The official Internet home of The Vince Young Show! Weeknights -- 8pm to 9pm -- AM-1300 WMEL in Cocoa, FL CALL IN!!! (321)631-1300 |
 |
|
Archive - November 2008
Okay, let's say you're a revenue collector for a city that charges its residents for their water usage every month. And it comes to your attention that your automated bill-collection software has automatically sent out a demand-for-payment, at the cost of 42 cents in postage, to a blind woman who mistakenly underpaid an earlier water bill by -- get this -- a penny. One penny. One red cent. And just as it does with all the other demands-for-payment letters it sends out, the automated bill-collection software threatened this woman with late fees and possibly even a lien on her house if she didn't pay this one-cent balance by a specific date. Do you... A.) Apologize for the oversight, waive the penny, and set up your bill-collection software so that it doesn't bother sending out letters for balances lower than the cost of a postage stamp, or... B.) Refuse to budge and tell the local newspaper that this lady owes the city a penny, and she's going to pay the city that penny or face the consequences. The City Collector of South Attleboro, Massachusetts, chose Option B. She chose... poorly. Yes, a debt is a debt and a bill is a bill. But there are so many better ways they could have handled this, ways that wouldn't have turned this city's government into an international laughing-stock. (The story was linked up on the Drudge Report yesterday.) It was a one-time situation involving a blind lady, fer cryin' out loud, and was probably just a mistake on her part. If you can't make a one-time exception and waive that penny in this case, when can you? And if you insist on sticking with the principle of the matter, fine. Tack that penny onto the next month's bill and let her pay it then. But threatening her with late fees and a lien on her house over such a tiny balance is just utterly ridiculous. It's the sort of act that only makes sense if you're an arrogant government agent who believes that your job is to rule and reign over the taxpayers rather than serving them. Reading this story almost immediately brought to my mind a more local example of extreme government arrogance, the multi-year fight between the town of Melbourne Beach and Thijs Stelling, the owner of the Melbourne Beach Chevron. You remember the story... several years ago, Stelling wanted to buy the land next door to expand his locally-owned-and-operated gas station and service station to have a bigger convenience store and more service bays. He lined up the financing to get it done, but the town government told him "No" for ridiculously short-sighted reasons, basically just because they had the power to do so, but citing concerns that the expanded locally-owned gas station would damage the small-town charm of the business district. They then changed their minds back and forth several times, dragging out the process to ridiculous lengths and causing Stelling to lose his financing offer due to the lenghty delays. By the time the town government finally stopped jerking Stelling around and gave their final approval to the expansion, Stelling had already given up and had entered into an agreement to sell his land to Walgreens instead so they could put up a big white corporate box of a drugstore in the middle of downtown Melbourne Beach. And suddenly the town was embroiled in a legal fight over the character of its central business district as they scrambled to keep Walgreens out. That saga finally sputtered to an end earlier this month. Stelling, frustrated with the fight to keep him from selling his own land to Walgreens, finally decided to go back to Plan A. He lined up new financing, made sure the town would still allow him to expand his gas station as he originally wanted to do, and told Walgreens the land was off the market. It's a happy ending for pretty much all involved: Stelling gets to expand his gas station, and the business district keeps its small-town charm. Except that the town could've had this exact same ending years ago, minus the hefty legal fees and harsh feelings, if they'd just allowed Stelling to do what he wanted to do with his own land and property to begin with. Instead, they fell into the arrogant trap of seeing Stelling as a subject to rule over, rather than seeing him as a citizen to serve. These two cases are excellent examples of governments that are penny-wise but pound-foolish. We the people are in charge. We the people elect these officials to serve us, not to look down upon us and serfs and subjects to be controlled and ruled. And when governments forget this fact, we the people often find surprising ways of fighting back against their arrogance and idiocy. In South Attleboro, the blind citizen Eileen Wilbur fought back by taking the case public and embarrassing the city. They'll get their penny, but at a far more costly price. In Melbourne Beach, the town government denied Stelling's property rights on the grounds that expanding his locally-owned business would somehow destroy the local flavor of the downtown area, and his frustrated response almost brought about the very scenario they claimed they were trying to avoid. We the people are in charge. And woe be upon anyone in government who forgets that simple fact.
