Category Archives: City Hall

City Hall — Hearing On Public Smoking

/editorial/recurring/CityHall.gif

March 24, 2005

On March 16, the public safety committee of the Birmingham City Council held a public hearing on a controversial proposal to ban smoking in all public buildings in the city. Nearly 20 residents and local business owners addressed the committee, chaired by Councilor Joel Montgomery, with roughly half the speakers in favor and half against the proposal.

The smoking ban proposal has been before the public safety committee twice previously. Loretta Herring, day-care director of Bethel Baptist Church, told the committee that she was tired of the delay and demanded that the proposal be moved out of committee to the City Council. “[The public safety committee] is just going around like a dog chasing its tail . . . cancer is so devastating . . . I was a smoker, and it’s hard for people who have been smokers to understand how devastating this dangerous disease is.” Councilor Roderick Royal, who sits on the committee, disagreed with Herring’s assessment that the committee was using delaying tactics. He explained that the law department has been studying the smoking ban proposal at the committee’s request to find a workable ordinance that is in compliance with state law. “So it’s not true that [we're] like a dog chasing its tail,” said the councilor.

City Hall

Cash Flow

Get More City Hall

Royal, noting that he has a daughter with asthma, said that he is a cancer survivor and had no reason to delay the ordinance. “I have every reason to support a total smoking ban. But I’m not here as an individual,” said the councilor. “I’m here as a representative of the citizens of Birmingham. Some are smokers, and some are not. So I have to lay aside my personal feelings about smoking. I do not smoke, and I never have smoked, except for the time when I was in the Persian Gulf, trying to figure out whether or not I was going to get captured by the Republican Guard in the first [Gulf] war.”

Local attorney Lenora Pate, who sits on the board of the American Cancer Society, said that data and research studies show that business, sales, and revenues from bars and the hospitality industry have increased when smoking is banned indoors. “It is absolutely imperative for the workers of the next generation who work in the service industry in this city,” said Pate. “They are the ones who are vulnerably at risk for the carcinogens. More importantly, many of these are women, and the latest studies show that it is correlated with breast cancer.” As a board member, Pate met with the city law department regarding the ban. The American Cancer Society favors banning smoking in all indoor public places.

“Most of the businesses that undertake this actually have an increase in their business,” agreed Dr. Max Michael, dean of the UAB School of Public Health. “The other perspective is that we immunize our children even though our children probably don’t want to be immunized; we require ourselves to wear seatbelts; we try not to allow people to be on the streets driving drunk. These are all things we do to protect the individual and to protect the public’s health.” Local attorney Barry Marks said that “smoking in public is bad for Birmingham’s business and Birmingham’s image . . . It does not put Birmingham in a good light.” Marks noted that restaurants lose customers due to “secondhand smoke hangovers,” and added that his wife had undergone several surgical procedures as a result of “secondhand smoke.”

Henry “Bubba” Hines, owner of Bubba’s Pub, was not happy with the proposed ban: “This is not a smoker’s rights, this is a business’s right to pick and choose how he wants to do his business with legal activities . . . Let the customers decide what goes on in these bars. Let us decide, because our customers will choose if we’re going to stay in business or not stay in business.” T.C. Cannon, a former mayoral candidate and long-time owner of TC’s bar in the Lakeview district, also opposes the ban. “It is opening a big can of worms if you pass this ordinance,” said Cannon. “The American Cancer Society does great work. Their research and development have saved many lives. However, there are many carcinogenic agents, businesses, etc., that are allowed to exist . . . To restrict this to Birmingham is a definitely a grave injustice to the business owners in this city.”

David Ricker, chairman of the Freedom to Choose Committee, said, “We do not need more government control of our personal choices. I’m amazed that some politicians feel that they should treat individual citizens and business owners as infantile babies.” Ricker said that other municipalities with less stringent restrictions will draw business from Birmingham. Irene Johnson, a South Town resident, irately opposed the no-smoking ordinance. “I am opposed to this ban. I do not smoke . . . I have the choice to walk out if I go to a restaurant where there’s smoking . . . After a while you’re going to put a law on people sneezing in public because it spreads viruses! Those smokers pay taxes. It’s a disgrace they have to stand outside in the rain, smoking.”

Lawrence Fidel, president of the Alabama Restaurant Association, said that his group opposes the ordinance. “We’ve always been opposed to local smoking bans because it just seems to drive business from one sector to another. I’m not going to say that there are maybe some nonsmokers who might be attracted to come to a restaurant, but it doesn’t offset the loss of smoker business in our research and studies.” Fidel added that his organization is working with State Senator Vivian Figures, who introduced the statewide Clean Indoor Act a couple of years ago. “We are going to support legislation to ban smoking statewide in restaurants,” said Fidel. He explained that this would level the playing field by banning smoking in all bars, restaurants, private clubs, and even outdoor smoking areas adjacent to restaurants. He added that bars that function as restaurants early in the evening before becoming late night entertainment bars will “suffer greatly” because patrons will go to bars that are not declared restaurants.

