Martin County Defender

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 241

Lack of research by Stuart News produces biased, distorted opinions on school dispute.
Superintendent is unfairly accused in biased report. Is lawyer hanky-panky involved?

“Advertisements contain the only truth to be relied on in a newspaper.” – Thomas Jefferson

If you read Rich Campbell’s Sept. 25, 2011 column on the dispute between School Superintendent Nancy Kline and former Director of Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Maryellen Quinn-Lunny – and were gullible enough to trust what he wrote – you would agree with him that “Kline is a bully. What other conclusion can be drawn from the investigative report that supports a former school district employee's allegations — whistle-blower violations, retaliation and hostile work environment — against the superintendent?

Then if you read the Editorial Board’s Sept. 28 editorial column, you might agree “Kline will have to answer to voters in 2012. However, if there is ‘sufficient factual and legal basis’ Kline violated Florida's Public Whistle-blower statute, and "ample evidence suggest(ing) Ms. Quinn-Lunny did receive retaliation,’ the board should have the authority to act if discipline is deemed an appropriate response.”

But if you read the hundreds of pages of related documents – as the DEFENDER has done – you would come to the opposite conclusion. You would recognize that the slanted “investigative report” that shallow journalism depended on is one-sided. Kline deserves credit for restraint and a job well done.

NOTE: We believe the Stuart News is a good local paper, one that does not usually go so far off track, as it has on this school issue. We hope our criticism will spur greater focus on careful investigative journalism that is so vital in a free society.

[Both columns are available on the website www.tcpalm.com]

THE HARD FACTS THAT STUART NEWS EITHER MISSED OR DELIBERATELY IGNORED

The paper’s writers failed to dig into the real story. They took the report as gospel. They missed the stacked deck of carefully selected attorneys, the questionable performance of Quinn-Lunny, Board attorney Griffin being partly on Quinn-Lunny’s payroll, and more. The result was a supposedly objective investigative report that was really a lawyer’s prejudiced brief for Quinn-Lunny. Campbell and Company willingly swallowed it hook, line, and stinker.

DEFENDER’S Major Conclusions

- Superintendent’s judicious actions with complainant were justified by latter’s insubordinate non-performance.

- Biased “investigative report” fails to make reasonable conclusions.

- Something fishy in outrageous lawyer recommendations.

The true ESE backstory – a sampling of documents

For a long time, the School District’s ESE Department (Exceptional Student Education) operated almost as if it were independent of the District’s procedures and chain of command. This could lose grant money and harm the District in an audit. When Superintendent Nancy Kline instructed Executive Director of Finance Bryan Thabit to make sure that all departments were in compliance with financial procedures, and senior staff was to be held accountable, a clash with Executive Director of ESE Maryellen Quinn-Lunny seemed inevitable.

[NOTE: ESE is an outgrowth of the federal IDEA – Individuals with Disabilities Education Act passed in 1990.]

On June 13, 2011, Kline wrote to Quinn-Lunny on (insubordinate?) lack of response:

“The following information has been requested … As of today, you have still not provided the information to me.
June 6, 2011 – Requested that you utilize the Professional Contact Log Form #424A correctly before sending to Finance for action.
May 26, 2011 – Requested you provide the needs assessment for any contracted services.
May 24, 2011 – Requested that your priority one be the Professional Contact Log and its accuracy prior to payment.”

On June 8, 2011, Thabit wrote to Quinn-Lunny about improper vendor authorization:

“I spoke to the Auditor … He informed me that these professional contact logs could not be tied back to IEP services because the student names are not listed. Additionally he was concerned that payments were authorized to these vendors without the support of the IEP [Individuaizedl Education Plan] … Another concern is that you have contracted service vendors acting as District representative authorizing the work of other contracted service vendors. This is improper. I am therefore again requesting a list of positions at each school that can authorize the work.”

On May 18, 2011, Thabit wrote to Kline about Quinn-Lunny’s budget plan to eliminate 50 jobs contrary to District intent

“After reviewing the budget from Maryellen, it appears she has eliminated the Paraprofessionals – ESE DW but not contracted services. If this is a fact, then she has disregarded the primary direction of preserving personnel. This budget is after two months of meeting with the Federal grants committee and would eliminate approximately 50 positions.”

On May 17. 2011, Thabit wrote to Quinn-Lunny about purchase duplication

“The purchase of technology equipment with federal funds for classrooms is a duplication of the District’s technology plan that uses the District’s Capital funds. This information has been discussed with you and you have not provided alternative use for the funds.”

ESE payments over maximum allowed, per Thabit:
(Initials used to protect ordinary employees)

To JB - $60,000 max; $61,387 paid
To KJ - $33,440 max; $36,709 paid
To AA - $91,000 max; $101,265 paid
To LE - $75,000 max; $79,662 paid
To HM - $27,000 max; $28,525, paid

Memo from Thabit re excess payment authorization:

“Maryellen has authorized purchase orders, bill forms and payments that exceed Board approval. The total in excess of Board approval by the Director of the ESE Department is $18,995.”

Notes by Kline:

“Maryellen has refused to have any contact with Bryan and myself regarding her Grant submittal.
She has refused to return my calls today.
She has submitted her Grant without my signature.
Maryellen is going home and not attending a meeting I have called to review her Grant.
I have reassigned her Grant to Bryan and the Grant Committee to complete as it should have been sent overnight today.
Maryellen has missed her deadline for submitting to the Board for prior Board approval.”

Kline’s Sept. 21, 2011 response (greatly condensed here) to Campbell inquiry, to our knowledge not published

“- It has been verified that the District has met and continues to meet Federal spending requirements.
- FCAT testing materials were lost by the ESE Department.
- It was necessary to direct District staff, including Bryan Thabit, to complete a critical grant application totaling millions of dollars for the ESE Department that had not been properly completed and submitted by Ms. Quinn-Lunny.
- Re ESE non-purchase order payments, I cannot allow School Board policy to be circumvented. As these requests for payments by Ms. Quinn-Lummy were in violation of School Board policy, a special meeting was required by the School Board to take action on the payments.”

[There’s a ton of more available information similar to all of the above.]

WAS KLINE FACED WITH A LOOSE CANNON DEPARTMENT THAT SOME BOARD MEMBERS WERE RELUCTANT TO REIN IN?

School Board’s lawyer referrals were questionable – if not outright improper

On Jan. 18, 2011, School Board Attorney Doug Griffin recused himself from this matter because he may have a conflict of interest. Griffin has had a long-standing working relationship with Quinn-Lunny. Part of Griffin’s salary (estimated at 20%) comes from grant money passing through the ESE department.

ESE’s lawyer: On Feb. 8 and 11, 2011,Quinn-Lunny exchanged emails and phone calls with attorney David Earle. She wrote to him, in part: “I hope you are well. I talked with Marya your assistant today regarding my reason for calling … Your name was recommended to me as a good candidate to serve in this [mediation] role. Please contact me to discuss this role and the possibility of establishing a contract with the district for this purpose ... It was a pleasure speaking with you. Please find a copy of the District’s Independent Contractor Agreement. Please review and let me know your thoughts.””

Appointment of ESE lawyer to Board: On July 14, 2011, in a memo to School Board members, Griffin recommended “that the Board appoint David Earle to serve as special counsel to the School Board in this matter since I will be a necessary witness during the investigation.”

What??? Appoint Quinn-Lunny’s lawyer to be the Board’s lawyer, when she may sue the Board? OUTRAGEOUS!

We recognize that Griffin serves at the pleasure of the Board majority that is antagonistic to Kline, but recommending Earle is too much. Would that we could be a fly on the wall at private discussions between Griffin and some Board members.

In the same July 14 memo, he recommended attorney Michael Grogan to do an investigative report of Quinn-Lunny’s July 5 Equity Complaint. Then Griffin noted he “will be a witness during the investigation” - testifying before the very same lawyer-investigator that he recommended for the job of judging who is at fault!!!

Perhaps Grogan, too, knew who butters his bread because he came up with a 20-page report dated Sept. 16, 2011. In it he sustained Quinn-Lunny’s whistleblower and retaliation charges. The report looks like a hatchet job to us because it does not focus on the documented information we have presented here (and more of same is available) that fully justifies Kline’s actions. Otherwise, how could Grogan fairly come to his biased conclusions?

If Grogan had included the insubordinate non-performance information, Kline would have been vindicated. She would have been seen as being very patient with an employee who, some who knew all the facts would say, should have been summarily fired.

Adding the Stuart News viewthat “Kline is a bully … will have to answer to voters in 2012” to School Board chair Sue Hershey’s calculated and questionable opinion that "Kline violated board policy and state statutes, and it's going to cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars," simply ignores the documented record. It may make folks wonder if this barrage isn’t just a concerted political smear campaign against Kline.

Readers respond to Push-Poll article

We received a number of emails from readers who not only read our Push-Poll article in Issue No. 240, but also were targets of poll takers. Apparently the callers are not too well trained. They gave away information that is normally withheld.

Palm City Farms reader BB reports:

“I too received a call from one of these ‘polls’. It did not take me long to catch on, and I was very firm and direct in my responses. The female caller said most people she was talking with were of the same opinion...slow growth and no change in the comp plan ... somehow I doubt that will be the outcome of the ‘poll’.”

Millions spent on incentives, but little job benefit

For four biotech projects, two each in Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties, $982.8 million has been paid in incentives to companies. The state paid $488.8 million, and local government match was $494 million. The projects jointly “guaranteed” 1,069 jobs. That comes to $919,364 per job. As of Dec. 2010, only 362 Treasure Coast employees worked in biotech, a piddling increase of 80 workers over the prior year.

How much can we depend on gaining those “guaranteed” new jobs? The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity recently reported that of 729 tax-incentive contracts signed with the state, only 71% were fulfilled.

Locally: As required by the Sherlock Sunshine Case settlement, on Oct. 11, 2011, the Martin County Commission reviewed its million dollar “BDB Toolkit” incentive/stimulus for favored companies. Business groups rallied their followers, and the Commission re-approved it as-is by 3-to-1 vote, Fielding dissenting, Heard absent. None of the suggested new provisions that would have curbed pay-to-play or inside dealing* were adopted.

* Eg. It was kept secret that a BDB director was connected to a company receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the “BDB Toolkit” / Half of companies receiving incentive money have execs on the BDB board.

OBSERVATION: When politicians spend your tax money by Solyndra-style pick-a-winner guess for jobs they claim are “promised, guaranteed, expected, projected, anticipated, forecast or predicted” - substitute the phrase “uncertain self-serving guess” for those words.

Inlet dredging – an imprudent funding proposal

St. Lucie Inlet dredging is an important maintenance function. We salute the County Administration’s efforts to cobble together multi-source funding for the work. However, Commissioner Patrick Hayes’ related proposal at the Oct. 11, 2011 Commission meeting is a bad idea for good purpose. He proposed that the County borrow part of the funds needed for dredging, even though there are still untapped sources.

Whether for home or government, loans should be restricted to capital projects if you support conservative fiscal policy. You might take out a bank loan to add a wing to your house, but you would surely be wise enough not to do so to pay for lawn mowing or pool maintenance. It would be a dangerous precedent to start backloading future County budgets with routine maintenance expenses of years gone by.

Quotable quote

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
- Winston Churchill
+++++

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 10/13/2011

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2011 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:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 242

Invitation to Corruption: Self-serving members of boards giving away tax money

Martin County has been lucky. We have not seen clear evidence - so far - that boards charged with awarding lucrative contracts and incentives have improperly steered money toward companies with their executives on the contributing board (though questions were raised about Workforce Solutions). But it could happen when public/private organizations do not have rules in place that prevent board members from being beneficiaries.

