The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 166
Ethics complaint filed against School Board member Dr. David Anderson
Rick Bell of Palm City has filed an ethics complaint against long time School Board member Dr. David Anderson. The 14-page complaint, filed on May 25, 2010 with the Florida Commission on Ethics, charges that Anderson used school facilities to further his 2008 election campaign.
The complaint states that “Dr. Anderson knew or should have known using Martin County School District Offices, equipment and personnel for his personal campaign purposes was a statutory violation.”
Central to evidence supporting the charge is the multi-attorney interview on April 13, 2010 of a long time school secretary. Among the statements are:
“Anderson used a Martin County School District telephone in her office to call a representative of the Morganti Group to find out where his checks were for his 2008 re-election campaign”
“Dr. Anderson also used Martin County School District telephone located in the [former] Superintendent’s Office at School Board headquarters to call Willie Gary, a prominent local attorney, about campaign contributions.”
“Anderson campaign materials stored on a Martin County School Board computer located in her office that had been e-mailed there by Sara Wilcox.”
When asked what he intended to do with these revelations after the interview, School Board Attorney Doug Griffin stated it was not his job to turn in his bosses for using School District office, equipment and personnel for their personal campaign purposes.
Question for Doug Griffin: At what point is it ever a school employee’s obligation to turn in his boss for an on-property violation? If not for elections, then: Vandalism? Theft? Forgery? Battery? Drug dealing? Murder?
BDB reports can’t be trusted
In DEFENDER No. 165, we published a wrong number for the salary of Business Development Board (BDB) Executive Director Ron Bunch because we relied on a BDB publicity statement. BDB wrongly claimed that Bunch was paid $131,000, unchanged since 2008.
Actually, based on the 2008 IRS form 990 filed by BDS and signed by Bunch, covering the period Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2009, Bunch was paid $141,000. This is an increase of $10,000 over his salary in the previous year, according to the IRS filing.
Of course, salary is not all that Bunch receives. He also gets $6,799 in benefits and deferred compensation, plus $4,800 for expense account and other allowances. Depending on “allowances,” that roughly rounds out to $150,000 for limited accomplishments. As we previously reported, the median national salary for his position is $82,179 – and that includes many larger counties than Martin.
BDB DIRECTORS AND GANG OF 4 COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT WATCHING THE PUBLIC CASH REGISTER
With some exceptions, you get a businessman or politician to examine expenses at his or her home or company, and the sharp pencil comes out. Is this necessary? Are we paying too much for that? But when you put them on a public board, they put away the sharp pencil. After all, they’re spending OPM – Other People’s Money. Nowhere is that more evident than in the supposed overseers of how tax money is spent at BDB.
BDB releases slick pie charts that show most money being spent on “business expansion, recruitment, programs” and the like. When you look at details in the IRS filing, the impression is quite different. Over 75% of our tax money goes to pay salaries, benefits, office overhead, ads and public relations – including lobbying the Commission for more money.
Neither BDB directors or Commissioners Smith, Hayes, Valliere and Ciampi evidence any interest in BDB financial details, much less keeping expenses in line. On the contrary, they support keeping those details secret from the public, which has a right to see them, and from themselves who have a duty to see them. It looks like fiduciary irresponsibility.
Ron Bunch impugns patriotism of those who oppose his keeping records secret
COLUMNIST RICH CAMPBELL DISPLAYS BAD JOURNALISM
The editorial page of the May 30 issue of the Stuart News was a low point in the paper’s history. As reported about Ron Bunch falsely charging lack of patriotism, that was a low point in human behavior. We wrote a critical letter, shown below. It is to the credit of Editorial Page Editor Larry Reisman’s fairness that he published the letter uncensored and promptly on June 2.
To the Editor:
The May 30, 2010 issue of Stuart News is notable for two things: Incompetent and irresponsible journalism by the editorial writer and columnist Rich Campbell, and the report of character assassination by Business Development Board (BDB) executive director Ron Bunch.
