The letter that follows is dated January 28, 2008, mailed on the 29th.

——

Mr. Marty Rowland

Transparent Accountable New Orleans

4678 Arts Street

New Orleans, LA 70122

Re:  Public Records Request

We have received your public records request dated January 25, 2008, requesting permission to review city records.  Your request has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review.  Please note that the City Attorney will respond to your request.   Any further request should be made directly to the City Attorney’s office at (504) 658-9800.

Sincerely, Kenneth D. Ferdinand, Executive Director

cc: Penya Moses-Fields, City Attorney

–

On Wednesday, January 30, 2008 I received the letter and called the City Attorney, and spoke with Sarah Garrett, administrative assistant.  Ms. Garrett said that the City Attorney will be sending a letter to the French Market Corporation telling them it’s OK to have me review the requested documents and make copies at 50 cents per page.  I asked if there were any spare documents that I could have for free and she said no.  Concerning the interview with Mr. Ferdinand, she said that somebody from the Communications Department would have to be present in that interview.  I got the impression that both requests would be granted soon, but no date was promised, when asked.

Transparent Accountable

New Orleans
4678 Arts Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70122
(504) 301-0128
drmarty@bellsouth.net

January 25, 2008

French Market Corporation
1008 North Peters St.
New Orleans, LA 70116
Attention: Patricia Henry, Deputy Director – Fax 596-3419

Dear Patricia,

It was my pleasure speaking with you yesterday. Please find below a list of information that I’m seeking for my organization, Transparent Accountable New Orleans.

Transparent Accountable New Orleans is a volunteer group of professionals and concerned citizens who believe that all communications, business, and transactions that involve public facilities, employees, organizations, as well as quasi-public boards and commissions should be open to public review. We also believe that these public and quasi-public organizations’ activities should be transparent and the performance of assigned tasks fully accountable to the people, residents, and citizens of New Orleans.

We are conducting a review of the management of public parking lots and have learned that the French Market Corporation is the legal entity that receives revenue from the operation of lots in three locations; the lot between the floodwall and the Moon Walk near Café du Monde, and the two lots near Elysian Fields and Decatur that are not far from Frenchmen St.

In order to prepare for my appearance before the Governmental Affairs Committee concerning my proposal to study the management of City parking lots, I’m requesting information listed below. Also, I’d like to interview Kenneth Ferdinand, the Director of the French Market Corporation.

1. French Market Corporation Annual Report for 2006 and 2007
2. Current French Market Corporation organization chart
3. Sources of revenue for the French Market Corporation in 2008
4. 2007 expenses of the French Market Corporation
5. 2007 costs for operating the French Market Corporation parking lots
6. 2007 revenues from operating the French Market Corporation parking lots

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Marty Rowland, Ph.D., P.E.

Broad failings found in audit of N.O. finances.  Hiring accountants, consultants will help, city officials respond

Wednesday, January 23, 2008By Michelle Krupa

Staff writer A long-awaited audit of New Orleans’ 2006 finances reveals an overburdened, disorganized system of fiscal oversight at City Hall that is prone to bookkeeping delays and lacks a variety of internal controls, including barriers to prevent corruption of the public bidding process, according to the accounting firm that conducted the audit.