It’s a national, state and local problem. For example, RockPort Capital, one of the largest investors in Solyndra, had an exec serving on a Pentagon panel that helps government find emerging technologies. The exec recommended Solyndra to the Navy. Were it not for Solyndra’s impending bankruptcy, it would have been an inside job giveaway.

On the state level, Workforce Central Florida was providing incentives and training. At the urging of Gov. Scott, they had to purge three senior executives and seven board members. There were board members whose companies had garnered sweet contracts. The U.S. Department of Labor is also investigating.

Martin Commission takes a pass on corrective action

At their Oct. 11 meeting, Commissioners considered the proposal to restrict board member companies from receiving incentives from the Business Development Board (BDB) “Toolkit.”. This would prevent both the perception and reality that board members were exerting undue influence. Three of the six companies receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of incentives from BDB were connected to board members, one of them secretly. But Gang of 3 Commissioners Ciampi, Smith and Hayes voted against such restrictions.

Ciampi tried to justify his opposition as follows: “Barring members of the development board or their relatives from receiving toolkit incentives would make business owners reluctant to serve on the volunteer board.”

That is so (unintentionally) insulting to the many business leaders who are glad to volunteer their time and knowledge for the common good, without any inclination to take advantage of a board position. Those good folks would still serve even if they were barred from receiving funds.

Allowing board member companies to decide or influence whether their company becomes a favored recipient of tax money may invite corruption – or at least the perception as such.

Meet Stuart’s worst developer – none other than the City of Stuart

If a private developer planned to take pristine preserve land (not agricultural land), and convert it to commercial use, there would be calls to bring on the tar and feathers. Of course, no developer would be so irresponsibly anti-environmental. But that is what City of Stuart officials are doing – and they want Stuart voters to approve it in a referendum!

A Stuart municipal election will be held on Nov. 8, 2011 (early voting Oct. 29 to Nov. 5). The ballot includes two amendments concerning residency, and a Referendum on a “Long Term Lease of City-Owned Commercial Lot.” The reason it can be called a “commercial lot” is that the City carved out two untainted acres of natural land from the Haney Creek Preserve, and declared it commercial. This parcel is not near other commercial land. It’s an isolated anti-environmental precedent. [See DEFENDER No. 223.]

STUART’S MISLEADING AD

Start officials apparently have no scruples in trying to jam a Referendum down resident throats. They mailed an ad, “Sponsored by City of Stuart,” claiming that a yes vote “Preserves Haney Creek as a resource for you and your community.” That is pure deception. Haney Creek is already preserved because it is now entirely publicly owned land.

Furthermore, if Stuart spent public funds to influence the vote with their ad, it may even be a violation of the law. Also, the politicians will not admit that by shifting to revenue enhancers such as leases, fees and special charges, it gives them the opportunity to boast that taxes have not been raised.

Stuart Developer officials want to “Pave paradise, put up a parking lot” – literally!

It gets worse.

STUART WANTS TO COMPETE WITH COMMERCIAL TAXPAYERS

Developing this pristine parcel puts the City of Stuart in direct competition with commercial property owners, who are already suffering from the vacant space caused by the recession. In other words, the taxes collected from private commercial property owners buy preserve land that will then be used to compete with the taxpayers. Your tax dollars at work!

The County Commission majority has allowed itself to be led like sheep in supporting this conversion of preserve to commercial. Remember, County has paid for half of the Haney Creek purchase. They should not have approved the commercial carve-out.

If all this sickens you half as much as it sickens us, please be sure to vote NO on the referendum. Tell friends about what Stuart – as a developer – is really doing.

Disenfranchised voters and the election of constitutional officers

It’s a truism in Martin County: Winner of the Republican primary gets elected. That may be OK when electing Commissioners who pass laws, a clearly political function. However, when the truism applies to officers mandated by the Florida Constitution, who must do a professional, non-political job, it may not be OK.

49% of almost 100,000 registered voters in Martin are Republicans. The 51% balance are Democrats, others and No party Affiliation. Winning candidates need only get a plurality. So if there are four candidates for a position (as there may be for one or two of the constitutionals in 2012), someone garnering 28% of the Republican vote could be elected.

In Florida, primaries are usually closed. That is, only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, Democrats in theirs. That may make sense if the Democrats are also holding a primary. If they aren’t, then the primary opens to everyone.

The Loophole

However, thanks to an idiotic state law loophole, even if there is one write-in candidate, that closes the primary, effectively disenfranchising half of all registered voters here. Of course, one can fill out a registration form to switch parties, but that must be planned in advance.

The Florida Constitution, Article 9, Sec. 4(a) mandates that School Board elections be non-partisan. For constitutional officers, elections are partisan – unless prohibited.

In our opinion, the best solution would be to make the election of constitutional officers non-partisan. We asked some constitutionals what they thought about that. Sheriff Bob Crowder thought it had a lot of merit. Supervisor of Elections Vicki Davis liked non-partisan because she’s found that disenfranchised voters get angry, and her staff has to deal with that. Property Appraiser Laurel Kelly thought it would be a good thing if some legal arrangement prevented voters from being shut out when voting for constitutional officers. Tax Collector Ruth Pietruszewski wants to get rid of that write-in loophole [see above] to keep primaries open when only one party is voting.

The control-freak inclination of state party bosses is to favor closed primaries, so it is unrealistic to expect the Legislature to do anything like eliminating the write-in loophole. From a practical perspective, a Constitutional Amendment is out of the question.

The next best solution may be to make Martin a Charter County, a complicated process. Doing so would make us somewhat more independent of Tallahassee, and shift some power from the Commission to the people. Depending on how it’s written, a charter may or may not prohibit partisan elections for the constitutionals. Because Martin constitutionals do an excellent job without scandal, we do not see a groundswell for this, even though it would truly open one-party primaries.

What do you think about non-partisan elections for constitutionals?

Inlet dredging – funding still uncertain

The Oct. 18, 2011 Commission meeting revealed that Commissioners still do not have a clue on how to fund dredging of the St. Lucie Inlet. Much of the discussion concerned alternatives: Whether to sweep all of the money in the Local Option Vessel Registration Fund (defeated by Ciampi, Smith and Hayes), or use most of the infrastructure portion, about $280,000, for dredging (approved by Ciampi, Heard and Fielding).

This would pay for only a small part of the cost. County share to dredge 300,000 cubic yards would be about $4 million. There was some short-sighted, easy-way-out inclination to borrow the money, which would require higher taxes or slashed vital services for years to come. Commissioner Heard had the clearest vision of what that would mean. She said:

“I will not burden residents with an added tax of $5 million per year in perpetuity. Borrowing should be be limited to capital projects.” Heard also noted that it lets the feds off the hook when they have the obligation to pay for a federal inlet. They’d never pay up if we pay.

Alternate funding methods were not even mentioned. The half-cent sales surtax is off the table for two reasons: Voters would have to approve it a year from now, and besides, as shown in a DEFENDER survey, it would be defeated, especially if direct recipients like the marine industry and waterfront property owners did not contribute significantly.

As for the marine industry, a business spokesman claimed earlier that it was responsible for $230 million/yr in economic activity, and accounted for 5,000 jobs – almost 10% of non-farm employment. One would think that the industry would want to come up with funds to survive.

We should know more about costs when bid invitations go out, and are opened Dec. 4. This could possibly allow dredging to start in Feb. and run until May 1 (tentatively, maybe).

Quotable quote

“Football combines the two worst features of American life. It’s violence punctuated by committee meetings.” – George Will, columnist

+++++

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 10/20/2011

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 243

Martin County Democratic leaders embrace radical “Occupy Wall Street” protesters

Whatever you may think of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters, we must stand up for their rights of free speech and peaceful assembly. Whether or not they are just a slob mob doesn’t matter. Whether they should be protesting in front of the White House and Capitol instead of Zucotti Park in Manhattan doesn’t matter. It’s their right. However, supporting their rights is a far cry from embracing their muddled radical politics. That does matter..

The Martin County Democratic Party’s leadership has declared its support for OWS.
Their spokesperson stated: “The Martin County Democratic Party is standing with Occupy Wall Street. The message of Occupy Wall Street is the message of the American people.” The spread of OWS events to numerous cities unsurprisingly coincides with the approving comments about OWS by Obama, Pelosi, Michael Moore, et al.

To that end, the Democratic Party announced a demonstration in Stuart scheduled for Saturday, Oct. 22. It turned out essentially to be a non-event, wisely ignored by almost all of Martin’s 27,945 registered Democrats, despite email promotion and an advance announcement of the pro-OWS rally in the Stuart News. No follow-up story at the newspaper either.

WHAT IS THE OWS “MESSAGE”?

Democratic pollster Doug Schoen had his staff ask the OWS “occupiers” what they believed. Here is a shortened version of his report published in the Wall Street Journal:

The Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).
An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

A writer speaks to the OES protesters

Taking a more personal, less statistical approach, columnist Daniel Henninger visited the park and spoke to its occupants. Here are a few highlights of his report:

Most of the people living atop the park’s pavement are virtually catatonic. Spread across a city block, the park’s people have settled into a barely moving mass of down-market grunge “occupying” a marijuana oasis.

A New Yorker finally realizes what he is seeing: It’s the reincarnation of the squatters movement that occupied Tompkins Square Park on the Lower East Side in the 1980s. Filled with illegal squatters who refused to leave, Tompkins Square and its surrounding neighborhood became a magnet for drug freaks, organizers of pro-Sandinista rallies, homeless people, bad musicians and a lot of very lost kids.

A guy got up on a box [in Zucotti Park] to wave a sign. “Google: Jewish billionaires.” This discomfited some of the Zucotti inhabitants, aware of anti-Semitism charges against the movement, so an OWSer in an undershirt and porkpie hat poured coffee down the guy’s back. The cops led away the coffee pourer.

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING OWS

CAIR: The Hamas–connected Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an active supporter of Occupy Wall Street. This anti-Israel, Sharia-supremacist group released a statement that includes:

“CAIR-NY is proud to support and invite you to Friday Prayer at Occupy Wall Street this Friday … CAIR-NY’s endorsement of Friday Prayer at Occupy Wall Street stems from a conviction that many of the issues brought into the international spotlight by Occupy Wall Street affect Muslim communities disproportionately … Look for our table at Zuccotti Park to obtain information about our current projects and to expand the role of New York Muslims in the Occupy Wall Street movement.”

Rep. Frank Wolfe (VA Dist. 10) says: “CAIR, is responsible for a large portion of the radicalization in America.”

NPA: The Nazi Party of America (NPA) issued a statement that includes:

“Racial Comrades: I am going to address the issue of this "Occupy Wall Street" fervor … This issue is taylor (sic) made for National Socialists … Just who are the WALL STREET BANKERS? The vast majority are JEWS.”

Protest rallies are healthy political actions, but …..
HOW CLOSELY DID LEADERS OF MARTIN’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOOK TO SEE WHO WERE THEIR OWS BEDFELLOWS, AND WHAT WERE THEIR DEMANDS?

Commission postpones BDB annual report

The Business Development Board (BDB) had been scheduled to present its Annual Report at the Oct. 25 Commission meeting. Every year, the presentation tries to show the Commission, which funds about 90% of BDB income, that its money is well spent. The problem is that Commissioners and the public would not get to see BDB’s Annual Report until the very day of the presentation. There simply would not be enough time to study the report, and ask incisive questions. Usually Agenda item details are available five days in advance.

