Home > Elected Officials, Flagstaff Liberty Alliance, New Media > Flagstaff Council Cozy With Taxpayer Funded Charities

Flagstaff Council Cozy With Taxpayer Funded Charities

By Elisha Dorfsmith

Conflict Of Interest  : a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust –Merriam Webster

Every year, the City of Flagstaff gives hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to private charity. The purpose of this article is not to focus on the merit or lack of merit of any specific charity. Many of these charities do wonderful things for our community. The purpose of this article is to show that there is often a blatant conflict of interest with our leaders at City Hall and how they spend our tax dollars.

There are many examples of this but I’ll start with the most obvious.

The City of Flagstaff currently gives $262,750 of our tax dollars to United Way. Mayor Sara Presler, Kim Ott (Public Information Officer, City of Flagstaff) and Stacey Button (Director, City of Flagstaff Economic Vitality Division) all serve on the board of directors at United Way. When our Mayor and Council vote to send our tax dollars to United Way they are voting to support an organization that some members personally have a vested interest in.

But it goes further than that.

United Way funds dozens of organizations in Northern Arizona. Some of these organizations are directly connected to sitting council members.

For example, United Way gives money to the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association. Councilwoman Coral Evans is the Executive Director of the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association. Her organization would benefit directly from her vote to approve the FY 2013 budget which sends taxpayer dollars to fund United Way.  Councilwoman Evans removes herself from some votes that are obvious conflicts of interest but I will be very surprised if she removes herself from the FY 2013 budget vote.

UPDATE: It is important to note that Councilwoman Evans voted for the tentative and final approval of the FY 2011 budget as well as the tentative FY 2012 budget. She was excused from the meeting where the final vote to approve the FY 2012 budget took place. These votes approved tax dollars for United Way.

SEDI is another local organization that gets $10,000 in city taxpayer funds. They will receive $20,000 next year if the 2013 budget is approved. Councilman and Mayoral candidate Al White is currently the Vice President of SEDI. Councilwoman Celia Barotz is a SEDI board alternate and Flagstaff City Manager Kevin Burke is a board affiliate.

SEDI works with and promotes a variety of businesses and organizations who share common goals. One of those businesses is Southwest Windpower. Besides working with SEDI, Southwest Windpower has had close dealings directly with the city in the past.

Mayor Presler will be serving as the general counsel for Southwest Windpower when her term expires. Andy Kruse, co-founder of Southwest Windpower was a strong supporter of Presler when she ran for a second term in 2010.

Starting to see how the dots connect?

The conflict of interest web extends much farther than just the City of Flagstaff. Coconino County, FUSD and NAU leaders all show up numerous times in the links provided above. In the future, an expanded story on these conflicts of interest may be necessary.

Bottom line, our local government here in Flagstaff is taxing the people and sending the money to groups and organizations that directly or indirectly benefit them.

As I have said before, rather than using tax dollars from the citizens of Flagstaff for their own special interests and agendas, our Council and Mayor should allow the citizens of Flagstaff to keep this money and donate it to the charities of our choice.

We don’t need the Flagstaff City Council using our tax dollars to promote their special causes, no matter how worthy those causes may be.

UPDATE: This post has been updated to clarify that Councilwoman Evans does remove herself from some conflict of interest votes.


  1. SlimStrontem
    February 12, 2012 at 1:10 am

    I agree that the basic principle should be enough, but I will stoop to mentioning something about those agencies–Which should only reinforce WHY the principle is important.

    United Way has several good intents. Mostly, however, they are lobbyists–So taxes (and debts) go to special interest campaign financing.
    Struggling Student $ –> higher rent and tax $ –> United Way $ –> Politician Campaign $ + Politician Shmooze Value via “accomplishments” of getting your tax money laundered for their personal special interest projects + Politicians on UW board get to directly spend $ on behalf of United Way. PARTY TIME!
    (United Way gave $1.9 million to Planned Parenthood in ’08, and has had numerous scandals for decades. “By their works ye shall… (something-or-other).”)

