The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 161
Follow-up on DEFENDER No. 160
Events have overtaken certain issues discussed in our previous issue. Here is a brief update:
TAX INCREASES AND PUBLIC SERVICE CUTS
We warned that siphoning off $1 million in property taxes to fund the Business Development Board (BDB) Toolkit would result in higher taxes and/or deeper cuts in public services. Still the Commission majority approved it, giving long-winded orations in support. None discussed the tax and service cut issues.
Now comes Sheriff Bob Crowder with a proposed budget reduction of $1 million – the same amount being given away to the BDB. This is only one fifth of what the County wants the sheriff to cut. Citing the fact that he has been cutting for the past three years (22 fewer staff), Crowder takes the understandable position that there comes a point where people should be willing to pay higher taxes than to have an unsafe level of law enforcement. At least he speaks from the vantage of the public service that is the highest priority of residents we surveyed. Business development was the lowest priority.
However, Crowder is unrealistically optimistic when he believes that a tax rate increase won’t translate into an actual increase for most homeowner because property values have declined so much.
THE PROPERTY APPRAISER’S VIEW
We asked Property Appraiser Laurel Kelly if she could verify the “no actual increase” view. She replied:
“At this time it is not possible for me to confirm or deny the statement because my office is still in the process of preparing the 2010 tax roll.
“To determine what will happen to the typical homeowner is difficult before the tax roll processing is complete because of the complicated interaction between the market values, assessed values, and taxable values. Further complicating the tax impact to the individual homeowner is changes in property values are not across the board and differ depending on the property type and location.
“On June 1st, we provide the taxing authorities a preliminary estimate of value. On July 1st, we provide the taxing authorities a "certified" estimate of value on which the taxing authorities base their proposed tax rates. Before I can confirm or deny the statement, the tax roll processing needs to be completed, the proposed tax rates need to be provided by the taxing authorities, and calculations need to be performed by applying the proposed tax rates against the "certified" taxable values.”
So …. we’ll wait and see. Anyone making book on whether there will be a tax increase?
FIXING THE COUNTY EMAIL SYSTEM
In issue No. 160, we reported that some reader emails to commissioners were rejected. A few even thought it was a censorship plot. To learn the facts, we contacted the Information Technology (IT) Department’s Chief Information Officer Kevin Kryzda. He was immediately forthcoming, apologized for the inconvenience, and explained how the problem came about. It relates to protecting the security of the County’s vital IT system. The security procedure has been fine tuned to prevent such rejection from happening again.
Kryzda noted receiving “more than 35,000 inbound messages a day, and 86% of them being spam and virii … inbound messages are screened by either the software, or a moderator, to prevent failures. In this case, the moderator released messages almost immediately.”
Our faith in Martin’s excellent IT operation is restored.
DISPUTE BETWEEN HIGHLY REGARDED ATTORNEYS
Concerning the $1 million for the BDB, we quoted the opinion of a leading local attorney:
“There is no legal authority for diverting general fund revenue to the Economic Development Fund.”
We received an opposing response to this from another fine lawyer, County Attorney Steve Fry. He said:
“Public funds (which include property taxes such as the FPL taxes) can legally be used for economic development. See 125.045 F.S. That statute also specifically authorizes grants by the County to private enterprise.”
Your wordsmithing editor notes that one attorney is talking about diverting revenue, while the other talks about taxes used and grants. That’s what makes for horse races … and courtroom argument.
Good news – Bathtub Beach to re-open
Bathtub Beach, the gem of Martin’s shoreline, will re-open before Memorial Day. Massive erosion closed the beach in 2007. The two-year sand re-nourishment effort has been a huge project. We’re proud of what the County has accomplished.
Separately, the County has been making suitable preparations just in case the Gulf oil spill finds its way to us.
Company expands with BDB help – without the need for property tax subsidy
Business Development Board (BDB) paraded the boss of a Palm City company before the 5-11-10 Commission meeting to say how helpful BDB has been in its expansion. The oddly named software company, GiftWRAP Corp., has expanded from 42 to 52 employees. BDB was reported to have been helpful in working through the permit process, and obtaining a $50,000 grant. That is the kind of activity by BDB that is needed, and the reason we supported doubling its budget to $625,000.
However, the expansion was accomplished without any subsidy using ad valorem tax funds. That is a demonstration of why the siphoning of an extra $1 million for BDB last week was a bad Commission decision. In this regard – and related to the coming August referendum to give away tax and permit fee exemptions - we note the observation of William Fox, a professor of economics at the University of Tennessee, who specializes in state tax policies:
“Few tax credits have any real bearing on where companies locate or how they spend and hire. Taxes matter, but not very much.”
Thumbs up for Stuart News e-edition
People we’ve spoken with about the Stuart News website seem to have mixed feelings, particularly about anonymous bloggers insulting one another. Mostly they were not aware that the paper now has an e-edition of the entire paper. It’s excellent.