So we are pleased that as a result of Commissioner Sarah Heard’s objections to the poor timing of the presentation, County Administrator Taryn Kryzda set up the procedure for the Commission to postpone examination of the BDB report until Nov. 8.

QUICK PEEK AND QUERY ABOUT BDB 2010-2011 ANNUAL REPORT

The BDB 2010-2011 Annual Report, distributed in the Oct. 25 Stuart News, claims that BDB-assisted companies “announced 691 new jobs.” The report goes on to clarify this number: “The direct jobs shown … include jobs created by the new/expanding companies, as well as additional jobs announced by these companies to be created over a 36-month period.”

Since this is an annual report, we hope Commissioners will inquire how many of the 691 jobs were actually created in the past year.

Could Ed Ciampi be right about self-serving execs on boards dispensing tax money?

In DEFENDER No. 242, we chided Commissioner Ciampi for saying: “Barring members of the development board or their relatives from receiving toolkit incentives would make business owners reluctant to serve on the volunteer board.”

We thought, and said, that many business leaders would be glad to volunteer their time and knowledge for the common good, without any inclination to take advantage of a board position. We thought those good folks would still serve even if they were barred from receiving funds.

Maybe we were wrong. Ciampi may know business board members better than we do.

In response to our published view of unselfish board service, we received a note from a leading marine industry exec. He said: “I would not serve on a board that would restrict my company's ability to apply for competitive funding/grants.”

If that brutally honest self-serving attitude is the norm, then it’s certainly time to enact a rule that bars the companies of members on grant dispensing boards from giving themselves awards. Or else replace such boards with staff professionals, like purchasing departments.

Any business executives out there willing to serve for the common good, without getting a piece of the action? Let’s hear from you.

New business group opposes Hobe DRIs

Sally Swartz reports the following in her online Palm Beach Post column:

Preserve Martin County, a newly organized nonprofit group, is backed by Hobe Sound pioneer families and businessmen such as Harold Jenkins, head of Jenkins Landscape Co., Pat Martin of Diamond Transfer and Garage, and David Chambers, chief of an electrical firm whose family has been in the area since 1927. Bob Critton, a Martin resident and West Palm Beach lawyer, and popular Harry & the Natives restaurant owner Harry MacArthur are supporters.

All the proposed developments near Bridge Road in Hobe Sound, especially Hobe Grove and Harmony, sparked the group’s creation. If the Martin Commission majority OKs the developments, they would make a city larger than Stuart and set precedents that would destroy the county’s growth plan.

“This is extreme,” Mr. Jenkins said. “Every business person in Hobe Sound realizes this is a game-changer.” Adding business centers in rural western Martin would drain support from established business communities, many of which already are struggling in the down economy. Preserve Martin is open to the entire county, he said, not just Hobe Sound. Even Stuart business owners realize that building big centers outside established business areas has wiped out businesses in coastal Palm Beach, Broward and Dade counties.

Stuart ballot referendum allows revenue to be used for projects not Haney Creek Preserve

Supporters of the upcoming ballot referendum on the 2 acres cut out of the Haney Creek Preserve, and made into a commercial parcel by the City of Stuart, claim that proceeds will be used to maintain the 165-acre Preserve – BUT the Referendum includes the statement:

“and other expenditures agreed upon by the City and Martin County."

This means that the City and County Commissions that engineered this development boondoggle can spend the lease revenue anyway they please. Stuart voters should

Vote NO on ballot Referendum

Stuart Commission election: Vote for Glass
In addition to the Referendum, the Nov. 8 City of Stuart election has two candidates for Commission Group 4. Candidates are Kelli Glass and Frank Mezzapelle. We’re not put off by Mezzapelle’s participation in nude races, as some are. However, we do believe that two factors make Glass the better choice for a city facing economic challenges.

Glass has valuable budgeting know-how, and she is strongly opposed to the two massive Hobe Sound DRI developments that threaten to suck the business life out of Stuart. Apparently Stuart News readers feel the same way; 63% favor her in the paper’s poll.

Vote for Kelli Glass for Stuart City Commission

Quotable quote

Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.” – Herbert Hoover

+++++

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 10/27/2011

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 244

Spite and self-importance drive School Board majority to reject grant from Pew Foundation. Long term damage may result

THE BASIC FACTS

The prestigious Mary and Robert Pew Education Foundation invited the Martin School District to apply for a $63,450 grant - “Learning and Innovation: Keys to a Successful School District” - that would cover all expenses of sending the administrative leadership team to an intensive training course at the University of Virginia.

This would cover nine of the top positions, including the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, and various Executive Directors, including Instructional Services, Elementary Education, Secondary and Virtual Education, Finance, Human Services and Staff Development, Operational Services, and Educational Technology – all of whom are new to the job over the past three years.

The course, “Managing Individual and Organizational Change,” is a perfect fit for Martin’s situation. It has been a great success for Palm Beach County, and would be a positive step in carrying out the Foundation’s objective: Promoting Excellence in Public Education. A better informed school management translates to better education for children.

At the Oct. 18, 2011 School Board meeting, various objections were raised to accepting the grant. The flimsy basis of the objections, and the clarity of the explanations overcoming the objections, leave nothing but the meanest motives for the Board majority that rejected the grant offer.

THE CAST OF CHARACTERS

The Obstructive Trio:
SUE HERSHEY, School Board Chair
LAURIE GAYLORD, School Board Vice-Chair
DAVID ANDERSON, School Board Member

The Conciliatory Duo
MICHAEL BUSHA, School Board Member
MAURA BARRY SORENSON, School Board Member

Victims of a Venomous Board Majority
NANCY KLINE, Superintendent of Schools
TRACEY MILLER: Director of Elementary Programs and School Improvement

School Board Attorney
DOUG GRIFFIN

The DEFENDER has carefully reviewed the video and the transcript of the meeting, in addition to Pew Foundation related documents. Below are excerpts of the verbatim statements at the Oct. 18 meeting, as well as our interpretive comments.

=====

GAYLORD: I have great concerns about this. I will not support this. Historically, in the past we have not provided this. It’s a leadership retreat. I cannot support having a leadership retreat in Virginia.

NOTE: It’s not a retreat. Perhaps Gaylord confuses such a working training course with her vacation trips, with spouse, to the National School Boards Association Conference in San Francisco (with side trip to Las Vegas). Hershey and Anderson have also partaken of this $4,000-each taxpayer funded perk. All that plus away conferences in Tampa. The Obstructive Trio wants to take the Pew course – or no one does.

=====

HERSHEY: The Pew Foundation always did an awful lot for our Title 1 schools, and for our schools here in this community. So I’m thinking, does this deplete some of their resources where they no longer will be able to put money into Warfield Elementary.

SORENSON: What happens if we say No Thank You? What happens to that $64,000?

KLINE: The Pew Foundation would likely ask another District to participate. Let me call up Tracey Miller because Tracey and Cathy Tedesco worked with the Pew Foundation. They could probably answer your questions better.

GAYLORD: I really don’t need to hear from Ms. Miller or Ms. Tedesco.

SORENSON: Well I would like to hear from them to see what they’re having to say about what happens with the $64,000 grant, whether it’s dedicated to this particular program; whether it goes away from Martin County totally; or whether it can be reallocated somewhere else.

MILLER: I’ve had a relationship with Louise Grant, Executive Director of the Fund for many years. They have continued to fund the field trip programs and the teacher training at schools. So this isn’t taking the place of anything. This would be in addition. It would be specifically for this purpose.

ANDERSON: Can it be done locally?

MILLER: No. This kind of training is not offered in house. It’s strictly at the University of Virginia.

NOTE: Did you catch Gaylord’s arrogant reluctance to learn the facts? The concern about Pew not funding other programs because of this grant is outright fear-mongering. Pew would normally continue to fund what it has funded.

However, grapevine buzz is that Pew is somewhat outraged by the Obstructive Trio’s mindless rejection, which implicitly suggested that Pew was wrong-headed to offer the grant. This action could possibly cause reduced funding from Pew in the future. Slapping a generous foundation in the face does not bode well for the slapper.

=====

SORENSON: What is the cost to the District?

KLINE: Zero.

GAYLORD: It’s not free.

ANDERSON: We can bring the university to us for $65,000. I’m tired of people saying it’s federal money.

KLINE: Just for clarification, this is foundation money.

ANDERSON: I understand that. I’m talking about federal money.

NOTE: Hello? Is anyone home upstairs? No matter how many times it is made clear that: (A) The cost to the District is zero, and (B) The program does not permit bringing it to Martin (so Hershey, Gaylord and Anderson can take the course, too) – their spiteful attitude toward the Superintendent prevents them from accepting simple facts. Instead, when the Board is told “The Foundation chooses the program,” we get this kind of snide remark by Hershey: “And they chose all of you. How sweet.”

=====

Even a conciliatory motion by Busha, second by Sorenson, was not acceptable to the Obstructive Trio. THE MOTION: “Go ahead and apply for this with the understanding that they ought to be looking for other locations as well.” Defeated by 3-to-2 vote.

=====

DID SOME SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS VIOLATE THE SUNSHINE LAW?

GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE
Florida Statute 286.011 - Public Meetings

“(1) All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision … at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.”
[Case law says such Board members may not privately discuss with one another those matters which may come before them.]

The record of individual School Board member comments made during the Oct. 18, 2011 meeting is quite damning. During a break in the meeting, some members discussed agenda items privately among themselves – out of the public’s earshot – in what may be a violation of the Sunshine Law.

The TV cameras are turned off during the break. However, Board members may not have been aware that the audio portion keeps recording during the break. These Board member comments were not heard by the public, but picked up by multiple microphones, We have both a copy of the audio recording, and a transcript made by two transcribers. Here are excerpts of the disjointed conversations that relate to two agenda items.

=====

Break Intro

ANDERSON: Sue do you want something to nibble on?
HERSHEY: No, David. Actually I’m fine.
ANDERSON: Laurie, do you want something to nibble on?
GAYLORD: No thanks.

=====

Re RTI [Response To Intervention]

HERSHEY: The RTI position is under Schedule of Personnel, right? 13.01?
GRIFFIN: Well hold on.
HERSHEY: The next time Cathy does a paid political advertising for RTI, I am pulling it.
GRIFFIN: Sue, RTI is not 13.01. It’s actually Number 21.
HERSHEY: OK. We are removing that person, correct?
GRIFFIN: She didn’t put that person on the agenda.
ANDERSON: Who?
HERSHEY: OK. That works for me.

=====

Re Leadership Taking Pew Training Course

ANDERSON: Hey Laurie.
GAYLORD: Huh?
ANDERSON: You know the positions these people hold, when they get these positions in order to get the positions, they’re supposed to have been trained in the position.
HERSHEY: That’s right. That’s right.
GAYLORD: This is a retreat.
HERSHEY: Who are they? I’m still kind of ticked off at the things.
ANDERSON: Qualifications for their jobs said they must be trained in leadership.
HERSHEY: Well no shit. We should be going.
ANDERSON: Yeah. (Laughs)
HERSHEY: I know. We should be going!
ANDERSON: Yup.
HERSHEY: How much heat can I take? Ok. Let’s go. (Bangs gavel)

Official Guide to Board-Staff Communications (F.S. 1001.41, 1001.43)

“It shall be the expectation of this Board that staff and Board members maintain the highest standards of ethical and professional discourse exemplifying their commitment to teamwork and the District’s mission.”