    SNAC also gets money from a City of Flagstaff bock grant.

    SEDI (seedy?) Is clearly UN Agenda 21 which has the documented intent and obvious functionality of destroying government’s sovereignty (and therefore individual’s).
    –Both have “global” population as their top concern–But, since the US population has been in decline, they must plan on whacking other populations. I guess that’s OK… Wait, it is a NAZ group, so they would be limited to whacking Northern Arizonans.. I hope they start with those “undesirables”.
    –Both still cry about rising sea levels despite Climategate 2.0 (which FnMSMbc has all but entirely ignored this time around, being more damning than 1.0) Links:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/ and

  2. Bill Tippett
    February 12, 2012 at 6:37 am

    Have you determined the reason the city deems it necessary to provide funding for non-profits? Is there a demonstrated shortfall in funding that leaves people in need at risk? If not then we would have to presume the giving of public funds is self serving. I agree with you Elisha. I’d rather keep the money and give to the charities I choose; however, I wouldn’t be opposed to the city providing stop gap funding for charities that truly serve the public’s need–but with provisions to avoid inefficiency and waste. Funding green initiatives doesn’t fall in that category. Unfortunately you’re more likely to be pilloried by the shallow minded for your opinion (why do you hate charities?) than applauded for appropriate scrutiny.

  3. Community Integrity
    February 12, 2012 at 8:55 am

    I do not want my tax dollars (same for my APS dollars) to go to fund an organization that I may or may not choose to donate to on my own. Look at a possible scenario – City Manager Kevin Burke is ‘retiring’ and will be a paid a pretty penny I am sure to go to work at Goodwill. How much do you want to bet that before Kevin Burke leaves his position the City of Flagstaff will magically decide to fund Goodwill? Goodwill hardly pays the people who do all the grunt work but they can afford to pay a former City Manager to do “outreach”? Seriously?

  4. Bob
    February 12, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Not very well researched article. If you had looked deeper, you would know that City Council designates Council representatives to serve on various Boards that the City supports. So of course some at City Hall serve on United Way. They do so in order to stay in touch with the missions and activities of those organizations to ensure that city funds are invested wisely (which they are). It’s not rocket science. And it’s definitely not a conspiracy.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 12, 2012 at 8:54 pm

      Your description, Bob, makes it only More insidious.

  5. Bill Tippett
    February 12, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Bob, the obvious meaning of “conflict of interest” is not rocket science either. It is a give-away out of self interest first, not an investment. An investment would benefit the entire community. Altruism starts with individuals, not with elected officials.

  6. February 12, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Bob, I never called it a conspiracy. I called it a conflict of interest. And how they get on the boards is not the point. The point is that they are on the boards in the first place.

  7. joyiris
    February 12, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Elisha, your points are well stated and I agree with them, but to me the even greater point is that the city has absolutely no business contributing to private organizations or charities. Individuals should be allowed to contribute their money to the organizations they support, not those the City wishes to support for them with their tax dollars. I have stopped donating to some organizations that I did support because I found that they were taking my donations and then contributing them to organizations that I do not support and would not wish to donate to! It’s one great big revolving door. If individual council members, FUSD member, County Supervisors, etc wish to donate their own money to various charities, that is their right, but that is where is should end.

  8. Bob
    February 12, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Clearly this site is loaded against my view, but I still think you are missing the point. Council members serve on various Boards in the community AS PART OF their Council term. You’ll see, when new Council is elected and sworn in in May, the Council will choose who should serve on what Boards. Even the candidates you support (it’s clear who that is!), should they be elected, will wind up serving on these Boards.

    But they don’t serve on these Boards out of self-interest. If anything, it’s a burden. Every Council member serves on many Boards as part of their service to the City. They serve on the Boards to be a liaison to the organization and to keep a watchful eye on where and how City funds are invested.