The editorial claim that Virginia Sherlock’s lawsuit to require BDB to comply with the Public Records law causes disruption “which may be the ulterior motive of those lobbying against the board” is irresponsible third-rate journalism. Not a shred of evidence is offered to support that unjustifiable claim.
Campbell goes on to attack “some slow-growth advocates” for “personal attacks, exaggerations and mischaracterizations” while he “found Bunch and BDB to be straightforward, responsive and professional” – that’s suck-up yellow journalism, belied by Bunch’s statement below. No wonder the paper has lost subscribers.
Even worse is the report that Bunch said “I went to West Point. I believe in duty, honor, country. They don’t operate by the same principles,” referring primarily to Ms. Sherlock and me. Since duty, honor, country are the essence of patriotism, Bunch is impugning my patriotism because I want the public to learn how he spends $625,000 of property tax money. That is contemptible character assassination.
I served in the U.S. Army, and so did my father. The American flag flies at my front door every day. The larger issue is whether Martin County should be represented by a person who resorts to such dishonorable tactics. I hope that the Commission majority and BDB directors do not sully their own reputations, and taint Martin County, by continuing to support a person who indulges in such detestable actions.
Samuel Johnson said it all about people who wrap themselves in the flag for foul purpose: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
Is it a revelation?
Even Rich Campbell, who concocts such foolish lies as BDB “is being targeted because of its success,” says: “BDB needs to be more forthcoming with the details of how it is spending taxpayer money.” Hoorah for a tiny glimmer of intelligent insight.
Ron Bunch: Martin residents need an answer
The Danville News (VA) revealed that your legacy there in a similar position was a $500,000 unauthorized sweetheart incentive expense, and 919 promised jobs not filled. [DEFENDER No.165]
Furthermore, in an earlier such position in Abbeville, SC, you landed a major tractor trailer manufacturer for them. After all the joyous celebration, that company went bust, jobs gone.
So in view of your desire to keep Public Records secret, Martin citizens have a reasonable question for you:
Why should we expect you to do any better here?
“Is campaign cash that different from bribery?”
That’s the title of a recent report by Scott Maxwell in the Orlando Sentinel. It goes on in part:
If Orange County Commissioner Mildred Fernández is guilty of the bribery charges she's facing, she deserves to be punished — not just for doing wrong, but for being stupid. Florida laws, after all, make it easy for politicians to shake people down for money. You just have to know how to play the game.
In fact, if you do it right, you can shake people down for a lot more than a measly thousand bucks. That's part of what the state attorney accused Fernández of doing — asking a developer for $1,000 worth of campaign money in exchange for championing his project.
But compare that to the legislators who get tens of thousands in campaign cash from special interests who also want their legislation championed. That's completely legal. Why? Because there's a fine line between criminal activity and business-as-usual in this state.
IS MARTIN COUNTY THAT DIFFERENT FROM ORANGE COUNTY?
Quotable quote
“My fundamental insight is that land use is politics. And whoever owns the politics, owns the land use. Right now, real estate speculators have pretty much bought the politics in Florida." Lesley Blackner, President, Florida Hometown Democracy.
+++++
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 6/4/10
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. 167
NEWSFLASH! NEWSFLASH! NEWSFLASH!
Court action on Sherlock public records lawsuit
The Court has issued an Alternative Writ in Mandamus requiring the Business Development Board of Martin County, Inc., to respond to the complaint filed to require production of public records and compliance with the open meetings (Sunshine) law within 20 days. (Increasingly, you read it here first!)
Are commissioners getting paid by those who benefit from from Commission votes?
We believe that the public has a right to know if any commissioners are receiving income from someone who does business with the County or appears before them and benefits from their vote. It also seemed appropriate to find out the same about Commission candidates.
We took the direct approach a couple of weeks ago. We asked them. Each one received the following carefully constructed inquiry:
----------
The Martin County Defender
The following inquiry is being sent to all members and candidates for the Board of County Commissioners.
From Jan. 1, 2008 to the present, have you, your business or immediate family member received any cash or in-kind income, gifts or favors from any person or company that does business with Martin County, or is connected to a development applicant that appeared before the Commission? [Note: Because contributions to political campaigns are public record, they are not considered income here.] _____YES _____NO
Your prompt reply will be appreciated.