INDEED!!!

The solution to unacceptable Board member behavior is to muck out the School Board on Election Day in Nov. 2012. Hershey and Anderson will be up for re-election. Gaylord should have her day in Nov. 2014.

Congratulations to Stuart News

In what may be their best opinion issue in some time, the Stuart News hit a triple with their Oct. 30 issue:

COMMISSIONER HEARD EDITORIAL: Thumbs up to the Editorial Board for their strong advocacy and decency in supporting Heard’s elevation to Chairman: “What’s so difficult for commissioners to grasp about the fairness of putting the gavel in Heard’s deserving hands?”
SCHOOL BOARD VS. NANCY KLINE COLUMN: Kudos to columnist Rich Campbell for indicating, as we did above, that spite may have been what motivated School Board members Hershey, Gaylord and Anderson to reject the Pew Foundation grant that would have trained the District management team at no cost to the County.
MOST POINTED AND FUNNY POLITICAL CARTOON: Three cheers for Editorial Page Editor Larry Reisman choosing the Cole cartoon showing Paul Ryan and Barack Obama deep in a debt hole. Ryan says: “OK. Here’s my plan. ‘Stop digging.’ ” Obama replies: “He wants to bludgeon your grandmother with a shovel.”

Copeland is Commission District 1 candidate

Jensen Beach attorney Henry Copeland is running for the Commission seat held by Doug Smith for the past 11 years. Copeland has been active in opposing Hobe Sound DRI developments, and has fought efforts that erode the protections of the Comp Plan. He is an advocate for more prudent reduced spending than the present Commission majority.

Copeland is expected to face two opponents who were in the same race in 2008. He lost to Smith by only 187 votes in the Republican Primary, a loss attributed to Smith’s extraordinary $200,000 campaign chest. Copeland actually beat Smith in District 1, where both candidates were well known.

Copeland’s other opponent in the August 2012 primary will be Tom Fullman, who filed as a candidate 20 months before the General Election. In 2008, Fullman ran as a Democrat, gaining 38.47% of the vote against Smith in the General Election. Smith is expected to announce his re-election bid early in 2012.

CONFIDENTIAL NOTE: A sitting Commissioner told the DEFENDER that an attorney would be a valuable asset on the Commission to unravel some of the bad legal decisions that have been made in recent years.

REMINDER for Stuart Voters
- Vote NO on referendum that commercializes Haney Creek
- Vote for KELLI GLASS for group 4 City Commission

Quotable quote

“If you have a job without aggravation, you don’t have a job.” – Malcolm Forbes

+++++

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 11/3/2011

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 245

Questions about BDB Annual Report. Should Commissioners submit questions in advance?
Public speakers may address BDB meetings

Martin residents have a valid interest in how the Business Development Board (BDB) is performing. After all, taxpayers funded $668,750, about 90%, of BDB income last year.

So it is understandable that some Commissioners would be inquisitive about what is in – and should be in – the BDB Annual report presented at the Nov. 8, 2011 Commission meeting. Apparently, when BDB was concerned about not having the opportunity to rehearse and polish the answers to inquiry, Co-director Crystal Stiles sent the following letter to Commissioners through the County Administrator:

Taryn,

May we ask Commissioners to provide questions regarding our annual report in advance of 11/8 to County and BDB staff? We want to ensure we are prepared to answer questions during our presentation.

Best,
Crystal

Is it a good precedent that Commissioners submit their questions in advance to those appearing before them? We don’t know if any were foolish enough to do so.

Some BDB responses to inquiries do not comport with other BDB statements. For example, it was stated by BDB that “It is important to note that the Annual Report presentation is a retrospective summary of progress and achievements of the BDB over the past year, rather than a prospective policy presentation regarding future activity.” NOT SO!

The BDB 2010-2011 Annual Report claims that BDB-assisted companies “announced 691 new jobs.” The report goes on to clarify this number: “The direct jobs shown … include jobs created by the new/expanding companies, as well as additional jobs announced by these companies to be created over a 36-month period.”

As we have asked in the past: How many of the 691 jobs were actually created during the past year? Commission questions at their meeting did not elicit a specific answer.

The intended “short BDB presentation” at the Nov. 8 Commission meeting ran an hour and forty-five minutes. BDB and taxpayers could benefit from closer scrutiny. A good result was the unanimous resolution that BDB open up its meetings to public comment.

The effort by Commissioners Fielding and Heard to have more funds allocated to local infrastructure, less to incentive subsidies for distant recruiting, failed 2-to-3, Ciampi, Smith and Hayes dissenting,

SHERLOCK RESPONSE TO WEINBERG ANSWERS

We commend BDB President Ed Weinberg for his effort to answer a range of probing questions posed before the meeting by Attorney Ginny Sherlock. However, some of his answers did not clarify the issues. Here, in part, are Sherlock’s observations about Weinberg’s responses:

I have asked a number of questions which BDB President Ed Weinberg has attempted to answer, although he acknowledges quite candidly that the BDB either doesn't know or can't find out the answers to many of the questions - including how much new employees are being paid by a company that has been awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in incentives to create high-paying jobs.

First, it is apparent that the Board of Directors of the BDB plays little or no meaningful role in establishing the direction we are taking with respect to economic development in Martin County. The BDB Board was not even presented with a draft of the Annual Report or a summary of the presentation. The BDB's direction apparently is set entirely by staff, which consists of two co-directors with almost no actual business experience and limited experience in the economic development field. The large and experienced Board of Directors is not being tapped for the expertise and advice that Board members have to offer regarding the approach that should be followed by the County for the immediate and long-term future.

Secondly, if the BDB limits itself to looking at only projected and promised jobs figures, rather than the actual number of jobs lost and jobs created, how can we obtain an accurate overall picture of our economic development position? It makes little sense to count promised future jobs without considering actual job losses to determine whether we are winning or losing the battle against unemployment.

We know, for instance, that American Custom Yachts laid off half its workforce last year. Its affiliate, American Energy Innovations, promises 600 jobs but has filled only 22. The result is an actual net job loss. The BDB can't ignore layoffs and business closings and simply crow about promised new jobs that may never materialize.

Lastly, the concepts of incentives and luring only certain types of businesses from outside the community have not proved to be effective. More and more communities are focusing on helping existing local businesses of all kinds -- not just manufacturing or biotech -- to expand and survive.

The BDB's annual report shows that it spent more than $844,000 last year -- with less than $2,200 of the budget spent on Business Retention and Expansion Activities. Just as we in the business community must change to meet new demands and new technologies that drive our businesses, the BDB must change its approach to its mission.

Making Martin tacky: Parks & Rec “Revenue Enhancement Program” would allow ads and naming rights to cover Waterpark losses

Among the delights of living in Martin County are our lovely parks, beaches and hometown ambience. These are virtues that enhance our quality of life, and our property values.

Now comes a ruinous proposal at the Nov. 8, 2011 Commission meeting that would allow ads all over the place - in parks, printed material, and on the County website and TV, plus sponsorships and naming rights – just to make up the $90,000 (or much larger?) shortfall in operating the Sailfish Splash Waterpark. Martin County will never look the same again.

The plan is terribly flawed. There are no projections on how much this revenue enhancement would produce in net profit. Furthermore, the revenue was not earmarked for parks, so it could go into the General Fund. There was no public input or workshops, except for the Parks Advisory Board under staff thumb. It is a bad sellout idea, whose time should never come – but it has.

STAFF TESTIMONY IS CONTRADICTORY AND BASED ON “TRUST US”

Asked whether Parks Dept. would accept ads or sponsorship from, say, Hobe Grove, Harmony or other company seeking County approvals – and you get what is basically a “we’ll see” answer. Criteria are vague, non-existent, or subject to arbitrary interpretation.

Asked whether billboards would be allowed, Parks staff said no. FACT: This is what is says in the plan: “The Parks & Recreation Department may choose to develop and promote a fee schedule for advertising with banners, billboards, signs, and flags in the Parks & Recreation Department parks and facilities.”

Park staff tells us the advertising plan will “enhance the County image.” That’s what they said.

A cautionary note: Your editor has more experience with running publishing and advertising companies than anyone connected with this parks plan. We can assure one and all that the marketing and sales end of ventures like this become the tail that wags the dog. There should be concern that such involvement may take the job focus off the primary mission: Operating parks.

THE COMMISION DECIDES

Commissioner Fielding made a sensible motion to apply the Revenue Enhancement Program just to Sailfish Splash Waterpark. It passed 3-to-2, Heard and Smith dissenting. Then Smith made a motion for staff to come back with details of a grand marketing plan for all park facilities. Passed 4-to-1, Heard dissenting.

Read the entire 14-page plan at:

http://ap3server.martin.fl.us:7778/documents2010/Agenda_Items/prd/2012/8A1-2011-11-08%20Marketing%20Plan%202012.pdf

Let’s hope that we’ll never see a graphic banner for Killum Rodent Exterminators at Indian RiverSide Park, or visit our beloved Bathtub Beach - profitably renamed Sunova Beach after real estate magnate John J. Sunova.

Jensen Beach Mooring Field project approved

Martin County and City of Stuart have partnered with the Florida fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in an unfunded pilot program that provides for a new mooring field, as well as vessel regulation. At their Nov. 8 meeting, the Commission approved the next step, transmittal back to the state, noting other areas such as Manatee Pocket in addition to Jensen Beach. The vote was 4-to-1, Hayes dissenting.

Local environmentalists have opposed, not the concept, but the specific Jensen Beach location chosen for the mooring field. They believe that the mooring field will impact seagrass beds, fish spawning grounds, habitat for wading birds and other plants and animals.

Some boaters are not happy about the regulations embedded in the enforcement ordinance. Others are concerned that it will only shift the same boating problems to other areas.

There is a lot to learn about this issue. If you are interested in a 22-page report on the mooring field program, including state and local legislation, and detailed maps, go to:
ftp://ftp.martin.fl.us/pub/outgoing/slawton/AnchoringandMooring.pdf

If you are interested in reviewing the handwritten public comments on this topic submitted at the Flagler Center (27 pages) and Blake Library (11 pages), go to:
http://www.martin.fl.us/web_docs/eng/web/coastal/Anchoring_Mooring/xx_comments_Stuart.pdf

and

http://www.martin.fl.us/web_docs/eng/web/coastal/Anchoring_Mooring/xx_comments_MC.pdf

County’s imprudent fiscal/dredging plans

It’s a bit early, but the paperwork for the County to borrow money to increase the amount of inlet dredging will be ready for Commission consideration by Nov. 22. However, it could be postponed. We hope wiser heads will prevail, and the plan will be rejected. Belief that the loan may save money years from now is speculative. What if federal funds become available after economic recovery, making the loan unnecessary?

As we have said: Whether for home or government, loans should be restricted to capital projects if you support conservative fiscal policy. You might take out a bank loan to add a wing to your house, but you would surely be wise enough not to do so to pay for lawn mowing or pool maintenance. It would be a dangerous precedent to start backloading future County budgets with routine maintenance expenses of years gone by.

The marine industry keeps pressing for more dredge spending, without offering contributions. However, spending watchdog Commissioner Heard has said: “Our fiscal policies should prohibit us borrowing money for maintenance projects.” Right on!

The Stuart News editorial of Nov. 2 concisely sums up such borrowing: “This is a bad idea.”