(Yes, I'm back. Watch for hot updating action later today.)
I feel really, really dumb about this, but I just didn't leave myself with enough time to do full write-ups on the entire ballot for the general election. I really need to allocate more time to keeping this blog going for the future. But for now, I at least want to get my election choices out into the public record. It's better than nothing, I suppose. As I said back in August, if you've taken the time to educate yourself on the candidates and issues, make sure you get out there and vote! But if you haven't taken the time to educate yourself, stay the hell away from voting booths. 'Kay, thanks. You can click here for sample ballots that you can print off and take with you. All you have to do is select your precinct number. If you're not sure what your precinct number is, it should be on your voter ID card, or you can click here to find your precinct number. And if you're not sure where to go to vote, click here for a list of voting locations. All polls will be open from 7:00am to 7:00pm. If there's a line at your precinct towards the end of the day, just make sure you get in line before 7:00pm and you'll still be allowed to vote. Oh, and of course, later tonight you can click these next two links to get results from the Brevard County election office or from the state's election office. The first link will only give you totals in Brevard County, and a lot of the districts being voted on today spill over outside of Brevard, so that's why you'll need the state link to get the complete picture. PRESIDENT
US HOUSE DISTRICT 15
STATE SENATE DISTRICT 24
STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 31
SHERIFF
PROPERTY APPRAISER
TAX COLLECTOR
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 3
PALM BAY CITY COUNCIL SEAT 2
PALM BAY CITY COUNCIL SEAT 3
STATE AMENDMENTS
NO on #2
NO on #3
NO on #4
NO on #6
YES on #8
BREVARD COUNTY REFERENDUM
SUPREME COURT: RETENTION VOTE
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS: RETENTION VOTE
YES for C. Alan Lawson
YES for Richard B. Orfinger
YES for William David Palmer
YES for Thomas D. Sawaya
SEBASTIAN INLET DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BREVARD SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT - GROUP 3
The race for Property Appraiser... geez, I hate this one. Normally as I've been doing my candidate write-ups, I've been able to start off writing about which candidate I support and why I support them. But in this case, my vote really isn't for a candidate, but rather against one, the shady Republican incumbent Jim Ford to be precise. His challenger Larry Hughes is not a particularly strong candidate and wasn't even the strongest Democrat in the race... that would be Charlie Sitton, who Hughes defeated in the primary. But Ford has taken the Property Appraiser's office in the wrong direction and needs to be ousted. And the only way that will happen is to get Larry Hughes elected and hope and pray that he manages not to screw things up. Bill Mick invited both Larry Hughes and Jim Ford to be interviewed for 50 Minutes With segments for the website. Hughes came in. Ford claimed traffic problems as the reason for missing his segment and declined to reschedule, but he did make it in sometime later for a live on-air debate with Hughes on Bill Mick Live. Check them out if you get the chance.