Al Forman, Editor
----------
Recipients who replied “NO” – did not receive income
Candidate Ed Fielding (District 2)
Commissioner/Candidate Sarah Heard (District 4)
Candidate Don Pickard (District 4)
Recipients who did not reply
Commissioner Ed Ciampi (District 5)
Commissioner Patrick Hayes (District 3)
Commissioner Doug Smith (District 1)
Commissioner/Candidate Susan Valliere (District 2)
Candidate Lee Weberman (District 4)
Refusing to answer an easy question with a simple YES or NO does not prove anything. However, one cannot help but wonder why a politician who’d benefit from displaying independence from outside financial influence would be reluctant to do so – unless …..
Ginny Sherlock tells it like it is
Mr. Reisman gets his information from one of his colleagues in Danville. Mr. Reisman refers to his source as "the one objective person in Danville I'd trust to give me the lowdown." If the roles were reversed, would anyone consider Mr. Reisman "the one objective person in Stuart I'd trust to give me the lowdown"?
Mr. Reisman's "blog", is being circulated by the Chambers of Commerce and the BDB to generate support for folks to attend Tuesday's BOCC meeting and support the BDB's Job Creation Toolkit -- regardless of the fact that no real facts or figures have been provided to suggest that giving huge taxpayer-funded "incentives" to certain targeted (favored) businesses will succeed in turning our economy around.
I am not an opponent of economic development nor of the BDB. I oppose secrecy and failure to account for hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. Why won't the BDB respond to a public records request? Why won't the BDB operate in the sunshine?
The only records I have managed to locate are tax returns and internally generated financial materials (not audited statements) that make it clear that the majority of the $650,000.00 that Martin County and City of Stuart taxpayers funnel to the BDB is used to pay for BDB salaries, office overhead, and PR. The executive director of the BDB has a compensation package in excess of $150,000.00 according to the most recently available tax return.
The executive director's compensation kit increased from $100,000.00 to $140,000.00 to $150,000.00 in three years.
In contrast to the BDB executive director's 50% salary hike over the last three years, nonprofit organizations like the veterans council, the homeless services council, the council on aging, the arts council, and others that rely on Martin County for a large portion of their funding were advised last month that their grants are being reduced by 12.5% this year.
How does this help Martin County residents who are hurting?
Show me the jobs!
I see that Nancy Johnson's Market Force company from Raleigh has been hired to brand the BDBMC. As they may have told you they have also just taken on a similar assignment with Caldwell County whose staff consists of an exec director, a BD manager, and an executive assistant. Given the amount of money being spent on marketing /promotion /advertising /PR /events currently it might be appropriate to make available to all your rationale for this expenditure of what must be an additional $40,000.
Your pie chart raises more questions than it answers.... who is a member, and what does it cost? What do "private investors" get for their capital infusion? Events usually have costs, so do they pay for themselves or is the shortfall a marketing expense? Given the fact that there is no "BD manager" have you simply allocated a number for the cost of that position? I do not see anywhere on your site the mention of a marketing research assistant.... is there one? I am not so sure that you can say "67%" of income is related to your mission, That is a bit of a stretch.
I also note that the "New companies.." page lists a new division of Cooke which has been here for 50 years and 2 companies from 2007 neither which is on the job creation page....
In summary then, you have a wonderful opportunity to engage those who question your motives and MO by working with them... reaching out to those in the community who would rather be informed than "concerned". I would invite you and Ron to schedule a meeting with those who have questions in an open forum and work to gain their confidence and trust.... you might even consider asking some of them to join your various boards and representative initiatives. Rather than playing the political card, be pro-active and meet those who could be a very positive force in the community.
+++++
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 6/6/10
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. 168
Letter to Stuart News publisher
AL FORMAN
Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991
Mr. Bob Brunjes, Publisher
The Stuart News
1939 SE Federal Highway
Stuart, FL34994
Dear Mr. Brunjes:
It is because I value the Stuart News so highly, and do not want to see it die as so many newspapers have, that I am writing this note.