    Now, it’s likely that all of you believe the City should not invest that money. That’s fine, you can believe that (it’s a whole other argument). It’s unlikely to change, though. So, if the City IS investing that money, would you rather they walk away from it, or stay close and ensure that those funds are used appropriately? There is no conflict of interest there, because it does NOT provide any personal gain or benefit to the individual Council members when they serve on those Boards. If you think it does, then you don’t know how non-profit Boards function, nor how city governments function.

    A REAL conflict of interest would be if the Mayor were to vote to provide taxpayer subsidies to Southwest Wind Power, where she works and IS PAID for her work. Council members serve as VOLUNTEERS to United Way or other non-profit boards. (please don’t give me any hullabaloo that it beefs up their resumes, either)

    Finally, in response to Bill, the City’s investment in United Way serves no single named individual. The United Way provides services to those in need (services the City cannot provide on its own). Of course it doesn’t benefit the “entire community” but it benefits any person who may have the misfortune to fall into poverty, ill health, or inability to care for themselves. Like government funds pay for schools, even though not everyone goes to school. We fund schools, and programs like United Way, as a people, to provide a better society by which the tide is raised for all.

    • Bill Tippett
      February 13, 2012 at 6:53 pm

      “please don’t give me any hullabaloo that it beefs up their resumes ,either.” Maybe that strikes a raw nerve Bob? Are you that naive to believe it isn’t human nature to act out of self interest first? If volunteering your time or giving money to the causes you believe in just makes you feel good, that still serves you first and the cause second. It’s no secret that people across America belong to charitable organizations to build business contacts and develop a reputation of being a local civic leader. That’s fine with me but I don’t want money that has been procured through legislation given to support those activities. Our city government should “invest” in roads, water lines, police and fire equipment, etc., not in charitable organizations, some that marginally serve the community at best and others that have thinly veiled political agendas. And if you decide to respond, try running a different play than “you just don’t get it and you’re stupid.” Despite your ability to articulate your beliefs, the “I didn’t call you any names” and the rest of your smug condescension doesn’t lend itself well to any of your arguments.

  9. February 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Bob, I am not missing the point at all. The point is that sitting council members should not be on the boards of private organizations who receive taxpayer dollars. Board members serve many purposes and one of those purposes is to ensure the success of their organization. That alone is a conflict of interest.

    It’s also worth noting that you’re lumping everything I wrote about into the same category. The Sunnyside Neighborhood Association mentioned in my article is a whole different story. I highly doubt that the Council chose someone to be an “executive director”.

  10. February 12, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    For what it’s worth, I just did a quick scan at Wiki and this jumped out at me:

    “ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources”


    Typical duties of boards of directors include:[5][6]

    governing the organization by establishing broad policies and objectives;

    selecting, appointing, supporting and reviewing the performance of the chief executive;

    ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources;

    approving annual budgets;

    accounting to the stakeholders for the organization’s performance;

    setting the salaries and compensation of company management.

  11. Bob
    February 12, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    You are correct about Coral Evans. However, Council has voted to provide Sunnyside with funding long before Evans was elected to Council. Should that funding be removed simply because she was elected by the people to serve the City? No. In fact, if you watch Council meetings, you’d know that Evans removes herself from the room when discussions occur that impact her organization in any way. Conflicts of interest can be avoided in many ways, and those who look deeper (witness Council meetings, for instance) see what’s really happening.

    As for the others (Kim Ott, Stacey Button), City staff makes recommendations to Council about how funding is dispersed. You as a citizen may also make recommendations. Where’s the conflict exactly? If you work for an organization that receives City money, can we then ban you from voting and participating in government, because your vote and your voice are therefore conflicted?

    I disagree with your point about Council members serving on Boards. I’d prefer that my taxpayer dollars, when invested in the community, are being carefully watched by people who do not just read budget summaries and pass judgment. By carefully watched, I mean… someone who attends their Board meetings every month, and ensures that taxpayer money is invested wisely. And yes, I also want them involved to ensure the success of the organization in order that taxpayer is not wasted. To invest the money and simply walk away, waiting for that organization to provide a “report,” would be unwise.

