Ward 1 Commissioner Mitch Abraham e-mailed me a short while ago, responding to yesterday's e-mail to elected officials asking about their stances on funding the Mooresville Downtown Commission (MDC).
Commissioners Mac Herring, Chris Carney and Miles Atkins responded yesterday. I still have not heard from Mayor Bill Thunberg or Commissioners Thurman Houston and Frank Rader
Here are Abraham's e-mailed comments:
"Chris (Carney) cc'd me his email reply yesterday to your questions. My thoughts were somewhat similar in that I didn't want to give any individual comments because I didn't want to speculate on the MDC's report that was coming to us this morning and wanted to hear their presentation.
"They gave a good presentation and have some points that are valid," wrote Abraham, whose ward includes part of the downtown area. He stated that one of the "most notable" points that the MDC made in its presentation this morning is that "the present MDC board is filled with new blood and they have very progressive ideas on how to move the MDC to be a player on the (economic development) level, mainly by getting an active (executive director) and ruling with a stiff hand to make the Downtown a vibrant and economic producing entity!!"
Also, Abraham wrote, "The increased cost is not that much, an (additional $15,000) from what we have been funding the last several years. I have more comments but will get back to you later as we discuss it on the board level."
The MDC has received around $45,000 annually from the Town of Mooresville in recent years. This year, it's asking for $60,000, in part to help offset the salary of a new executive director since its long-time director, Wayne Frick, announced he will retire in June.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I hope all of the commissioners & mayor reply to your e-mail. Great idea--fund the MDC.
Critics abound everywhere. Many have solutions to all problems, but their solutions are just talk and no action. These critics just want to tell how it should be done, but can't find the time to roll their sleeves up and jump into the fray.
A point of history. The MDC was created for the benefit of the downtown business district in the late '80's and is funded by a special tax paid by the merchants and taxpayers in the "downtown business district". If one will compare the district in 1989 and 2008, it is quite evident that signifigant changes have occured. This has been, and will continue to be an evolutionary procdess. In other words, "it ain't goinna happen overnight". For this evelotion to continue, funding is required and the city fathers need to realize this and continue funding.
Today's economic environment is quite challenging, especially for the small businessperson. It could be considered a victory for the status quo to be maintained until things turn around. Don't leave these folks out in the cold
Hello Jaime....I enjoy your blog...but I have to ask...Isn't it just a tad unethical for Thunberg and Atkins to vote for this since they both would benefit financially if downtown received funding? Shouldn't they excuse themselves?
6:26 p.m. Poster:
Thanks for your comments and your question. I sent an e-mail this morning to the town attorney, asking him to clarify "direct financial benefit." He's usually very good about promptly responding. As soon as I receive a response from him, I'll let you know. Thanks, again, for the question!
WOW!! What service!! Thanks for posing the question. It seems like if I could vote for spending someone else's money to help promote my business or my wife's business it'd be a no brainer.
the 6:26pm anonymous guy
Okay, 6:26 p.m. anonymous guy (that made me laugh, by the way),
Here's our answer, from Town Attorney Steve Gambill:
The statute regarding voting is found at GS 160A-75 which reads as follows:
§ 160A‑75. Voting.
"No member shall be excused from voting except upon matters involving the consideration of the member's own financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting under G.S. 14‑234, 160A‑381(d), or 160A‑388(e1). In all other cases, a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber, or who has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present, shall be recorded as an affirmative vote. The question of the compensation and allowances of members of the council is not a matter involving a member's own financial interest or official conduct.
An affirmative vote equal to a majority of all the members of the council not excused from voting on the question in issue, including the mayor's vote in case of an equal division, shall be required to adopt an ordinance, take any action having the effect of an ordinance, authorize or commit the expenditure of public funds, or make, ratify, or authorize any contract on behalf of the city. In addition, no ordinance nor any action having the effect of any ordinance may be finally adopted on the date on which it is introduced except by an affirmative vote equal to or greater than two thirds of all the actual membership of the council, excluding vacant seats and not including the mayor unless the mayor has the right to vote on all questions before the council. For purposes of this section, an ordinance shall be deemed to have been introduced on the date the subject matter is first voted on by the council."
One of the primary provisions of this statute is a member of the Board can be excused from voting if it involves the Board member’s “own financial interest.” The statute is silent on what this means and I do not know of any cases interpreting it. Consequently, it comes down to an individual Commissioner’s, or the Board’s, determination whether a Commissioner has a financial interest in a particular manner.
But, unless a member of the Board falls within one of the exceptions from voting in this statute, then yes, the Board member is required to vote on the matter. Also note that when it comes to quasi-judicial hearings, other rules apply that may prohibit a commissioner from voting.
I hope this helps.
Thanks Jaime....you did the digging to prove my point.
Let's say.....just for grins....I own a jewelry store....not on Main Street....but on HWY 115 south of town a couple miles. Is the Mayor going to vote to fund an agency that will promote my store too?
Of course not.
OK....so...let's say my wife....who get's really high billing on my annual 1040 form every year needs some help with her business. Should I be able to vote to use PUBLIC FUNDING (that's a fancy term for money out of our wallets) to promote MY FAMILY business?
Call it unethical...call it "good old boy politics"....it's crap.
I'd call Mooresville Police to complain that I was about to be robbed but they wouldn't answer.
Your fan...
6:26 poster guy
Hi, 6:26 poster guy.
Definitely got a point there. I think Ms. Gatton's point is why does that same mayor all of a sudden want to get rid of the MDC that he's always been so fond of. What's changed? The cup don't match the saucer. The only thing that's changed is Frick is finally leaving (thank God) and making room for somebody new and fresh to come along. Of course there's no guarantying that that new and fresh person will do the mayor's bidding as good as Frick did all those years, right? I mean God forbid, he may actually report to the whole of downtown businesses.
Post a Comment