The report is striking in the breadth of its concerns. Beyond offering general criticism of how the city manages its accounts, auditors identify sloppy procedures for handling cash transactions, gaping holes in the protection of electronically stored information and deficiencies in the collection and recording of property, sales and franchise taxes. Referring generally to the ability of Mayor Ray Nagin’s administration to oversee municipal finances, the auditors with the firm KPMG state: “The city does not have adequate policies, procedures and related internal controls to prepare accurate and complete financial statements.” In response to nearly every problem uncovered, city officials attribute their shortcomings to a lack of capacity owing to significant layoffs that followed Hurricane Katrina. In the sections of the audit reserved for City Hall reaction, officials say they are working to rehire accounting staff and consultants to rectify the problems. “Our Finance Department recently began working with PFM, the financial consulting firm who assisted with the development of our budget, to put additional policies in place to further decrease or eliminate future findings,” Nagin spokesman James Ross said Tuesday. In some instances, city officials say they strayed from established accounting practices, such as keeping open their 2006 ledger far into 2007, because of the large number of invoices that remained unpaid for months following the storm. Deadline extended The audit was submitted to the state Dec. 18, nearly six months after its due date and minutes before a deadline set by the Legislative Audit Advisory Council, which oversees audits of public agencies. The panel, after extending the original June 30 deadline several times, had threatened to withhold millions of dollars in state money if the city failed again to submit its annual financial review. Legislative Auditor Steve Theriot released the audit Tuesday on his Web site, www.lla.state.la.us Although the city beat the submission deadline, the 184-page audit offers a dismal view of how well officials kept track of the billions of dollars in cash and assets under its control in 2006. For instance, KPMG states that the city failed to remit federal payroll taxes for the last four months of that year, a serious oversight that “resulted in a significant liability” to the Internal Revenue Service. Though the IRS waived all penalties and interest, the auditor recommended that the city institute a policy to make sure the money gets transferred monthly. The firm also notes problems in tracking the city’s capital assets. Lists of city buildings and other structures were maintained in 2006 in an Excel file that provided general building descriptions but lacked addresses, “which made it time-consuming to identify the location of certain assets.” KPMG attributes part of that problem to the city’s efforts in 2006 to convert its computerized ledger system to a new Microsoft Windows-based system. The process, the auditor states, has resulted in “multiple significant problems,” including difficulty accessing data by some city employees who were not taught how to use the new system. Lack of internal controls Auditors also took note of the kind of fissures in local law that allowed former City Councilman Oliver Thomas, who was named in the audit, to direct a public parking contract through a quasi-city agency to a businessman who had paid him a bribe. “The city does not have systems of internal controls in place to deter and detect improper influences related to awarding contracts for public works and purchases of material and supplies,” the report states. City officials responding to that point noted the creation last year of the Inspector General’s Office as a means to stave off fraud and corruption. While most problems detailed in the audit are connected directly to the city’s daily fiscal oversight processes, criticism is not limited to the Finance Department. KPMG states that the city attorney’s office failed to keep accurate records of how much money the city may have been on the hook to pay out in lawsuit settlements in 2006. The Office of Recovery and Development Administration, meanwhile, failed to track the status of federal loans that it administers for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, auditors state. The audit also singles out the Office of Information Technology for its flimsy control over who gets broad access to data stored on city computers. User privileges “are not appropriately controlled,” KPMG states. Perhaps most surprising was the lack of a plan for the city’s computer nerve center to rebound after another hurricane, the report states. “A documented disaster recovery plan did not exist for 2006,” it states. ‘Material weaknesses’ In all, KPMG finds nine significant deficiencies with the city’s internal fiscal controls, including five so-called “material weaknesses” that create a “more than a remote likelihood” that the city’s internal system of checks and balances will not catch a material error in a financial statement. Among auditors’ other observations in those areas: — Cash journal entries related to outstanding checks and deposits-in-transit did not show evidence of review and approval by someone other than the preparer. — The city did not perform timely review of construction projects so that projects can be properly designated as depreciable assets. — The city’s sales tax receivable was not complete and also included sales tax transactions from 2007. . . . . . . . Michelle Krupa can be reached at mkrupa@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3312.

On Wednesday, January 16, 2008 the first public meeting of Transparent Accountable New Orleans met at the offices of Neighborhood Partnership Network (NPN), on 3500 N. Canal Street. NPN’s mission is to improve our quality of life by engaging New Orleanians in neighborhoods revitalization and the civic process. These are the meeting notes.

