Last year, city tax dollars paid some $900 for Loveland Councilmembers and their spouses to attend a “Candlelight Dinner Show,” $4,800 for a facilitator named Rob Tipton to work 1 ½ days and $1,200 for catering during the Saturday retreat held in meeting rooms at Group Publishing in Loveland.
Loveland staff have proposed the same agenda this year for early January with the following expenses:
Candlelight Dinner – $900
Facilitator (1.5 days) $4,800
Catering $1,200
Expensive council eating habits has its roots in a letter dated January 28, 2008 by a planning committee for the council’s 2008 retreat. Carol Johnson, according to the letter to her colleagues, determined in consultation with other committee members that “no more rubber chicken” would be tolerated for council members to eat during future retreats. This is ironic because it was Carol Johnson who recently protested to her newer colleagues during a public council meeting that she thought a dinner and show wasn’t really a necessary expense this year for their annual retreat. We agree.
Last year’s $900 meal at the Candlelight Dinner Theater near Johnson’s Corner was unanimously approved. Former Councilman David Clark arranged the pricey dinner including meals and drinks at the restaurant using Loveland taxpayer dollars. Clark argued that as a part owner in the business he was getting the city a better deal than they paid at the Bent Fork in 2008 for just a dinner but no live show. We wonder how anyone can argue that a dinner theater event involves city business and must be paid from city tax dollars when so many Loveland resident are struggling financially.
According to one city employee, the following issues were not given enough thought or consideration by staff before proposing the budget for this year’s council retreat.
1. Rushing the retreat to early January means no representative from Ward 1 may attend. A special election to fill the Ward 1 council seat occurs in early March. Given the current composition of Loveland’s council, it is likely a number of decisions on how to direct staff will end in tied 4 to 4 votes. Without the 9th member the meeting could be useless.
2. Retreats managed by a facilitator are normally held to IMPROVE bad or tired working relationship where there are difficulties within the group. Loveland’s new council has only just met and are still on their honeymoon. As one observer commented, “it is like inviting a marriage counselor to your honeymoon.”
3. Residents of Loveland are being asked to do with less services as the city cuts services in an effort to balance its budget. We don’t believe most Lovleand residents see the retreat as a necessary governmental expense.
The retreat needs to be postponed until the entire council for 2010 is present and seated.
Yeah I saw it tonight on channel 16. They dumped the dinner but not the 5 grand for a facilitator. What a waste. Someone asked the city manager what the qualifications were of this guy to get so much and he ignored the question and talked about what it is the person does. makes me wonder
One question and two comments:
Which city services are have been cut that effect us?
I don’t have a problem with the cost, their $600 a month salary is hardly enough for what they have to put up with . . . Unless I’m the only one constantly bugging them about the stupid stuff they say. The part of the cost I have a problem with is the fact that they aren’t spending it at Loveland businesses. Go to the Chophouse and a show at the Rialto or something like that.
I’ve been trying to figure out why Carol Johnson is so set on making sure that there are non-residents on the Community Marketing Committee, maybe there are some ties there that make this the connecting piece of that puzzle. . . .
Maybe she wants to send some business Andrew Boucher’s way, since he’s such an expert with marketing and telling everyone else how to live their lives.
Neil and No, Carol has already promised the position, we believe, to Jay Hardy (McWhinney) and the manager of the Best Western (another out of town person) who attended last Tuesday’s council meeting.
The Lodging Tax was a great campaign fundraiser for those seeking ways to get special interests involved in the recent election. Did you notice how many hotels got involved in the campaign by making contributions? Carol Johnson appears to be trying to sell influence in city hall by rewarding political assistance with appointments.
Carol Johnson is trying to keep the door open so she can pay-back the few people from out of town who donated to the candidates. David Clark also spoke against giving residents preference to be on the committee by speaking to council.
Doesn’t really seem complicated or even interesting anymore. Just dishonest people with a very skewed view of “public service.”
I don’t get the “just dishonest people” comment. During 8 years with the city council, I served on 9 different boards and commissions comprised of both city residents and non-residents who had ties with the city.
These fine, dedicated and hardworking people may have lived outside the city limits but may have worked, managed, owned or in some way were connected to the work that the board or commission was doing.
Affordable housing, historical preservation, fire and rescue, open lands and others had non-residents on their boards who lived outside of the city but were deeply connected with the work that these boards did.
Their time and energy was and is apprecited.
You apparently misunderstood the comment so let me make it more clear.
When Hugh McKean and Carol Johnson say over and over again at a public council meeting that they want 7 qualified residents to fill the lodging tax advisory committee but only want outsiders if 7 are not available – these are dishonest comments.
Jay Hardy of McWhinney and other non-Loveland residents have been promised seats already on the commission and Johnson and McKean are simply trying to keep the door open to keep promises made so more money can flow to the council candidates of their choosing.
Yes, it is certainly dishonest to pretend they have no idea who will apply when they are working directly with certain people to get them on the commission.
Nobody here -including me – has said non-resident commission members are dishonest. The comment you quote refers to the disingenuous arguments being made by both Councilman McKean and Councilwoman Johnson.
People are just concerned that Johnson solicited funds from various special interest representatives for helping certain campaigns last November. She is now working hard to get the people who gave political funds a promised seat on the advisory committee.
Mr. Rousey, I don’t like people who try and sell (either directly or indirectly) access to my local government.
Do you?
Guys I think that really doesn’t matter. I don’t care what you call them we need to remove people from the council who can be so dishonest. I used to be in the loveland chamber. Everyone there acts like Chad McWhinney is some kind of celebrity so i am sure old Daryle also envies their money. Point is they got it from the rest of us in town and we let that happen. The chamber should not play favorites but really support all business in town no matter how much they contribute to support the chamber. I couldn’t stand all the McWhinney worship going on there so i quit.
Just a word about Tipton the “facilitator” that was used for the retreat. Tipton has been used extensively for City projects including as an advisor on the City’s land development code process, in which he has absolutely no expertise. Tpitton is an ego-maniac that starts all of his presentations talking about how he is a self made man and independantly wealthy and so he really doesn’t need to do any of this so we should worship his opinions for that reason. At the last event I attended he bragged about how he was speeding down from his mountain home in his BMW and related that somehow to his presentation. He was paid many thousands to evalute the process, has no background whatsoever in zoning or municipal regulatory process and basically concluded the system is broken which a monkey could have recognized. Despite that, the City Administrators in charge were totally ineffective in implementing any of the recommendations. The selection of him reflects the general poor decision making of the City Administration and lack of any judgement by the old guard Council.