    • February 12, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      Will Coral Evans be voting on the FY 2013 budget that includes funds that go through United Way to her organization or will she be removing herself from that vote? You know the answer to that as well as I do.

      I only mentioned Kim Ott and Stacey Button because United Way lists their official City title next to their position with their organization. As individuals, they can be part of any organization they want. Once they are listed with an official City title they are representing me and I have a say in how I feel about it.

  12. February 12, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    If you don’t trust Wiki try this:

    Ten Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards:


    “Ensure adequate financial resources. One of the board’s foremost responsibilities is to secure adequate resources for the organization to fulfill its mission.”

    Conflict of interest. Plain and simple.

  13. Bob
    February 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    Of course she’ll vote on the budget, which includes hundreds upon hundreds of line items that have nothing to do with what you are talking about. But she won’t be voting directly on funding for Sunnyside. You should know that if you claim to know anything about how the City of Flagstaff, or any government, works.

    It is basic Board practice to list the job titles of members of the Board. It does not, in any way, mean that they are serving on the United Way Board as representatives of the City. If I own a business, and serve on a Board, it would not mean that my business is serving on the Board… even if they did list my business next to my name. What if Kim Ott hosted a dinner party in her home and introduced herself to someone, mentioning that she’s a city employee? Would you have a “say” about how she conducts her dinner party? Could you have input on the menu?

    (Truth is, you will always have a say, as a citizen, about these kinds of things, or about any non-profit or for-profit or how the trees grow or dinner parties are conducted – no one said you weren’t entitled to your opinion)

    The Board Source document you list is well known in the non-profit world. But it is no guiding document, and does not apply to all Boards for all organizations (nor is it the law of the land). Might I suggest you read the IRS tax code to understand conflicts of interest? Oh, you haven’t read that?

    Yes, I’m quite sure that the Board of United Way works to ensure the success of that organization. They actively fund raise in the community. They do so WITHOUT PERSONAL BENEFIT. Anyone who serves and gives their time as a volunteer Board member for non-profits like United Way understands this clearly. We, as citizens, can witness it in person by participating on own own. Clearly, you have not. You don’t know how United Way operates, how their Board makes decisions, or what is required of their Board members. If you did, you wouldn’t have listed them as your “most obvious” example of a City of Flagstaff conflict of interest. You are only looking at the surface.

    See, if you understood how non-profits like United Way worked, you’d know that their entire definition of “success” is NEVER about personal gain. Instead, it’s about serving the community at large. It’s the opposite of personal gain – people give their personal gains to the organization in order to accomplish good for the community. Their “profit” and their “measure of success” is about providing their mission for the good of the community. But you think their funding from the City benefits individuals who work for the City specifically. I’d say you don’t know how it works.

    I would not have commented here – and probably would have agreed with you – if you had simply stated the facts and admitted your own ignorance about how the entire process works (both on the public and private sides). Here, let me give you an example of an honestly-worded blog post:

    “I wonder if there is a conflict of interest in play when City Council votes to fund organizations in the community? Some Council members and even City staff serve on the Board of organizations like United Way, which the City funds annually. Coral Evans is the paid director of an organization that receives City funding. What is behind that? I don’t know how this works, but I do wonder. Since my taxpayer money is involved, and I care deeply about this issue, I’m going to investigate further. I’ll attend meetings, talk to people involved, learn intimately about non-profit Boards, and get more of a perspective before I pass judgment. But I’m very concerned.”

    If you had written that, you would have appeared intelligent on the issue. And likely, your followers would have commented with their own more rabid opinions on the matter. You would have successfully stirred up the issue and raised awareness while also indirectly supporting your larger cause. Instead, your post makes you appear ignorant about how both non-profits and governments work.

    My blog post example is provided free of charge. I would be happy to provide additional consultations on your blog, but I charge a fee.

    • Bill Tippett
      February 14, 2012 at 8:40 am

      Let me give you an example of a sincere reply to Elisha’s contention, Bob. “Gee, maybe Elisha has a point here. I wonder if government grants “crowd out” private donations. Oh my goodness, there’s tons of research to support that hypothesis.”

