Friday, February 10, 2012

STORYLINE Sacramento City Hall / Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

No high resolution image exists...

Loading images

The City Council held a contentious discussion Tuesday night about a recent Sacramento County grand jury report that claims the city may have broken state law. The Jan. 6 grand jury report states that the city is not adhering to Proposition 218, a state law regulating city funds.

Councilwoman Lauren Hammond made tough remarks to Marty Hanneman, director of the Utilities Department.

“I have no confidence in your cost allocations,” Hammond said.

She expressed the view that utilities monies over the years have not been managed properly.

“We need to come clean and start over,” she said.

Utilites Department spokeswoman Jessica Hess notes that the department will address 10 possible Prop. 218 issues during upcoming budget discussions. A report from Hanneman notes that staff will address the Grand Jury report in March.

Read the Sacramento County grand jury's report on the city’s financing here.

Photo by Anthony Bento.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Rate

Community

8 Votes up

0 Votes down

Flag

Your Tags

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.

Rhonda Erwin

edited on January 27, 2010 | 12:23 PM

Councilmember Hammond was impressive and calls it like she sees it. Also, anyone who thinks Councilmember Hammond is removed from her district can't be farther from the knowing the truth about her. When a group of residents tonight complained about McClatchy Park and the Blackwell/ Crump ball diamond I saw Hammond really knows -people- in her district. She knew their is an ongoing fued now between the two and if you ask me it has more to do with pride, loosing a team and the sponsor loosing money...than kids playing ball. I have a nephew who was put in the middle of this adult feud where one group is loosing players to another group and both teams have youth from Oak Park playing on their teams- divided up and adults divided up with gang-like mentality. Hammond was dead on and her solution to bring the groups together to work it out was the best one. I have deep respect for Hammond and after tongiht I'm even more impressed. She didn't get too big for her britches- she's still of the community, of the people... Oops, I got off topic- my apologies

1 4

Hunnicutt

January 27, 2010 | 7:50 AM

Our city council is a joke, especially Lauren Hammond. Her personal gain is what motivates her at the expense of someone else.

They got the memos, but didn't read them or more likely just ignored them. They knew what was going on, but turned a blind eye because they wanted to fund their pet projects… Hammond.

3 1

Rhonda Erwin

edited on January 27, 2010 | 11:37 AM

I disagree. I don't see her personal gain motivating her at the expense of someone else. She does not say things to make herself look good by making someone else look or feel bad. I've seen far more people attacking her than I have seen her react to others. She isn't picking a fight and for goodness sake sometimes she has to stand up to one. More often than not one particular guy goes to sessions and put words in her mouth - meanspiritedly- and she takes it like a champ. Heck, personally I would have put him out to pasture by now. But it appears some who post have strong feelings towards Hammond and will comment but if all our council is a joke I'd be interested in reading comments towards the others. I didn't see many comments (except towards Hammond) when the council shared their 2010 visions. I can't agree with you because I don't go after people simply because I don't like them or because they said something rude to me- that's nothing- It isn't personal -- it's business--and I look for the good as well as the bad.

How do you know they got the memo and didn't read them? oh never mind, I see you also wrote "or more likely just ignored them" - I guess since you don't know exactly what they did when they got the memo it's more than likely you don't know for a fact they received the memo.

2 2

Hunnicutt

January 27, 2010 | 3:55 PM

Try reading the grand jury's report before defend our council Rhonda. Information was ignored for years on this subject as well as the miss use of utility monies. I can't believe you defend this behavior, this says allot about the kind of person you are.

3 1

Rhonda Erwin

edited on January 28, 2010 | 12:28 AM

'Hunnicutt, I'm not defending - our- council. (there are a few councilmembers I'm not the least bit impressed with. But I don't attack them or place blame solely on them and I look for their heart not whether or not we agree on everything...) Heck, I stated in the beginning my comment wasn't in regards to the grand jury report. Gheez (I did say "oops I got off topic")

The article specifically states Hammond " expressed the view that utilities monies over the years have not been managed properly. We need to come clean and start over,” Yes, I defend someone admitting the wrong and stating let's come clean.... I defend someone who stated, "I have no confidence in cost allocations..." SO to think I defend the mismanagement "the miss use of utility monies" is silly and false. Since I never defended the "behavior" -WHY would you say, " I can't believe you defend this behavior?" Did you just pull that rabbit out of a hat or are you grasping at straws, trying to find a needle in a haystack - because it's not true.

I'll wait on the March discussion before attacking the council- yes, that's the type of person I am- I'm not a person who will put words in someone's mouth, lie on them, or find what I'm looking for and ignore what was actually said/ written. I don't know what type of person you are. (to be honest I don’t care) I won't attempt to judge you as you have me. -- that's the type of person I am...

1 1

thsas

January 27, 2010 | 10:30 AM

“We need to come clean and start over,” she said. How kind, how forgiving.

In real businesses, breach of fiduciary duty, a fraud.

5 0

bbbbmer

January 27, 2010 | 7:44 PM

Real business??? Like AIG???

0 2

thsas

edited on January 28, 2010 | 8:16 AM

That behavior would be a breach of fiduciary duty in every company. You disagree? (This one just happens to work for me.)

1 0

Rhonda Erwin

edited on January 27, 2010 | 12:12 PM

Also I'd like to add, I'm from old Oak Park. My biological father and grandmother lived and died (of Cancer) in Oak Park. Their is old Oak Park which didn't even have a grocery store. We'd walk to little high priced corner markets and then their is new Oak Park. New Oak Park which arrived (still arriving) after gentrification. The one where we seem to weed out the poor to bring in the not-so-poor to sit on lofts and enjoy the environment we've enjoyed for years. Councilmember Hammond has balanced the old with the new and I know that was not easy to do. She'll get the old complaining and she'll get the new complaining but she pulled it off- what could have been explosive if she was not so outspoken actually blended without much if any uproar. I give credit where credit is due. She never sold out one for the other- never turned her back on the old for the new and never ignored the new to pacify the old. That takes guts. How many other districts had to focus on all city matters including gentrification?

1 2

Steve Vicente

January 27, 2010 | 11:00 PM

Let's not forget wasting money on lame green waste bins that downtowners don't want!

Will someone please fire the green waste bin fools already?

1 0

fiveohday

January 28, 2010 | 8:21 PM

Actually compared to a few communities I've lived in in the Bay area the meeting was pretty civil. Now if someone says "grand jury" things might change. Its never the crime its always the coverup.

0 0