IronMountainIssues.org
  Nov 2006 Postings Home Page    
Sept 2006 Postings   Public Forum    
Oct 2006 Postings        

August 2006 Postings

8-31-2006-3

In response to the postings about Rich Brook and someone named Brian Allen: 
 
1. Did you look at the payroll report link?  Rich Brook isn't listed as an employee, even though he somehow has an employment contract. 
 
2.  See the link included with this submission.  That $35,000.00 was for ONE month of "work", not two.  The link here shows the nearly $8,000.00 he received the month before.
 
3.  If this mysterious Brian Allen shows up on my property to reappraise it, do I have to let him proceed?  Is he a legally an employee of the City, or just a trespasser?  Has he had a background check?  For that matter, is Rich Brook a legal employee?  He's not listed on the City payroll.  What proof should I ask for when they show up?
 
4.  Didn't Rich Brook imply - at two different council meetings - that FORMER city officials were the shady ones?

8-31-2006-2

In an Aug 20 posting, the writer had a link to the Vendor's Summary Report of the City of Iron Mountain.  That's where the $35, 000 paid to the assessor is underlined.  A good piece of change for two months work.
 
Look at the second item from the top in the Vendor's report link and you'll find somebody named Brian Allen getting paid over $14,000 for City Reappraisal.
 
Anybody know who this Brian Allen is?  Is he on the city payroll?  If not, was he hired by the assessor, and if so why.  Is he a resident of the area, or is he another import?  What particular qualifications does he have?
 
I'm glad I found this website.  I hope it grows and catches more and more of the strange and smelly things happening at city hall.
8-31-2006-1

"The best things in history are accomplished by people who get tired of being shoved around."

Robert Heinlein, from Have Spacesuit, Will Travel 

8-30-2006-2

 
Why are the Governor's and Attorney General's offices claiming now, as Mayor Tousignant claims, that the language of the TIFA proposal on November's ballot is in violation of the law if their offices had to approve the language -- which they did -- before the proposal could go irretrievably on the ballot?  So is it approved or isn't it?  Is it legal or is it not?  Apparently yes and no and yes and no.  The Daily News apparently didn't follow up with a call downstate to the offices in question to support, debunk, or clarify the mayor's claim.  Or, if it did, failed to report the results.
 
Because the mayor is against this proposal and many of us have learned to trust him about as far as a cat can spit, I wouldn't mind seeing verifiable documentation published by him in the paper, supporting what he claims.  It would be nice to see what he, the city manager, and the council claim actually match that which ultimately happens and not again be merely their public-relations spin on one issue or another. 
 
If what the mayor claims is accurate, unequivocal, and not a series of political half-truths and misrepresentations, it would be nice to get to the bottom of the state's incompetency, sort out its contradictory messages, and find out what the city can and cannot legally do about this issue.  After all, Tousignant also says it's "legal to capture taxes the way we have been doing for years," but says who?  Don't tell us.  Show us!  The legality of that is far more in doubt than that of the ballot proposal, and is the cause of this whole problem to begin with!
 
Some may think it's all fine and dandy for city hall -- without showing any evidence from the Attorney General or the Governor, who have actually approved the ballot proposal -- to raise the possibility of illegality through a newspaper article.  Such behavior serves the current city government's purpose and preference and, more than a lament, is actually an inconspicuous advertisement and poorly presented argument by city hall to vote no on the ballot proposal.  But what's anyone in city hall actually going to do to straighten this out and find out, definitively, what's what?

8-30-2006-1

I'm just curious.  Your website lists the current salary of Rich Brook as  $26,392.50.  Last month's vendor report for the city lists a payment of around $35,000.00 to Mr. Brook, and the month before, he received almost $8,000.00.
 
How can this be?  Did he somehow receive a contract to do work that was not competitively bid and won?  If so, how can he do that as an employee?

City of Iron Mountain July 2006 Payroll        City of Iron Mountain July 2006 Vendor Report