Tuesday, April 27, 2010

THERE'S PLENTY OF TRANSPARENCY HERE

Just in case you've been on a trip to the moon for the last two years, you need to be aware of some incredible news. County Councilman Dennis Fish is a thorn in the side of Supervisor Dan Davis. You see, Mr. Davis wants to have a free hand to play fast and loose with BC taxpayers' money and Mr. Fish doesn't think this is a good idea. Mr. Fish asks Mr. Davis silly questions such as, "What are you going to spend all this money on?" or "Do we really need to spend this money at this time?" or "Why are you spending more when you could be spending less?" Mr. Fish constantly digs into Mr. Davis' projects and expenditures to be sure we, the taxpayers, are getting our money's worth. When Mr. Fish sees a waste of money, he points it out. The fact that Mr. Fish is perpetually looking over Mr. Davis' shoulder when it comes to matters of county finance, has become extremely problematic for the Supervisor.

Now, Mr. Fish has come up with a really unreasonable idea. It concerns the first Local Option Sales Tax. Back when the taxpayers of BC approved by referendum this one cent tax, it was with the understanding and pledge of County Council that the entire 100% of the proceeds would be applied to property tax relief. In the '08/'09 budget, due to excessive spending by Supervisor Davis in other areas, there were no funds left for the new I-26 interchange. Had BC not come up with this money, ( $500,000 a year for 20 years) BC would have lost over $100 million in matching funds. Council was forced to use 29% of this LOST funds( the maximum allowed to be used by the County for purposes other than property tax relief) to prevent the loss of the matching funds. This was the first time in the lifetime of this LOST that any portion had been used for anything except property tax relief. However, stealing the 29% in the '08/'09 budget felt so good to Supervisor Davis that he decided to take it again in the '09/'10 budget.

Now that the '10/'11 budget is being prepared, Mr. Davis instinctively included taking the 29%, again. Now, we get back to Mr. Fish's unreasonable idea. Mr. Fish wants to honor the solemn pledge of County Council and return the 29% of the property tax relief to the taxpayers. At even the suggestion of such a thing Mr. Davis went postal. Mr. Davis listed all the things on which he had planned to spend the money. Mr. Davis made it clear that, no matter what, he planned to take the 29% of the property relief from the taxpayers in this year's budget.

Mr. Fish's following and support on this issue began to grow. Most taxpayers realized there was no longer an emergency situation that demanded the taking of their money and they wanted their property tax relief back. This eventuality would put a huge crimp and revenue shortfall in Mr. Davis' budget proposal.

It has long been common knowledge that Mr. Fish takes a dim view of the capabilities and intellect of Mr. Schurlknight. ( We're trying to be tactful here ) Also, Mr. Fish, being a staunch Conservative, resents the fact that Mr. Schurlknight supported and voted for a Democrat for Vice-Chairman of County Council and casts his votes with the Democrats on nearly every important issue. Usually these issues involve wasting taxpayer's money. Historically, Mr. Fish and Mr. Schurlknight exchange unpleasant words over these issues. (This is where the plot was hatched.)

At a February Council meeting, true to form, Mr. Fish and Mr. Schurlknight had heated words over the issue of the Accommodations Tax Board. Mr. Fish wanted some new people on the Board who would actually have oversight meetings and he wanted to know where all the money is being spent. Mr. Schurlknight wanted to keep the same Board members and have no audit or accountability for the money. Being as there are hundreds of thousands of dollar involved, Mr. Fish pressed the issue. (This is where the plot developed.) Mr. Schurlknight insists Mr. Fish threatened him during this exchange. Mr. Fish insists he did not. GE&P has listened to an electronically enhanced copy of the original sound disk of this exchange and there was no discernible threat. When one listens to the non electronically enhanced version, all one can hear is a mix of garbled voices all talking at once. With the enhanced version, the words spoken are nonsensical. There is no way an honest person could state otherwise.

When the minutes of this February meeting were transcribed by the office of the Clerk of Council, there was no mention in the document of any threat made by Mr. Fish. Several members of County Council and numerous members of the administration who have seen the document uphold this fact. Up until Monday night's Council meeting, there was no factual evidence that Mr. Davis was involved in this attempt to discredit Mr. Fish. But, as is his habit, Mr. Davis overplayed his hand. Mr. Davis announced that, in his opinion, the transcription of the minutes in question was not accurate and he intended to hire the services of another entity, such as a court stenographer, to perform the transcription process again. This act places Supervisor Davis smack dab in the middle of this smear campaign to discredit Mr. Fish.

Just for fun, let's follow the little bouncing ball. Mr. Fish became a problem for Mr. Davis. Mr. Fish was making it very uncomfortable for Mr. Davis' efforts to run the County like a one man show. Mr. Davis actively displayed resentment at Mr. Fish's attempts at oversight. In order for Mr. Davis to achieve his goals, Mr. Fish's efforts needed to be curtailed. What better way to accomplish this goal than to totally discredit Mr. Fish? What better way to discredit Mr. Fish than to accuse him of some egregious act such as threatening another Councilman? If Mr. Fish is discredited and rendered ineffective, who would benefit the most? And, most importantly, who is the one calling for another examination of the records after they have already been professionally transcribed, disproving all wrong doing on Mr. Fish's part?

Now, this is what we would call true transparency. Thank you, Mr. Davis for finally showing us the whole picture.





5 comments:

Anonymous said...

It was obvious to me and others, that from day one we new that Dan Davis needed to be removed from his job as CEO of BC or, at a minimum, be voted out at the end of his four years. It didn't take Jack Schurlknight but a few months to be manipulated and "won over" and "controlled" by Dan Davis, that he too needs to be voted out as our Councilman for District 6. Voters, if you are not bold enough to vote them out in the June 8, 2010 primary, then YOU will be responsible for the continuation of our County's slide in all of the major measurements/elements for success, ie, employment, financial stability, taxes, economic development, etc.

Anonymous said...

Davis must go. Remember, he only wanted the job to change the our form of government. Now that he has boosted he pay 20% he wants to keep the gravy train rolling. Mr. Schurlknight is our of touch with the people that voted him in. Time for both to Exit stage left. Problem is June 8th is fast approaching and I don't see much campaigning taking place.

Anonymous said...

One thing I have to ask. Starting 110,000 - Current 131,767.14 how do you fit in (These chosen few experienced huge pay increases. Mr. Davis - $17,797.64) - Have you considered emailing the Post & Courier Watchdog you information??? Your information needs wider distribution. I really have never seen the likes of what Big Dan seems to get away with. The latest is returning the furlough pay to employees. He has good timing.

Nosy Woman from Cross said...

No one connected to GE&P works for BC.

Anonymous said...

The great furlough debacle -

Davis reimbursement of furlough days give some county employees three free days of paid vacation.
I just found out that the Sheriff's Deputies were exempt from furloughs as the overtime cost would have nullified any financial gains. Wonder about EMS personnel.

At first blush it appears from the Berkeley Independent article that ALL employees took furloughs and All were getting reimbursed. Not so, those that took furlough days
will be rewarded by not only getting their pay returned but has gotten three days of paid vacation. Dan's a genius.