Obviously, we need more transparency in government.
Parks boss steps down over secret funds
The state discovered $54 million hidden from budget makers
By Ashly McGlone and Matt Clark
UT-SD
July 20, 2012
The discovery of $54 million stashed away in the state parks department has resulted in the resignation of the agency’s director and the firing of a top assistant.
The state is launching an agencywide audit of the parks department — and is reviewing all 560 special funds in the state budget, which hold upwards of $33.4 billion.
...“I am floored,” said Rick Barclay, chairman of the Friends of Palomar Mountain State Park, a group that spent the last year gathering donations to insure that one of the most popular local state parks in the county would remain open. “If that money really was there and could have been used to keep parks open, then we will all be scratching our heads wondering, why did we go through all that.”
Some 70 parks were threatened with closure this year in anticipation of $22 million in cuts to the department’s $364 million operating budget.
In late June the parks department announced that, at least for the time being, enough money had been found to keep all 70 parks open. Those included the San Pasqual Historic Battlefield museum near the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, and two large state recreation areas in Imperial County: Salton Sea and Picacho on the Colorado River.
Bill Meister, president of the nonprofit Sea and Desert Interpretive Association which has been fighting to keep the Salton Sea State Recreation Area open, said he was shocked by the news.
“An awful lot of people — employees, lovers of the park — have had a lot of sleepless nights not knowing if they were going to have jobs or if the park would close,” he said. “We’ll have to see how this all plays out, but it doesn’t look good.”
State investigators in January began looking into a secret $271,000 vacation cashout program for parks staffers. Officials tapped the department’s new deputy director of administrative services, Aaron Robertson, to examine agency finances. He is credited with finding the hidden funds.
State investigators have determined that nearly $20.4 million, or 39 percent of the money in the State Parks and Recreation Fund, was not disclosed to state budget officials. Nearly $33.5 million, or 20 percent, of the money in the parks’ Off Highway Vehicle Fund was also not reported. Both accounts subsist on revenue from park visitor fees.
The finance department and the attorney general are reviewing whether criminal activity was involved in hiding the assets. Officials said preliminary findings suggest the reporting errors date back at least 12 years.
Ruth Coleman, state parks director for the last eight years, resigned Thursday, even as she said she had no knowledge of the hidden funds.
“I have always taken the public trust to heart and honored it and I am personally appalled to learn that our documents were not accurate,” Coleman wrote in her resignation letter to the governor.
Showing posts with label California budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California budget. Show all posts
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Nathan Fletcher in the dark of night gets stealth stadium deal into California's budget
In the Dark of Night
Voice of San Diego
Randy Dotinga
October 9, 2010
Should law be patched together in the middle of the night when hardly anyone is watching? Sacramento seems to think so: in a last-minute move that sent local eyebrows skyward, the state legislature slipped a bill into budget negotiations Thursday night that would pave the way for San Diego's downtown redevelopment agency to more easily pay to build a downtown football stadium.
This is hardly a case of simple bureaucracy at work. As we report, the mayor's promised "transparent process" over this issue is now history, and the effect of the deal on the city's day-to-day budget is unknown, just as voters begin considering boosting their sales taxes to bail out the city. On top of all that, "the deal was done in stunning secrecy."
The assemblyman who spearheaded the deal defends his move, saying it's a big job creator, but acknowledges that the county wasn't thrilled about the idea. County supervisors issued statements, with one saying the deal could actually spell trouble for the stadium.
Also: the city attorney says a public vote on the stadium won't be necessary if only redevelopment funds are used to build it. The city's head of redevelopment says this deal will save the city money.
Fletcher: Bill About Jobs, Not Chargers
October 8, 2010
by Liam Dillon
Republican state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher said the word "no" a lot when we spoke on the phone about the last-minute deal that removes a major financial hurdle to the city building a new Chargers stadium downtown.
Fletcher authored a provision introduced and approved in last night's state budget that lifts San Diego's downtown redevelopment cap, a necessary step before the city could build a new Chargers stadium using public money.
Was this bill something you required to support the state budget? No, he said.
Was this bill done to build a Chargers stadium? "Not exclusively, no," Fletcher said.