Martin residents know how important it is to have a local daily. It can expand the number of informed citizens, and help the economy thrive. To achieve this you must have the confidence of the population – not just business pals and well organized, well financed special interest organizations.
The decline in the number of pages, and the need to run news articles about Vero and other places of little interest here, is understood and accepted by your readers. They recognize that competitive technology and the recession are beyond your control.
What cannot be accepted is an editorial policy that caters to developer/business special interests. It would take many pages to detail the issues involved so I will omit them here. I assume, and hope, you know what they are. A growing number of people, mostly those who do not have the ear of editors, commissioners or you, are coming to believe that Stuart News does not support positions that protect our quality of life. Such loss of trust can be a major factor in whether the Stuart News will be here a few years hence.
If you could see my inbox of unsolicited letters expressing real anger at the paper, almost all for good reason, it would give you pause. Some are so mad that they are finding small, legal ways to do harm. I will not be specific because I do not want to encourage such behavior. In the long run, your survival will depend on broad population support, well beyond the monied power structure and their obedient followers.
It’s not too late – yet. I hope you will take these comments in the constructive way they are intended, because I do want Stuart News to survive and flourish.
Sincerely,
Al Forman
6-7-10
A note of desperation at the Stuart News
The June 7 Stuart News editorial repeats the mostly irrelevant blog of Editorial Page Editor Larry Reisman. It defends Business Development Board (BDB) exec Ron Bunch by quoting the editor of a newspaper rival of the one that broke the original expose. [See item immediately below for an example of solid journalism on this matter.]
The more intriguing question is why Stuart News is repeatedly attacking the DEFENDER. Even though our 5,000 subscribers are far fewer than the newspaper’s circulation, we have grown dramatically over the past three years – while Stuart News circulation has declined.
The result is that their near monopoly on information distribution is weakened, provoking an editorial mood that smacks of desperation. Trying to knock us down will not help them. It only makes readers wonder why they did not dig up the facts published in the DEFENDER.
It bears repeating that the DEFENDER and Stuart News do agree on the BDB’s mission and doubling its budget. Where we disagree is:
(A) BDB keeping secret the details of how it spends our tax money. Juggled financial data is insufficient. So is the Stuart News making the tepid suggestion that BDB should be “more forthcoming.” No! BDB should comply completely with the Public Records Law and a daily paper should be in the vanguard demanding it.
(B) $1 million of property tax money being siphoned away from vital public services to feed BDB. The issue has been raised by a commissioner that this so-called Toolkit money should go to referendum. Silence from the paper on giving residents a voice..
(C) The Stuart News has been reluctant to look into shortcomings in Ron Bunch’s past performance. They have failed to note that his salary is unreasonably higher than the national median; that the BDB publicity release claimed he was paid $131,000 unchanged from the previous year, when in fact he was paid $141,000 plus benefits plus allowances, according to IRS filings. The BDB explanation of the missing $10,000 differential is that it was a bonus! Maybe bonuses don’t count – even when others are being cut. Not a word from the Stuart News on that issue.
PB Post columnist does the interview and finds what Bunch did in Danville, VA
In her column last week, Palm Beach Post columnist Sally Swartz wrote about what really happened in Danville when Ron Bunch was running their business development. Good reporting is possible when you’re not trying to cover-up someone’s rear. Stuart News editorial scribblers should get the facts the way the paper’s own excellent field reporters do.
Swartz, using the tried and true journalistic method, actually interviewed the man who was at the center of the Danville News expose about unauthorized incentives and unfulfilled promises of jobs. Here is an excerpt from Swartz’s column:
"Right now, the marketplace has provided about 450 jobs, not even half what was promised, and the sales-tax revenue isn't close to the estimates," [Danville Councilman] Mr. Tomer said in an interview. "It's a big money loss for the city. The retail development is a bust. It will take 20 years to get that money back, if ever."