  14. February 12, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Bob, your rude comments and snide remarks reflect poorly on your character and do not warrant a line by line response.

    I stand by my blog and the definition of “conflict of interest”. I never suggested that the city or council was breaking the law. As a taxpayer in the City of Flagstaff I am appalled at how special interests take priority over the opinions and concerns of the people.

    Time to vote for change at City Hall.

  15. February 12, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    One final point, I am not ignorant about how government works at all. Truth is, I hate how government works and that’s why I’m working so hard to expose this nonsense and change the way government works.

  16. Bob
    February 12, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    I’m sorry if you saw what I wrote as rude. Snide, maybe. My use of the word “ignorant” was to represent your lack of understanding of non-profits and local government. Either way, I did not intend to offend.

    I assumed, regardless of the appearance of offense, that you wouldn’t respond to the points in my statement.

    Prejudicial opinions stated without facts or understanding the backstory are made out of ignorance. It’s clear, from your blog, what you believe in, and I even support some of your measures. But this post does not ring true, nor does it understand the machinations of the process you criticize.

    Beat the podium to demand that voters change those in office all you want. When you do so from an informed place, I will listen. Maybe those outside of your ranks will, too.

  17. February 12, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Nice try Bob.

    My blog is loaded with facts and links and I clearly understand the back story.

    So, you’re a big supporter of United Way. Good for you. Give your own money to United Way. NOT mine.

    In a nutshell, the City of Flagstaff is taking my tax dollars and giving them to organizations that promote their agenda. SEDI is getting their money doubled in the FY 2013 budget while at the same time the City plans to cut back on snow plowing and other essential services. SEDI is a far left progressive organization that promotes the views of their vice president, Al White. Yes, vice president, not board member. This is unacceptable and something that I will continue to fight to change.

  18. Bob
    February 12, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Not trying anything but to speak my truth. If you get offended, that’s on you.

    At least I’ll address the points you raise. You can’t say that.

    Your site is “loaded with facts”. Sure, at times, in places. But when you don’t understand how local government and nonprofits work, it’s better to state that you don’t know and speak from a place of honesty rather than puffing yourself up. If you had posted what I posted in quotes instead of what you did, would your message really have been lost? C’mon.

    I’m actually not a supporter of United Way. But I am a supporter of taxpayer money going to the efforts of non-profits that fill essential roles in the community that the government or the people cannot fill on their own. Often times, this saves the government money. In fact, I fully support my tax dollars going to such local causes and will state it loudly for all to hear.

    And let’s be clear: isn’t United Way funding FAR better than the trillions that support war? If your focus was to eradicate tax funding for war, boy would I be in line to help. Clearly, tax dollars need to be better spent. The state and federal government really screws this up. But locally here in Flagstaff? We’re not doing that bad in the whole scheme of things.

    SEDI is another story and I don’t totally disagree with you. I don’t think they should be seeing an increase in funding. You might have had a stronger post if you focused on them.

    Although I do support the concept of sustainable initiatives. I’m neither left nor right, but I wouldn’t call that far left. After all, fossil fuels won’t last forever, regardless of your political leanings (even Bush knew that). I have a bigger problem with “economic development” coming from government. “Economic development” at worst is a way for corporations to convince local governments to give them a bigger tax break (or local subsidies) to move their businesses to town. At best, it can help to foster new businesses to develop. But should government be doing that? How do they choose which businesses to support and which to not support? Better to steer clear.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 12, 2012 at 10:05 pm

      “my truth” — Says it all.

  19. February 12, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    More snide remarks. Nice. I was not puffing myself up. And I don’t feel the need to defend my blog against your baseless attacks because it’s documented and very clear. With all the nitpicking I’m actually kind of surprised you didn’t try to give my blog a letter grade.

    What’s your real or full name Bob? I have a feeling I know who you are.