“Clean air is important to me. Health is important to me,” surmised Councilor Joel Montgomery. “I do believe that people have choices in life. I do believe that business owners have rights as well.” Montgomery recommended a compromise which would exclude bars and lounges from the smoking ban. The public safety committee, with the law department’s blessing, approved the anti-smoking ordinance with the amendment. The City Council will vote on the amended smoking ban at the March 29 council meeting.

After the meeting, Montgomery said: “This is the best thing that I can come up with. And I’m still not so sure that the city is not going to end up with some type of litigation.” The councilor said he has been concerned that businesses will move to surrounding municipalities should the ban pass, and he disputes numbers that indicate an increase in business when smoking is prohibited. “Even in New York City you’ve seen a drop in business as much as 30, 40, or 50 percent. Most of it is in restaurants that have bars and lounges as part of their establishment. You can make a case for it either way . . . It is a health issue, but it is also a freedom of choice issue and a civil liberties issue, and we just have to balance it out, and it’s a tough thing to do.” In closing, Montgomery issued a caution as ominous as the surgeon general’s warning on a pack of cigarettes. “I believe that people who are proponents of this smoking ban want a prohibition on tobacco, period. From there, what’s next? I don’t think you’ve heard the last of this.” &

City Hall — Kincaid Weighs in on “No Pass, No Play” Policy

Leave a reply

2005-01-27 City Hall

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

January 27, 2005

Last fall the Birmingham Board of Education temporarily dropped its controversial “no pass, no play” policy that denies students the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities if they fail to maintain at least a 70 grade average in each class. Area coaches had vehemently protested the policy, with criticism focusing on the lack of such restrictions in other state education systems. The Alabama High School Athletic Association has a less severe requirement that requires students to maintain a grade average of 70 in four core courses and two electives.

Birmingham Mayor Bernard Kincaid is dubious about the policy’s reinstatement on the recommendation of Birmingham School Superintendent Dr. Wayman Shiver “unless and until, in my mind, [Shiver] can show some increase in academic performance with the institution of [the policy].” Kincaid pointed out that other school systems do not employ such constraints. “All around us we have Mountain Brook, Vestavia Hills, and Hoover rated in the top five school systems in the state, [and they] don’t have that restriction,” said Kincaid. “Now [Shiver] might say we need that, we might need a performance enhancer for our athletes that they [other school systems] don’t necessarily need. But he has, in my mind, not made that linkage. He just wants to do it because it’s more restrictive.”

City Hall

Cash Flow

Get More City Hall

Kincaid added that the Birmingham school system is already losing students to other systems. “We’re fighting like the dickens to keep them from gravitating to Mountain Brook, Vestavia, Homewood, and Hoover,” said Kincaid. “I haven’t seen the value of [Shiver's] argument yet. He might have some reasons that have not been put on the table yet, but the reasons that are on the table just don’t satisfy me yet.”

A vote by the school board approving the policy’s reinstatement was postponed at the January 11 meeting of the board, with board members complaining that a return to the policy after the 2004 football season had finished would be unfair to students participating in winter and spring activities, which include not only athletics but band and chorale participation as well. Kincaid doubts that the policy will return. “I wish [Shiver] luck in an election year,” said the Mayor. “I think enough parents out there will raise enough cain in the individual districts that the board members are just not going to go along with it.” &