Not only can you read the paper online when out of town, or the delivery guy missed your driveway, but you can use digital magic to search for and read everything from news and sports to opinion and classified. You can read last month’s paper, and you can email items. Registration to access this e-edition is free for regular subscribers, and $4.29/mo for e-edition only. We recommend it.
The digital version has significant benefits, though for us a more relaxing read is not one of them. We prefer the tactile feel of newsprint. When we went through the 11” x 21” newspaper page on our 2” x 3” iPod screen, even segmenting the page, it was a bit of a visual challenge. Some folks don’t mind the small screen. An iPad, Kindle DX or regular computer monitor would be better. On our 23” monitor, the e-edition was a good read. This may be the wave of the future.
State legislators leave DCA on the shelf - one more reason that Florida needs Amendment 4
The Florida Legislature abandoned citizens who care about the future of their communities this year by refusing to re-authorize the state’s land-planning agency, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Political watchers predict the Legislature will abolish or hobble the agency next year, giving free reign to expensive sprawl in countless communities.
“The Legislature makes the case for why we need to pass Amendment 4 on Election Day this fall,” said Florida Hometown Democracy founder Lesley Blackner. “Politicians rubber stamped so many developments for Big Business that they crashed our economy with over-building. Now they want to eliminate the state agency that oversees growth.”
The DCA’s director of external affairs, James Miller, wrote in an email: “We feel that by not re-enacting DCA, it sends a strong message that growth management is not looked upon favorably by the legislature and that we should expect changes to be coming next year.’
Says Blackner: “We voters need a seat at the table so we can have some oversight on this ‘pay-to-play’ politics – especially if the Legislature plans to do away with the state’s land planning agency.
“What we’re saying with Amendment 4 is: Since we -- the existing residents -- pay our tax dollars to extend fire, police, roads, water, sewer, and school services to these new, sprawling developments, we should get to weigh in. We should get a vote before we’re forced to pay.”
A neo-Luddite view
“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation." - President Obama
Cute politics
OBJECT: Getting rich ladies of a certain age to adore you.
TECHNIQUE: Whip out the cellphone. Make sure they hear you calling your mother. (Isn’t that sweet!)
PRACTITIONER: A leading Martin politician.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/13/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 162
BDB fails to comply with Public Records Law. Residents prevented from learning how $625,000 in tax money is spent
This is a story of how a company, funded by the taxes paid by Martin County residents, and contracted to act on behalf of County government, refuses to allow the public to see how it spends that money. The company is the Business Development Board (BDB). Its role in carrying out the objectives of the Martin County Comprehensive Plan is stated in Chapter 15 – Economic Element:
“Martin County maintains a formal public/private partnership with the Business Development Board of Martin County. The Business Development Board's role in economic development is to promote balanced and orderly economic growth in Martin County by retaining and assisting existing businesses and attracting desirable new businesses.”
BDB is funded with $625,000/yr in Martin tax money, and represents the County in negotiating with targeted businesses. We support this funding of BDB in the hope that it will attract new jobs, and have so stated publicly.
Based on Florida Statute 119 and decisions in many lawsuits, BDB clearly falls into the category of organizations covered by the Public Records Law. This means that anyone is entitled to obtain a copy of its documents. BDB is not an independent little kingdom with secret finances – though it is now acting as if it is. We asked Acting County Administrator Taryn Kryzda to obtain a copy of the BDB financial statement and employee salary list. Kryzda is a public servant who consistently strives to keep County government open and finances transparent.
OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS LAW. BDB REJECTS DOCUMENT REQUEST BY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
When Kryzda contacted BDB to obtain the requested records, BDB apparently refused to make them available. She reported:
“I do not have access to the documents you have requested, and I am not able to obtain them.”
This was an obviously diplomatic way to say that BDB Executive Director Ron Bunch refused to provide the documents. This refusal to allow public knowledge of how he spends Martin tax revenue not only violates the Florida statute, but also violates the contract between BDB and the County.
BDB DIRECTORS ARE SILENCED
We wondered whether even BDB’s 31 Directors received the important financial information we were seeking. So we sent an email inquiry to most of them, asking these two simple questions:
1 – Have you ever been given a detailed financial statement of BDB operations, and a salary and benefit list of BDB employees? ___ YES ___ NO
2 – Have you ever requested a detailed financial statement of BDB operations, and a salary and benefit list of BDB employees? ___ YES ___ NO
Immediately thereafter, the following email was sent to Directors by Bunch’s public relations person, instructing Directors not to reply to our inquiry:
Dear BDB Board Members,
Some of you may have received the request below from Al Forman. Please know that we are handling this issue internally and ask that you not respond at this time.