    Did you really expect me to respond point by point to your name calling? Really?

    SEDI is more than conservation and green programs. I completely support protecting the environment. What I don’t support is far left UN mandated globalist goals that trample the sovereignty of countries, states, and individuals. You seem to be the one uninformed about the goals and agenda of SEDI. Please do some research.

    And again, I completely understand how government works and I don’t like it and I’m working to change it.

    We do agree completely about government picking and choosing winners and losers when it comes to development and business. Always good to find common ground when possible. Thanks.

  20. Bob
    February 12, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    Name calling? What name did I call you?

    Snide remarks are in the eye of the beholder, I guess. You are right: you were not puffing yourself up. You were puffing up your argument without using detailed knowledge of the situation you were criticizing.

    And yes, I did expect you to respond to my points. But you couldn’t. You can’t. You won’t.

    You keep pounding on the SEDI thing, but I wasn’t arguing with you on that one, nor did I say that I know how they function. I don’t. But I guess you’re not going to bother to actually read the things I write.

    If you think that any City Council member or any City Staff are personally benefiting from the City’s investment in United Way, then no, you do not know how government works.

  21. February 12, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Everyone can read your posts and see for themselves, unless of course, you decide to edit them.

    Name one real point that I did not respond to? I think I responded to every valid question and point. You still have not been able to show that the information in my blog is wrong. Lots of accusations but no proof.

    If I understand your comments correctly, you agree with everything I wrote except for the United Way paragraph. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. When the Mayor votes to give my tax dollars to an organization where she sits on the board I call that a conflict of interest.

    • Coral J Evans
      February 12, 2012 at 10:10 pm

      You are wrong in this case. You have stated that I vote on this issue and during my term in office I never have because of the conflict. In all such discussion I have removed myself from the table and in most cases left the room. I ask that you fact check before printing stories regarding this subject. Thank you. Coral Evans

      • SlimStrontem
        February 13, 2012 at 1:22 am

        If you want to be exacting, what he said was that you COULD vote, not that you DO vote–So the only technical falsehood is yours, above.

        In an attempt to gain your understanding of such principles:
        In the 80s, federal employees were instructed that they could be terminated for even the appearance of impropriety. It seemed odd to me that people would need such instructions. Silly me. Silly you.

  22. Coral J Evans
    February 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    Hello. As a member of the Flagstaff City Council I have never voted on whether or not to provide monies to outside agencies due to the conflicts that I have (I am the Executive Director of the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association, a member of the Southside Community Association Board of Directors, and a Coconino County Victim Compensation Board member). In all such discussion I have removed myself from the table (because of the conflict) and in most cases left the room completely. I ask that you fact check before printing stories regarding this subject. Thank you. Coral Evans

    • Bill Tippett
      February 14, 2012 at 7:38 am

      The entire arrangement is a conflict of interest regardless of your recusal. Has a shortfall in funding been identified in these organizations to justify the use of public funds? As a tax payer I have no problem if the city has identified a need to provide assistance to those truly in need as long as there is stringent over site to prevent waste and fraud. Providing funding for council and staff pet projects is not justifiable and would not hold up to any cost-benefit analysis.

  23. SlimStrontem
    February 12, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    Oh. I meant to agree with ONE of SEDI’s intents–Though surely not in the way they imagine. That intent being, local and regional agriculture.

    It should exist everywhere in case of zombie attack, uh, er, transportation or distribution disruptions, fresher food–Better community strength in preparedness and social bonds.

    Where I likely vary from SEDI in this, is that governments should simply get out of the way.

  24. SlimStrontem
    February 12, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    Voting “NO” is conflict prevention. Nothing else is.

  25. SlimStrontem
    February 13, 2012 at 12:01 am

    I’m sure NO legislator EVER agrees to voting arrangements prior to meetings, and that no law or ordinance is ever delayed until votes are arranged properly. Never in a million times each day.