City Hall — Once again, confusion reigns at City Hall

Leave a reply

January 13, 2005

Once again, confusion reigns at City Hall. In a four-to-four vote on January 4, the Birmingham City Council failed to reappoint Fultondale Mayor Jim Lowery to the Birmingham Water Works Board. [Councilor Carol Reynolds, a 17-year employee of the Water Works, recused herself.] Lowery’s six-year term ended in November 2004. He was renominated by Councilor Bert Miller, with Councilors Joel Montgomery, Carole Smitherman, and Roderick Royal also voting to reinstate him. Lowery is the only non-Birmingham resident on the Water Works Board.The controversy surrounding the vote concerns whether the city council is obligated to appoint to the board at least one member who resides outside Birmingham. In the interest of ratepayers outside of Birmingham, the council has made a non-residential appointment for the past 25 years. The Birmingham Water Works currently serves Jefferson, Blount, Shelby, St. Clair, and Walker counties. Council President Lee Loder said that the council will determine at a later date what the policy is regarding automatic appointment of a non-Birmingham resident. Until that policy decision is made and advertised as such, Lowery will remain in place. Besides Lowery, four others, all Birmingham residents, sent resumés to City Hall seeking the vacancy. None of the applicants were granted an interview, which Councilor Joel Montgomery later blamed on Council President Lee Loder’s ineptitude. Montgomery also inferred that the attempt to delay the appointment was an effort to manipulate the appointment process to have someone other than Lowery appointed. The councilor added that he had withdrawn his nominee because the candidate’s name was submitted after the deadline. Loder argued that a press release was issued in November 2004 advertising the vacancy, which was also publicized in local daily newspapers.Bob Friedman of the Petitioners Alliance, an activist organization that has fought to have the Water Works’ assets returned to the city of Birmingham, addressed the council at the January 4 meeting. “Most of the four applicants informed us that they learned about the vacancy through the Internet or by word of mouth. It is our understanding that although all four of the Birmingham candidates submitted applications and resumés to the city council, and specifically to the administration committee, none of the four were ever contacted with confirmation of receipt of their application or for an interview.” Friedman added: “It is insulting and hurtful to offer a position to folks when you have already made up your mind about the outcome.”He requested that the appointment process be sent back to the council’s administration committee so that the position can be thoroughly publicized and interviews granted. Friedman added, “Mr. Lowery is not an acceptable choice. He has earned that verdict from his past service where he voted against the initiative and referendum rights of the citizens of Birmingham [a process whereby a vote is put to the public if at least 10 percent of registered voters sign a petition urging the action] and against the economic interests of the city of Birmingham.” Friedman reminded councilors that 2005 is an election year, and six councilors were voted from office four years ago “because of their apparent lack of concern for the voters.” He added that some on the current council pledged to not vote to reinstate Water Works Board members who actively worked against the interests of the citizens of Birmingham.”If we have a policy that has been in place for 25 years, we should follow it,” said Councilor Valerie Abbott. “My only problem is that we did not announce the vacancy was for an ‘outside of Birmingham’ person.” Abbott, who defeated Bob Friedman for the District Three council seat, agrees with Friedman on initiatives and referendum. “The board that was in place when we took office three years ago went to court to take away Birmingham’s citizens rights to initiatives and referendum,” said Abbott. “I don’t think that was right, and I am not inclined to vote to reappoint someone who voted to do that to our citizens.” Abbott suggested that any appointment be delayed until an announcement is made that a vacancy is available for someone outside of the city, or until the Mayor’s Association announces that it had already endorsed Lowery.Councilor Roderick Royal noted, “The council has been appointing someone who lives outside of Birmingham but is served by the Water Works for at least 25 years now. I think that is good policy; I think we should continue to follow that policy. The argument that Birmingham is not well-represented falls on its face because the other four members [on the board] are residents of Birmingham.” Royal said he would support anyone qualified. “In the final analysis we just want the best people serving on our boards . . . It’s just unfortunate that every time we get to a point that something is halfway hot and political, and then we want to weasel out. Stand up and be a man, stand up and be a woman . . . stop being a weasel, stop being a weakling, you know, a girly man, as Schwarzenegger said.” &

City Hall

Cash Flow

Get More City Hall

City Hall — The council shall determine its own rules

Leave a reply

2004-12-30 City Hall

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

December 30, 2004

“The council shall determine its own rules,” read Mayor Bernard Kincaid from the Mayor-Council Act , which sets the rules of governing for the city of Birmingham. At issue was whether or not Councilor Gwen Sykes could ask for reconsideration of a vote that failed earlier that day. That vote would have secured the remaining $22 million Kincaid had requested from the council for end-of-year budget requests, which total $31 million. The council approved $9 million of the request on November 23.

Sykes abstained on the first vote at the December 7 meeting, causing the budget request to fail in a four-to-four deadlock. The only way a vote can be recalled is by request from the prevailing side, a councilor who had voted against the budget request in this instance. But Sykes asked for a ruling on whether someone who had abstained could seek a second vote. City Clerk Paula Smith, parliamentarian for the council meetings, said that Sykes was allowed to do so. City attorneys and council attorney J. Richmond Pearson agreed with the city clerk.

City Hall

Cash Flow

Get More City Hall

However, Councilor Joel Montgomery, reading from Robert’s Rules of Order, said anyone abstaining from a vote could only bring it back up in a special or standing committee, such as when the council meets for work sessions in what is called a “committee of the whole meeting [requires a quorum].” Montgomery argued that a regular Tuesday council meeting did not meet such criteria, as it is a legislative body. Council President Lee Loder overruled him and allowed Sykes to bring the vote back, which passed this time when she voted “yes” along with Councilors Royal, Reynolds, Miller, and Hendricks [who had voted "no" the first time]. Councilor Carole Smitherman abstained after voting “no” initially, while Councilors Abbott and Montgomery retained their “no” votes.

It was the second time in a month that a vote has been reversed with Sykes as the swing councilor. On November 9 Sykes abstained from voting to approve the hiring of Henry Sciortino as the city’s financial advisor. That vote had resulted in confusion about whether three votes constituted a majority when two voted “no” and two abstained. Loder allowed the vote to be taken again at meeting’s end, by which time Sykes decided to vote “yes” after talking with Mayor Kincaid. Whether Kincaid will now support Sykes in next October’s council elections is a matter of great curiosity at City Hall.