Though it was expected that only part of the Director list would reply to us, after the order not to respond to us, every one of them became obedient mollusks and clammed up. We should not let those compliant Directors remain anonymous. They include:
Bill West (First Peoples Bank)
Kathryn Spencer (Wholesale Tile)
John S. Leighton, III (Leighton Construction)
Mary Hutchinson (Stuart Commissioner)
Mark Robitaille (Martin Memorial CEO)
Dan Hudson (Stuart City Manager)
Marty Bonan (Lawyer)
Ed Weinberg (EW Consultants)
Tammy Simoneau (Economic Council)
Sherry Plymale (FAU Trustee)
Suzy Hutcheson (HPS CEO)
Patty Alan (IRSC Provost)
John Yudin (Lawyer)
Sue Hershey (School Board)
Tom McNicholas (Public Relations)
Dave Derrenbacker (Real Estate)
Patty Smail (Shelter Structures CEO)
Jeff Sabin (Waste Management)
Joe Catrambone (Chamber of Commerce)
Jeff Dougherty (TC Builders Association)
Bob Brunjes (Stuart News/Scripps CEO)
Kenneth A. Norman (Lawyer)
Gwenda Thompson (Workforce Solutions)
Ed Ciampi (County Commissioner)
THE WRAP-UP LETTER
Just in case some of the above Directors were wondering what the fuss was all about – questions about receiving financial information, instructions not to respond – we sent them the following letter that summarized the situation so they could understand what was going on:
+++++
The Martin County Defender
Dear BDB Director:
I know that you consented to serve on the board of the Business Development Board (BDB) out of a desire to serve our community. In your position as a Director, you also take on the responsibility to know and guide that company. In case you are not aware of it, staff decisions are being made that are believed to place BDB in violation of Florida Statute Ch. 119 – the Public Records Law - by failing to provide requested public documents. It is a Director’s obligation to instruct staff not to let this happen.
Please understand that I favor BDB’s mission, and publicly supported the doubling of its budget to $625,000. What I do not support – and neither should you – is BDB operating as an independent little kingdom that is secretive about how it spends that tax money.
The issue at hand is my request for copies of the BDB financial statement and employee salary list (not confidential negotiation information). That was the basis of our asking if you had received this information. You did not arrive at your present station in life by obeying the command of a public relations person – one who represents the interest of her boss, not you - to refuse to answer a reasonable question. Directors instruct employees, not vice-versa.
The wording of FS 119, fortified by extensive case law and many Attorney General Opinions, make clear that the financial records of BDB are Public Records. A leading local attorney believes this. Also, Alexis Lambert, Sunshine Law and Public Records attorney for the Florida Attorney General’s office has stated: “Outsourcing a job is not an excuse to avoid the Sunshine Law.” And Barbara Petersen, president of the Florida First Amendment Foundation says: “A private company acting on behalf of a government agency is subject to Florida public records law.”
Furthermore, the contract between BDB and the County requires the maintenance of accessible financial records, the provision of a report on funds expended, and the appointment of a Commissioner to the BDB board. This is not the requirement for an ordinary supplier of, say, copy paper. It is the requirement for a company acting on behalf of the government.
It would be unfortunate for you, as a well intentioned BDB Director, to be swept up in what may become a nasty public controversy, and possible legal action, just because BDB’s top executive refuses to comply. What is he trying to hide? Note that this public records request has been made through and by the County’s highest staff official, who was rebuffed!
This dispute can be resolved only by BDB’s boss deciding – or being ordered – to furnish the requested financial data. I hope you will insert your good sense in this matter while there is still time.
Yours truly,
Al Forman, Editor
+++++
DEFENDER will pursue this public records matter until we receive the public documents requested, as provided by law.
Other irregularities at BDB
Looking more closely at how BDB operates, things get curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll’s Alice once said. As noted above, Business Development Board has 31 members on its Board of Directors – at least according to BDB’s website list. Florida requires that every corporation list all its officers and directors in its annual filing. However, in the BDB filing dated Jan. 13, 2010, signed by Ron Bunch, only six officers and directors are listed. Hmmmm.
Among the missing in the state filing is Commissioner Ed Ciampi, appointed by the Commission to sit on the BDB Board of Directors as the County’s representative (and hopefully monitor what is going on there). This directorship is mandated in the BDB-County contract. Hmmmm.
Does this BDB mishmash mean that Bunch filed a false report? Or are 25 website listed Directors not really Directors at all? Is this Martin County in Wonderland? Curious minds want to know.
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/19/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 163
NEWSFLASH! NEWSFLASH! NEWSFLASH!
Lawsuit filed against BDB for refusing to provide public records required by law
Noted attorney Virginia Sherlock is plaintiff in Complaint for Writ of Mandamus against Business Development Board of Martin County, Inc. The Complaint was filed in 19th Circuit Court on May 21, 2010.
Sherlock declined to comment on the suit. Her attorney, Howard Heims of the law firm of Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A., could not be reached at presstime.
