GUEST POST

The tax payers in Berkeley County District 7 and District 8 and some of the tax payers in Districts 3, 5 and 6 should take note.

The budget was approved on June 29 but as surely as the sun came up this morning one of the next items on the BC agenda will be the revision of the Storm Water Management Ordinance establishing a fee on the backs of the taxpayers in the unincorporated areas of this county. These taxpayers can thank the Council Representatives from Districts 7 and 8, and while you are thanking them include the Council Representatives from Districts 3 and 6.

Last September the supervisor placed a $36.00 Storm Water fee on the tax bills without Council’s knowledge and certainly without their approval, and the tax bills had been printed for mailing. This fee would have brought in $1.4 million dollars to fund the Department and the permit requirements, he said. When council was made aware of this addition to the tax bills, the supervisor “was prepared” he said, to lower the amount to $12.00 per taxpayer in the unincorporated areas. The fee was denied and at that time Council Representatives from Districts 7 and 8 voted against the fee.

The supervisor continues to say the Storm Water Department is unfunded and this year’s budget doubles the amount of the 2011-2012 budget. Does that mean he shall double the amount of the fee he proposed last year. He has the time to accomplish the fee scheme; ordinances require three months (three readings) for adoption. The tax bills are typically mailed in October. Just wait Berkeley County, the fee is coming.

Perhaps the real question may be, how many times can one be surprised and/or shocked at the actions taken by persons elected by the voters/tax payers in this county to represent us???

WE WERE WRONG

After attending the reorganization of Council meeting in 2011, we thought we had witnessed the most egregiously corrupt and dishonest activity possible for this administration.  WE WERE WRONG.

We attended the Special County Council meeting this morning and the activities we witnessed are almost beyond belief. If we weren't already aware of the depth of the corruption in our County government, we would think this episode was simply a nightmare.  Unfortunately, it was all too true.

This saga began at last Monday night's Council meeting.  Purely by mistake, Steve Davis, one of DD's coalition, lost his mind, did the right thing, and voted in the taxpayers' favor by rejecting the 2012/2013 budget.  Being as this mis-step left the ball in DD's court, we fully expected ramifications for this Councilman.  Maybe he was reminded that his new courthouse was not yet built or that his other perks for supporting DD's agenda were yet unrealized.  Whatever the provocation,  Mr. Davis became aware  he had pooped and stepped backwards in it so he decided he wanted to change his vote.

The administration saw the benefit in this change of heart but they realized the mechanics of rectifying this situation would be problematic.  Standing squarely in the path of fixing this unforeseen miscue were those pesky little things called RULES.  Easy solution: LIE.

First, there is a Rule that states: "The motion to reconsider allows county council to debate whether or not to overturn a decision made at the meeting that is in progress or at the immediately preceding meeting; provided, however, that third reading to an Ordinance may be reconsidered only at the same meeting in which the third reading was adopted.  Most intelligent people translate this phrase in the spirit in which it is meant and realize it should be interpreted as meaning "if FINAL ACTION was taken on an Ordinance".  But, BC's esteemed legal council latched onto the word "adopted" and ruled that, because the Ordinance was, in fact, not passed, this Rule didn't apply.  This argument, undeniably, was a stretch. Coincidentally, one of the authors of these Rules vehemently disagrees with the legal council's opinion as to the context of this Rule.

BUT, the next Rule leaves absolutely no wiggle room.  "If and when any one member of County Council objects to any item which is brought up for discussion and which has not been placed on or specifically identified on the official agenda, then that item will not be discussed at that meeting."  DD and the rest of his band of merry men knew very well that they intended to introduce a "Motion to Reconsider" when they scheduled this meeting but the Agenda did not reflect that intention.  The only item on today's agenda was "2012-2013 Budget".  There was no mention of the "Continuing Resolution" or the "Motion to Reconsider".  These people knew they were going to perpetrate this fraud before they started the meeting.  They assumed the vague, generalized agenda item would provide them cover for any and all activity.  That has not turned out to be the case.

There is a distinct possibility that this corrupt government has pushed the envelope to the breaking point this time.  Even people with very limited knowledge of the workings of government can understand what has happened.  Even these political novices are outraged. Our phones have been ringing off the hook.  We are amazed and heartened at just how rapidly the word is spreading.  It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

BUDGET ISSUES ARE SO SIMPLE

If all we know about this year's failed Berkeley County budget was explained in today's Post and Courier article, wouldn't our life be simple?  Unfortunately, that is not a fact.  We continue to marvel at the ability of our local news media to repeatedly miss the point.  In today's article, the reporter seemed to think the inability of Berkeley County government to meet its obligation to Trident Tech was the only reason this budget failed. Well, with all due respect, there were many other unresolved issues that contributed to this debacle.

• One Councilman took offense at the fact that this administration wanted to more than double the funding for the Storm Water Management Program without any legitimate justification. One Councilman was thinking far enough ahead to know, if the increase in the SWMP was allowed to stand, in short order, a FEE would surely be imposed on the taxpayers of the unincorporated areas.
• Another Councilman didn't like the idea that over a MILLION DOLLARS was in one department's budget as a "place holder". Another $200,000 was in another department's budget "in case we need it".
• A number of Councilmen took offense that over TWO MILLION DOLLARS of appropriations was scattered throughout the departments, quoting no justification at all. 
• Some Councilmen disagreed with the fact that, in this budget, the Fund Balance exceeded its optimal 15% by over 9 % because the Supervisor "has plans for that money".
• Being as there were so many MILLIONS of dollars just floating around this budget, several Councilmen wanted the 29% of the confiscated property tax relief returned to the taxpayers.

Long and short of it, the FY 2012/2013 proposed budget for Berkeley County government was a disgrace.  MILLIONS of TAXPAYER DOLLARS were hidden in every crack and cranny throughout the document. Justifications for expenditures were laughable.  

This administration attempted to pull a fast one with this proposed budget. First, they provided Council members with a disk version instead of a hard copy.  When one tried to access the information on this disk, the documents appeared sideways on the screen.  Since the version provided no means of rotating the documents, one would have had to recline in order to read them. But, no one anticipated the fact that one nosey taxpayer would foot the bill to obtain a printed copy for analysis. 

Then, the administration orchestrated a dog and pony show in lieu of real "budget work shops".  This theatrical event presented only information that was favorable to the administration and denied information to Council members that would have generated the opportunity to ask specific questions about questionable issues. The "questionable issues" were conveniently avoided.  Then came the "readings".  During the discussion periods, damning information began to be exposed. It was painful to watch and listen as each morsel of "truth" was slowly extracted from reluctant members of the administration.

Finally, at Third Reading, an accurate picture of this administration's intent came into focus and the majority of the  members of County Council were not favorably impressed.  "NO", we do not want to continue to inflate the Fund Balance.  "NO", we do not want to increase the budget for the SWMP with no justification.  "NO", we do not want to demand that our constituents pay a new FEE in a few months. "NO", we do not agree with padding the budgets of all the County departments.  "NO", we refuse to violate our commitment to Trident Tech. "NO", we refuse to buy this pig in a poke.

We would like to thank the brave members of County Council who exercised their legal duty to the taxpayers of Berkeley County and voted "NO" to this monstrosity.  

NOTE:  Our special raspberry awards go to Mr. Call, Mr. Schurlknight, and Mr. Pinckney for voting FOR this document. 

WHAT WILL BE THE COST?

We started to just put an "update" on the previous post but decided the issue was too HUGE for that.  But, fear not, this post will be short and sweet.  Although the main issue is quite serious, the facts are painfully simple.  Ken Gunn handily won the election yesterday.  He unseated incumbent County Councilman, Bob Call.  In effect, this development completely dismantles Supervisor Davis' system of "One Man Rule" in Berkeley County. Come January, there will be 5 Conservative votes on Council which will put an end to Mr. Davis' coalition.  The days of shady deals, useless purchases, and wasteful spending will come to an end.  This will, definitely, be a good thing for the taxpayers of Berkeley County.

BUT, (as usual) it will NOT be a good thing for the people who have fought so hard to protect and maintain Mr. Davis' corrupt administration. Now that the taxpayers have recognized and corrected an integral part of the problem, these enablers will eventually be culled out and fall by the wayside of Berkeley County history.  We would strongly suggest that the offenders NOT be allowed to jump the fence AGAIN in an attempt to maintain their power and positions.

The saddest part of this drama is that the Mayor of Goose Creek has willingly sacrificed his integrity and reputation to this lost cause.  Unlike the other players in this debacle who had very little in these areas to lose in the first place, the Mayor had a lot to lose and did.  But, as most politicians are want to do, this morning the Mayor is probably assuring himself that this "little controversy" will blow over shortly.  People will forget. He most assuredly thinks, if he just keeps his head down, lets a little time pass, and then makes the first move toward "making nice" with the new controlling element in January, all will be well for him.

(Another) "BUT", that is one more thing that is NOT going to happen.  We will see to that. We would like to assure the Mayor that we fully intend to educate ourselves on ALL dealings between Goose Creek and the County.  We WILL know all the "whys" and "wherefores".  We WILL watch for ANY inconsistencies. And, we WILL make public any questionable dealing from here on in. Mr. Mayor, we want you to take comfort in the fact that you have achieved a prominent position on our SOB (sweet old bob) list and we are sure you're savvy enough to recognize what the eventual outcome of this will be.

If we could be allowed to give one morsel of advice (and warning) to the Mayor of Goose Creek, it would be simple:  TAKE A LESSON FROM YESTERDAY'S ELECTION AND REALIZE  THE VOTERS REALLY DO HAVE THE LAST WORD.

DOES GOOSE CREEK HAVE TWO MAYORS?

Could it be possible that the City of Goose Creek really does have two mayors?  We all know about Mayor Heitzler,  who is supposedly a man of his word;  who is supposed to be a straight shooter;  who has the reputation of looking people in the eye and telling them only the truth.  This mayor was and is well known and, up until now, thought of only in the highest regard.  But, for many citizens in the area, the atmosphere surrounding this mayor has changed and soured over the last few days.   Some of these people question, "Is he, indeed, a man of his word?"  They wonder, "Is he really a straight shooter?"  And, most of all, they ponder, "Will this man look some of us straight in the face and tell us the most egregious lies?"

GE&P has a theory, of course.  We think that Mayor Heitzler could possible have an "Evil Twin" that he doesn't even know about.  This "Evil Twin" has managed to keep himself secreted away until just lately and this "Evil Twin" has gone on a rampage of very reprehensible activities aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the real mayor.

First, the "Evil Twin" attended the Berkeley County Republican Breakfast Club meeting on June 2, 2012, masquerading as Mayor Heitzler.  (Where the real mayor was during this time is unknown.)  The "Evil Twin" proceeded to give a very impressive speech outlining the successes achieved by the City of Goose Creek over the last year.  After this speech, the "Evil Twin" mingled with the crowd.  The "Evil Twin" engaged in conversations with many of the candidates and elected officials who were in attendance.

After the meeting, the "Evil Twin" tarried outside the meeting hall, continuing to participate in conversations about local races and local elected officials.  This was when the "Evil Twin" engaged in some activities that might eventually cause the real mayor some difficulty.  The "Evil Twin" even cozied up to the challenger in the County Council District 3 race.  The "Evil Twin" explained to all in the group that, since Goose Creek operates on a non-partisin system,  he could not actively support the challenger in this race but, he promised not to do anything to harm the challenger either.  Did that "Evil Twin" really make all those derogatory remarks about the incumbent in that race?  Did he really refer to Dan Davis as a "little dictator"?  You'll have to ask the seven people in that group, including yours truly, who were listening to the "Evil Twin".

Then, just last week, the "Evil Twin" struck, again, on another issue.  The RINO Hunters Club put up only ONE "issue" sign in Goose Creek.  That sign criticized Councilman Call's voting record because he supported the closing of the BC Satellite office .  The group had put up small RINO signs beside every Bob Call sign in the city. Within hours, their ONE large sign had been removed.   The Code Enforcement Officer explained that it was against Goose Creek Sign Ordinance to erect any political signs within any Right Of Way within the City of Goose Creek. Be aware, there was a Call political sign of the same dimensions within feet of the sign in question.  After the argument about the positioning of the sign fizzled because of the presence of the Call sign, the next explanation from the Code Enforcement Officer from Goose Creek was that the anti-Call sign did not qualify as a "political sign".  He explained, in order for a sign to be considered a "political sign", it had to say "Elect Whomever to Whatever Office".   (such as "Call for County Council", maybe?)  According to this officer, if someone put up a sign that said, "Bob Call Voted Himself a Raise, Twice", he would not consider that sign a "political" sign and would order that it should be removed. (Are we getting the picture?)

Originally, the Code Enforcement Officer said HE HAD TAKEN THE SIGN DOWN HIMSELF.  By the end of this exchange, he said he didn't know what had happened to the sign and that, "if anyone was interested, they should contact the Goose Creek Police".  When an attempt was made to point out the discrepancy in his statements, he hung up the phone.  As all would agree, it was time to contact the head man for some justice.  Rats, this call was intercepted by none other than the "Evil Twin".

Before the situation could be properly outlined, the "Evil Twin" interrupted by saying that it was illegal to place any signs within any Right of Way within the City of Goose Creek.  When it was pointed out that many of Bob Call's signs were located within the Rights of Way all over town, the "Evil Twin" said, "Well, maybe Mr. Call has permission to have his signs there."  The "Evil Twin" was asked, "How could Mr. Call go about receiving permission to violate the law?"  Then the "Evil Twin" said, "He could get permission from the owner of the land adjacent to the Right of Way."  (Are you as confused as we are?)  He went on to insist that, even in the County, anyone wanting to erect a political sign along the road has to get SIGNED permission from the owner of the land adjacent to the Right of Way in question.  (By the way, the Code Enforcement Officials from Berkeley County strongly disagree with his statement and insist there is no such requirement.)

When asked why ONE differing sign was targeted by Goose Creek when Bob Call has signs all over town that violate the Ordinance, the "Evil Twin" said the City only removes signs when complaints are received.  When an attempt was made to issue formal complaints about all the violating Call signs, the "Evil Twin" became obviously irritated.  He said, if there is any proof that Mr. Call did not have permission from the adjacent land owners to erect his signs, he would consider removing them.  (So the "Evil Twin" thinks it's OK for someone to break the law as long as they have permission from whomever?)The "Evil Twin" displayed absolutely no professionalism and stated he did not have any more time to devote to this issue and hung up the phone.

The handling of this sign issue was very confusing at first, but, as with most things, time answers all questions.  Our answer came on Friday when we learned that a letter was being circulated, supposedly signed by Mayor Heitzler.  This letter was an open endorsement of none other than Bob Call.  But, don't be fooled.  It is possible that this letter was really forged by the "Evil Twin" with the diabolical  intent to convince the public (falsely, of course) that the real mayor is a two faced, back stabbing, double dealing, bald faced liar.

Now before anyone gets the wrong idea about our point, we firmly believe that anyone should be free to endorse the candidate of their choice; just don't lie about it.  Could it be the "Evil Twin" has actually struck, again?  There is no way that we believe anyone would even consider that a duly elected official would use the power of their office to illegally interfere with an election.  Right?  Right.  Neither do we believe that the real mayor would even consider perpetrating such an obvious fraud on the members of the BCRPBC.  He's far too smart to think he could, in the long run, get away with such a double dealing trick.

BAD, BAD, EVIL TWIN.

GUEST POST

As chairman of the Goose Creek 9-12 project, I have been trying to invite all candidates, (Republican and Democrat) up for election in Berkeley County, to our June 7 meeting. We have offered them 2 minutes at the start of the meeting to tell us who they are and why we should vote for them. I tell them there will be no time for Q & A, and they are free to either leave after they speak or to stay for the entire meeting. I also make it absolutely clear all candidates will be treated with the utmost respect.

Last week I attempted to invite Berkeley County District # 3 Councilman, Mr. Robert O. Call Jr. to our meeting as he is up for re-election. I used his email address posted on the County web page. The invitation came back. He is the only candidate I was not able to contact. I arrived early for the County Council meeting on May 29 for the purpose of inviting Mr. Call personally. He did not show up until a couple minutes after the meeting was called to order. Thinking he may be in a hurry to leave after the meeting before I had a chance to speak with him, I scribbled out an invitation during council's executive session.

After the meeting adjourned I ask a member of the Clerk's office to make me a copy of my hand written invitation for my records. I then approached Mr. Call and attempted to invite him to our meeting. He would not even let me finish speaking and turned his back when I tried to hand him the invitation, refusing to take it. Councilman Jack Schurlknight was standing near Mr. Call and ask me if we ran our meetings like the Berkeley County GOP Breakfast Club. Not fully understanding what he was asking, I told him we used Roberts Rules of Order. I ask Mr. Call once more if he would take the invitation and read it. He refused. At that point, I placed it on his seat at council and left the room.

Before I left the building, I realized what Councilman Schurlknight had really meant by his question. I found him leaving the assembly room and attempted to answer his question. I tried to tell him about all candidates being treated with the utmost respect. He completely and intentionally ignored me, nearly running into me as he barged past .

Neither Mr. Call nor Mr. Schurlknight serve in my district but they are accountable ( or at least they should be) to all the Berkeley County citizens. What gives them the right to be rude and disrespectful to me . Although I disagree with them on most issues, I have never treated them with such disrespect. I am especially upset with Mr. Schurlknight. He injected himself into a conservation that had nothing to do with him and was, then, very rude to me.

I can only imagine how Mr. Call expects to win reelection! He refuses invitations to speak to the citizens of Berkeley County at public forums. He even denies citizens the opportunity to speak with him at County Council meetings. As a "Republican Reformer", one would think he would at least occasionally attend a GOP event. He must be very confident of his reelection probabilities. His signs say "a name you can trust". Well, I suppose we will have to "Trust" Mr. Call because he has certainly shown he is not interested in meeting with or even speaking to us. What exactly is a " Republican Reformer" anyway, Mr. Call ? Guess we are expected to reelect you first and then we will find out ?!

Jeff Reuer, Chairman, Goose Creek 9-12 Project

TAKE NOTES, BERKELEY COUNTY

Sometimes, the reasoning used by government makes a lot of us want to scream.  In this latest situation, we are referring to the article in today's P&C concerning Mt. Pleasant's Storm Water Management Program "Fees".

Last year Supervisor Davis tried, unsuccessfully, to impose a new "Fee" (tax increase) on the taxpayers of Berkeley County to fund our Storm Water Management Program.  A handful of taxpayers prevented the imposition of this proposed tax increase by attacking, on several fronts, the Administration's interpretation of the program's requirements . For the second year in a row, this small group of Berkeley County taxpayers is contesting the need for the large increases in our Storm Water Management spending proposed in next year's budget.    These watchdogs insist that this program and its accompanying mandates can be met, as it has been in former years, with limited spending and, consequently,  that spending increases are unnecessary.  They have insisted that this program is, very simply put, a cash cow for our spendthrift government. Today's article in the P&C seems to validate that contention.

In the article, Mt. Pleasant officials now suggest that regular road maintenance could be better funded by doubling their existing Storm Water Management "Fees". We would suppose we are forced to give them credit for finally telling the truth and admitting they are using the proceeds of the "Fee" for other purposes than first intended but, that fact doesn't forgive them for insisting the "Fee", when first established,  was absolutely needed to meet the requirements of the Storm Water Management Program.

This appears to be one of those "Hey, Mr. Obvious" moments.  The Berkeley County watchdog group has been screaming for two years now that this Storm Water Management Program provides greedy governments with the perfect opportunity to impose new taxes under the guise of funding new federal government mandates.   In fact, the SWMP is the perfect vehicle for a corrupt government to extort monies from the taxpayers.  

The wording of this mandate (SWMP Permit) is extremely nebulous. Much of the list of requirements is open to interpretation.  There are countless phrases such as, "may choose to", "can", "may wish to", "if possible", "at a later time", etc.  A corrupt government could attach almost any of their existing activities to this mandate.  Berkeley County officials have admitted that the activities connected to fulfilling many of the requirements of the existing SWMP Permit have historically been performed by the employees of various departments of Berkeley County government. The cost of performing these activities has simply been transferred over to the SWMP budget.  If this volume of man-hours has been transferred to another budget, (SWMP) wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the budgets of the departments in question to have decreased?  Not on your life.  That would not allow this scam to work.

Forgive us if we are repetitive but these facts bare repeating.  Our corrupt government wants to transfer the costs for work usually done by various departments to a NEW BUDGET with NEW FUNDING.  That frees up a large portion of the general funding of various departments.  This budgeted funding can now be applied to NEW SPENDING.  This shell game and new taxation is justified by the contention that the government entity is under Federal Mandate.  This contention is the foundation of this fraud. The corrupt government gets to "interpret" the degree of the requirements of the Permit and the amount of funding needed.

The taxpayers of Mt. Pleasant made the mistake of allowing the imposition of these "Fees" in the first  place.  Now, they have created a monster.  The funds are there and, as usual, government officials are going to find a way to spend the money.  In this case, being as the "Fee" platform has been established, government officials are free to increase this "FEE" (tax) as they please.  Also, the taxpayers seem to have little or no control over where these funds are spent.

The taxpayers of Berkeley County haven't fallen into this pit YET.  We still have the opportunity to nip this scam in the bud.  The taxpayers of Charleston County and Dorchester County aren't so fortunate.  At this stage of the game, it would almost take an act of God to extricate them from their Storm Water Management Program taxing nightmare.  As taxpayers have learned from past experience, it is much easier to prevent a new tax than to disallow one after it is in place.

Since the last 3 1/2 years have proven that this "Hope(y) Change(y)" thing is not working, isn't it time for the taxpayers of Berkeley County to put an end to the Liberal mindset that seems to have polluted our County government?  We have a great suggestion as to where we can start.  First, we are speaking to the taxpayers who live in Council District 3.  In case you haven't heard, there is an election being held next Tuesday, June 12th.  You have the unique opportunity to save the entire County by electing a TRUE CONSERVATIVE, KEN GUNN to County Council. Secondly, to the other folks in the County, if you know anyone in District 3, give them a call and remind them to vote on Tuesday.  While you are at it, ask them to vote against the incumbent and for the CONSERVATIVE, KEN GUNN.

District 3,  Incumbent Councilman, Bob Call has voted to:

• continue to take 29% of your property tax relief, increasing your property tax bill almost 20%.
• close the Goose Creek Satellite Office forcing you to foot the bill to drive to Moncks Corner to conduct your government business. Closing this office saved the County $50,000 BUT when you multiply the 27,000 annual visits to this office by the number of miles from this office, to and from Moncks Corner and, then, by $.59 a mile travel cost, you come up with almost $500,000 in additional cost to the citizens.  Does this sound like a fair exchange to you?
• buy the fairgrounds property in Moncks Corner ($1.6 MILLION) to build the $20 MILLION "Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus".  Since this purchase, due to changes of authority, parts of this complex will not be built by Berkeley County. Being as this parcel was for sale for over 15 years with no buyer and is more acreage than was needed for the original expanded project, the taxpayers are now left with quite a white elephant. 
• give himself a raise.
• have the Berkeley County taxpayers provide him with an I-Pad.
• deprive the School System of their fair share of FILOT revenue prescribed by law.
• impose a SWMP "FEE" on taxpayers living in the unincorporated areas of Berkeley County. This "FEE" would eventually trickle down to Goose Creek and the other incorporated areas.
• purchase the Carolina Nursery property on speculation. 
• arrange County Council Rules so as to deprive the 4 Conservatives on Council the ability to participate in any aspect of County government. This arrangement totally disenfranchised  the 4 Conservatives and placed County Council under the control of the Liberals.

We have decided that this list could go on into perpetuity so, suffice it to say that Bob Call, over the last two years, has voted with the Democrats to support every aspect of the Supervisor's Liberal agenda. It is a fact that Mr. Call ran as a Democrat the first time he ran for County Council.  He lost that race.  When he realized he could not get elected in District 3 if he ran as a Democrat, he changed the "D" behind his name to an "R".  The big problem for the taxpayers is that he brought his Liberal Democrat philosophy across the isle with him. 

We encourage all Berkeley County taxpayers to wake up, get informed, and vote for the true Conservative in every election.  If we don't stop the Liberal Agenda pretty soon, it will be too late, not only for our County but for our Country.