We have returned !! Watch this site !!






SECRECY IN GOVERNMENT- DOES NEVADA HAVE A SHADOW GOVERNMENT?

An Investigative Report on Events Leading To and Including the Resignation of the City Manager.

www.nevadarevealed.org

Chapter 1

February 13, 2009

Since the hasty departure of our former City Manager, many citizens have asked WHY? Two columnists for the Daily Mail, Leonard Ernsbarger and Richard Carpenter, have questioned the secrecy surrounding this issue and possible violations of the City Charter. This writer also has asked the same questions. I am in possession of certain facts which will partially answer these questions.

Mr. McGuire was hired as City Manager on April 1, 2007. Bill Edmonds was Mayor for most of this time and Jim Rayburn was Mayor for a short period of time. Everything ran very smoothly and everyone was very cooperative and understood the role they played in the City Manager form of government.

IN APRIL 2008 MIKE HUTCHINS WAS ELECTED MAYOR. In May 2008 a secret meeting was held. Obviously I wasn't present at the meeting, but I am of the opinion that the meeting went something like this: Unbeknownst to the City Council a group of people including Mayor Hutchens, Mayor pro-tem Wells, Carol Branham and Robin Fisher, both ex- city employees, and Mark Mitchell, a city employee met at the Maranatha Christian Fellowship building on S. Spring St. My opinion is that they discussed city business, probably concerning a belief that the City Manager was keeping two separate budgets, but they found out this wasn't true. The City Manager had created a "working budget" which is a more detailed accounting tool taken from the original council-passed budget. Were they looking for a City Manager "gotcha"? If so they didn't find anything wrong. In my opinion this incident was the beginning of a plan to harass Mr. McGuire. It backfired.

This secret meeting violated the following sections of the City Charter. Article 111 Section 3.1 states in part as follows "Call powers of the city shall be vested in the council." Article 111 Section 3.4 Mayor among other things states "The Mayor shall have no administrative duties and shall have no veto power." In other words the Mayor and Mayor pro-tem cannot operate independently of the City Council. Article 111 Section 3.5 Prohibitions paragraph (c) Interference with Administration reads as follows "Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations under Section 3.9 the council or its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the manager, solely through the manager, and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately."

Of course, violation of the City Charter by some members of the City Council has occurred many times especially during the 2000- 2005 era of city government. If a citizen gets arrested for going 40 MPH in a 30MPH zone they are given a ticket and the infraction of the law is adjudicated. Evidently certain privileged members of the City Council are immune and excused from breaking the law.

In other words, no Councilperson had the power to order Mr. Mitchell to attend a secret meeting and the Mayor and Mayor pro-tem had no authority to meet with him without the knowledge of the City Manager. The only legal way to handle problems, if there are problems, is for the whole City Council to discuss them in open Council Meetings. Illegal meetings which result in troublesome situations for the City Council and the City Manager should not be tolerated.

The Mayor and Mayor pro-tem can meet at any time with citizens of Nevada. That would be legal, but when these meetings are not reported to the City Council and the public there could be problems. Are these meeting still being held secretly with any City Hall employees in attendance and acting as spies? Are employees in City Hall talking with members of this group by phone, in person, or by e-mail and acting as informants? Secrecy can breed suspicion.

Do we have a shadow government advising and working with the Mayor and Mayor pro-tem? Is there anything illegal about that? Maybe not, but do the citizens of Nevada want their government's agenda set by an unelected group of present and ex- city employees at secret meetings?

The Management of Cash Receipts State Audit from the Office of State Auditor Claire McCaskill dated September 2, 2004 on Page 7 showed misappropriated Funds totaling $39,701. Of this total, 94.08% or $37,352 was Park Revenue. And the then Director of Parks Carol Branham hadn't even missed it! It was taken from right under her nose and she didn't know it. Does this indicate good management skills? It is my opinion she is a member of the May 2008 shadow government group which is presently advising the Mayor and Mayor pro-tem how our city government should be run. Don't take my comments lightly. This group learned how to obtain power from a past master. They take their mission very seriously.

IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE SEEN THE RESULTS OF "SHADOW GOVERNMENT" AND "SECRECY", MAINLY THE SUDDEN UNEXPLAINED RESIGNATION OF BILL MCGUIRE. IN MY OPINION THE PUBLIC WILL NEVER KNOW EXACTLY WHAT REALLY HAPPENED; WE WILL PROBABLY JUST BE TOLD THAT HE LEFT OF HIS OWN VOLITION BUT NOT WHY HE LEFT. WE HOPE WE CAN CLEAR UP SOME OF THE MYSTERY IN CHAPTER 2 OF THIS EXPOSE, WHICH WE WILL TRY TO HAVE ON LINE IN APPROXIMATELY 10 DAYS. KEEP WATCHING. I AM INTERESTED ONLY IN THE EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER AND CITY CODES. THE REASONS FOR THE RESIGNATION OF THE CITY MANAGER ARE NOT MY CONCERN. SOMEONE ELSE WILL HAVE TO DISCOVER THAT. WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS OF OUR LAWS AND WITH THE EXPOSING OF THOSE VIOLATING OUR LAWS AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM.

Please continue to check our website www. nevadarevealed.org periodically for more information. Tell everyone you know to do the same. Help spread the word!

Welcome to the Nevada Revealed website

BULLETIN - BULLETIN - BULLETIN.

A NEVADA REVEALED EDITORIAL

September 17, 2008

During the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 Councilman Gillette questioned the wisdom of Council members attending a Picnic sponsored by the Nevada Sunshine Group because if 3 or more members attended that would constitute a majority of the Council, and the Council has to be careful not to do anything that would give the appearance of violating the Sunshine Law. When you are elected to the City Council you must be prepared to accept the position and conduct yourself in a manner which is above reproach.

Mr. David Bishop, 901 S College, informed the City Council and the Citizens of Nevada in open Council meeting that he is the "Chairman of the Nevada Sunshine Group, a local registered lobbyist group". This admission makes the Nevada Sunshine Group a political entity. Where are they registered?

The Mayor of the City is encouraging the City Council to attend the picnic sponsored by the Nevada Sunshine Group.

Attendance at this picnic, which in our opinion is a political meeting, is by invitation only. If three or more Councilpersons attend they would be in violation of the Sunshine Law, the same law this lobbyist group is purported to be expert on. Chapter 610 (5) of the Sunshine Law defining "Public Meeting" does not apply.

The meeting is from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm. Being aware of this fact, and after hearing what Mr. Bishop said about this group being a registered lobbyist group, and being informed that the Mayor invited members of the City Council to the picnic, how could any citizen of Nevada even remotely think that the intent of this group is to exchange small talk about sewing, the weather, domestic problems, and how good the covered dishes were?

The next questions are: Who are the principals for whom Mr. Bishop is the registered elected Chairman? What is their mission? Are they ex-city employees who quit or retired and now want to be re-hired by the city? Do they not like the honest and ethical city government that we now have? Is there intent to go back to the old bankrupt and misappropriation-of-money days? Is the Mayor beholden to these people for his being elected to the City Council? When he ran he said he was going to represent all the people. Is he now a puppet Councilman?

--Joe Kraft

THE GREAT STREET SWEEPER CAPER

MARCH 11, 2008



Bill Mc Guire? , our City Manager, has taken quite a bit of heat recently from the local newspaper. He sent word to a recent street committee meeting that he planned to spend $200,000 of the Transportation Tax money for a street sweeper.

The local newspaper, which is in direct opposition to the present City administration, published a slanted article about the meeting. The newspaper also printed two articles (Feb. 29 & Mar. 6) on its editorial page signed by THE NEVADA DAILY MAIL, one of which was egregious and insulting to Mr. Mc,Guire, leading some people to suspect that there might be some skullduggery behind the whole affair. (I had to look up the definition of egregious it means absurd and excessive.) I suspect the editorials were contributed by a local person whose writing style has appeared in the public domain for the past twelve months, and which is immediately recognizable by the tongue lashings it contains. A member of the Park Board recently publicly admitted to and apologized for remarks she made pertaining to the City golf course. This act resulted in NO backlash of insulting criticism in the newspaper. This editor's publishing policy is "Different Strokes for Different Folks". Hmm...