The 17-page complaint requests the Writ “to compel Defendant to allow Plaintiff to inspect and copy public records pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief in the form of a mandatory injunction requiring all meetings of the BDB to be duly noticed and held in the sunshine pursuant to Section 286.011, Florida Statutes.”
The carefully crafted filing presents page after page of supporting information to demonstrate that, contrary to the BDB’s claim that it is an Independent Contractor, it is really “Martin County’s official economic development organization. Economic development efforts on behalf of Martin County are administered by the BDB pursuant to the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan … (and) plays an integral role in Martin County’s decision-making process … The BDB performs economic services for the benefit of Martin County citizens which would otherwise be performed by Martin County.”
The complaint includes copies of correspondence in which Sherlock requested of BDB Executive Director Ron Bunch that a range of public records be made available for inspection and copying. The request was denied.
[NOTE: Martin County DEFENDER editor Al Forman made a somewhat similar, but more limited, request of Acting County Administrator Taryn Kryzda for a detailed BDB financial statement and salary/benefits list of all BDB employees. Kryzda reported that she “does not have access to the documents you requested, and I am not able to obtain them.” Apparently Ron Bunch does not believe that even the County has a right to know how its $625,000 of tax money given to BDB is being spent.]
The courts generally consider that hiding public records from the public is a serious matter. Furthermore, the courts are not fooled by the false pretense that a company paid to carry out government functions is really an Independent Contractor. It is hoped that an early judicial decision will be forthcoming.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of growth
Anyone who is against every kind of growth is a fool.
Anyone who is selfishly for growth that harms others is a villain.
What’s good about sensible, sustainable growth is that it raises our quality of life. It provides jobs and new economic opportunities. For that we have to thank the entrepreneurs, the inventive pioneers, the risk-taking investors, the hard working employees, and the managers who join together to bring us necessities and pleasures that make life worth living. Good growth means moving forward slowly, reaping the rewards that a free society offers. There is no going back to a Florida long gone, along with many of its mosquitoes.
There’s bad growth, too, that by the manipulation of laws and officials enrich the few at the expense of the many. This is often the ugly underside of boom-and-bust growth spurts that make a few people rich, and many people jobless and homeless in its aftermath. Bad growth is often accompanied by corruption and radical reductions in the protections needed by communities. We saw how the land was raped many years ago, leaving us today with a polluted estuary. And we see how in the past two years, many protections have been removed from Martin County’s Comprehensive Plan – all in the name of growth.
It’s a no-brainer that every caring and thoughtful citizen should work for good growth, and fight against bad growth and the politicians who foster it. But first we must understand how the system works.
Organizations and strategies for controlling and exploiting growth
Here’s a question that puzzles people: How come that polls show most residents want slow growth within the existing confines of our Comp Plan, but we end up with land use changes that induce sprawl and add burdens on taxpayers?
ANSWER: A minority of people who are well organized and heavily financed can influence decision makers and mislead the majority of residents into thinking that “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” [A challenged attribution to Engine Charlie Wilson, 1953.] The specific attraction of financial benefit outpulls the vague appeal of an undefined better quality of life.
THE BUSINESS ALLIANCE
Now let’s connect the dots to what has been happening in Martin County. We have a kind of informal Business Alliance of developer-business organizations, allied with landowners, lawyers, planners, consultants, bankers, publicists and the like who benefit from having a free rein and from grabbing tax dollars. Among them are the Economic Council, the Chambers of Commerce, the Future Group, the Treasure Coast Builders Association, the Marine Industries Association, the Realtors Association, the Farm Bureau, and the Business Development Board-BDB (more on this one in a moment). Handshakes, lunches, winks and nods, and implied understandings are the glue that bond them. There is no comparable organized opposition.
The Business Alliance has unity and money – plus a savvy way of utilizing both. Look at the election of politicians. Only rarely does the Business Alliance fight among themselves about which candidates to support. And support they do with generous contributions to political campaigns. When a candidate tells you that the acceptance of such contributions does not influence his vote, try not to laugh in his face.
Over the past two years, the four Commissioners who pulled in the most Business Alliance money also voted in favor of what the donors wanted: increased densities, moved Urban Services Boundary, extension of public utilities, conversion of agricultural land to industrial, removal of impact fees, and a sweetheart contract [see below] intended to prevent the public from seeing how our tax dollars are spent.
The Business Alliance also has full-time paid staff members who lobby officials and throw up the smokescreen that the changes they are pushing are good for residents. They also mislead small businesses into believing, for example, that converting western ag land is beneficial to, say, a hair salon in Stuart. In fact, the small business will end up paying higher taxes to serve the sprawl. Tax abatements and other incentives will never reach the great majority of small businesses, but many innocently think that the Business Alliance represents their interests, when they do so only marginally.
Even more important, the Business Alliance pushes its own enrichment by saying it’s all to produce jobs. You can’t argue against that any more than you can argue against truth and motherhood. We’re all for more jobs. However, the way the Business Alliance works it, they make vague promises in exchange for hard cash and specific changes in the law and public contracts. Nowhere is that more evident than in what the Business Alliance has done to change a reasonable contract between the County and BDB.
Anatomy of a sweetheart contract
In 1995, the County entered into a private-public contract with Business Development Board (BDB), a not-for-profit corporation. This was a constructive step because it is desirable that some agency under County oversight focus on attracting new companies to Martin, and assist existing companies to expand. It served us well for 14 years.
That was not good enough for the Business Alliance. It persuaded the Gang of 4 Commissioners – Doug Smith, Patrick Hayes, Susan Vallier and Ed Ciampi – to approve a Business Alliance prepared contract in Sept. 2009 that radically reduced County control, and created the fiction that BDB was an Independent Contractor - though fully financed by tax dollars. Commissioner Sarah Heard voted against approval.
Based on a flawed interpretation of that sweetheart contract, BDB’s Executive Director Ron Bunch has refused to provide financial data to any citizens, or even the Acting County Administrator. With the lawsuit filed on May 21, 2010 against BDB, that is going to change. BDB will surely use our tax dollars to defend the indefensible.
To understand the basis of the broad statements we have made about the contracts, let’s examine in detail some key provisions of the previous and current contracts, citing clauses verbatim. The comparison will make clear why the new agreement is a costly sweetheart contract that is intended to shield BDB from public scrutiny. Though the BDB mission has merit, the new contract is contrary to the interests of the people of Martin County.
BDB contract provisions – 1995-2009 vs. 2009-2019
COUNTY PAYMENTS TO BDB
1995-2009 CONTRACT: “The COUNTY hereby agrees to provide financial support in an amount equal to seventy percent (70%) of the gross revenues annually collected through the COUNTY’S occupational license tax.”
2009-2019 CONTRACT: “The COUNTY agrees to pay to the BOARD the sum of Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars per year. This amount shall increase at the greater of (1) the rate of 3% per year or (2) by an amount equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index ….”
BDB BOARD OF DIRECTORS APOINTMENTS
1995-2009 CONTRACT: “The COUNTY shall appoint representatives to serve on the BOARD.”
2009-2019 CONTRACT: “The COUNTY, with the consent of the BDBMC, appoints five members to the Board of Directors of the Board, and one of the members of the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County, Florida …. The County Administrator will not serve as a voting member ….”
BDB FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1995-2009 CONTRACT: ”The BOARD agrees to …. supply the COUNTY with itemized quarterly financial statements.”
2009-2019 CONTRACT: “The BOARD shall provide the COUNTY with a report annually of the activities conducted and the funds expended.”
CONTROL OF PUBLIC FUNDS GIVEN TO BDB
1995-2009 CONTRACT: “The BOARD recognizes that any and all COUNTY sums expended under this Agreement are public funds and consequently are under the control of the COUNTY.”
2009-2019 CONTRACT: “The BOARD shall include a reference to the financial support herein provided by the COUNTY in all publications and publicity.”
PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF BDB
1995-2009 CONTRACT: “The operations of the BOARD shall be in the public’s view and for the benefit of the public. All meetings of the BOARD shall be noticed in advance and open to the public …. The records of the BOARD shall be public records and open to public view, with the exception of specific financial and proprietary information from a private corporation … to the extent excepted from disclosure under state law.”
2009-2019 CONTRACT: “The BOARD is hereby declared by the parties to be an Independent Contractor …. Services performed pursuant to this Agreement shall at all times, and in all places, be subject to the BOARD’S sole direction, supervision and control …. The BOARD was not created to exercise, nor shall it exercise, any governmental powers …”
TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
1995-2009 CONTRACT: “This Agreement shall be effective on the first day of October, 1995 and continue in full force and effect from year to year unless this Agreement is terminated by either party giving no less than ninety (90) days written notice of intent to terminate.”
2009-2019 CONTRACT: “The term of this Agreement is ten (10) years, unless sooner terminated …. The effective date of this Agreement shall be October 1, 2009. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive ten year periods, unless either party provides eighteen months prior written notice of its intent not to renew this Agreement at the expiration of the term ….
‘In the event that the BCC, by majority vote determines that the BOARD has materially defaulted …. The BOARD shall have a period of twelve (12) months (the Cure Period) …. to cure the defaults …. In the event that the BOARD fails to cure the defaults …. The BCC, by majority vote, may cause the County Administrator to send a written termination notice …. This agreement shall terminate eighteen (18) months after the BOARD’S receipt of such termination notice ….
“The BOARD may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, upon ninety (90) days written notice to the COUNTY of its intention to terminate.”
The above contract excerpts show what a travesty the new BDB-County contract is. It is the joint handiwork of the Business Alliance, the Gang of 4 commisssioners, and Ron Bunch. The current contract serves special interests at the expense of the public.
Is BDB believable?