The budget request has been before the council since October, yet oddly, councilors reportedly did not meet to work out the details, though Kincaid did huddle individually with all but Councilor Montgomery. [Kincaid said that Montgomery failed to reschedule a canceled meeting, while Montgomery said no meeting was ever scheduled.] Councilor Valerie Abbott said she was not opposed to all of the items in the year-end budget, but simply wants the council to sit down as a group to develop a policy for spending from the city’s reserves. “I don’t want anyone to think I’m against fixing a dam or against fixing any of the things on this list. The Mayor was really kind to talk to us individually, but we need to sit down as a group and hear what each other has to say—not to be operating in a vacuum,” said Abbott.

The $22 million, which will be taken from the city’s approximately $88 million in reserve funds, includes $13 million for a Birmingham Jefferson Convention Complex parking lot, $1 million for flood mitigation, $500,000 for the Birmingham Zoo, $575,000 for a minority disparity study, $500,000 for repair work at East Lake Dam, and $120,000 for roof work on the A.G. Gaston Motel. Another $5 million appeared to be the most controversial, as it was earmarked for nothing other than “emergencies.”

Councilor Carol Reynolds expressed displeasure with the initial deadlocked vote that caused the budget request to fail. “I’m pretty dismayed about the vote that we just had on the spending,” Reynolds noted. “There are a lot of things in here I maybe could not have supported. But the East Lake Dam and the million dollars for flood mitigation are two of the most important issues in this city.” Then Reynolds shocked her colleagues with this dire warning: “I hope we have enough money to buy body bags if that dam [East Lake] breaks.” Councilor Joel Montgomery immediately took umbrage to that comment. “To characterize us as sitting on it [East Lake Dam], committing murder, and putting people in body bags is totally out of order,” said Montgomery in disgust. “We can pull East Lake Dam out of this entire amount here and vote on it by itself at any time this council deems it necessary.” Montgomery added that a second option was to have the dam declared an emergency if it was that dangerous.

After the council initially failed to approve the budget request, Councilor Bert Miller expressed shock that his colleagues could not reach a consensus to financially help residents: “We’re going to set this city back 20 or 30 years, possibly more than that!” Miller, who filed for bankruptcy in November with $93,000 in debt (according to an article in the Birmingham Post-Herald published the day the council approved the remaining $22,000,000), admitted, “I’m not ashamed to say it. I’m broke; I’m not afraid to say that, because I’ve tried since I’ve been here to help other people . . . There are the haves and the have-nots.” Miller, who in the past has bragged that he was “the money man,” has made headlines during his council tenure by drawing the names of poor to help. To this observer, it looked like a blatant attempt to purchase votes. Perhaps the councilor should consider that a politician who can’t handle his own finances has no business meddling with taxpayers’ money. &

City Hall — Council Seeks Travel Expense Report

Leave a reply

2004-11-18 City Hall

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

November 18, 2004

On November 9, the Birmingham City Council approved the hiring of Henry Sciortino as the city’s financial advisor. Sciortino, the former president and CEO of Fairmount Capital Advisors, Inc., which had advised the city for the past three years, left Fairmount this past summer after a falling out with company chairman Rodney Johnson. According to a November 7 Birmingham News article, Pennsylvania court records indicate that Sciortino filed a civil lawsuit against Fairmount and Johnson on August 3, 2004. The article stated that “Johnson filed a memorandum in opposition to the complaint,” including accusations that Sciortino was involved in “mishandling more than $500,000.” In a press conference after the council meeting, Mayor Bernard Kincaid, who believed Sciortino was not fairly represented in the story, decried the article as “the yellowest form of journalism that I can ever imagine.”

At the November 9 meeting, the council voted to rescind a resolution it had approved on August 3, which contracted with Fairmount for $240,000 as financial advisors. Councilor Joel Montgomery voted “no” each time. Then the council voted on a resolution to contract with Sciortino’s present company, Triad Capital Advisors, Inc. (for $146,666), but the resolution failed due to only three “yes” votes from the seven councilors present. [Councilors Lee Loder, Valerie Abbott, and Elias Hendricks voted "yes." Councilors Carol Reynolds and Joel Montgomery voted "no," while Councilors Carole Smitherman and Gwen Sykes abstained. It takes four votes to approve an item when only seven councilors are present.]

City Hall

Cash Flow

Get More City Hall

Councilor Abbott first questioned the Birmingham News piece during the meeting. “We certainly all saw the newspaper article, and it did raise a number of questions in all of our minds,” she said. “But we do have a contract that allows us to terminate if anything is discovered that causes us greater concerns.” She continued: “Until the lawsuit is resolved, we don’t know who’s right. And if we turn this down today we will be making a judgement on who is correct, and to me that would not be fair.” Abbott added that, in her opinion, “although interesting, [the article] did not include the entire story.”

“The most compelling argument for this is that there is a time constraint on this,” said Councilor Hendricks. “And at this point we do not need to be without a financial advisor. The financial advisor and the recommendation for a financial advisor is wholly in the purview of the financial department and the mayor. They’re the ones who use them; they’re the ones who have to be responsible for what they do.”

