With regard to the almost $ 30,000 in payments made to W.F. Hann & Sons, Mayor Scott Coleman was quoted in that story as saying, "
Coleman clearly implies, in his comments, that these transactions were properly and legally handled and that council approved of them.Everything was documented. We had invoices signed off on by the Legislative and Finance Committee.”
Push-Back One
Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, a long-standing Legislative & Finance Committee member, objected to Coleman’s comments, so much so that she wrote a Letter to the Editor, which was published by the News-Herald on May 8th. The letter is not available to view online. I reproduce it here:
"I wish to respond to comments made by Mayor Coleman in the News-Herald on May 1. I am a council representative and a member of the City’s Legislative and Finance (L&F) Committee. Normally I would not comment on a matter under investigation, but since Mayor Coleman is quoted in the article, I am compelled to set the record straight.
I take issue with Mayor Coleman’s comments regarding nearly $ 30,000 in payments to W.F. Hann (a company owned by a public official). Mayor Coleman said, “Everything was documented. We had invoices signed off on by the (council’s) Legislative and Finance Committee.”
First, everything was not “well documented”. Municipal and state law requires that public officials must file a disclosure of their interest in any company that desires to do business with the city, before any such business transaction occurs. This disclosure gives council the information it needs to make sure ethics laws are complied with. However, no such disclosures were ever filed.
Mayor Coleman said that L&F signed off on payments to W.F. Hann. However, in reality, L&F only knew of, and signed off on, two of the invoices, and to my knowledge the committee was never told that W.F. Hann was owned by a public official.
Mayor’s Coleman’s comments are also misleading. City law states that council must give prior approval by voting at its formal council meeting, for any payments, no matter the amount, made to the business of any public official or any business of such official’s family. However, this was not done because council was in the dark, unaware that any payments were being made to a company owned by a public official.
Sometimes what we don’t do is as important as what we do. This is one of those times. These failings must be addressed. I will say no more, as this matter remains under investigation."Push-Back Two
At the May 11th Council meeting, Council President Scott Mills presented a motion that authorized referring the matter to the State Auditor and the State Ethics Commission for review of the financial (Auditor) and ethical (Ethics Commission) issues raised by the business transactions, for issuance of any necessary findings, and "most importantly" said Mills, for recommendations for improving the city's laws and procedures.
Mills demonstrated responsible leadership in presenting that motion and asking for council's unanimous approval of it.
Council did as Mills asked. It agreed to add the motion to the agenda and then passed it unanimously.
As Mills said when presenting the motion, because of the individuals involved, it makes sense to seek the help and guidance of outside, independant experts. Only then will council be able to properly and appropriately put the matter to rest.
I applaud Scott Mills and council for taking affirmative action, for removing the matter from the local political sphrere, and for seeking help and advice from two state agencies that are experts in the area of financial and ethics laws. It is a sensible approach that should result in findings that residents can trust and believe in.
end