  26. February 13, 2012 at 7:26 am

    Perhaps those interested in what the Board and Commission can and cannot do would like to read the “City of Flagstaff Board and Commission Members’ Handbook.
    It is only 25 pages, so a pretty quick read.
    Here is the second half of page 24:


    Commissioners serve at the discretion of the City Council and, like any other Council-appointed position, may be removed from office by an official vote of the City Council. On a rare occasion, circumstances surrounding the conduct of a commissioner may necessitate disciplinary action. Following are examples of activities that can precipitate admonishment or removal from office:

    · Violation of the Open Meeting Law.
    · Refusal to sign the Official Oath of Office.
    · More than two consecutive unexcused absences from regularly scheduled commission meetings.
    · A 30% absenteeism rate or more from regularly scheduled commission meetings.
    · Persistent of willful violation of the Conflict of Interest Law.
    · Conduct jeopardizing the City’s and community’s best interests.
    · Rude, abusive, slanderous, and/or disrespectful behavior directed at the public, city staff, or members of the City Council.
    · Failure or refusal to participate in board and commission member training within a year of appointment, or when directed by the City Council, City Manager, or City Attorney.
    · Violation of City policies.
    · Unethical behavior.
    · Using your status as a City official (board or commission member) in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election.
    · Using your title as a City commissioner for personal purposes, to influence an election, or other unsanctioned activities not related to official commission business.
    · Willful non-compliance with the provisions of this Handbook.
    · Fraud, collusion, or coercion.
    · Inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.


  27. SlimStrontem
    February 13, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    The idea that the council should have influence or position in a private organization because they give to it your family’s treasure, is absolutely insane.


  28. February 14, 2012 at 8:25 am

    What may look like “Conflict of Interest” needs to be construed much further. (Page 14 of the B & C Members’ Handbook.)
    In setting up the Councils Roles and Responsibilities, did the City set themselves up for too many “conflict of Interest” areas?
    In my humble opinion I would like to see the Role & Responsibilities of the City Council much more clearly defined.
    Yes, it is all listed in legalese and THAT is part of the problem.
    I hope that we can all gain and share the knowledge of what can be done to get this City back in shape. The debt alone is truly embarrassing!
    We can make this better and I am willing to put my efforts into doing just that!

  29. Community Integrity
    February 15, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    This is the bottom line, folks… I, as an average Joe or Jane Citizen, can take my hard earned money and support any nonprofit organization or cause I wish – but this is of my own choosing. No one chooses for me. No one says, “Hey – you MUST support United Way!” or any other organization. I get to choose. But as a citizen of the City of Flagstaff I have a whole group of people telling me where my money (yes – tax dollars are my money, and your money, and my neighbors money) goes to support as far as nonprofits. It is wrong. Plain and simple wrong. Maybe it’s not “illegal” but it is not just in any form or fashion. I may not wish to support the agencies that the City of Flagstaff supports. But where does the City of Flagstaff get their funding? Oh. Yeah. From tax dollars. I want control over which nonprofit gets my support. Otherwise, I want my tax dollars to support NECESSARY services. Not donating to nonprofits. Why is this so difficult for Coral and Bob to grasp?!

    If I love Sunnyside enough to participate and donate, then let me do that as a free citizen. Do not hold me and my tax dollars hostage in supporting Sunnyside against my will.

    Period. Plain and simple.

  30. Dick Kersey
    February 17, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    There is absolutely no justification for a municipal entity financially supporting non profit charitable organizations with tax payer dollars, PARTICULARLY when the municipality (for example, Flagstaff) is struggling for monies to maintain necessary services!

    With the upcoming Mayoral and Council elections, I suspect there will be some major and necessary (and none-to-soon) revisions (read “improvements”) in Flagstaffs financial processes.

  31. You know who
    February 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    excellent, no time to read all.
    what about contributers to campaigns plugged in to this?

  1. June 24, 2012 at 2:57 pm
  2. October 22, 2012 at 7:34 am
  3. November 13, 2012 at 6:33 pm
  4. December 4, 2012 at 5:34 pm
  5. February 1, 2013 at 11:10 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: