December Newsletter
For years, citizens have been questioning IVGID”s financials. Most of us are not financial gurus, but when there have been so many criticisms of IVGID’s financial practices, it’s refreshing, but not surprising, to see these criticisms were not unfounded.
Moss Adams was asked to explore 4 topics: enterprise funds vs. special revenue funds, punch card accounting, capital projects and central cervices cost allocation. The kindest thing that could be said about the accounting practices of recent years was that they were “UNUSUAL”. In many cases, IVGID’s practices clearly did not conform to GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices).
In each of these areas Moss Adams strongly recommended that current policies and practices be changed. And although staff seemed to agree with most of the conclusions, there still seems to be reluctance to spend money on additional consultant contracts to move forward and fix what is wrong.
Test 2
Another test.
test
this is a test
Contract with Tri-Strategies attempts to repair IVGID’s damaged image.
Here are a couple of links to documents that demostrate how IVGID is spending our Rec Fee to convince us that it is transparent.
Note the contract bullet item regarding “sharing stories, data and statistics to build transparency and trust with the public.”
Washoe County avoids the issue.
Here’s a link to a summary of current County regulations.
Chair Wong’s Conflict of Interest
I attended the presentation at the March 13 IVGID Board meeting by Nevarez-Goodson, Executive Director of the Nevada Ethics Commission. One point she made is that a relationship with a non-profit can be similar to a personal relationship and should be disclosed when considering a matter that will financially benefit the non-profit. Parasol announced its intentions to provide monetary benefits to the non-profits currently receiving discounted rent if IVGID agreed to the so-called “lease modification”. One of only 11 non-profits still housed at the Parasol building at the time the proposal was submitted was “Girls on the Run”. Trustee Wong had served on the non-profit’s Board for nearly 5 years, until just a few months before introducing Parasol’s proposal, and continued to participate in the group’s activities, yet she never made any disclosure at IVGID Board meetings over the months the proposal was being considered. Why not?
Although Girls on the Run no longer occupies the Parasol building office space, its long relationship with Parasol is a good indication it will be one of the non-profits on Parasol’s list to receive those monetary benefits. But even if it does not, disclosure of potential conflicts is something we should expect from our Trustees.
Another Sunshine Week without Sun
Sunshine Week is a national initiative spearheaded by the American Society of News Editors to educate the public about the importance of open government and the dangers of excessive and unnecessary secrecy. But in our GID public records are routinely withheld and staff makes decisions behind closed doors without the knowledge of the Board or the public.
In the past Susan Herron, IVGID’s Board Clerk and Public Records Officer, may have deserved some sympathy. The public and some Board members sought public records that IVGID’s management likely told her don’t exist because the policy (never approved by the Board) allows emails and other documents to be destroyed. Because of several recent events, that sympathy may no longer be warranted.
First, there have been numerous public comments on the subject as well as other opportunities for her to learn about the whistleblower statutes that protect her if she is in fear of reprisal for exposing any improper activities in her work environment.
Then, consider her comment at the December 2017 IVGID Board of Trustees meeting assuring Trustee Horan that IVGID was in compliance with the Open Meeting Law. She said IVGID was in compliance because she had draft minutes soon after the meeting. But that had nothing to do with the question: was IVGID in compliance with the requirement to have minutes approved within 45 days after the meeting or at the next meeting (not every agency meets within the 45 days)? She has served as Board clerk for many years; she belongs to the Nevada Municipal Clerk’s Association and has had numerous training opportunities. She is a “Certified Municipal Clerk”. It is inconceivable that she was unaware of the requirement. And 45 days is really not difficult to count. She knew or certainly should have known the minutes were long overdue in appearing on Board agendas 15 times in the past year. According to the AG there was no good excuse.
Another recent statement that I find troubling was when Trustee Wong asked Ms. Herron for a definition of public records. At the IVGID Board meeting on August 22, 2017, IVGID’s public records officer, Susan Herron provided her definition of public records[1]: “So typically a public record is something that we have put out into the public, i.e. included in a board meeting, included in a board packet, included on our website; that’s basically it.”
But in her testimony under oath[2] in 2016, Ms. Herron had a much different definition: “.. it’s almost everything that we have”. And in response to the question: “And that’s it, everything you have is public, except things that are specifically confidential or privileged, isn’t it?” her reply was “Yes”. And since the 2016 response is correct, why did she give such a different answer when responding to Trustee Wong?
At that same meeting in 2017, Susan Herron stated that she had in her possession a copy of the 2016 Local Government Records Management Manual. The manual thoroughly explains what documents are public records and contains a detailed schedule of minimum retention times. Her definition of public records, categorization of all email as transitory records, and insistence that IVGID was in complete compliance with Nevada law sounded like she had never read the manual’s contents. The very next day officials of the Nevada State Library Archives and Public Records denied her claim that they told her IVGID was in compliance (see http://nevadajournal.com/2017/08/29/ivgid-officials-caught-false-testimony/).
She has made statements under oath[3] that she has served in the capacity of Public Records Officer officially since 2011, but unofficially for years before that. She also said that she devotes a large percentage of her time on the job answering requests for public records. She revealed that she received training relating to public records in 2015 from the Nevada State Library Archives and Public Records agency and from the Nevada Attorney General’s office in 2016. So she has no excuse for not having a thorough understanding of what constitutes a public record and minimum retention schedules. She should have understood her responsibility to recommend updates to the District’s retention policy, if one actually exists, or if not, the adoption of the NSLAPA schedule. How can she claim ignorance or that she made an innocent mistake?
It is certainly not an easy thing to stand up to government corruption. IVGID has used its resources (taxpayer dollars) to marginalize and attack anyone who exposes its misdeeds. But the wrongdoing has become so obvious, that ultimately the truth will come out. As Sunshine Week draws to a close there is still not much Sunshine in IVGID with a records retention policy that has not been updated in 24 years, allowing it to destroy public records, and growing evidence that important decisions are made without the knowledge of the Board or the public.
[1] Livestream of 8/22/2017 IVGID BOT meeting, 1:52
[2] Katz.v.IVGID transcript of proceedings on 3/21/2016 beginning on p. 155 l. 23
[3] Katz.v.IVGID transcript of proceedings on 3/21/2016 beginning on p. 155 l. 23
All’s not well – IVGID unbuildable parcels
Mr. Clark’s 12/28/2017 column in the Bonanza defending IVGID staff’s sale of unbuildable parcels is difficult to comprehend. He completely overlooks staff’s lack of honesty and transparency.
Here are just a few examples of the deception, where according to Mr. Clark, the ends justify the means (another way of saying all’s well that ends well):
- Eick’s statement made misrepresentations to the IVGID Board. When Jerry Eick went to the Board in 2012 to request authorization to transfer the lots to the district, he claimed that the problem was that the parcels were on the rec roll and affected the budget and that the transfer would allow IVGID to remove the parcels from the rec roll. But IVGID makes up the rec roll and it is not supposed to include public property. Most of these lots belonged to the County since 1994, so they were not subject to the rec fee. This was not a reason to purchase the lots.
- Eick made a misrepresentation to Washoe County. He represented that IVGID wanted the parcels for a public purpose. Instead of removing the parcels from the rec roll (one of his alleged reasons for needing to acquire the parcels), less than a year after the transfer of the parcels to IVGID, Mr. Eick deeded over one of the parcels to a private party. It’s now quite clear that his intention from the outset was to sell the parcels to private parties. The County could have sold the lots at auction and garnered some revenue, but it relied upon Mr. Eick’s representation that the land would be transferred to the District as open space. We don’t know what a private party might be able to do in the future, as rules and regulations can change; the buyers would have no obligation to maintain the lots as open space or for a public purpose.
- Guinasso’s claim that the policy 3.1.0 covers real property sales is an attempt to deceive the public and the Board. I listened to the livestream recording of the Board meeting where this policy was last modified (January 14, 2015). The Board never discussed giving staff authority to sell District real property. The terms purchase, expense, spending limit, and checks were all used, but there was never any mention of sales or revenue.
If you look at the Nevada statutes (332 and 338) that the policy was supposed to “mirror”, they only deal with purchases, and to a limited extent, sales of personal property, not sales of real property because for responsible public agencies, this is a power reserved to the governing board. In his quote in the RGJ article, Mr. Guinasso used the term “procurement” suggesting he knew perfectly well the policy was drafted to deal with purchases. But, just for the sake of argument, if the policy can “legally” apply to real property, it absurdly gives the GM the power to sell any IVGID real property since the 2 statutes it refers to have no “thresholds” for real property transactions (see 332.185.3). Perhaps the Policy was poorly written, but based on the discussion at the meeting in 2015, it was intended for procurement contracts only. Mr. Guinasso was present when the policy was reviewed. If the policy was supposed to apply to all contracts, then he did a poor job of advising the Board. Either Board members did not understand this policy potentially gave the GM authority to sell District land, or they just kept their mouths shut so the changes would pass.
- Staff acted in an inconsistent and irresponsible manner. Staff came to the Board to purchase the parcels (free is definitely below the GM’s spending authority), so why didn’t it come to the Board to sell them? Why does the Board approve easements that surely must not have a value exceeding the GM’s supposed “thresholds” for contracts? Why did staff come to the Board to lease the land for Parasol if it already had the authority to enter into all contracts of $25,000? Parasol only paid a dollar a year, so the contract was way under the supposed “limit”.
In both the transfer of the parcels to IVGID and the sale of the lots to private parties, staff (and Counsel) violated basic principles of honesty and transparency. All is not well.
Parasol Deal on Hold
At the November 15, 2017 meeting, the IVGID Board, after 8 months of “due diligence” and community opposition, decided to put the matter on hold. It appeared that they have concerns over the legal issues I’ve noted in past posts and in my Bonanza article last spring (the Bonanza has since refused to publish any guest columns or letters to the editor relating to IVGID).
Chart of Accounts Unveiled
After years of hiding it, IVGID, apparently has turned over a new leaf. May have something to do with recent attention drawn to it because of lax attention to public records requests, but what appears to be the Chart of Accounts (I say appears, because no one has ever before seen IVGID”s complete chart of accounts other than Jerry Eick and a chosen few) is now posted on the IVGID website.