NEEDED: A more sensible process for cutting off County utility services

We believe that utility customers who do not pay their bills deserve to have their services cut off, BUT such customers have a right to adequate notice. Here is a case history that suggests that Martin County Utilities needs to improve the way it informs customers of impending water service cutoff.

It is recognized that paying regular bills, such as electricity, water, telephone and cable, is more efficiently achieved by automatic credit charge than mail-in checks. The problem is that credit cards get hacked. It’s happened twice this year to your editor. When that happens, the bank or card issuer such as Visa stops payments.

That is apparently what happened to resident Don Gleichman. The way Martin County Utilities handled it does not seem considerate of the customer. The process is explained in this internal County memo:

Mr. Gleichman is registered as an on-line bill pay customer and he has requested to receive his statements via e-mail. We e-mailed him his statement on September 13 with a due date of October 2. The auto payment did not go through because the Visa was declined. We sent a 2nd statement via e-mail on October 12 indicating a past due balance for the September that must be paid within 10 days. On October 18 a final notice was e-mailed with a due date of October 27. No payment was received so his service was scheduled to be locked on November 1.

An email is not a dependable notification. We suggest that Utilities consider adding phone calls, door hanger, and/or USPS paper letter to make sure that customers who are not at fault are reliably forewarned that their credit card payment has been declined.

Quotable quote

“The man with the best job in the country is the Vice President. All he has to do is get up every morning and say, “How’s the President?” – Will Rogers

LOL quote

"The least of my concerns, at the moment, is the politics of a year from now" - President Obama

+++++

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 11/10/2011

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 246
Further review of “Ads in Parks” testimony. The prognosis is worrisome
In DEFENDER No. 245, we detailed the “Revenue Enhancement Program” concocted by the Parks & Recreation Department to spread advertising and naming rights across the County’s parks, beaches, TV and web. The purpose would be to raise funds to pay for Waterpark losses. It’s a terrible idea, except perhaps for within the Waterpark.
We have further examined the testimony given by Parks staff before the Commission, and reflected on the marketing structure of this advertising enterprise. Shortcomingsthere may be more of a threat than the likelihood of a Preparation H billboard on Martin Grade.
Billboards is a good place to start. Parks staff said there would not be billboards, but the printed plan does provide for billboards. Either they do not know their own plan, or (to use Churchill’s derisive term) it was a deliberate “terminological inexactitude.”
As is often the case, the cover-up is worse than the offensive deed. When the Parks Director was confronted with the conflict between his billboard position and the plan, his later defense was“what represents a billboard is definitely different than what had been portrayed …. The term was being misinterpreted.”
Now to use a term that Churchill may or may not have used, that supposed misinterpretation is pure bullshit. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America knows what a billboard is. A fifth grader knows what a billboard is. The public and the Commission know - and need forthright statements that they can trust from the outset.
Understanding the plain meaning of words is also apparently a problem for the newly hired Marketing Coordinator. Ask anyone with the slightest interest in government operation what the word “transparency” means, and he will tell you that it means the public has a clear view of what is going on in government. However, the Marketing Coordinator defined it as the advertising vendors knowing what they get when they sign a contract. Public? What public?
PITFALLS OF POOR AD CONTRACTING
One general impression we had while observing the Q&A between Commissioners and Parks staff was that there was too much impromptu flying by the seat of one’s pants. Three-year contracts? Hey, five years may be better. Yeah, let’s go with five. Contract dollar size not requiring Commission approval? Maybe $10,000? How about, let’s say, $50,000? Sounds good. Etc. As amateurish as a lemonade stand. Just trust them, and they’ll do the right thing. Or not. Casual decisions about contracts apparently are fine and dandy with the Gang of 3 Commissioners.
Henry Copeland also watched the proceeding. He came up with some observations that are worth considering, since he is an attorney with specific expertise in contract law (and will not be sending a bill for his advice). Here are some of his comments:
The general rule should be that no contract between the County and a third-party should exceed three years in length (term). Of course there will be exceptions, but these should be managed carefully by the BOCC. Likewise, the form of contracting should NOT provide for automatic renewals, but rather, should call for the actual expiration of the agreement WITHOUT any form of final non-renewal payment (or implied liquidated damages for non-renewal) by the County.
If a contract was approved by the BOCC then its renewal should be subject to negotiation and approval carefully supervised by and subject to further approval by the BOCC. Performance (more particularly, non-performance) of the parties to a contract should be monitored (and non-performance documented), so that this would become a factor in any renewal discussions. It also could be a factor in evaluating job performance of those County staff charged with monitoring or performance under any given contract.
I believe that our track record of negotiating, drafting and monitoring performance of contracts (and, in many cases, in the manner with which the County seems to generate many formal documents) is below the consistently and reliably high quality level taxpayers have a right to expect.
Importantly, contract terms should not extend so long that market conditions underlying initial contract terms might change significantly, the circumstances of the contracting parties might change, or new alternative/competitive conditions and opportunities might reasonably be
expected to come into play.
More importantly, if you approve contracts much longer than 3 years you could be foreclosing the right of commissioners who did not vote for approval to have an opportunity to re-examine performance under the contract before they leave office. This could lead to a situation where
commissioners could continue to extend sweetheart deals to favored third parties when to do so might not be in the best interests of residents, taxpayers and potential contracting parties who might be more appropriate under the circumstances.
Ads in Sailfish Splash Waterpark should be OK if done with discretion. After all, in most ways it is already a commercial operation. But let’s keep the words/thoughts “hustle” and “tacky” far away from Martin parks and beaches. Those gems are not for sale.
Locals embracing Occupy Wall Street
In DEFENDER No. 243 we reported unfavorably on some local Democratic leaders embracing the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movements that have sprung up around the country. A few criticized us for not focusing on the loftier goals of OWS, whatever they may be. Others even denounced our reporting on a national event, even though it was tied to a local Democratic Party support rally.
In cut-off-nose-to-spite-face protest, a couple of zealous political partisans unsubscribed from the DEFENDER. They’re welcome to come back when they can accept hard truths.
We have a list, available free via email to readers upon request [Type “OWS list” in the subject line]. It shows 248 events in recent weeks. Each event is detailed by date and place at OWS locations. Included are shootings, assaults, filth, deaths, rapes, drugs, vandalism, thefts, child neglect and many arrests.
After reading this compilation of criminal mayhem, it may be clearer why we do not embrace the chaotic OWS social pathology. We have a long record of supporting sensible, focused protests against government and financial excess – but OWS is something altogether different.
The best way to learn about Martin County
Citizens Academy & Resource Education Series (CARES) deserves rave reviews. It is a free series of six one-day classes and field trips that take you to see emergency services, schools, parks and jail. When you complete this course, you will have much greater insight about what the County is and how it functions.
CARES was suspended in 2009 for budget reason, but it is being revived, starting with the first of a quarterly series in February. You can find more information on the County website at http://www.martin.fl.us/web_docs/adm/web/General/xx_cares.PDF , or call
772-220-7129. It’s also listed under Hot Topics on the County’s home page.
Florida business regulation insanity
We’ve maintained two themes about government–business relationships: (1) Don’t strangle business with needless restrictive regulations, and (2) don’t throw away tax money on business subsidies. Here are some thoughts on the regulation issue by columnist George Will:
“Florida’s Legislature considered a bill to end 20 licensing requirements for 20 professions, including interior design. The interior design cartel, eager to restrict entry into the profession, got a professor of interior design to ask legislators: ‘Do you know the color schemes that affect your salivation, your autonomic nervous system?’
“A Tampa interior designer warned: ‘What you’re basically doing is contributing to 88,000
deaths every year.’ ” Fatal color schemes? Who knew?”
Harmony DRI’s Hobe Sound traffic increase
A recent report by the Florida Department of Transportation notes that the Harmony DRI development in Hobe Sound would increase traffic by 4,339 new vehicle trips during the PM peak period.
Quotable quote
“A lawsuit is a scheme which you go into as a pig and come out as a sausage.” – Ambrose Bierce
+++++
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 11/17/2011

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 247

Thoughts about
Thanksgiving Day

Though we are passing through difficult times, the
faintest echo of the harsh conditions Pilgrims faced,
we should be thankful that America’s core values
of liberty and opportunity will light the way to a
better tomorrow for our children and ourselves.

Jupiter Island threatens to sue Martin County over inlet dredging and sand replenishment

Jupiter Island has been unhappy with the progress being made with dredging the St. Lucie Inlet, and failure to dump sand on its beaches. In a Nov. 16, 2011 letter from JI Mayor Harry Charleston to Martin Commission Chair Ed Ciampi, Charlston scoffed at the formation of the St. Lucie Inlet Advisory Committee, and threatened to sue the County if it did not find the money promptly to put sand on their beaches.

Here are excerpts from the Charlston letter:

County Administrator Taryn Kryzda informed Town Manager Gene Rauth the Martin County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") was creating the St. Lucie Inlet Advisory
Committee "whose objective is to review management and funding strategies for the St. Lucie Inlet and to make recommendations to the BOCC", and suggested the Town of Jupiter Island be represented on this Committee.

The Town is willing to be represented on the Committee as a gesture of cooperation. However, by doing so, the Town is not retreating from its position the Inlet is being mismanaged by the County, and the County already has immediately available funding options to complete the badly needed maintenance dredging of 600,000 cubic yards from the sand trap.

The Town is concerned the creation of the Committee will delay implementation of readily
available funding options such as amending the County's budget or borrowing money to fund the currently proposed maintenance dredging project. The Town views establishment of the Committee as a means of kicking the funding can down the road and delaying immediate implementation of available funding options.

The Town submits the County has a legal obligation to place a quantity of sand on the beaches south of Inlet most in need of that sand equal to the natural longshore sediment transport.

The Town seeks implementation by the County of a permanent funding mechanism by June I, 2012. Given the ongoing mismanagement of the Inlet, the Town rightly questions the County's commitment to protecting the Town's beaches from the erosional impacts of the Inlet.

While the Town prefers a cooperative approach to address Inlet maintenance and the health of downdrift beaches, the Town intends to consider and employ, if necessary, all legal avenues it has to force the County to properly maintain the Inlet and compensate the Town for the erosional impacts of the Inlet.

Though we sympathize with Jupiter Island (population 849) and its desire to have lost beach sand replenished, their assertions that place financial burdens on the County need to be closely examined.

- Though the County needs to do what it can to keep the inlet open, does the basic legal obligation belong exclusively to the County? What about the Federal Government? The State?

- The County is under no obligation to establish a new – and irresponsible – financial policy of borrowing to pay for maintenance. We should borrow only for capital projects.

- Threatening to sue the County might panic Commissioners to rush into ill-conceived action – if they are spineless. Time will tell. The issue might also get tied up in the courts for years.

- As a primary beneficiary of dredging/replenishment, shouldn’t Jupiter island pick up part of the cost?

Three Commissioners show what divisive dolts they are. Heard is bypassed for Chair.

The Nov. 22, 2011 Commission meeting conducted its annual re-organization, again electing Ed Ciampi as chair for the coming year. As it had done repeatedly for the past 10 years, the majority, now including Ed Ciampi, Doug Smith, and the nastier-than-ever Patrick Hayes, bypassed elevating Sarah Heard to Chair. Heard will continue to be Vice-Chair.

This mean-spirited pettiness should make any fair-minded citizen cringe – especially since Heard is the most popular vote getter on the Commission. If residents truly believe in the Martin theme of Character Counts, they will send Gang of 3 Ciampi, Smith and Hayes packing in the 2012 election

Q: When is a Purchase Order a blank check?
A: When the School Board issues the PO to favored service providers

At this moment, we hold in our hands a Nov. 2, 2011 invoice to the Martin County School Board from the law firm of Allen, Norton & Blue. The amount billed is $45,861.70 to pay for the services of attorney Michael K. Grogan and staff. This bill covers investigative services authorized in School District Purchase Order No. 12000548 for $25,000, approved by the Board on July 19, 2011 and issued on July 26, 2011.

The object of the legal work order was to investigate a complaint by the former Executive Director of Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Maryellen Quinn-Lunny against School Superintendent Nancy Kline. The complaint charged retaliatory actions. [See DEFENDER No. 241, which revealed that Kline’s actions were justified by insubordinate non-performance.]

Irony of ironies, out-of-control financial management that paid ESE contractors about 10% above their contracted fee was a contentious issue. In a sense, history repeats. The overpayment for legal work requested here for School Board Attorney Doug Griffin’s choice of attorney Grogan is a staggering 80%. Nothing in the PO hints at such overcharge. Maybe some reader can refresh our faulty memory, but wasn’t Griffin’s predecessor pushed out because of overpayments?

WONDERING OUT LOUD: Did Allen, Norton & Blue receive confidential assurances that charges in excess of the Purchase Order would be paid?

Then on Nov. 16 there was a PO change order tacking on an additional $21,000 after the fact. It reads:

***CHANGE ORDER OF:11/16/11 ***
PER EMAIL REQUEST FROM LEGAL
DEPARTMENT AND APPROVED BY
PURCHASING DIRECTOR

None of this saw the light of day before the Board or public. The Board must approve purchases over $10,000.

Not only is the legal invoice far above what was authorized in the original Purchase Order, the resulting investigative report was seriously flawed, tainted by the manipulative and spiteful animus against Kline by the Obstructive Trio of Board Members Sue Hershey, Laurie Gaylord and David Anderson, in coordination with Griffin. It was Griffin who recommended Grogan and estimated the legal cost at $25,000..

This three-year vendetta had its roots earlier, when Kline was a Board member. Kline was almost an outcast because she did not cozy up to school construction companies the way others did.

There was no real need to hire the law firm in the first place. Kline objected to it. We particularly salute cost-conscious Board member Michael Busha, who questioned the need to hire Grogan when the district has an equity officer on staff for the investigation of complaints.

One wonders why Allen, Norton & Blue’s Grogan, to be paid $245/hour, was chosen over another competent law firm, Fisher & Phillips, willing to do the work at $150/hour. Could it be that Griffin pushed the Board in favor of Grogan because he was more confident in what their investigative report outcome would be?

Based on past performance, the Board majority will approve the payment in excess of the Purchase Order. Surely the money would be better spent in the classroom.

Gaylord to run for Superintendent

Laurie Gaylord, co-leader of the harass-Kline faction on the School Board, has decided to run for the Superintendent job next year. Readers may recall that in DEFENDER No. 244, we exposed how Gaylord, along with Hershey and Anderson, turned down a $64,000 grant from the Pew Foundation, which would have been cost-free to the District.

The grant’s purpose was to train senior management, as it has done so successfully for other school districts. Reason for the rejection? The Obstructive Trio could not participate in the course since the program was for top staff, not Board. Small-mindedness at its microscopic smallest – and an insult to a foundation that doles out money to school districts that it believes deserve it.

TIME TO ROLL YOUR EYES: Board member Anderson’s dim-witted view that if managers benefit from training to enhance their skills, they shouldn’t hold their jobs. Gaylord’s vote on the Pew grant may indicate agreement.

Kline now wants to fill the open ESE slot with a Director, rather than an Executive Director to bring it into line with other departments – and to save money. Gaylord prefers to keep the ESE slot Executive Director, the same as she did back in the days when Joyce Holmes was elevated from Director to Executive Director. That uptick a few years before retirement resulted in the transfer of money from taxpayers to greater pension benefits for Holmes.

If the odor of crony political “appreciation” is of interest, we have a report, unverified for now, that the same Joyce Holmes was with Gaylord at the Supervisor of Elections Office when Gaylord filed as a candidate. Hmmmmm.

As published in DEFENDER No. 244 from the transcript of the Board meeting, Gaylord was reluctant to hear the positive side of the issue of accepting the Pew Foundation grant. So add close-minded to Gaylord’s official actions. All this is the tip of a poor leadership iceberg, - worth remembering on Election Day 2012.

Commission “Consent Agenda” rules need more fine tuning

Citizens who want to learn what the Commission is considering, and perhaps to address that body, can get a good idea from the published agenda. For example, here are just the headlines of two agenda items for the Nov. 22, 2011 meeting. A substantial amount of details are added in the text body so that people get to know what the topic is about.

APPROVE AN AGREEMENT AND RESOLUTION DEEDING THE BAHAMA SQUARE
PROPERTY TO INDIANTOWN NON-PROFIT HOUSING, INC. AND AUTHORIZE
FIRST-YEAR START-UP AND OPERATING COSTS NOT TO EXCEED $7,000

APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF THREE PARCELS OF LAND FOR RIGHT OF WAY
ALONG SE 47TH AVENUE IN PORT SALERNO AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING DEEDS

However, when it comes to Consent Agenda Section 4, residents are left in the dark unless they dig into a massive amount of backup material. There are many items that do not need extensive discussion, just housekeeping, so they go into Consent. Commission rules describe such items, exempted from public discussion unless pulled by a Commissioner. Rules explain Consent items as follows:

Consent Items are routine in nature, implement a prior approved Board plan, program or directive and/or require no separate discussion by the Board before a vote is taken. Items are typically non-controversial and cannot deviate from past Board direction or policy.

For example, this is all the description you get for Item 4B2:

GRANT APPLICATION, AWARD, AND/OR AMENDMENT ITEMS WHICH REQUIRE
BOARD APPROVAL
This is a placeholder on all Board meeting agendas in an effort to streamline the process for grant related items requiring Board approval.

A CASE IN POINT

There is not a clue what this is about. In fact, Item 4B2 is about the County receiving $400,000 from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to build a controversial Customs Office at Witham Airport. In the backup material, it talks about clearing airplane entries into the U.S. However, as Commissioner Heard pointed out, there is no word in the FDOT authorization on marine entry, which was a major focus when the Commission gave approval for this controversial project. It is unlikely that this facility will be financially self-sustaining, but surely not so if it does not include fees from marine traffic.

The County is asked to put up a matching $400,000. Airport Manager George Stokus assures everyone that FDOT is on board with marine traffic – despite the legal paperwork limiting coverage to air traffic. It was on such casual oral assurance that the Commission approved accepting the grant and the Airport Enterprise fund shelling out $400,000. The vote was 3-to-2, with Heard and Fielding dissenting. It is sloppy management to approve the project on a casual say-so when it is not in compliance with the legal document.

This jeopardy for the County would not have come to light if the project had remained a Consent Agenda item.

Streamlining the Commission’s process is desirable, but we need tighter control over what can slide in under the Consent label. Right now there are 15 categories that qualify for inclusion in Consent (Development Applications have been removed so they will be examined more closely – a positive change).

[NOTE: If you would like to receive a free email copy of the 24-page Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) Rules of Procedure, send a request to us with “BoCC Rules” typed in the Subject Line. It covers everything from Chair’s Responsibility and Preparation of Agenda to Rules of Debate and Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings.]

Quotable quote

“The art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizen to give to the other.” – Voltaire

+++++

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 11/24/2011

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 248

What is School Board Attorney’s role in arguing for overpayments to outside counsel?

As recent as Nov. 17, 2011, Florida’s Auditor General David W. Martin sent a severely critical letter to the School District because “The District needed to enhance its procedures over contracted services expenditures” and a finding of “Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency.” This related to payments to Exceptional Student Education (ESE) employees over what was allowed in their contracts.

It was Superintendent Nancy Kline’s attempt to bring such noncompliance under control that resulted in a complaint by the ESE Executive Director. Instead of having the complaint handled routinely by the District’s Equity Officer, Board Members Sue Hershey, Laurie Gaylord and David Anderson, in coordination with School Board Attorney Doug Griffin, ordered an investigation by an outside attorney. [See DEFENDER Nos. 241 and 247.]

The outside attorney pushed by Griffin, Michael Grogan of Allen, Norton & Blue, was chosen. His pay: $245/hr. A competing attorney offered to do the investigation for $150/hr. Griffin estimated the investigation cost at $25,000, and a Purchase Order was issued on July 26, 2011 for $25,000.

That the investigative report turned out to be tainted by bias and serious omissions in our opinion was only part of the problem. The final bill from Allen, Norton & Blue was over $20,000 more than what the Purchas Order for $25,000 authorized. Not only that, but $9,156 of the $45,861 charge was based on work before the Purchase Order was issued!

One would expect that after the strong criticism by the Florida Auditor General about over-payments, that School Board Attorney Griffin would question the bill from his preferred counsel . Instead, Griffin fought with the Finance Department to pay it all because he obligated the District.

EMAIL EXCHANGES REVEAL PAYMENT DISPUTE

Here is the internal email exchange between Bryan Thabit, Executive Director of Finance, and Attorney Griffin, on Nov. 22, 2011 – after the critical letter from the Florida Auditor General. Note that only one of them stooped to snide comments and erroneous advice.

Thabit to Griffin
The Florida Auditor General recently cited the School District in the 2011 Federal Awards Audit Finding No.2 where the Executive Director of the ESE Department authorized expenses in excess of agreements, purchase orders and the Board’s intent. See attached audit finding *(See NOTE 1 below).

The Finance Department has no authority to make this payment because the contract was not executed in accordance with SB Rule 6540 and prohibits payment in accordance with SB Rule 6470.

You are correct that you legally obligated the District to this expenditure, but payment will require express approval by the School Board.

Griffin to Thabit
Again, I would presume that you would know that there is a difference between releasing a purchase order when there is already a Board approved contract, and issuing a purchase order in the absence of a Board approved contract. You are rendering inaccurate legal opinions and putting the District in jeopardy of an indefensible lawsuit by continuing to refuse to pay. Please put the political posturing aside, and pay the bill as the District is legally obligated.

Thabit to Griffin
School Board Policy 6540 and 6470 prohibit Finance from paying this invoice. Additionally, the invoice amount is $20,155.06 over the purchase order amount.

Griffin to Thabit
Thank you for your legal opinion regarding payment of the Allen, Norton and Blue invoice for services. Unfortunately, I disagree. The firm submitted a proposal which was accepted by the Board at a special meeting on July 19, 2011. As a matter of law, that proposal and acceptance forms a contract ** (See NOTE 2 below) under which the firm is to be paid, even though there is no place for execution by the Board Chair. In my opinion, Allen, Norton and Blue has no obligation to sign an after-the-fact contract as a pre-condition to payment. Please advise if you are going to continue to refuse to pay the firm for its services, so I can advise it accordingly.

For you information, the invoice was checked against the proposal *** (See NOTE 3 below) which formed the basis for the contract and revised accordingly. I am returning the original invoice for payment.

Thabit to Griffin
Attached is the Memorandum for the return of the Allen, Norton & Blue Invoice. The original invoice and memorandum will be returned shortly.