Mr. Tomer blames only some of the loss on the recession. Mr. Bunch, he said, promised a return on investment in three to five years. Mr. Tomer tried to get information Mr. Bunch used to sell the project. "I was told nothing existed. He sold council members a bill of goods. None of the promises came true. He overpromised and underdelivered. He did not give us the transparency we wanted."
Commissioners should ask Mr. Bunch about the promises he made to Danville, and note that he didn’t stick around long enough to see those promises broken.
Sounds like déjà vu all over again.
Tax liens not good for public image of officials
Voters may feel uncomfortable when the elected officials who handle their tax money can’t seem to manage their own finances. This point comes to light with the May 20, 2010 filing of an Ethics Commission complaint by Rick Bell against School Board member Laurie Gaylord. She recently filed to run for her third term on August 24.
The complaint alleges failure to report taxes owed. It states that that Gaylord is the subject of a $5,392.27 tax lien, and her husband $226,397.91 in tax liens.
Are companies using “persuasion” to get employees to petition Commission?
It’s a given that rich, well-organized business organizations can, so to speak, “get out the vote” among members when asking them to write commissioners in favor of a pro-business proposal. That’s fair enough because no one is being coerced. However, when employees of a company start writing to commissioners en masse, warning bells go off.
We notice lots of employees of Liberator Medical and Construction Journal, among others, writing similar support letters in favor of siphoning more tax money to Business Development Board. In this period of scarce jobs, one grows uncomfortable thinking about some boss “suggesting” that the employee write. Bosses may claim that employee actions are purely voluntary and spontaneous. Yeah, right. We remember army days when we were “volunteered” by the top kick sergeant to clean the latrine.
Notable comments at 6-8-10 Commission meeting
MOST VOTER FRIENDLY COMMENT
“The tax abatement vote should be in November, when three times as many people vote as at the primary in August.” – Commissioner Sarah Heard
MOST PERSONAL COMMENT
“My colonoscopy cost more than the $325 the hospital was reimbursed.” – Commissioner Susan Valliere
MOST CLEARLY INCORRECT COMMENTS
“[BDB] provides any information requested.” – Commissioner Patrick Hayes [Note: Lawsuit filed because BDB refused to do so.]
“We’ve done nothing about business development in Martin County.” – Commissioner Doug Smith [Note: Doubling BDB’s budget to $625,000 is “nothing”?]
LEAST ABLE TO CONNECT THE DOTS COMMENT
“I don’t know how we’re going to balance the budget.” – Commissioner Doug Smith [Note: Stated after voting to give added $1 million to BDB, ranked lowest priority by residents.]
MOST TAX CONSCIOUS COMMENT
“I represent all taxpayers. I can’t support taking $1 million from critical services for the BDB project.” – Commissioner Sarah heard
MOST PARANOID/SLANDEROUS COMMENT
“There is a plot to destroy Martin County by the people opposing the Toolkit.” – Commissioner Ed Ciampi
See the Hometown Democracy video
http://www.youtube.com/FloridaHometown
+++++
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 6/10/10
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. 169
A motto for commissioners throwing tax money and fee exemptions at chosen companies and the BDB
NIMIS NUNQUAM SATIS*
When Business Development Board (BDB) exec Ron Bunch tells Gang of 4 Commissioners Smith, Hayes, Valliere and Ciampi that BDB want lots of tax money, plus Commission adoption of fee exemptions for chosen companies, the Gang poses a “probing” question: How Much?
All that County revenue – and the money lost by exemptions – will have to be made up by higher taxes on residents, as well as cuts in vital services. All this for a long odds gamble that incentives will lure companies. Ron Bunch’s record elsewhere is mixed at best. How likely are the tax enticements to make the difference for a company to relocate? On occasion they may, but 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.”
The Commission started off with a reasonable doubling of the BDB budget to $625,000, though embedding it in a terrible sweetheart contract. BDB did not consider that enough. So $1 million in property taxes will be siphoned off for a Business Development Fund. Some folks see it as the County equivalent of the wasteful Federal Stimulus Package. But wait. BDB wants – and gets – more.
Then the Opportunity Fund is added to throw cash, land or concessions at a company. Still not enough. Well there’s also the Job Creation Grant. How about having the County pay a company’s permit and impact fees? Even that’s not enough.