Ford would tell you to ignore that smoke because of Friday's news that the corruption charges against Ford's former right-hand man Lance Larsen have been thrown out by the presiding judge, Circuit Judge Charles Holcomb, last Friday. But if you read through the court dispatches from Florida Today reporter Jeff Schweers from 10/23, 10/27, 10/28 and 10/29, you'll see that the charges were thrown out simply because the judge made a series of technical rulings that large swaths of the prosecution's evidence couldn't be shown to the jury, despite the fact that the evidence consisted of computerized data available in the public record. I'm no lawyer, but that ruling really doesn't make much sense to me. Without that evidence, the prosecution couldn't move forward with their case against Larsen, and Larsen's attorney made a motion to have the case tossed out. It's the equivalent of winning a football game because the referee made the wrong call on the final play and gave you a touchdown that you really didn't score. It's also important to remember that "innocent until proven guilty" is the standard in a court of law. But you do NOT have to apply that standard when deciding who to vote for; you get to set your own standard for that. The judge ruled that the jurors weren't allowed to consider the computer evidence, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to either. Also important to note is that the judge didn't say that any of this evidence was untrue or incorrect -- he simply made a technical ruling that the jury wasn't allowed to see it. So do not take the judge's ruling to mean that Larsen or Ford have been exonerated of all wrong-doing, because that's not what the ruling was about at all. So what exactly has Jim Ford been up to? This Florida Today article from September 10th gives a pretty good summary of what led to charges being filed against Ford's man Larsen in the first place. Florida Today also has a copy of the investigative report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on Jim Ford, as well as the reports on Lance Larsen for the charges of official misconduct and grand theft. Basically, the FDLE reviewed records from Ford's office and found multiple cases where highly-questionable appraisal breaks were given to various landowners in Brevard who just happened to be campaign donors or political bigshots who Ford would have every reason to curry favor with, lowering their tax bills considerably and costing the county $61,000 in tax revenue. Many of these breaks were signed-off on by Ford himself, who even admits in his campaign literature that these breaks shouldn't have been given out but calls them innocent mistakes. Even if you take Ford's explanation at face value, it means that the county lost out on $61,000 in property tax revenue because Ford's office was incompetent. And when you look at the people who got those breaks (including the parents of State Representative Thad Altman, a fellow Republican), I simply don't buy that there was nothing nefarious taking place. The FDLE also found evidence that the appraisers who Ford overruled to grant the tax breaks feared for their jobs if they spoke out, something that Charlie Sitton could probably tell you more about. And on September 22nd, Florida Today ran a follow-up story about two employees in Ford's office who told the FDLE they were pressured by supervisors to sign false affidavits to try to discredit a whistle-blower named Dana Blickley who had been cooperating with the FDLE's investigation. There may not be quite enough evidence to meet the technical requirements of a criminal court of law or to have anyone thrown in jail, but that's not what this election is about. This election is about whether or not Jim Ford should be allowed to remain in office as the Property Appraiser. The accusations against Ford are serious and are backed-up quite well, and his response has mainly consisted of personal attacks and attempts to undermine the credibility of those who speak up against him, rather than presenting any facts or evidence to back up his own innocence or disprove the facts as uncovered by the FDLE. That's why I want him out. And the only way to get Jim Ford out is to vote Larry Hughes in.
But back to Hughes refusing to take a breathalyzer... in Florida, refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test results in an automatic suspension of your driver's license. You agree to that rule when you sign for a license. So Hughes's license was automatically suspended. Fast-forward to August. When Tropical Storm Fay was bearing down on Brevard, Hughes got popped for driving on that suspended license. Hughes explained that he was only driving because he needed to buy storm supplies. (Ever heard of a taxi, Larry?) He initially planned to plead guilty to that charge, but now the court hearing on the suspended license charge has been delayed until after Election Day. And in his 50 Minutes With interview with Bill Mick, Hughes said that with the DUI charge gone and the blood test showing no alcohol in his system, he and his lawyer are now challenging the validity of the license suspension itself, which in turn would negate the charge of driving with a suspended license. And that sounds like a reasonable argument to me. Now for the issues... Larry Hughes is unsurprisingly running on a platform of cleaning up the Property Appraiser's office and running it with more transparency and accountability. He has been unwavering in his criticism of Jim Ford and has made that criticism the center of his campaign. During the Democratic primary race, I was very critical of Hughes for his apparent lack of knowledge about the duties of the office and for his bizarre proposal to increase the assessments on marijuana grow-houses. I wasn't the only one to express such concerns, and it appears that Hughes took those criticisms to heart even after winning the primary. The Larry Hughes I've heard more recently sounds far more knowledgable than the Larry Hughes I heard back in the primary race, so he's clearly been doing his homework on the Property Appraiser's office. He now seems far more familiar with the duties of the job. That's not to say I'm comfortable with putting Hughes in this job; I'm not. I still have concerns about his judgement,
and just because he's giving better interviews now doesn't mean he's ready to take on the complicated task of setting
appraisal values for every home in Brevard County. But he's the only alternative to Jim Ford in this race. He's the guy I
have to work with, and Hughes has at least convinced me that he won't be a disaster in this office. I have a feeling I'll
be voting against Hughes four years from now to replace him with a better-qualified person, but in this race against Jim
Ford, Larry Hughes gets my vote.