After the initial vote, Council President Loder appeared confused and refused to declare that the vote had failed until he could receive clarification that three votes were not a majority in this situation. He said he also wanted to give councilors the opportunity to reconsider their vote. Half an hour later, Loder called for the vote again, explaining that he now understood that a majority of four was needed when only seven councilors are present. By this time, Councilor Sykes had convened with Mayor Kincaid and Councilor Hendricks and switched her “abstain” vote to a “yes” vote.

Councilor Montgomery became livid. He told Loder that the first vote should have stood, but Loder replied that a councilor could change his or her vote at any time prior to declaration of the vote. [Loder has the option of declaring the vote, but the council can put up a motion demanding that he declare the vote.] Montgomery argued that reconsideration of a vote is the only way to ask for a vote again once a roll call vote has been taken. [Reconsideration can only be requested by the prevailing side, but there was no prevailing side on the first vote due to no clear majority.] Loder overruled Montgomery and let the second vote stand. Loder explained, that according to Roberts Rules of Order, the parliamentary procedure used by the council, Loder is authorized to retake a vote if he feels that the vote is “not clear or unrepresentative.” Loder added, “My job is to accurately reflect the will of this body. . . . I am satisfied at this time that the vote taken accurately reflects the will of this body.” Storming through the hall outside the council chambers after the meeting, Montgomery vowed to contact the district attorney that afternoon.

In an interview, Montgomery took issue with Loder’s explanation of his job as council president. “His job is not to reflect the will of the body. His job is to preside over that meeting,” said the councilor. “What he did was immoral. He stole $146,000 from the taxpayers of this city and nullified the representation of various districts up there by manipulating not only the Roberts Rules of Order, but also the process by which we deliberate up there!” Montgomery said Loder’s goal was to make sure he had the four votes needed to pass the item to hire Sciortino’s company. He expressed amazement that Loder didn’t know that four votes are needed when only seven councilors are present. “This man has been sitting on the council for four and a half years, and he doesn’t know that when you’ve got seven people up there that you need four votes for a majority?”

Montgomery continued his tirade: “He manipulated that vote; he kept going until he got the achieved outcome that the mayor of this city wanted. . . . What he [Loder] did was immoral and corrupt!” The councilor vented further: “You are circumventing the will of the majority of the councilors up there on that council if you continue to vote after you’ve already voted it down twice and you refuse to declare it. You have then taken over as dictator . . . He made a complete mockery of this system in order to achieve his desired outcome!” Montgomery contacted the state attorney general’s office, but was referred to the county’s district attorney’s office, which said the controversy was a civil matter.

At the November 9 press conference, Mayor Kincaid praised Sciortino. “Henry Sciortino is a very capable man. We have great chemistry, he has great skills, and I think he will do a great job for the city of Birmingham . . . What tainted this man is the yellowest form of journalism that I can ever imagine. [The story] reported what was in an answer to a lawsuit. He was the plaintiff. Seems to me that fair and balanced reporting would have [included] what he had in his rendering to the court as a plaintiff, and that would have balanced what had happened. And so the yellow journalism that you saw tainted this picture!” Kincaid continued in anger. “You also must realize that someone has a vested interest in this not going forward. There seem to be forces that have come together using our local media to try to derail this. Fortunately, the council saw through that.” &

City Hall — Hey Big Spender

Leave a reply

2004-11-18 City Hall

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

November 18, 2004On November 9, the Birmingham City Council approved the hiring of Henry Sciortino as the city’s financial advisor. Sciortino, the former president and CEO of Fairmount Capital Advisors, Inc., which had advised the city for the past three years, left Fairmount this past summer after a falling out with company chairman Rodney Johnson. According to a November 7 Birmingham News article, Pennsylvania court records indicate that Sciortino filed a civil lawsuit against Fairmount and Johnson on August 3, 2004. The article stated that “Johnson filed a memorandum in opposition to the complaint,” including accusations that Sciortino was involved in “mishandling more than $500,000.” In a press conference after the council meeting, Mayor Bernard Kincaid, who believed Sciortino was not fairly represented in the story, decried the article as “the yellowest form of journalism that I can ever imagine.”

City Hall

Cash Flow

Get More City Hall

City Hall — Animal Control Issues

Leave a reply

2004-10-21 City Hall

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

October 21, 2004

City Councilor Roderick Royal was furious. Pacing outside Mayor Bernard Kincaid’s office after the October 12 Birmingham City Council meeting, Royal waved a police report detailing a recent encounter with a ferocious pit bull that occurred while the councilor walked his Springer spaniel in his Pratt City neighborhood on September 29. During the council meeting, Royal had introduced a pair of resolutions: one allowing an increase in the $20 fine for anyone whose dog chases someone; the other requiring anyone with more than three dogs to have a fenced-in yard, if state code does indeed allow such an ordinance. If not, the resolution requested that a city representative lobby the state legislature to permit the fenced-in yard law. Royal became irate after a reporter told the councilor that during the Mayor’s post-council meeting press conference, Kincaid had described Royal’s proposals as nothing more than political posturing. “I don’t appreciate him saying this is politics when I was being chased up the street. And I’ve got the police report to show it!” Royal fumed as he waited to express his anger directly to Kincaid.