Despite the undeniable fact that BDB refuses to release a detailed financial statement and related data, it has the nerve to claim the following in print:
“The BDBMC operates in a transparent manner.”
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/23/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 164
Huge reader response to exposé of BDB hiding public records, and Commission approval of sweetheart contract
In one of the largest outpourings of responses to a DEFENDER report, Martin residents voiced their outrage about how the Business Development Board (BDB) refuses to reveal how $625,000 in tax money is spent. In addition, readers are angry as hell that the Commission would be complicit in approving a sweetheart contract that gives away the responsibility and powers that the public expects elected officials to have.
Here is a sampling of excerpts from their heartfelt, unsolicited letters.
In the private sector, any company that signed a contract like that would be doomed. The signor would be fired. Where does Martin County gain benefit? If there is deflation the amount of the contract does not decrease. Throw the bums out.
Reader ML
Just once it would be nice to see justice served and real pain exacted upon the weasels that allege to represent us! Let's hope this goes all the way and preserves Martin County for future generations. It is past time to take back our County Government from the self-serving thugs!
Reader TM
I can't believe the corruption you reveal. Thanks for all you do.
Reader S
I like to see what happens here with these records. They should be reported at least quarterly to the MCBOCC so they are aware of where this money is going.
Reader NK
Stay on them Al. Palm Beach shouldn’t be the only county with commissioners in jail!
Reader RM
YOU GO!
Reader PH
More Martin residents should be reading your Defender.
Reader WK
Keep up the good work.
Reader GK
Good going Al. Keep after them!
Reader JM
Thank you for your excellent precis on the BDB boondoggle. You helped clarify the issues significantly.
Your assessment as to why and how the system fails is spot-on. I do not think this gang of four is acting in the public interest.
Reader LC
Do you think that you could get the Palm Beach Post and/or Stuart News to print your beautifully researched and written Business Alliance/ BDB section of the newsletter?
Reader JH
Give them Hell and take NO prisoners.
Reader PM
BRAVO, AL! Thank you for your excellent report on the BDB.
Reader MB
Now I understand why I could not get info from the Administration. She has NONE to give.
Reader JT
I am glad you are working on this. You realize that the BDB has been granted another million in spite of the extra burden for tax payers!
Reader MF
Great reporting! Love your persistence and logic. Please carry on.
Reader TG
I think BDB is clearly an extension of government. If it is funded solely by taxpayer government funds, then what else can it be?
Reader WJ
Way to go Al! If there's anything I can do to help, let me know.
Reader RZ
Question their accountability, and GET ‘EM.
Reader HC
Defender deserves a Pulitzer for research.
LG
Looks as if Ron Bunch has his hands in the people's pockets.
Reader LM
I can't wait to see how our tax dollars are being spent.
Reader BS
This lack of "open records" and the lack of any response from the Board (where is the media action?) is not possible! Oh I see, it is only $625,000.
Reader GK
Thanks for your diligent watch on our local government. Whatever happened to basic 101 in life, about truthfulness and being forthright to others?
Reader AO
My blood is starting to boil regarding this BDB issue. It’s another example of people on the taxpayer’s payroll ignoring the wishes of their constituents.
Reader NF
Good coverage on the BDB business. Perhaps as election time gets closer, we can use some of that to support Heard and lambast the "gang of four."
Reader SO
Wow. You pulled back the veil on this sneaky deal. Thanks for your good work. Do these people have no shame?
Reader KV
HOW CAN ORDINARY CITIZENS CORRECT THIS FAILURE BY OFFICIALS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
Well, one citizen, Virginia Sherlock, is already doing something. She’s suing BDB for violating the Sunshine and Open Records Law. The expected successful conclusion of that lawsuit should let the public see what BDB is doing with our tax money. But there is more to be done beyond her lawsuit.
The County Commission must tell the BDB Board of Directors that their contract was a mistake. It must be changed to more closely follow what the contract contained for the past 14 years. We will keep you informed of which commissioners refuse to clean up the contract mess. Then it will be up to the voters to remember this August – and two years from now – which commissioners have sold out the public interest to campaign contributors. And to vote accordingly.
Presentation before the Martin County Board of County Commissioners – May 25, 2010
Good morning. I’m Al Forman from Palm City. I wish to call to your attention the Business Development Board refusing to provide public documents about its finances. It has refused requests by the Acting County Administrator and citizens. This is a scandal. If you could see my email inbox, you would see how outraged many residents are. This Commission shares the blame because you approved a sweetheart contract with BDB that, unlike its predecessor, unnecessarily gave away County authority. This Commission is complicit in furthering the fiction that BDB is an Independent Contractor that can hide its finances.
This Commission appointed Commissioner Ciampi to the BDB Board of Directors. The County claims that it does not have BDB financial records. Either the County has those records through its commissioner representative, or else Commissioner Ciampi has failed to carry out the most fundamental obligation of a Director – to obtain and study BDB’s financial records. He has refused even to say if he has BDB financial statements.