Evidently the newspaper policy concerning the signing of "Letters to the Editor" and "Guest Editorials' has changed. The comments about Mr. Mc Guire? were on the editorial page with the signature "Nevada Daily Mail". Who is the "Nevada Daily Mail"? Is the editor protecting her staff or an unnamed contributor whose identity is not being disclosed? IF THE LATTER IS TRUE, THE PAPER IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF ITS OWN PUBLISHING POLICY.

Mr. Mc Guire? 's action did not merit the abuse which he has received. He did not buy the street sweeper and take personal possession of it, and there was no way he could pocket any of the $200,000 himself. A "Sweetheart Deal" is not an issue because a study is going to be made as to the type of sweeper needed and bids will be taken. Isn"t that refreshing?

We assume that the Public has decided to treat this matter as a tempest in a teapot and has forgiven Mr. Mc Guire? for this error in judgment and accepted his public apology. We'll be interested to observe whether or not his detractors will do the same from now on. This I doubt because they're still living in the past and basically cannot forgive Mc Guire? for not being Craig Hubler. How long are we going to allow Hubler's ghost to continue to infiltrate and influence our city politics through his friends?

MARCH 12, 2008

GOOD NEWS! NEVADA CITY MANAGER CAN READ!

Bill Mc Guire? has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that, contrary to the local newspaper's opinion, he has the ability to read and understand the English language.

After the paper blew up the BIG STREET SWEEPER INCIDENT of February 28th to major proportions, Mr. Mc Guire? again perused the Ordinances setting the sales tax elections, presumably without any "serious trouble" in understanding them. Upon rereading the Ballot Language in the 2001 and the 2006 ballots he found that it does not correspond with the Use of Funds sections in the ordinances. These two sections should mirror each other exactly.

Section 2: Ballot Language in both Ordinances and in both Ballots reads as follows:

Shall the City of Nevada continue for five years an existing Sales Tax of one-half of one percent (.005%) for Transportation Purposes for resurfacing and construction or reconstruction of CURBS AND GUTTERING for existing Nevada streets. All funds collected each year shall be deposited to the Street Fund for this purpose.

Section 4: Use of Funds Language in both ordinances reads as follows:

The funds received from the Transportation Sales Tax shall be used as follows:a) A minimum of $400,00 per year (the 2006 ordinance reads $500,000) shall be used for STREET CONSTRUCTION on existing Nevada STREETS including asphalt or concrete overlay of street surfacing, widening where necessary and installation or replacement of curbs and guttering and storm drains where necessary.(Emphasis Ours)

The difficulty is as follows: Nevada citizens VOTED NOT FOR resurfacing or reconstruction of existing streets, but THEY VOTED FOR resurfacing, reconstruction and construction of curbs and guttering for existing streets.

The writer of the Ballot Language should have used the same wording as the Use of Funds Language in the ordinance. What counts is what is actually written on the ballot not what his intent was. The voters have every right to assume that Ballot Language and the Use of Funds Language will be exactly the same. That did not happen in this case.

Ironically, this means that buying a street sweeper to clean existing streets and old and new curbs and gutters wasn't such an outlandish idea after all. It also means that the writers of the editorial in which they printed the ballot in question are the ones who can't read and understand plain English. Hmm'

I do not agree with the unknown authors of the March 6th 'editorial' when they said, "Cities, like newspapers, cannot operate effectively without the public trust." That means exactly nothing. Cities operate effectively with honest administrations and newspapers should function with veracity and unbiased reporting of events, people, and government. The Public Trust will automatically follow when it has been earned.

Joe C Kraft
Mission Statement

Featured Topics: