THE WOLF IS AT THE DOOR

Over the years GE&P has learned a few TRUTHS OF THE AGES:

1. A Conservative can never convince a Liberal to be fiscally responsible.

2. If a man will lie, he will steal.

3. You cannot do anything to cure stupid.

4. You can never, never trust a dishonest person.

5. Murphy's Law is alive and well.

In one way or the other, each of these TRUTHS apply to this post.

GE&P attended the County Council meeting last Monday night. The result was a bit anticlimactic as we knew the outcome before it happened. Even so, these results warrant a few comments. We will begin with the Transparency issue.

A few weeks ago, the Transparency Subcommittee held a meeting. The Davis administration had made it clear for months that they did not want the transparency issue addressed. It is not to the advantage of Mr. Davis to have the entire County watching the Council meetings and having knowledge of the process of their "new and improved" government. This could be very problematic to many of Mr. Davis' endeavors. The majority of BC citizens do not take the time out of their busy lives to attend the Council meetings but they WOULD turn on the TV and watch if they had the chance.

Getting back to the Transparency meeting, the press received a complaint that the meeting was not noticed properly. The complainant, who can be traced directly to the BC administration, created quite a stir and attempted to put the blame for the oversight upon the shoulders of the subcommittee chairman. In fact, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Jack Schrulknight, was present at this meeting and knew ahead of time that the meeting had not been noticed to the public. He did not complain at the time nor did he attempt to stop the meeting. Also, the County's legal council was present at the meeting and made no issue about the lack of notice.

At Monday's Council meeting, Mr. Schurlknight refused to allow the subcommittee chairman to make her report, siting the lack of notice of her meeting. It is notable that the original subcommittee meeting was held over three weeks prior to Monday's meeting. If Mr. Schurlknight intended to disallow the recommendations of the subcommittee, why didn't he inform the Chairman? Easy answer; Mr. Schurlknight was following instructions to kick the can on down the road. If he didn't get the report, the administration wouldn't have to take any action on the issue. That means the public will be denied access to Council meetings on the public airways for at least another month. You can bet this issue will not be addressed until AFTER the battle for the 2011/2012 budget.

History: At the January reorganization of Council meeting, the Supervisor, shall we say "orchestrated" a new system. By forming a coalition with the Democrats on Council, he managed to achieve a support majority. How did he do this? He used a tactic at which Mr. Davis excels; he convinced these Liberals that they were being cheated out of their "fair share of the pie". The "race card" was utilized with the desired effect.

He bought Pinckney's vote with a $2.4 Million water line that serves less than 10 people. No red flags here. After all, as Mr. Pinckney is fond of saying, there has to be "equity" when it comes to County services. Never once has he mentioned or even recognized a little thing known as "economic feasibility". He bought Steve Davis' vote with the promise of a $3.5 Million courthouse for St. Stephen. Predictable. Mr. Steve Davis has said to GE&P and others, on more than one occasion, if Goose Creek and Moncks Corner have nice courthouses, so should St. Stephen.

After securing the Democrat vote, he proceeded to address the "stupid" vote. He won Mr. Schurlknight's vote by making him feel relevant and important with an appointment to Finance Committee Chairman. That's a tight fit. As to Mr. Call's conversion, Mr. Davis found a cheap date here, for obvious reasons. With these 4 securely in his pocket, Mr. Davis proceeded to change Council rules. He removed the 4 Conservatives from the Committees that control spending and he was free to do as he pleased. Had this meeting been televised and even 10% of the population viewing, GE&P contends there would have been an uprising in protest.

Now we will proceed to the issue of the purchase of the fairgrounds property.

At the 2/14/11 Committee meetings, the subject of this purchase was discussed. The supervisor wanted to purchase this 16 acres at a cost to BC of $1.6 Million. The proposed Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus would be located on this site. Being as the new Campus only requires about 7 acres, Mr. Davis stated he would "sell the remainder of the land at some later date". Being as the fairgrounds property has been sitting there for decades without an offer to purchase, we can assume resale will be eminent.

Mr. Fish pointed out that the appraisal used in this transaction was that of the sellers and that the County had accepted the asking price without any negotiation. Mr. Fish pointed out that another tract was available at a much cheaper price. This Conservative Councilman pointed out that the state of the economy would not support such excessive spending at this time. Mr. Davis assured Mr. Fish that he "would check into these concerns" before the next Council meeting. Even with these concerns being voiced, the Committee voted to go ahead with the purchase. (Remember, this Committee is stacked with Dan Davis' supporters and the 4 Conservatives have no voice.)

Fast forward to Monday night. The issue of the fairgrounds property purchase came up, again. Mr. Callanan and Mr. Fish brought up the same issues that were brought up at the Committee meetings two weeks prior. Over strong opposition from the Conservative Councilmen, the sellers appraisal was deemed acceptable and the administration found no problem with agreeing to the sellers asking price with no negotiation. Even though, at the previous meeting, the Supervisor promised to check into the alternative, less expensive site, no mention of this investigation was voiced.

Mr. Davis did support his preference for the fairgrounds site because "the majority of the clients needing these services resided in Moncks Corner and, therefore, this site would be more convenient". He said he needed a site that was "on the public bus line". There are problems with these statements. First, if you base the question on population, the town of Moncks Corner is not centrally located in the County. Second, the public bus line runs right past the alternate site.

Let us review the facts:

The SELLERS appraisal was used.

The ASKING PRICE was ACCEPTED WITHOUT NEGOTIATION.

A LESS EXPENSIVE PROPERTY was DISCOUNTED.

SUPPORTING ISSUES for the location were ERRONEOUS.

If GE&P was not totally convinced ( which we most certainly are) that our Supervisor is a man of proven, incontrovertible integrity with an impeccably reputation for honesty and truthfulness, quite candidly, we might suspect this deal of being shady. Under other circumstances, we might suspect that, somehow, money could be transferred under the table and that someone, other than the taxpayers, will be benefitting from this transaction. Thank the Lord we're not dealing with this other scenario.

Mr. Fish and Mr. Callanan argued to no avail that the taxpayers of BC should be given back the 29% of their property tax relief from the LOST. They contended, considering the state of the economy, these funds could be better utilized by the taxpayer than committed to unnecessary spending. Judging from the round of applause when these statements were made, the audience at the meeting soundly agreed.

This is where the anticlimactic part comes in. When the final vote was taken, it was predictably 4/4, with Dan Davis providing the tie-breaker. The motion was passed and the taxpayers of BC found themselves, ultimately, in $23 Million worth of debt for the new Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus. But, there is a redeeming side to all of this. When this facility is completed, the clientele of these state and federal agencies will have a bright, new, and shiny location at which to go and collect your tax dollars.

A man by the name of Alesis de Tocqueville wrote an interesting book back in the late 1700s. In it he commented that this pristine new form of government would endure UNTIL "one citizen learned that he, by his vote, could transfer money from another's pocket to his own." Prophetic, wasn't he?