Royal’s resolutions requested that the Mayor direct the law department to both amend city code to allow for the penalty increase and to submit a fenced-in yard resolution to the council. But Kincaid was not happy that Royal took that route, and during the council meeting City Attorney Tamara Johnson told the council that they should have simply sent a memo to the law department requesting that the proposed resolutions be investigated for viability. At his press conference, Kincaid explained that when the council calls for a change in ordinance, the normal procedure is to go to the law department for the drafting of a resolution rather than introducing it on the dais at the weekly council meeting. “I view it as just a political ploy,” said Kincaid. “The process was to refer it to a committee in the first place. . . . That’s why council meetings are lasting so much longer. They are being used for committee meetings and for political posturing. What you saw [today] was political posturing at its finest. . . . One year from today is the election for city council, so you’ve seen the political posturing start.”

City Hall

Cash Flow

Get More City Hall

During the council meeting, Councilor Carole Smitherman said that it was not fair to levy identical fines for small and large dogs, and suggested that fines be increased up to $500, depending on the ferociousness of the animal. Councilor Valerie Abbott agreed, focusing her criticism on pet owners. “What we really have is an irresponsible owner problem,” said Abbott. “We need to increase fines to the point that it gets the attention of irresponsible pet owners.” Instruction in elementary schools on proper pet care was one of Councilor Carol Reynolds’ solutions, while Councilor Joel Montgomery complained that Birmingham Jefferson County Animal Control is perhaps not doing its job. “Folks, we pay animal control $56,000 a month to pick these dogs up,” said Montgomery.

In an interview two days later, Royal took exception to Kincaid’s explanation of legislative procedure, complaining that it frequently takes too long to get the law department to respond to council requests. Royal argued that the Mayor doesn’t control the council’s agenda, and that councilors are free to discuss any resolution or ordinance they feel is necessary. He then explained the definition of a dangerous dog: “The [city] code says that a dog is vicious if it comes out of the owner’s yard and chases you, attacks you, or bites you.” The councilor continued: “[These days] people don’t have poodles that chase you, they have Rottweilers.” Addressing the public health advantage of a fenced-in yard, Royal explained, “It’s just to further protect the public safety. It’s more likely that you can protect the public safety by an enclosed yard than by an unenclosed yard where a dog is chained to a tree or pole. . . . If you have a female dog, and a male dog chases you, I don’t think you’d be posturing at all. In other words I wasn’t posturing when I was chased by a pit bull. Anything I bring up, [Kincaid] is against,” said Royal. “What’s the likelihood that I would be making a show out of something that would cost me a limb? So on this point, [Kincaid] is just clearly off-base,” the councilor concluded. Royal agreed with Councilor Montgomery that the current animal control vendor may not be up to the task. “The city may need to look at other providers, because $56,000 a month is a heck of a lot of money.”

City Council — City Council Pontification Blasted by Mayor

Leave a reply

2004-10-07 City Hall

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

October 07, 2004

When business owners come before the Birmingham City Council with liquor license applications, it’s routine for the councilors to indulge in self-righteous pontification. This time it’s the Best Convenience Store on Pearson Avenue near West End High School that’s prompting the Council’s grandstanding. Store owner Ashal Saeed bought the business a month ago after moving to Birmingham from California. Community residents and school officials have been distressed that the store’s reportedly long-standing practice of selling single cigarettes and beer to teens is allegedly being continued by Saeed, though no one submits proof during the council meeting that the store owner is guilty. Although Councilor Carole Smitherman said she had seen groups of school children in uniforms leaving the store during the middle of the day while smoking, she said she assumed that they purchased the cigarettes at the Best Convenience Store.

Neighborhood activist Nell Allen has complained about the store for some time. “When you walk into the store you see barrels of cold beer and wine; cold and ready for them [presumably students] to purchase!” complained Allen, who was concerned about the beer signs on the premises as well. Students have also reportedly been pouring beer into soda containers so they can drink in class, though again, no one could prove that the alcohol was purchased at the Best Convenience Store. Arguing that teachers are at a disadvantage when instructing because students are “drugged and drunk” in class, Allen also complained that “you can smell dope in the air” when in the store’s vicinity, a claim which Councilor Bert Miller confirmed in a shocking manner: “I got high [in the store's vicinity] standing on the corner, almost, last week!” He added that the store was “filled with litter and loud music.”

City Hall

Cash Flow

Get More City Hall

“We don’t need this in our neighborhoods, especially in our black neighborhoods,” Miller said, invoking a racial conspiracy theory. “I think some of these owners are preying on these black people in our neighborhoods!” The councilor often condemns the sale of alcohol in black neighborhoods— when he’s not complaining about the lack of minority contractors employed on city projects. Apparently, he fails to see the discrimination aspect of denying alcohol to black residents more frequently than white ones.

