View Warrant on Pages 48-41 of Current Agenda here.
Monday, January 03, 2005
$83,331.60 in Legal Fees in January 5, 2005 Warrant
The City's Warrant dated January 5, 2005 shows $83,331.60 in Legal Fees.
View Warrant on Pages 48-41 of Current Agenda here.
View Warrant on Pages 48-41 of Current Agenda here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Ok. I checked the warrant and there are two expenses that I believe we shouldn't be paying for:
1. HP Audio Video $3,000 for Video Production Services
2. Star Photo Unlimited $1,146.00 for Photography Services
This totals $4,146.00. Can't the people who put together the Lynwood Press take the photographs and do videos? Were are the cuts? Are the pictures and videos available for public view? I'd like to see what their charging for.
I messed up, not the "Lynwood Press" but the "LYNWOOD N' PERSPECTIVE". Sorry...
What about Warrant #124677 Dominoe's Learning Academy, $1,584.00 for Community Services? And then Warrant # 124735 for $2,500 for Patricia Shields child care services. THIS TOTALS $4,054. The point is that Patricia Shields and Dominoe's Learning Academy are the same.What community services and what child care services are they talking about? When she was asked by the City Council during the council meeting, she didn't know what to answer!! The City needs to audit Dominoe's and the Consultant services Shields has supposedly given. So this woman is getting $4,054 a month from the City, how long has this happenned? We have to be very careful with Academies, jut look at the Geter Academy. We have to be very careful with anything that ends in academy or foundation, and consultants, and legal fees.
What about the invoices for Nextel that total $3,850.91. Cell phones should be changed for radios. many, many employees use cell phones as their private phones. It doesn't matter if some of the calls are free, City issued phones are City phones for official business and they should not be used for personal stuff. There should also be a cell phone usage audit to see what people are doing with their City Phones. This is another thing that can be cut.
I heard someone say that who ever wrote about the cell phones are wrong because she has unlimited calls, and she can make any number of calls without costing the city additional money. This is another issue that the City council needs to look into, cell phones shouldn't be used as personal phones. No personal calls should be allowed. Check the phone bills, there are employees who have calls of 30-45 minutes. Are they talking about work related issues? Shouldn't they use the radio feature instead? What about the employees who use the phone after 6:00pm and on weekends? If the City is willing to pay for employee's cell phone services, then every one in the City should get a cell phone, I wouldn't mind getting a fancy unlimited calls phone, I can get rid of my old 400 anytime minutes plan and cheap phone and have all my family and friends call me whenever on my nextel. Plus, if I'm wasting time during working hours on a long personal call, I can say it's work related, nobody checks anyway! (meanwhile problems in the city continue unsolved) How about an audit of cell phone usage?
jeah, one supervisor has used the phone a lot for his church activities and is always talking to his wife with the city phone.
Going back to the legal fees, we need to watch the attorney that works with the redevelopment agency, the law firm submitted an invoice for $60,000 for ONE MONTH ONLY in the last warrant!
Wouldn't that be favoritism? I mean, giving some employees a phone that they can use for personal calls and other employees not. I also wouldn't mind getting rid of my crappy plan, I'm always going over the minutes. We need to talk to the union, they need to do something about this. Everyone should be entitled to what seems to be a benefit enjoyed by a few.
I work for another City but I've been following the blog. Here, we go over the bill and employees pay for all the personal calls they make. Once people started paying, the problem was drastically reduced. Maybe you guy should do something similar.
No, I don't think that'll work here. People go cry to council and they let them slide. We see it everyday.
The City need to look into the car wash fees and also employees waste too much time at the car wash.
To the comment made above about Patrica Shields, the only reason she has a contract with the City of Lynwood is because she's always sniffing up Mr. Byrd's and Pedroza's anal.
This woman doesn't deserve to get paid the amount of money she gets. I guarantee anyone, she doesn't even have a degree.
I recently found out that a private school teacher does not need a degree to teach, but rather some measly certificates. I know lynwood has many of these schools within the city and i'm sure many of these so called "HEAD START PROGRAMS" and "CHILD CARES" do not give a damn what happens to our children, all they care about is the MONEY.