* NOTE 1: Auditor General to School District: “Recommendation: The District should enhance its procedures to properly document receipt of independent contractor services and reconcile such documentation to related contract charges and other provisions before payments for such services are made.”
The above critical auditor’s recommendation, among others, underscores our contention that the complaint against the Superintendent was unjustified – and that there had been no need for the investigation pushed by three Board members and the Board attorney.

** NOTE 2: Griffin’s view that “proposal and acceptance forms a contract” makes it a VERBAL contract – which is contrary to Board policy #6540 on “Professional Consultant Services,” based on Florida Statutes 1001.41 and 1001.43. Thus Griffin offered erroneous legal advice. This policy specifically states: “The contract must be signed by the consultant and Board authorized representative.” This was never done

*** NOTE 3: Whoever checked the invoice against the proposal did an incompetent job. For example, the proposal response “accepted” the School Board condition that “The School Board will not reimburse proposers for any costs associated with the preparation and submittal of any proposal.” Nevertheless, Griffin approved the invoice including a $19.06 charge for sending the proposal on July 12, 2011 – before there was School Board approval or a Purchase Order. How many other charges need to be questioned?

NOTE 4: Board policy prohibits proposers bidding to provide services from contacting Board officials during the selection process. Allen, Norton & Blue may have made such calls.

DEFENDER INQUIRY TO SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY

Our two-month research into the ESE overpayments, the conduct of the investigation, and the overpayment to outside counsel have raised some serious questions. We uncovered some unverified but troubling allegations. In an effort to obtain answers, we posed the following four questions to School Board Attorney Doug Griffin a week ago:

1 – Did you ever work with Michael Grogan or for Allen, Norton & Blue prior to 2011?
2 – Have you derived any income from Allen, Norton & Blue or its designees while employed by the Martin County School District?
3 – Did you authorize Allen, Norton & Blue to start work on the Quinn-Lunny complaint before the Purchase Order for $25,000 was issued on July 26, 2011?
4 – Did you interview or apply with the Palm Beach County School Board for an attorney job?

We patiently await a reply.

Commissioner Heard to receive “1000 Friends of Florida Community Steward Award”

1000 Friends of Florida is widely considered the most highly regarded state organization devoted to its stated mission: “Saving Special Places - Fighting Sprawl - Building Better Communities.” [See www.1000fof.org ]

Each year, the organization grants state-wide Better Community Awards in four categories to those whose efforts have most successfully furthered its mission. For 2011, the prestigious “Community Steward Award” is being given to Commissioner Sarah Heard.

The presentation will be made by 1000 Friends of Florida President Charles Pattison at the Martin County Board of County Commissioners meeting on Dec. 13, 2011.

Your editor is proud to have been the one who nominated Sarah Heard for this well deserved honor.

Martin County population distribution & growth

It’s noteworthy that the promoters of developments in Hobe Sound, and elsewhere in the County, are planning to build homes for tens of thousands of residents. However, population analysts see a very small and gradual increase in total population. For example, it is projected that from now until 2015, the total permanent population growth will be about 5,000, or only 3.5% over the four-year period.

That could mean that if the Commission unwisely approves the massive new construction, it would draw from other Martin locations. With less demand for homes in established neighborhoods, the value of existing homes would be adversely affected. Even the cockeyed optimists no longer say “Build it and they will come.”

There is a wealth of population information in the nine-page Report “2010 Population Technical Bulletin” prepared by the Growth Management Department. Here is an excerpt:

By breaking down County areas, such charts also reveal where our northern visitors go during the winter season (difference between above peak and permanent population charts).

For a free email copy of the complete Population Report, send your request to the DEFENDER. Type “Population Report” in the subject line.

Borrowing for inlet maintenance is bad fiscal practice. It’s really a future hidden tax!

Martin County is preparing to violate an important principle of conservative fiscal management: Borrow for long term capital improvements. Do NOT borrow to pay for current maintenance costs.

The County has issued Request For Proposal (RFP) No. 2012-2446 for a credit line of up to $10 million from some lending institution. This loan to expand inlet dredging beyond currently allocated funding would be paid back over five years.

Proposals are due by Dec. 22, 2011. The Commission will workshop it (and maybe approve it) at their meeting scheduled for Jan. 10, 2012.

The loan interest and principal must be paid back by 2017. Thus for dredging done in 2012, the County may still be paying it back in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 – paid from the (increasing?) property taxes that go into the general fund.

The County could have obtained the money by imposing a half-cent sales surtax - but it didn’t because there were good indications, including a DEFENDER survey, that voters would defeat such a referendum measure.

This line-of-credit gambit is a slick work-around to bypass residents having anything to say about it. If approved, it will work like a hidden tax because it will be buried in a 536-page budget under the broad catchall of “Debt Service” expenditure. Mixed in with other millions of capital debt will be the dredging loan, conveniently out of sight and unchallenged. While every taxpayer gets hit, the primary beneficiaries of dredging – boaters, marine industry and waterfront owners – pay nothing extra.

FUNDING UPDATE FOR INLET DREDGING

The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that the dredging project to remove 300,000 cubic yards of sand would cost $7 million. Martin County has already sent the Corps $7.3 million. The Corps is holding $8.3 million.BUT THAT’S NOT ENOUGH FOR MOST COMMISSIONERS.

Not only are most of them pushing the loan noted above (a terrible precedent for future spending on maintenance), but the Commission, by 4-to-1 vote at its Dec. 6, 2011 meeting, , empowered the County Administrator to draw even more from emergency funds if the dredge bids go over the $1.3 million cushion now in the hands of the Corps. (Corps can accept bids that are up to 125% of estimate.) That would require about $600,000 more from Martin. As dissenting Commissioner Heard said: “That is reckless because it will encourage bidders to bid higher.”

DREDGING TIMELINE

Bids are due Dec. 22. The Corps should award the dredging contract in January. Figure around 30 days for the successful bidder to mobilize. So for 80 days from Feb. 2012 to April 2012, the dredging project would be completed – in time before the April turtle nesting season begins..

Commission splits the Bridgewater baby

Bridgewater Ventures proposed a real money maker for itself at the Dec. 6, 2011 Commission meeting. As one part of the proposal, they wanted their approved 36-lot, 215-acre ag land development in South County to be moved into the Secondary Urban Services area. This would allow them to get utility sewer and potable water. There would still be wells for irrigation. This part of the proposal was postponed until the Dec. 13 Commission meeting by 3-to-2 vote, Heard and Fielding dissenting.

The big money bonanza of the proposal was to increase density 122% to 80 lots on the land surrounded on three sides by preserve. The lure was to sell out Comp Plan protections by promising at least $15,000 per lot – someday when lot owner build. It was a sprawl effort without any show of need, public need that is. This was rejected 4-to-1, Smith dissenting.

SURPRISE ANNOUNCEMENT AT COMMISSION MEETING
Commissioner Doug Smith, frequent spokesman for developer interests (see above dissent), said that he tentatively opposed Hobe Grove and Harmony DRIs. That may kill the DRIs.

Quotable quote

“Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.”
– Henry Kissinger
+++++

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 12/8/2011

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 249

DRI DOA? OK! RIP.

The massive Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) proposed for Hobe Sound look like they’re Dead On Arrival (DOA). That’s OK with a great many Martin residents who recognize the threat Hobe Grove and Harmony Ranch pose to the County, and want to let them Rest In Peace. This relates to a growing awareness among usually pro-developer Commissioners that voters do not want such huge, harmful sprawl. But the final vote is not yet in.

Back in Sept. 2011, we stuck our neck out and wrote in DEFENDER No. 237: “WE PREDICT: Commission will not approve the DRIs – (but we need to keep the pressure on).” Despite a pro-DRI majority attitude among Commissioners, our published rationale ran as follows:

Right now the change in resident outlook is only a dimly seen vertical cloud on the horizon. But it’s growing rapidly. When the voter tornado arrives, it will blow out of present and future office those politicians that care so little for the County that they supported the Hobe Sound DRIs. And all the promises of generous campaign contributions will not blow them back into office.

This rejection will happen because as more voters learn about the ruinous prospect of Hobe Sound DRIs – enriching the few at the expense of the many under the illusory guise of progress - the less willing they will be to tolerate Commissioners in the pockets of special interests.

COMMISSION TURNABOUT

Now, three months later, the views of the five Commissioners seem more in sync with that of the public. Of course, there are folks, like the president of the Martin County Chamber of Commerce, who have never seen a Comp Plan changing development that they didn’t love. They don’t like DRI rejection. But politicians do want to get re-elected, and all three pro-developer Commissioner are up for election in 2012.

Commissioners Heard and Fielding have never looked favorably on the Hobe DRIs. Commissioner Hayes has said he does not support urbanizing agricultural land as the DRIs do. Commissioner Ciampi has been non-committal, saying only that the DRI applicant deserves a fair hearing.

Commissioner Smith, who usually supports development, said he would not support these two Hobe DRIs – a stunning surprise. However (there’s always a however), Smith also said that he might reconsider if a college or employment center was going there.

WHAT WILL DRI DEVELOPERS DO?

It’s a bleak prospect that the DRI developers face, and there is no certainty how they will respond. We can only offer our best guess. Giving up the DRI project, and developing the property in accordance with existing Comp Plan requirements is most unlikely. They have too much already invested, and the potential profits so great if they can turn things around, that they will probably develop a new strategy.

Among the possible scenarios are:
- Substantial reduction in number of homes and commercial capacity (the numbers can get jacked up again at some future date).
- Large donations of (less buildable) land to the County.
- Large cash donations to the county sometime in the future, based on contingencies not yet fully detailed.
- A stepped up public relations effort to convince the public that sprawl more homes are a good thing.
- Aggressive campaign financial support for accommodating candidates.
- Get some big name college and company to confirm their possible interest in locating here one day, but no specifics on when and what they expect to receive - and especially no firm legal commitments from them.

Any or all of the above, plus inducements we have not considered, may be offered. But Martin residents are smart enough not to swallow the bait that may lead to higher taxes, crowded roads and schools, and depreciated home values elsewhere in the County..

Jupiter Island Commissioner Scott to run for District 3 County Commission seat

Jupiter island Commissioner Anne Scott, a former Chicago judge, has announced that she will be a candidate for the District 3 Commission seat In the August 2012 Republican Primary Election. The seat is currently held by Patrick Hayes, who has not yet announced his political plans.

Scott is the first Jupiter Island resident to run for the County Commission. She has been coming to Martin County since her childhood, and bought an island home with her husband in 1985.Scott is also on the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.

We believe that Scott would make an excellent Commissioner. Her view on controlled growth and preserving Comp Plan protections align with those of Heard and Fielding. Scott’s legal experience would serve the County well in correcting bad decisions made in past years, and in strengthening efforts to improve quality of life in the years ahead..

We strongly support Ann Scott’s candidacy. We urge residents to unify behind her, and to support her campaign.

DISTRICT 3 POLITICAL POSITIONING / SIDEBAR

Commissioner Hayes was reported as saying: "I haven't voted to move urban services ever.” That may be so – technically. As we frequently see in Congress, elected reps and senators will say they never voted for such-and-such a bill. However, they vote for or against a procedural matter that, in effect, is a vote for the bill..

Just a day before Hayes made that “ever” statement, he voted with the pro-developer majority to delay for a week a vote on the South County Bridgewater development. His vote saved the application to move the Secondary Urban Services Boundary (SUSB). That move would allow utility services, enhancing the property’s value. So much for that “ever” claim of the ever irascible and foul-tempered Patrick Hayes.