Mayor Bernard Kincaid has grown weary of the Birmingham City Council’s foot-in-mouth reactions when denying applications to sell alcohol. “The council actually uses the issue to pontificate and to express their distress for licenses going into certain communities. That is not what the law says. If it proves to be a nuisance, if it proves to be a detriment to the community, and it’s turned down on that basis, then [applicants] find solace by going across the [Linn] park to circuit court to get the council’s decision overturned,” Kincaid said during a press conference after the September 28 council meeting. In addition to the two reasons for denial mentioned by the Mayor, the third reason for denial as spelled out by state law is violation of zoning ordinances. The law does not allow refusal of an application simply based on proximity to churches or schools.

“It seems to me that what was described with respect to West End High School, and the property that they described over the last two to four weeks, clearly is a nuisance. It clearly is a detriment to the community,” added the Mayor. “And I think if the Council were to just stick with what the law says there would be no problems whatsoever. . . . The council adds too much extraneous conversation to [alcohol license application discussions] because what they say on the dais becomes part of the record,” continued Kincaid, adding that when a City Council denial recommendation is overturned by the circuit court, the city has to pay the attorney fees of the alcohol license applicant who has sued the city. The Mayor added that he sent police to the store in question when he heard about the cigarette and alcohol sales to minors.

Councilor Carol Reynolds emphasized that all neighborhoods need protection from alcohol sales. Using rhetoric fit for a tent revival preacher, she offered a condemnation of beer and cigarettes: “I’ve been standing up fighting for these people in these neighborhoods who do not want this filth, this venom, in their neighborhoods since day one!” said Reynolds. “Liquor stores around the city, I’m watching you! I will get your license revoked if I have to stand in front of your store and take tag numbers myself!” she warned. Later, Reynolds told other councilors on the dais, “If we have to, we’ll go out there together, a united front, and we’ll talk to these children, we’ll council these children. I’m a smoker, but it’s different when you are a developing child, and it’s against the law to buy ‘em!” What cigarettes have to do with alcohol sales is not explained by Reynolds, who added, “I’ll be glad to be a mother to this city. These children are my business.” &

City Hall — Elusive Animal Control Contract Baffles City Officials

Leave a reply

2004-05-20 News

Elusive Animal Control Contract Baffles City Officials

The City of Birmingham is under pressure to sign a new animal control contract that the Jefferson County Commission has yet to produce.

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

For months, the city of Birmingham and the Jefferson County Commission have been at odds over pursuit of a joint contract on animal control services. The never-ending drama took a predictable turn on May 4, when the County Commission awarded the contract for animal control services to current provider, Steve Smith, president of BJC Animal Control.

The commission had given the City until May 18 to decide whether it would maintain joint animal control with the County or seek separate services. On May 11, the Birmingham City Council voted to ask the commission to delay signing the contract for 30 days. (If the contract is not ratified by the City, the County will proceed with a separate agreement for animal control services without the City.) Should the contract be terminated at the end of that period, according to Birmingham Mayor Bernard Kincaid, the City will have had some time to determine the appraised value of the animal shelter and other assets. (Birmingham would have to pay the County 45 percent of that appraised worth 14 days following dissolution of the contract.) The City would then be forced to provide animal control without the County. Birmingham is currently receiving services under a series of extensions of the contract that BJC Animal Control has held since 1997. In a May 13 meeting, the County Commission decided to delay signing the contract until June 1, allotting the City half of the time requested.

“No elected official with an ounce of sense would approve something they’ve never seen before.” —City Councilor Valerie Abbott

According to Charles Long, assistant to County Commission President Larry Langford, the final draft of the contract is not yet complete due to “caveats” that include education and a low-cost spay and neutering program requested by the Animal Control Advisory Board created by the County Commission. The deadline for completing the contract is June 1, the same day the City must make a decision to stay with the County or go it alone. Long could not give even a ballpark date for when the contract will be completed. “Between now and June 1, a contract will be drafted,” said Long in a May 14 interview. “The City will have the opportunity to take a look at that contract when it’s completed.” He added that the County’s purchasing and legal departments understand the importance of allowing ample time for the contract to be reviewed. “We’re not working to alienate the City in giving them an opportunity to take a look at the document,” he said. “It’s just to make sure that we get it right, because everyone expects us to get it wrong.”

Mayor Kincaid, however, questions the County Commission’s urgency to get the contract signed. “Why is there such an accelerated pace to get this signed in the face of their own advisory committee advising against it?” (The advisory board recommended the contract be awarded to Dan Bugg of Hot Springs, Arkansas, though his bid was $1.6 million, as opposed to Smith’s bid of $1,052,000, primarily due to Bugg’s inclusion of “significant capital expenditures”—four new vehicles, necessary improvements to the physical facility, an increased training budget, and more personnel).

Kincaid has criticized the County for ignoring the City’s input on the RFP (request for proposal) that was sent out to solicit bids from prospective vendors. At a May 11 press conference, Kincaid reiterated his opinion that the RFP was written to benefit the current vendor, BJC Animal Control. “You’d think that anyone paying two-thirds of the freight would probably not be the tail wagging the dog when it comes to this. We’ve asked for reasonable input into the RFP so that it would not appear to be slanted toward one provider,” said Kincaid, complaining that the City was paying the lion’s share of the current contract, more than $600,000 a year, while surrounding municipalities contract with Steve Smith for services at $75 an hour. “I would defy the County to have the quality of animal control that they have had for $350,000, because that’s all they’re putting in.” Kincaid added that he has not received a satisfactory response from the County regarding an audit of the escrow account, which is maintained to make improvements to the animal control facility.

Dr. Barbara Monaghan, chairperson of the advisory board created by the County Commission, expressed concern that the contract being considered by the County Commission has two one-year extensions, potentially extending the contract with Smith through 2007. “It’s my opinion that we should not maintain the same relationship with (Smith) for the next three years,” said Monaghan. “At every 12-month period there ought to be a quality review, and we need to lift the standards incrementally every year that he has the contract until we are in the place where we need to be.” Monaghan also wants the standards of the adoption and education programs that were to be built into the contract to increase every year. She has no illusions that all of the board’s wishes will be addressed. “I’m not naïve enough to think that if I took issue with a specific point of the contract that they would likely review it and change it. I’m becoming a little more cynical about the way things are,” said Monaghan in a May 13 interview.

“That’s very nice of them” was City Councilor Valerie Abbott’s sarcastic response to the County Commission granting the City 14 days instead of the requested 30-day period. “Considering that we don’t even have a copy of the contract to look at, that’s very generous of them,” said the councilor. “From the City of Birmingham’s standpoint, if we don’t get any extra time, of course we can’t approve it. No elected official with an ounce of sense would approve something they’ve never seen before. Or approve something they’ve just been handed. Surely the people at the County Commission don’t think we’re that stupid. So, I’m just assuming that the reason they decided to give us that very generous 14 days was the fact that even they haven’t read the contract yet because it hasn’t been written. But, of course, that’s just my guess, because the County doesn’t communicate with us.”

In an interview directly following the May 13 County Commission meeting, Commissioner Bettye Fine Collins expressed dismay that the City and County could potentially have separate animal control services: “I think it would be far better for us to have a cooperative agreement on this operation, so I hope it can be worked out . . . In the best of worlds, I think it would be better if some agency like the Humane Society had control of this.” Collins added she did not initially vote for Steve Smith to have the contract. “I didn’t vote for him to have that contract originally because he worked for the Health Department and apparently inspected restaurants. I didn’t think he had the background or training for it,” explained the commissioner. Collins seemed unaware of the advisory committee’s recommendation of the higher bidder instead of Smith. “I don’t know when they [the advisory board] meet,” said Collins. “I probably need to start going to some of the meetings to hear what’s happening.” She added that none of her suggested appointees to the advisory board membership were chosen.

Collins said she has not been a party to negotiations, as animal control does not fall under the purview of her office. Regarding criticism that BJC Animal Control has not been properly audited, Collins responded, “If you give a person a contract, and they are to operate under that contract, I’m not too sure that after you agree to pay them this amount of money that it’s our role to do a financial audit on the operation. He’s an independent contractor, and he contracts to us for a service . . . I don’t really know if it’s a matter to be audited . . . then I would think that the Office of Public Examiners would require us to do that. The only thing that I can suggest about that would be that we set up some form of evaluation for his operation.” Collins said she’d like some input to set up an evaluation for independent contractors. “All I can do is just evaluate their performance, . . . and how the monies are spent to provide that service would not be mine to judge, I would think,” she concluded. At the end of the interview, Commissioner Collins told this reporter to stop by her office that afternoon to pick up a copy of the contract. Twenty minutes later, someone from her office phoned to say that there was no finalized contract available. &

Cash Flow

Leave a reply

2004-04-22 City Hall

Cash Flow

A selective list of major and minor requests for funding approved by the Birmingham City Council.

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

(Dollar amounts and the name of the organization or firm that received the city funds are followed by a description of how the money is to be used. These descriptions are taken, verbatim, from the Council’s meeting agenda.)

April 6, 2004

Item 11

$90,000 to Jefferson County Board of Health

“To provide services to Birmingham City middle and high schools, which include health classes, summer workshop participation, mentoring program for girls 9th through 12th grade, and providing consultation and mini health programs for students in selected schools related to pregnancy prevention, obesity, tobacco, diabetes, nutrition, and physical fitness.”

Item 12

$17,500 to Literacy Council of

Central Alabama

“To provide literacy information and services for children, adults, and families within the city limits of Birmingham.”

Item 13

$63,000 to YWCA—Homeless Program

“For consultant service, which includes providing emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for victims of domestic violence and their children, providing case management and supportive services for homeless and near-homeless women and providing housing information and assistance for city residency program through YW Homes.”

Total expenditure during the last two weeks: $170,500
Total expenditure since October 7, 2003: $135,818,606.67