BDB’s effort to evade state law requirements as a supposed Independent Contractor is very slick – but it will not work. That gimmick has been tried by every slippery organization from sweat shops with supposedly independent workers to government bodies in Florida that offer the same kind of pretense that this Commission is trying to throw up to prevent public knowledge of how tax dollars are spent. Inevitably, the courts hold that it’s not what you say an arrangement is. What counts is what is actually happening. So time and again the Independent Contractor ruse is seen for what it is, and is overturned.
You are all aware that a lawsuit was filed Friday by Virginia Sherlock to require BDB to open its books and meetings. BDB will lose. Of that I am certain. So before they run up expenses using our tax money to defend the indefensible, and go down to ignominious defeat, dragging this Commission down with it, I urge you to move rapidly to right the wrong you have committed in approving the current BDB contract. Prompt corrective action will help you salvage your credibility with Martin residents.
HOW DID COMMISSIONERS REACT TO MY PRESENTATION?
Only two commissioners had notable responses. Commissioner Heard asked if I had any suggestions. I offered three:
1 - Consistent with the County-BDB contract, audit BDB books.
2 – Work with BDB’s Board of Directors to remove sweetheart elements in the contract.
3 – Place the $1 million BDB Toolkit giveaway as a referendum on the August ballot, along with the BDB tax abatement referendum.
Heard moved to act on some aspects of my suggestions. None of the Gang of 4, Commissioners Smith, Hayes, Valliere and Ciampi (all of whom had approved the BDB contract), seconded Heard’s motions.
THE NASTIEST COMMISSIONER RESPONSE
Commissioner Hayes tried to counter concern about BDB financial secrecy by displaying BDB information output. This was irrelevant since nothing he showed included financial data. To make matters worse, in one of his too-frequent temper tantrums, Hayes accused the few public speakers trying to learn how their tax dollars are spent of carrying on a “witch-hunt.” For this, Hayes earns the Most Ridiculous and Offensive Comment of the Day Award.
TCRPC – a planning agency, and a rubber stamp for developers
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) is an inter-governmental body that describes itself as a “regional forum where elected and appointed leaders regularly come together to discuss complex regional issues; develop strategic regional responses for resolving them; and build consensus for setting and accomplishing regional goals.”
TCRPC consists of about 39 commissioners, mayors and other elected officials, plus 10 gubernatorial appointees from Martin, Palm Beach, St. Lucie and Indian River counties. The Martin officials are: Commissioners Smith, Hayes, Heard and Ciampi; Stuart Vice Mayor Waxler, and Jupiter Island Commissioner Scott. In addition, there is a professional staff of 16, plus two consultants.
Recently, the matter of some major Martin County Comp Plan changes came before TCRPC. They included large increases in residential density and conversion of agricultural land to industrial. These changes, approved by the majority of Martin commissioners, would cause sprawl and be a step toward browardizing Martin. It’s what developers and large landowners wanted.
Since the land use changes would not be good for the region, the TCRPC professional staff opposed them. Such opposition could weigh heavily in the Department of Community Affairs approval process. So political Council members – many of them in the comfy financial pockets of developer campaign contributors - over-rode the professional staff and approved the changes. Now Martin and the region can enjoy over 1,000 additional homes and 6 million square feet of industrial space that are not needed and will further depreciate existing vacant space. That’s what politicians call planning. Where oh where is the people’s voice that Amendment 4 would allow?
A cheer and a jeer for Stuart News
THE CHEER: This past Sunday, the Stuart News took the difficult, but responsible, position of demanding that Fire/Rescue and the Sheriff’s office cut a lot more of their budget to get closer to the 12.5% reduction needed to balance the County budget. Their editorial position is difficult because these two public services are the top priorities among Martin residents we surveyed. Together the two account for 61% of property tax revenue for personnel costs alone. Thumbs up to SN editors.
THE JEER: While residents fret about impending service cuts and probable tax increases, on a previous Sunday the paper came out in full support of adding $1 million in expenses for the Business Development Board (BDB) so-called Toolkit. The business development function is the lowest priority among residents. We hope that the fact that Stuart News publisher Bob Brunjes is a BDB Director had nothing to do with this decision. Thumbs down guys.
No, no, no to stupid dirty politics
In our communications with candidates, we received this troubling note from Commission candidate Don Pickard:
“Someone pushed over my mail box and misdirected my mail a few days after I sent out a request for support letter. I am very new to politics and hate to be suspicious, but to put a written false hold message on my mail really bothered me.”
We don’t support Pickard’s candidacy, but we hope those contemptible actions were not politically motivated. If they were, we hope his tormentors suffer. As the ref says to boxers in the fight ring: “Keep it clean, gentlemen.”
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/27/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 165
Ron Bunch: What happened in Danville?