The Commission majority likes adding a Tax Abatement Program, which will be on the August 24 ballot as a referendum. Don’t think the Gang of 4 really wants citizen input. This one has to go to referendum because of state law. Whatever the commission can push through it will do without a vote by the people.
FLASH!
An unscientific, but revealing, online poll by the Stuart News shows that 86% of 502 respondents voted NO to this tax abatement program. Is the Gang of 4 listening, or too busy sucking up to developers? [See item immediately below.]
“We’ve got to compete with Palm Beach County, which does these things,” say the BDB boosters. Note: the Palm Beach tax rate will go up 13.4% this coming year, in addition to massive service cuts. Is that what we want in Martin?
* Loosely translated: “Too much is never enough.”
Commisioners’ views of impact fees – a reflection of how indebted they are to developers
New construction imposes the need for upgrading or expanding infrastructure to serve the functions added by that construction. It is only fair that the new house, restaurant, office or factory, among others, pay for the facilities required.
The means to collect that cost is the Impact Fee. Figuring out how much for each of the many categories of construction is complicated, so the County hires an expert, Dr. Jim Nicholas, to work out the use-specific numbers. As a small, overly simple example, a drive-in bank or fast food place would have much more traffic than a house, so the Road Impact Fee would be higher. However, the bank does not add to the load on parks, so the house would pay for that.
In 2009, the Commission decided, after being strongly lobbied by their developer-business campaign contributors, to retain Road Impact Fees, but to eliminate the fees for such other infrastructure as law enforcement, parks and libraries to stimulate construction. But they cited no hard evidence to support the contention that such changes will be an effective stimulus. In DEFENDER No. 97, we noted that “Impact fee elimination is not a meaningful stimulus. It’s a bailout for developers. It’s wishful thinking.” Experience over the past year bears this out.
In March 2010, the Commission woke up to the fact that deleting those Impact Fees would increase the revenue shortfall. So they decided to reconsider. At the June 15, 2010 Commission meeting, County staff recommended that all the Impact Fees be re-instated. That’s when the commissioners puppeteered by developers showed their colors.
COMMISSIONERS STATE THEIR VIEWS
Commissioner Doug Smith wanted to reject staff recommendations, and retain the fee eliminations. Commissioner Ed Ciampi wanted to add back only half of the eliminated fees. Patrick Hayes wanted to add back 75% of the eliminated fees, but saw the need for the revenue. Commissioner Susan Valliere was strangely silent, perhaps seeing the need for staff’s recommendations, but reluctant to offend developers. Commissioner Sarah Heard pointed out that failing to re-institute the Impact Fees would add to resident tax burden, and not be effective as a stimulus.
In the end, sanity prevailed – just barely. The Commission voted 3-2 in favor of restoring the eliminated Impact Fees, with Smith and Ciampi dissenting.
Job Fair – over 200 positions open
The June 17, 2010 Job Fair, organized by Workforce Solutions, and co-sponsored by Business Development Board (BDB) presents about 20 companies with some 200 available jobs. It is held from 1:00 to 4:00 pm at the Clark Advanced Learning Center on the IRSC campus, 2400 SE Salerno Rd., Stuart. This Job Fair is an admirable achievement – accomplished without $1 million-plus-plus additional subsidizing by taxpayers.
How serious is Valliere’s conviction for election law violations? A difference of opinion
Out on the candidate forum circuit with incumbent Susan Valliere and challenger Ed Fielding, some audience member is likely to ask about Valliere’s conviction and fine for campaign law violations in the 2006 election.
Understandably, Valliere attempts to minimize the conviction. She claims it was merely a paperwork error. Fielding claims her actions were deliberate and a reflection of character.
The most objective assessment of the conviction and fine may be found in Judge Robert E. Meale’s 48-page decision. Here are verbatim quotes from that decision:
“Petitioners [Florida Elections Commission] established an intentional wrongful act in each of the three proved violations … The evidence in these cases is sufficient to prove an intentional act of wrongdoing under the more straightforward meaning of willfull …The fines for the two counts that Petitioner has proved against Ms. Valliere and one count against Mr. Valliere should be the maximum allowed by law, given the seriousness of three of the violations and the lack of good faith.”
