Government waste/fraud, city level

[Bateluer]

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/24829140/detail.html

That's not how it works, ex-Mayor. You don't get to keep the tax payer funded security system on your private residence. I say the city send a few officers and techs over with a court order to disconnect and remove the system.

To quote Top Gun, 'You don't own that plane, the Taxpayers do. Your ego's writing checks your body can't cash!'

BALTIMORE -- The Baltimore city inspector general has been asked to figure out how to get former Mayor Sheila Dixon to relinquish thousands of dollars worth of security equipment that's owned by the taxpayers, the 11 News I-Team has learned.

The dispute has been in play ever since Dixon was forced out of office in February, I-Team lead investigative reporter Jayne Miller said.

The extensive city-owned camera surveillance system that's intended to keep watch on a mayor's personal home and property at all hours is one of the perks of the mayor's job, city officials said.

But Dixon is no longer mayor.

The system was installed at her west Baltimore home after she became mayor in 2007 and includes at least five external cameras attached to the outside of her house, Miller reported.
[Dixon's home with the surveillance system still attached.]
Dixon's home with the surveillance system still attached.

Sources told 11 News that the cameras are connected to an interior monitoring system, allowing Dixon to know what's going on outside her house at all times.

After Dixon was forced from the mayor's job on Feb. 4, the city Police Department said it began attempts to retrieve the security equipment.

The city said it took back other perks Dixon had been afforded at the same time, such as the city-owned Jeep Cherokee she kept at home -- one of three city-owned vehicles she used as mayor.

But, as 11 News cameras discovered Tuesday morning, the security camera system is still in place at Dixon's house.

A police representative told Miller that Dixon has refused to relinquish the equipment despite repeated requests by phone and letter. The department has since turned over the dispute to the city inspector general for resolution.
[Sheila Dixon announced in January that she would resign.]
Sheila Dixon announced in January that she would resign.

On Tuesday, Dixon claimed that former Mayor Martin O'Malley was permitted to keep his security camera system in place after leaving the mayor's job. She told Miller that the system was still in place when the O'Malleys sold their house.

But it turns out the system was gone by the time the O'Malley house sold, Miller reported.

Miller asked Dixon why she thought she should be able to keep the system. Dixon responded, "Do you have nothing to report but stories on Sheila Dixon?" She then hung up.

A source familiar with the security system said that it's sophisticated and estimated to cost about $20,000.

 

[ProfJohn]

I say in the future make the mayor sign a paper stating that they know the system is not theirs and must be returned or payed for after they leave office.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Didn't even read the story. But let me guess, she's a democrat?

 

[Double Trouble]

I say in the future make the mayor sign a paper stating that they know the system is not theirs and must be returned or payed for after they leave office.

Wait... why should we have to have anyone specifically sign something agreeing that something that isn't theirs... isn't theirs? This really should be an open and shut case. Go to court if needed, make her either pay the city for the system if she wants to keep it, or take it out of her house.

 

[Bateluer]

Didn't even read the story. But let me guess, she's a democrat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Dixon

Political party Democratic

Good guess.

In November 2009, Dixon was tried for three counts of felony theft, three counts of misdemeanor embezzlement/misappropriation, and a single count of misconduct of office.

Hmm, she'd better step up her game if she wants to play in Washington.

 

[Vette73]

Didn't even read the story. But let me guess, she's a democrat?

Yea cause republicans have so a great history, nothing like this would ever happen with a republican.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/brett-warr-mississippi-ma_n_161941.html

 

[Mursilis]

Yea cause republicans have so a great history, nothing like this would ever happen with a republican.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/brett-warr-mississippi-ma_n_161941.html

Well of course there are crooked Republicans - who would argue otherwise?!?!?

What all this proves is what most Americans refuse to accept - there are no saviors in gov't.

 

[dfuze]

What I would like to know is why the mayor needs 3 city owned vehicles. Sounds like an immense waste of taxpayer money.

 

[MotF Bane]

Sounds like we need more laws and government regulations to solve this.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What I would like to know is why the mayor needs 3 city owned vehicles. Sounds like an immense waste of taxpayer money.

One for Personal business
One for city business (fancier)
One in case there is a breakdown in the first two.

Heaven forbid, that they would have to have a personally owned vehicle

 

[Vette73]

Sounds like we need more laws and government regulations to solve this.

Altready there, its called voting. But many do not vote in local elections and you get what you derserve.

The town I grew up in less then 25% of voters showed up for city elections. So less then 1/4 of the people got to choose how your local tax money gets spent and how the city is run.

 

[dfuze]

Altready there, its called voting. But many do not vote in local elections and you get what you derserve.

The town I grew up in less then 25% of voters showed up for city elections. So less then 1/4 of the people got to choose how your local tax money gets spent and how the city is run.

Sad thing is I bet that was a high voter turnout. I don't think my town is any different.

 

[MacFatty]

That's not how it works, ex-Mayor. You don't get to keep the tax payer funded security system on your private residence. I say the city send a few officers and techs over with a court order to disconnect and remove the system

A police representative told Miller that Dixon has refused to relinquish the equipment despite repeated requests by phone and letter. The department has since turned over the dispute to the city inspector general for resolution.

source familiar with the security system said that it's sophisticated and estimated to cost about $20,000.

How much money is going to be spent, in court and in labor costs, to get this back? I'm sure its some low level person being made to call and write letters to Dixon, but there are still man-hours being logged to do so. Now we are involving attorneys and courts in the process. How long before we've spent more than the $20,000 to get the system back from her? She needs to pay either for the system/pay to remove the system AND the court costs involved.