Fletcher emphasized that lifting the downtown redevelopment agency's cap would affect hundreds of projects, not just a football stadium. He did say a football stadium was the most high-profile effort now being discussed. He said he had been in contact with the Chargers in the last week, along with other stakeholders.
Is this deal similar to the 2009 one the city of Industry received, and Fletcher opposed, to help build a potential football stadium there? No, he said. That was an environmental waiver specific to the stadium, he said. This action affects lots more, Fletcher said.
"It's like comparing apples to carburetors," he said.
Instead, he said, this was all about jobs. Fletcher released a fact sheet saying it would create 110,000 permanent and temporary jobs.
But not everyone's happy. San Diego County, for one.
"The county expressed their opposition to this," Fletcher said.
County leaders had been meeting with city officials to discuss increasing the cap and potential financing for a stadium. In June, the city hired a consultant to examine the need for further redevelopment downtown. The $500,000 study was expected to take 18 months and City Council members had praised it as a public process.
This deal ends both of those things.
Fletcher conceded the process wasn't pretty.
"We can have a long debate on the process," he said. "There's probably fair criticism. I criticize the legislative process frequently, but at the end of the day what we're focused on is the product and the results. If we have the opportunity to take action to get tens of thousands of San Diegans working again, we had to do it."
Voice of San Diego
Randy Dotinga
October 9, 2010
Should law be patched together in the middle of the night when hardly anyone is watching? Sacramento seems to think so: in a last-minute move that sent local eyebrows skyward, the state legislature slipped a bill into budget negotiations Thursday night that would pave the way for San Diego's downtown redevelopment agency to more easily pay to build a downtown football stadium.
This is hardly a case of simple bureaucracy at work. As we report, the mayor's promised "transparent process" over this issue is now history, and the effect of the deal on the city's day-to-day budget is unknown, just as voters begin considering boosting their sales taxes to bail out the city. On top of all that, "the deal was done in stunning secrecy."
The assemblyman who spearheaded the deal defends his move, saying it's a big job creator, but acknowledges that the county wasn't thrilled about the idea. County supervisors issued statements, with one saying the deal could actually spell trouble for the stadium.
Also: the city attorney says a public vote on the stadium won't be necessary if only redevelopment funds are used to build it. The city's head of redevelopment says this deal will save the city money.
Fletcher: Bill About Jobs, Not Chargers
October 8, 2010
by Liam Dillon
Republican state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher said the word "no" a lot when we spoke on the phone about the last-minute deal that removes a major financial hurdle to the city building a new Chargers stadium downtown.
Fletcher authored a provision introduced and approved in last night's state budget that lifts San Diego's downtown redevelopment cap, a necessary step before the city could build a new Chargers stadium using public money.
Was this bill something you required to support the state budget? No, he said.
Was this bill done to build a Chargers stadium? "Not exclusively, no," Fletcher said.
Fletcher emphasized that lifting the downtown redevelopment agency's cap would affect hundreds of projects, not just a football stadium. He did say a football stadium was the most high-profile effort now being discussed. He said he had been in contact with the Chargers in the last week, along with other stakeholders.
Is this deal similar to the 2009 one the city of Industry received, and Fletcher opposed, to help build a potential football stadium there? No, he said. That was an environmental waiver specific to the stadium, he said. This action affects lots more, Fletcher said.
"It's like comparing apples to carburetors," he said.
Instead, he said, this was all about jobs. Fletcher released a fact sheet saying it would create 110,000 permanent and temporary jobs.
But not everyone's happy. San Diego County, for one.
"The county expressed their opposition to this," Fletcher said.
County leaders had been meeting with city officials to discuss increasing the cap and potential financing for a stadium. In June, the city hired a consultant to examine the need for further redevelopment downtown. The $500,000 study was expected to take 18 months and City Council members had praised it as a public process.
This deal ends both of those things.
Fletcher conceded the process wasn't pretty.
"We can have a long debate on the process," he said. "There's probably fair criticism. I criticize the legislative process frequently, but at the end of the day what we're focused on is the product and the results. If we have the opportunity to take action to get tens of thousands of San Diegans working again, we had to do it."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)