Marty Rowland, coordinator for Transparent Accountable New Orleans introduced himself as a professional civil and environmental engineer (whose doctorate concerned natural resource management systems) who has an understanding of how government operates. Rowland’s expertise for coordinating the study includes certification as a federal facility auditor as well as an auditor for the Carnegie-Mellon University’s Capability Maturity Model Integration that is used at a major aerospace facility in eastern New Orleans. He sees an opportunity to take a small part of government, its parking lots, and evaluate performance against the City’s intention regarding their operation. His idea for conducting the study came after City Councilman Oliver Thomas admitted that he had taken a bribe to influence the awarding of a city contract to a parking lot contractor. Ever since teaching a course at Tulane’s College of Engineering on urban infrastructure, Rowland has sought an opportunity to implement his system of infrastructure management that he developed and taught. He says he seized the opportunity to study parking lots and convinced Councilwoman Midura to put him on the agenda for an upcoming meeting of the Governmental Affairs Committee (note: what was to be presented on February 4^th will now be presented on February 14^th). He sees subsequent opportunities to study more complex agencies upon a successful study of parking lots.

Transparent Accountable New Orleans is a volunteer group of professionals that currently includes five engineers, an architect, two urban planners, a management systems expert, business people, neighborhood activists, and concerned citizens. The group would study City-owned parking lots for the dates of 1997 to 2007 and present a final report with recommendations at the end of a 90-day period. The group is not organized to root out corruption, but to understand what the City intends to do in its official capacity and measure the performance of City government in achieving that intent. Rowland is looking for an accountant, and an attorney, as well as professors and students of political science, accounting, engineering, law, sociology, economics, and urban planning.

University professors and students are sought for the evaluation so that scientifically-designed field work could be conducted to measure parking lot performance. Five intentions for running parking lots were identified: a) maximize public revenue; b) maximize revenue to a private parking lot contractor; c) set operation to break even and thereby give parking customers the cheapest fares; d) set operation to maximize flow to adjacent businesses; and d) run them such that the time a City worker has to deal with their operation is minimized. Other studies that may be performed include those that would report satisfaction of those using the lots and opinions of business people near the lots regarding how they be better operated. How many studies are conducted will depend on the number of volunteers for the study. For parking lot performance, students would monitor parking lots during selected average weekdays and weekends.

A map from a 1994 City Planning Commission Report was presented showing parking lots, that does not identify which are public or private. (See note below about which lots are public.)

Rowland explained public agency transparency as the free opportunity for anyone to access records on any aspect of government and have clear explanations as to what any record means regarding public revenue, public outlays, capital budgeting and expenses, and current operational expenses. He expressed concern about the general tendency among cities, especially New Orleans, to enter into public-private partnerships for public service provision, considering the fact that open meetings and open records laws that pertain to a city may not apply to the private company. He explained accountability in two ways. First, “certified public accountant accountability” means, for example, that a city orders 10 stop signs and 10 stop signs are purchased; books balanced, case closed. The other type of accountability, and the type of concern to the group is “end result accountability” whereby the 10 stop signs are installed exactly where and how they were intended to be installed.

A meeting attendee pointed out that more locals would shop in the French Quarter if the parking rates were not so expensive. Those in attendance generally agreed, confirming the appropriateness of learning the intent of the City on how their lots are run and if it were not their intent to attract business to the French Quarter, why is it not.

Another attendee asked if we would be reviewing contracts, to which Rowland said yes.

Note 1: Next meeting of Transparent Accountable New Orleans is Wednesday, January 23, 2008, 6:30 pm, 3500 N. Canal St, 2^nd floor.

Note 2: The current parking lot contractor introduced himself at the end of the meeting to explain that the City only owns two sets of lots. The first set includes the lot between the floodwall and the Moon Walk at Café du Monde and amphitheater and the lots at the northwest and southwest corners of Elysian Fields and Decatur, near Frenchmen St. The contractor explained that the City gets none of the parking lot revenue at these locations, that it all goes to the non-profit French Market Corporation. The second parking lot is location at the Union Passenger Terminal (bus / train station). He did not volunteer anything about that lot.