With Rod Northcutt retiring from his post as Tax Collector after running the office since 1992, the Tax Collector's race is particularly important this year. The choice is between a long-time office insider who knows the job well but played a pivotal role in the unionization of the employees, and a private-sector business administrator with plenty of management skills but no experience working in a government office. It's an interesting race, and if you still have time you should check out the 50 Minutes With segments Bill Mick recorded with each candidate, along with the joint debate. But here's what I think.
Dils promised to try to run the office more like a business and to look for areas to save money on the budget. Back in the primaries she mis-spoke and told Bill Mick she would look at closing down one or two branch offices to save money, a statement I picked up on and criticized here on my website. She later reached out to me in a series of e-mails to clarify her position, and she also corrected this in her 50 Minutes With segment with Bill Mick, and I'm satisfied that she did indeed mis-speak. What she intends to do is to find ways to share office space with other county agencies, which would probably include relocating several offices but could save the county money, so I can get behind that. She also stressed that the Tax Collector's website needs more improvement and pledged to make it happen. The total lack of any experience working in a government office does concern me about Laura Dils, but she's not exactly a dumb lady. I think she's capable of learning as she goes, and she seems to have a good relationship with Rod Northcutt and should be able to go to him for advice as she settles in at the job. I feel quite comfortable with voting for Laura Dils.
But the union issue is very troubling for me. A state agency called the Public Employees Relations Commission has issued a report on the events in 2006 that led to the unionization of the Tax Collector's employees in response to Rod Northcutt's allegation that Lisa Cullen actively participated in organizing the union. Cullen was a manager at the time, and state law forbids government employees in management positions from participating in the organization of a union because it creates a conflict of interest. Such managers are tasked with keeping employee expenses low, but unions are usually formed to increase employee wages and benefits, so organizing a union would put a manager at odds with their job duties. While the commission eventually overturned Northcutt's overall complaint, the findings-of-fact in the report did show that Cullen was very actively involved in the initial formation of the union, and only backed off later once people began to question the propriety of her involvement. The report is only 19 pages long and there's isn't much written on each page, so read through it if you get the chance. On the question of whether Cullen broke the law, I'm not really all that concerned to be honest. It sounds to me like it was a technical violation that Cullen wasn't initially aware of, and I could easily see someone not being aware of this law. What concerns me more is that Cullen was involved in forming the union at all. I don't like unions. Period. I think there was a time in this country when unions were needed to preserve the health and safety of laborers, but today's unions have gone far beyond that role and often serve to put a stranglehold on capitalism. In this case, there were no health or safety concerns at play in the Tax Collector's office. This union was formed to resolve perceived pay inequities within the office -- a pay dispute. And the way to handle a pay dispute is to try to talk to your manager and renegotiate your pay. If management refuses, it means one of two things. One is that you should leave the job and find another one where management understands your worth and pays you accordingly, because if you truly do deserve that raise then you should have no trouble finding a better job for yourself out there. The other is that you need to get over yourself because you don't really deserve the pay you're asking for, and you'll find that out in a hurry when you quit and can't find a new job that will pay you what you think you're worth either. Regardless, it's something that should be handled one-on-one with the employee and the manager. Running off and forming a union is a bad move, because sooner or later that union is going to start going overboard and start demanding exorbitant pay and benefits -- at the expense of you and me, since this is a government office paid for with our tax dollars. Their only concern will be lining their own wallets, and they won't give a damn about you and me or how well the office is run. Lisa Cullen says she wants to save us all money by running the Tax Collector's office more efficiently. That's why I'm
mystified that she would open the door to a unionized office and jeopardize the efficiency of the office. It makes me
question her judgement, and it's cost her my support in this race.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just when you think government can't get any more
arrogant...
Bad blogger! No cookie for you.
| © 2000-2010 E. Vincent Young. All rights reserved. So there. |