A long article was published on Nov. 6, 2009 in the Danville News located in Danville, VA. Our thanks to reader Linda Grand for finding it. She deserves an award for journalistic research. A copy of the complete article is available from the DEFENDER upon request.
The article includes the following:
“City Councilman Adam Tomer is calling for an investigation of a city payment of nearly $500,000 in extra incentive money for Coleman MarketPlace that was not approved by Danville City Council. Tomer called the handout of extra incentive money to pay for utility enhancements for the Coleman MarketPlace ‘ludicrous’ and ‘wrong.’
“Deputy City Manager Joe King said Friday the extra incentive money paid for internal electricity distribution for the project and relocation of electrical lines and fixtures to accommodate the development, items normally paid for by the developer.
“Lacy’s report also includes a presentation on the project prepared by Gwaltney and then Economic Development Director Ron Bunch entitled ‘City of Danville — Retail Hub Strategy.’ The presentation outlined the incentive package and projected 1,500 jobs at Coleman MarketPlace.
“Tomer, who voted against providing the incentive package for Coleman MarketPlace, wondered where the 1,500-job estimate came from, especially since the report states that the center has produced 581 jobs. ‘There was no data to back up that job-creation number,’ Tomer said.”
P.S. On May 4, 2010, voters in Danville, VA, returned Councilman Adam Tomer to office with the highest number of votes cast -- in part due to his aggressive criticism of excessive "incentives" paid with taxpayer dollars to encourage a business to set up in Danville -- under the guidance of Ron Bunch as then-development director of Danville.
The Danville News editorialized: "Even Danvillians who supported the development of Coleman MarketPlace weren't happy when they learned the project was even more expensive than originally thought.”
What’s the story with the $500,000 of unapproved spending?
How come the promised jobs were not created?
What is Bunch hiding in Martin County by not producing complete financial public records?
BDB releases a few financial numbers – as a smokescreen for not revealing all finances
Reacting to criticism about the Business Development Board (BDB) refusing to provide details on how they spend $625,000 in tax dollars, BDB released a few numbers – but withheld providing a detailed financial statement, or a breakdown of all salaries, benefits, expense accounts and the like. This is not the transparency that the Public Records Law requires.
Total income was $748,680, which includes the $625,000 in tax revenue, plus $123,680 from such things as memberships and grants. Business expansion and recruitment expenses include $230,710 covering 85% of senior salaries; programs cost $283,655. Overhead and operations expenses are $128,590 for junior salaries and 15% of senior salaries; programs $115,450. What goes into such expensive “programs”?
IS RON BUNCH OVERPAID?
The salary range for a business development supervisor or similar title is very wide. Those holding this position in multi-million population metro areas earn much more than one in, say, a little county with 143,000 population.
According to Salary.com: The median expected salary for a typical business development supervisor in the United States is $82,179. Ron Bunch is being paid $131,000.
Doug Smith uses “facts” to deceive
In one of his slick moves, Commissioner Doug Smith has pronounced from the dais that the County is not giving Business Development Board (BDB) the $1 million he and the three other members of the Gang of Four voted to give BDB. And technically, he is correct since the money gets to BDB through an intermediary fund.
That tax money, which will be diverted from vital public services, will be paid into a separate Economic Development Fund. Smith neglects to mention that the fund money will be available only for BDB use, and cannot be spent on such necessities as law enforcement, fire/rescue, libraries, road/drainage repair, and parks.
As to the Commission approving fund payments requested by the BDB executive director …. Well his requests are never rejected. On the contrary, as soon as such spending requests are made, the four compliant commissioners rise to vocalize with a rousing song:
Whatever Bunchy wants
Bunchy gets
And little Gang of Four
Little Bunchy wants you.
(With apologies to Lola)
“The law means what I say it means”
PRONOUNCEMENTS FROM THE MARTIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAVORITISM, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SECTION
Here’s another example of how the County interprets the rules for Chambers of Commerce inconsistently – as long as the outcome favors the CofC. Last year, we objected to the County providing, year after year, free rent office space for a private business, the Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce. In response, the County claimed that JBCofC was a non-profit serving the public, not really a business.
Recently, the County is considering appointment of the president of the Hobe Sound CofC to the Community Redevelopment Agency. The problem is the Florida law, which regulates the appointment of persons to CRA. It provides: “Any person may be appointed as a commissioner if he or she resides or is engaged in business, which means owning a business, practicing a profession or performing a service for compensation, or serving as an officer or director of a corporation or other business entity so engaged.”
So what business activities does HSCofC engage in? It claims (try not to laugh) that the “Chamber does perform services for compensation including the sale of coupon books, newsletter ads and various merchandise and also promoting their social functions, including the annual golf tournament fundraiser.” That’s a “business”?
In other words, when it suits a Chamber not to be considered a business by the County, it’s not. And when it suits a Chamber to be considered a business, the County says it is.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/31/10
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website: