Edgewood Mayor’s Statements Need Clarification
by John Weckerle
Over the last couple of weeks, we have been making a series of information requests to, and asking some rather detailed questions of, the Town of Edgewood regarding the Town budget and the Town attorney’s opinion regarding funding Town events. As a result, we find the timing of this Guest View in the Mountain View Telegraph to be rather interesting.
One of the issues we have with the Town budget spreadsheet is the fact that it appears to be incomplete and/or not configured correctly. A budget subject to State approval and public release should not contain (#REF) entries in any of the cells. We have requested a copy of the final spreadsheet. We will reserve judgment on the forward-looking statements in Mayor Stearley’s Guest View regarding the sewer (and other initiatives) and will be delighted if, as suggested, it is operating by January.
However, we do take issue with the tone of the Mayor’s Guest View, which seems to suggest that the projected success of all these programs is primarily the result of efforts by Mr. Stearley and recently elected Town Councilor John Abrams. With the possible exception of moving the Town’s equipment yard to the sewer property (itself the subject of a letter to the editor by former Mayor Calkins), all of these initiatives were already in progress at the time of the March election. While Mr. Stearley and Mr. Abrams have undoubtedly played a part, it is not appropriate to overlook the efforts of current Councilors Felton, Simmons, and Hill, former Councilor Ring, and former Mayor Calkins in advancing these initiatives or to suggest that these people played a lesser role than those credited in the mayor’s Guest View.
We also take substantial issue with the statements regarding funding for Town events. Having requested and reviewed the Town attorney’s position on this topic, we consider it to have been very narrowly written – as if to support a position rather than to provide a full examination of the issue at hand. Of particular interest is the fact that the Town attorney refers exclusively to the sponsorship of events as “donations” when, in fact, it appears entirely legitimate to consider such sponsorship as a contract for services. In the case of the Wildlife West Music Festivals, this is reportedly how the festivals came into being to begin with – the Town contracted with Wildlife West to produce them, and Wildlife West has been, through various sources of funding, footing more than half the bill. It should be noted that the Town budget includes contracts for professional services with two other regional nonprofits (disclosure: This writer holds a membership in both), and we have no information to suggest that there are any restrictions on the ways in which these organizations are permitted to expend the funds provided. To be certain about this, we have requested copies of the contracts and/or agreements with these entities and any other nonprofits with which the Town has a financial relationship.
The Mayor also suggests that it is appropriate to apply restrictions associated with the rules governing expenditures of Lodgers’ Tax revenues to funds generated through other channels. This is absolutely inappropriate – one might as well say that the Town can’t build a sewer with money from the general fund because the Lodgers’ Tax restrictions only allow for promotional expenses. For that matter, it should be noted that the Town budget spreadsheet makes no reference at all to Lodgers’ Tax revenues.
We are now calling on the Mayor and Town Council to explain whether they narrowly phrased questions on Town events in order to reach a justification to kill the funding, rather than to find a way to make things work with these events. To that extent, we have requested a copy of the request made by the Town to the attorney to which his comments are a response.
One Response “Edgewood Mayor’s Statements Need Clarification”
Of course others were involved in the projects mentioned by the mayor before he started his present term. This includes permanent space for the road department. Recognition and a small pat on the back costs little and it might do much to gain lost trust and confidence.
Regarding a building and yard for the road department, the intent had been to construct a building for the road department on Section 16. Utilizing the wastewater treatment facility to store road department equipment may jeopardize the safety and security of the wastewater facility. Additionally, National and New Mexico State Homeland Security regulations may prevent or seriously curtail such utilization. A simple search for information from the internet will provide sufficient information to verify if such might be the case. I found several links that address the subject.