That’s the title of a June 12 article by Fred Grimm in the Miami Herald about “lobbyists, builders and business titans who gathered at Lauderdale's slickest pickup joint, more interested in deluding voters than young women.”
Here are excerpts from the article.
Hometown Democracy constitutional amendment: Polls indicate 61% of Florida’s likely voters are apt to vote yes.
It's just too much to hear talk of good government from the same selfish interests who transformed South Florida into mindless sprawl, creating Ground Zero for a nightmare recession with a giant inventory of foreclosed houses, deserted shopping centers and unsold condos.
They invented this Ponzi-scheme economy based on perpetual growth that forces older residents to pay ever-escalating taxes to finance roads and other infrastructure in new developments. Voters watched as representative democracies were supplanted by lootocracies, with city and county commissioners acting as wholly-owned subsidiaries of lobbyists, voting to approve whatever awful project could come up with the requisite campaign contributions.
Dade and Broward have been there. Do we recognize who is pushing Martin in that direction?
+++++
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 6/17/10
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. 170
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Attached to this issue
Voter Registration Form
(Needed to switch political party affiliation)
1 – PRINT IT
2 – FILL IT OUT
3 – MAIL IT IN
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Don’t let political party hacks disenfranchise you. For your vote to count in the Martin primary, you must register Republican.
IT’S EASY TO CHANGE PARTY AFFILIATION TEMPORARILY
It seems that the last time a Democrat was elected to the County Commission, pterodactyls were flying about. It is a no-nonsense reality that Martin is a Republican county. There are 49,936 registered Republicans, 28,873 Democrats, and 22,401 Other (including non-affiliated). If you want to vote for a candidate who has a chance to become commissioner, you must be a registered Republican.
In Martin County, the Commission Republican Primary IS the election!
Some jurisdictions have non-partisan boards or councils, like the martin School District. Some states have universal or open primaries. That is, any voter can vote for any primary candidate irrespective of party. In Florida, a primary is universal only if all the candidates running for a position belong to the same party. We can’t complain about that. However, there is a legal gimmick here that is intended to increase the power of major parties. It disenfranchises many voters. It is the stupidest election law in America.
If a district has two or three Commission candidates running for the Republican Party nomination, as we do now in Districts 2 and 4, it would normally be an open primary. No Democrats are in the race. However, if some slippery accomplice in collusion with one of the candidates wants to prevent all of those nasty Democrats and independents from voting, all he has to do is enter as a Write-In or No Party Affiliation (NPA) without any party nomination. Such a token, non-credible candidacy makes it a closed primary for Republicans only.
That is exactly what has happened. At the last minute, a Write-In in District 4, and a NPA filed in District 2. It is legal but sleazy politics at its worst because it prevents over half of Martin’s registered voters from voting. As we just said, the Primary is the Election. Party bosses and wild-eyed partisans may like gaming the system this way. However, civic minded Republicans who value citizen participation will stand aghast at the stench from those two concocted candidacies.
Besides not having any chance to win, the Write-In and NPA names will not even appear on the primary ballot. But they hover over the election process like some malign apparition, barring our neighbors from entrance to the voting booth.
What is particularly disturbing is the shameless cheering of this obstructive Write-In/NPA finagle by candidates Lee Weberman and Don Pickard. They seem blind to the fact that some of the sleaze will rub off on them. No doubt Susan Valliere also expects to benefit from this election flim-flam. There are many conservative Republicans – including your editor – who are disgusted by the use of such political chicanery.
But there is a way around this idiotic law and its abuse by some candidates! Any Democrat or Independent can easily register Republican, then change back after the August 24, 2010 primary. All you have to do is fill out a Registration Form, checking Party Change (line 1) and Republican affiliation (line 12).
1 – Fill out and sign the form.