I experienced this type of behavior first hand with my child at "WORLD OF JOY" on STATE ST., right in front of Plaza Mexico. They don't teach these kids anything, all they do is make them WATCH MOVIES all day to entertain them, this way they dont have to deal with them.
At the same time parents get charged for taking their kids to these so called Child Cares or Schools. Don't get me wrong, its ok to charge parents, but why does the city also have to pay them or build these facilities for them. Its not the City's business.
I mean, if the city is really trying to cut back on funds, why not start here. I'm sure Patricia Shields and her sister don't get paid no $10, $20 an hour. I'm sure they are within the range of $40 to $50 dollars an hour. I would like to get paid this much money. Especially if I don't have a degree. Perhaps, certain council people should refer to people like this as "THE DONKEY," instead of the city employees.
I believe this should be addressed to city council and find out exactly how much they are being paid. I even heard that Patricia Shields wants to open other Child Care Centers at THE CITY'S EXPENSE.
I recently heard that the city of Lynwood had 1 CITY MANAGER AND 2 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER'S. I also heard that one of the ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER'S recently retired and that the other ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER is now the current CITY MANAGER.
However, I also heard that the CITY MANAGER before the current one was fired. My question is......what happened to the other CITY MANAGER that was there before the current one? Is he or she still an employee or did they actually fire that CITY MANAGER?
How many CITY MANAGER'S and how many ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER'S is the City of Lynwood PAYING at the present time?
TO ANSWER UR QUESTION, THERE'S ONLY ONE INTERIM CITY MANAGER RIGHT NOW. THE SEARCH IS OVER, VERY SOON THE 3 TOP CANDIDATES FOR THE POSTION WILL BE PRESENTED AND THE COUNCIL WILL CHOOSE THE "ONE". THE CURRENT INTERIM WILL GO BACK TO ASSISTANT. THE OTHER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ALREADY LEFT THE CITY FOR A TEACHING POSITION I BELIEVE. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE STILL GETS PAID. THE FORMER CITY MANAGER (HEMPE) IS STILL RECEIVING A VERY GENEROUS PAYCHECK EVERY MONTH! ALLEGEDLY SHE GOT A KICKING BUTT CONTRACT MADE BY PAUL RICHARDS THAT THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL CAN'T UNDO. GREEN GETER MENTIONED IN THE OTHER POST IS ALSO GETTING A CHECK AND NO ONE'S SEEN HER IN A VERY, VERY LONG TIME. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HIRE THE GHOST BUSTERS TO FIND AND EXTERMINATE ALL THE GHOSTS IN THE CITY!
First of all I would like to start off by saying that in order to prevent similar situations like the one that we are currently in with the former CITY MANAGER (HEMPE). The current city council should legislate an ordinance that prohibits future council from awarding or approving future contracts that have no expiration date on them.
Politics are politics and whether we like it or not, corrupt politicians will be elected again and again. If they are not corrupt, they will eventually become corrupt, just as FERNANDO PEDROZA and LETICIA VASQUEZ did. For this reason, stricter measures should be taken to prevent situations like these from occuring again.
I think the contract awarded to the CITY MANAGER should be given for a one year period. This way if council is not content with the appointed CITY MANAGER, they can easily terminate the CITY MANAGER without costing the city an enormous amount of money.
First of all I would like to start off by saying that in order to prevent similar situations like the one that we are currently in with the former CITY MANAGER (HEMPE). The current city council should legislate an ordinance that prohibits future council from awarding or approving future contracts that have no expiration date on them.
Politics are politics and whether we like it or not, corrupt politicians will be elected again and again. If they are not corrupt, they will eventually become corrupt, just as FERNANDO PEDROZA and LETICIA VASQUEZ did. For this reason, stricter measures should be taken to prevent situations like these from occuring again.
I think the contract awarded to the CITY MANAGER should be given for a one year period. This way if council is not content with the appointed CITY MANAGER, they can easily terminate the CITY MANAGER without costing the city an enormous amount of money.
I second it. We need to keep a close eye on this hiring of a new City Manager and Finance Director. Lets not forget the evils of the past. Does anyone know what the requirements are for the position?
Post a Comment