Election time – at the Fire Union

It’s election time for the Executive Board at IAFF Local 2959. Here is an excerpt of a campaign letter to members from union VP Todd Tucker. We can count on their efforts to thwart the necessary changes proposed by the Martin County Taxpayers Association.

“Make no mistake; the dangers facing our union and your job security are real. The recent letter from the Martin County Taxpayers Assoc. spells out exactly how serious this will become in the coming months. They will come after our Kelly day* and if successful there will be layoffs. J.D. and I have over 35 years of combined experience and bring the knowledge, energy, network, and commitment to fight for a stable future for you”

* “Kelly Day” is an arbitrary added vacation day named after Chicago Mayor Edward Kelly, who established it for firefighters in 1936 to curry political support. County-IAFF labor contract provides a Kelly Day every seven shifts.

Thanks to a timid labor negotiation approach by the administration, and a subservient Commission majority, Tucker is telling the truth. They know how to fight for a “stable future” – code words for retaining the benefits no other employees have, and keeping 33 added hires while other departments had personnel reductions.

Florida’s Financial Future report

An informative 15-page report on Florida’s Financial Future, prepared by Dr. James Zingale of Capitol Hill Group for the Florida Association of Counties, is chock full of statistics and charts that tell where we’ve been, and suggests where we might be going. To receive a free email copy, send your request to the DEFENDER. Type “Financial Report” in the subject line.

Foreclosures – less than in past years, but still up over earlier in 2011

Source: Martin County Growth Management

When the County wants to “clarify” wetland protection rules …. WATCH OUT!

Hour after hour during its Dec. 13, 2011 meeting, the Commission hacked away at changes to clarify Land Development Regulations (LDR) concerning wetlands. The clarifications included substantial LDR additions and deletions. Public speakers representing large land owner interests spoke in favor of the staff-developed changes, claiming that they were the best stewards of the land – but noting that strict protections made their land less valuable. Pro-environment speakers opposed the changes.

Here is an example of one of the many issues discussed. The changed text provided protection for “delineated wetlands”; that is, as specified by the South Florida Water Management. That leaves undelineated wetlands on about 50,000 acres not covered. Commissioners Heard and Fielding simply wanted to change the phrase “delineated wetlands” to “wetlands, whether delineated or not.” Commissioners Hayes, Ciampi and Smith voted against it.

Smith even had the nerve to make the unsupportable and contemptible charge that the questions and discussion about the rule changes were made “to create doubt and confusion.” In the end, the supposedly clarifying changes were approved 3-to-2, Heard and Fielding dissenting.

One more paradoxical idiocy: Growth Management Staff asserted that “if land is not delineated as wetland, it is not a wetland.” However (again, there’s always a however), if a property owner has an undelineated wetland and does something prohibited to it, the County will issue a notice of violation.

Will U.S. ever reimburse dredging funds?

In response to our report in DEFENDER No. 248 that the County has sent the Army Corps of Engineers $7.3 million toward the dredging of the St. Lucie Inlet, we received the following inquiry: “Will we ever get that money back?”

The definite answer is NO. The pertinent portion of the Nov, 16, 2011 dredging contract between the County and the Department of the Army states: “Unless directed by law, the Government shall not reimburse the Contributor [Martin County] for Contributed Funds expended by the Government.”

Quotable quote
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand." – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize economist
Wishing everyone a healthy and fulfilling
Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year

+++++

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 12/15/2011

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens - No. 250

State Senator pushes bill to ease DRI approvals by weakening local control

[Thanks to District 1 Commission candidate Henry Copeland for bringing this outrageously bad bill to our attention. - Ed.]

When Gov. Rick Scott and his lackeys in the legislature got rid of the Department of Community Affairs as a guide for sane development, at least they recognized that local Comp Plans would continue to provide some measure of of rational control over developments.

But that’s not good enough for a leading developer mouthpiece in the Florida Senate like Mike Bennett. He is a past president of Manasota Specialties Contractors, and the American Subcontractors Association, and the Electrical Council of Florida.

Bennett was the author of Senate Bill 360, which changed how local governments in some parts of the state could charge impact fees, plus eliminating rules about Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). The law was declared unconstitutional in August 2010,because it was an "unfunded mandate.” The Florida Constitution generally prohibits lawmakers from forcing municipalities to spend more than 10 cents per Floridian.

SB 1180

Senate Bill 1189 was filed this month. This 13-page bill, if passed, would significantly limit review of DRIs and encourage local Commission majorities to enact Comp Plan amendments that could pre-empt or curtail the existing DRI review process.

For those who are interested in digging into the bill itself, here is how the bill is described within its own text:

An act relating to developments of regional impact; …. requiring that reviewing agencies make only 7 recommendations and comments regarding a proposed 8 development which are consistent with statutes, rules, or adopted local ordinances that are applicable to all developments in the jurisdiction where the proposed development is located; providing legislative intent regarding the issues that may be considered during the development-of-regional-impact review process; revising provisions relating to regional reports prepared and submitted by a regional planning agency; requiring that a regional planning agency make recommendations in its regional report which are consistent with the standards of state permitting agencies and the water management district or the adopted local government land development regulations if such standards are not applicable; providing that changes to a development order which do not increase the number of external peak hour trips and do not reduce open space and conserved areas within a project are not substantial deviations; providing an exemption from development-of-regional-impact review for any proposed development that a local government elects not to apply the review process of a comprehensive plan.

The regional planning agency shall establish by rule a procedure by which a developer may enter into binding written agreements with the regional planning agency to eliminate questions from the application for development approval when those questions are found to be unnecessary for development-of-regional-impact review.

With Martin County threatened with massive DRIs in Hobe Sound, we urge residents to contact their representatives. Let them know how strongly you oppose SB 1189.

Senator Joe Negron (R-28th District)
Negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov
Palm City office: 772-219-1665

Representative Gayle Harrell (R-81st District)
gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov
Port St. Lucie office: 772-398-2786

Representative Steve Perman (D-78th District)
steve.perman@myfloridahouse.gov
Fort Pierce office: 772-595-1391

School Board agenda confirms DEFENDER exposé of over-payments

In previous issues, we revealed how the costly investigation of a department head’s complaint was really the product of a vendetta against the Superintendent Nancy Kline by Board members Sue Hershey, Laurie Gaylord and David Anderson. We also reported how the cost of the investigation, manipulated by Board Attorney Doug Griffin, was billed at more than $20,000 over the Purchase Order authorized by the Board.

At the Dec. 20, 2011 School Board meeting, the following information – reproduced verbatim – was included in the agenda:

AGENDA ITEM: To request express approval by the School Board to pay Allen, Norton and
Blue, PA $45,081.56 for an investigation report related to the Maryellen Quinn-Lunny complaint.

BACKGROUND INFO: On July 19, 2011, the School Board awarded the RFP, and authorized $25,000 Allen, Norton and Blue, PA for legal services related to an investigation report related to the Maryellen Quinn-Lunny complaint as recommended by the School Board Attorney. The SchooI Board Attorney authorized the work to proceed but did so without an agreement in accordance with SchooI Board Rule 6540. School Board Rule 6540 specifically requires: "A contract shall be executed prior to the rendering of services. All contracts for professional consulting services require the approval of the Board and execution by the Board Chair.”

Since the School Board Attorney did not contract these professional services in accordance with School Board Rule 6540 to include the required elements of a contract and the actual amount of the invoice exceeds the Board approved limit by $20,081.56, creating an after-the-fact purchase order, express approval from the SchooI Board is required in order for the Finance Department to make this payment.”

The agenda goes on to note that there is no funding provided for this in the approved budget. Additional funding is required. Since this entire fiasco was promulgated by the Board majority, the Superintendent neither approved or disapproved of the agenda item request.

The Obstructive Trio of Board members Sue Hershey, Laurie Gaylord and David Anderson (who recently rejected a $64,000 fully-paid grant from the Pew Foundation) did not hesitate to approve payment of the $20,081 over the $25,000 Purchase Order amount. Board members Michael Busha and Maura Barry-Sorenson opposed, with Busha making clear what poor management policy this excess payment represented.

School Board Attorney Doug Griffin voiced the ridiculous view that they had to pay the excess because the contract did not include a “do not exceed” clause. So a Purchase Order amount is just a suggestion? Would he hold the same view if the bill had gone $200,000 over the prescribed amount? We need financially responsible people running that Board.

To date we have had no response to the inquiry we sent to Attorney Griffin concerning his relationship with Allen, Norton and Blue, or its investigator-attorney Mike Grogan.

Can a code inspector enter your property?

There have been disputes about Code Enforcement and other inspectors entering on private property to uncover violations and cite owners. Is such entry legal?

According to Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion AGO 2002-27, the answer is NO, unless he has a warrant. Here is the verbatim inquiry and opinion:

Is a local government code inspector authorized by law to enter onto private premises to conduct inspections or assure compliance with local technical codes without the consent of the owner or occupant, or having first procured a warrant?

In sum:

A local government code inspector is not authorized to enter onto any private, commercial or residential property to assure compliance with or to enforce the various technical codes or to conduct any administrative inspections or searches without the consent of the owner or the operator or occupant of such premises, or without a duly issued search or administrative inspection warrant.

Jupiter Island consultant report: Inlet Management Plan is ineffective

After spending millions of dollars on beach renourishment, and still seeing huge amounts of sand continuing to be lost, Jupiter Island Town Manager Gene Rauth wrote a letter of deep concern to Martin County Administrator Taryn Kryzda. His letter includes the following:

At my request, the Town reengaged Dr. Robert Dean of the University of Florida Civil and Coastal
Engineering Department to conduct an independent analysis of whether maintenance dredging activities, sand placement, sand quality, and sand quantities for the Inlet since 1995 have been consistent with the Inlet Management Plan. Dr. Dean concluded the sand bypass goals of the Inlet Management Plan are not being met due to the lack of effectiveness of the two nearshore placements of sand, the location of the beach placements, sand quality, and the irretrievable loss of sand which occurs when the Inlet's sediment basin is full. Based upon Dr. Dean's findings, the sand deficit, 1995 to present is 1,343,000 cubic yards. Of deep concern is his finding that for each year with deposition basin filled 128,800 cubic yards of sand are irretrievably lost.

Rauth included with his letter a 32-page report by Dr. Dean titled “Post-1995 Sand Placements on Jupiter Island: Consistency With the St. Lucie Inlet Management Plan,” dated Dec. 8, 2011. It is the most detailed and comprehensive report we have seen on this subject. Anyone seriously interested in the Inlet situation would be well served by reading it.

[NOTE: For a free email copy of the Dean report, send your request to the DEFENDER. Type “Sand Report” in the subject line.]

Speaking up gets results

Apparently Finz restaurant in Port Salerno hired a band, which played by the boardwalk. Acting as if it owned the boardwalk, Finz prevented citizens from walking on the public boardwalk unless they paid a $5 cover charge. Nervy. Greedy.

Well one outspoken resident, Larry M., thought that was going beyond what was legal. He complained to County authorities. Martin County Real Property Manager Jeff Dougherty got right on the case and told the restaurant’s owner and manager: “This is in conflict with the Memorandum of Agreement with the County as well as the Public Boardwalk Easement. Please cease with this activity immediately.”

That’s the end of that nonsense … and an example to all to speak up when your rights are being infringed.

Quotable quote

“In America, anyone can become president. That’s one of the risks you take.” –Adlai Stevenson

Wishing everyone a healthy and fulfilling
Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year

+++++

Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/22/2011

www.MartinCountyDefender.com