2 – Mail to the following address before July 26, 2010 (the sooner the better):
Supervisor of Elections
P.O. Box 1257
Stuart, FL 34995
HOW TO GET PAPER VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS
-- Print out the form attached to this issue of the DEFENDER.
(On color inkjets, go to PROPERTIES, COLOR, and set Black to print darker; on lasers, print at 600 dpi default)
OR
-- Visit your nearest library for a copy.
OR
-- Call the Supervisor of Elections at 772-288-5637. They’ll mail you a copy.
TO FILL OUT THE FORM ONLINE, AND THEN SIGN AND MAIL IT, GO TO:
Click on “Voter Registration”, then “Update Your Registration”, then “download a Voter Registration Application.” Follow instructions, print, sign and mail.
NOTE: This official website contains a wealth of election information. Browse it. If you also want a Vote-By-Mail application, you can get it either online or by phone. How much easier can they make it for you vote or change party affiliation?
BECOME AN ACTIVIST AGAINST DEPRIVING FELLOW CITIZENS OF THEIR VOTE
Forward this issue with its registration attachment to as many Democrats and non-affiliated as you can. Get more forms and distribute them well before July 26.
What are residents who care most about our community thinking and doing about this shoddy vote manipulation?
“I have been a Democrat for 51 years. However, I sincerely believe that on the local level, here in Martin County, party affiliation is not important. What is important is getting the BEST people into office, those who are not tied to the special interests in and out of the County, those who do not spend our money frivolously and those who understand how their votes influence our wonderful quality of life.
“A short term change in party affiliation can readily be reversed after the primary. The Aug. 24 election is not about differences in Republican nor Democrat principles, but is a vote about protecting the quality of life for Martin County.
“I will be at Vicki Davis' Office on Monday morning to switch my party designation and to pick up forms. I will then spend most of my time between now and July 26th trying to convince my fellow Democrats to do the same.” – Jackie Trancynger, grassroots community leader
Commission adopts LSTAR at 6-22-10 meeting – but with a loophole
LSTAR (Life Sciences Technology and Research) is an excellent plan to attract good companies to a 160-acre campus between Salerno and Cove Roads. IRSC, Morgade Library and Martin Memorial South are already there. It is the fruit of a joint effort by government, business, education and healthcare. And it did not require throwing $1 million of tax money at it.
The draft of the enabling ordinance for LSTAR, considered by the Commission at an earlier meeting, was terrible. It opened the door to development abuse. After objections by Commissioner Sarah Heard, the ordinance was revised. Unfortunately, it has still eliminated some setback protections that could be bad for residences away from LSTAR.
THE FORGETFUL COMMISSIONER CIAMPI
While sniping at critics of westward sprawling development, Commissioner Ciampi observed that such development was “where no one lived.” He may have forgotten that he and the other Gang of 4 commissioners approved the conversion of 1,717 agricultural acres at I-95 and SR714 to AgTec industrial and office. That huge parcel is right next to two home developments with about 1,500 residents. Someone does live there.
COMMISSIONER SMITH AND HIS COSTLY EDIFICE COMPLEX
The nub of the County office building question is whether to do it economically by buying only the building space needed, or going forward with consultants and plan for a grandiose central building. It would cost a fortune, and be less efficient, to move the Supervisor of Elections and Tax Collector, so those Constitutional Officers want to stay put. Not Commissioner Smith. He wants the central Smith Edifice. Boy does his irritable mood pour out when he is thwarted by a 3-2 Commission decision against him.
Weberman forages for support
Commission candidate Lee Weberman, who emigrated from District 3 so he could run in District 4, was recently seen in District 1 at the home of developer Bill Reily. Presumably, brotherly vows were exchanged.
So beautiful, it must be preserved
We’re talking about Martin Grade, a magnificent canopy of 100-year old oaks on County Road 714, between Allapatah Road and State Road 710. It’s a thrill just to drive under that canopy.
Some civic minded residents have been devoting themselves, not only to preserving Martin Grade, but to getting it officially designated a Scenic Highway. To learn more about this wonderful and unique part of our natural heritage, and to view a video tour, go to:
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: editor@martincountydefender.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 6/24/10
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.