wd Mayor, they will need to be open and honest with the people–and run the City the way the PEOLPE want it run.

   I originally tagged my recalling for a forensic audit on the post where Ald. Toohey announced his candidacy. We need the residents back in charge via BOA–no matter who ends up being elected. When the term forensic audit was first posted, I became the ‘bad guy’ because “forensic” is usually paired with legal actions. Misuse of funds and failure to notify residents “WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?” do not need to go to a legal process. It would show the character of City Administration as shrouded and anything but transparent But to learn of misappropriations of funds in my book is wrong. Pat did a good job until he quit listening. Pat engaged in all too many closed meetings and presented a demand (over-ridden) for a code of conduct to stifle BOA members public information accessibility and all the waived P&Z ordinances were underway before the people knew what hit them. thank you for running this topic Doug Miner. If we are gong to have a real Mayoral election, let’s get the FACTS out. Whomever the mayor eventually is, HIS or HER rights are not SUPERIOR to the Public’s Right to Know and be fully informed . Finally, I hope other people will post what their concerns are–even under pen names. And to the bird who run their tin cup back and forth on the jail bars, I will not be responding to you–You are not seriously interested in B’wd, just like to get people up in arms and likely do not even live in B’wd. love, maureen

Comments are closed.