GRITS EGGS and POLITICS

UPDATE ON SCAM ALERT

2012-01-27T05:53:00.003-05:00

Considering the attention to the matter, GE&P was confident that BC government would come up with some "legitimate" reason why a private citizen could be fined $50 for selling wares along side the road in an unincorporated area of BC. BC government did NOT let us down.

It now seems, after two position adjustments already, the County has settled on the perfect justification for their actions. "They were only enforcing the Fire Code". This is a very plausible position to establish as we all know how potentially dangerous it could be should one be unfortunate enough to get caught under an awning during a fire. One would only have FOUR unimpeded avenues of escape to traverse, at most, twenty feet.

This entire situation would be funny if it weren't so obviously ridiculous. "If you give them an inch, they will take a mile" seems to apply to more than your four year old.

EDITORIAL COMMENTS- PIPE DREAMS

2012-01-13T07:37:00.017-05:00

The last three years have provided indisputable proof that the 2012 election will be the most pivotal in our lifetime. The American people will decide whether this country will remain on the path to socialism or make the uncomfortable adjustments to restore our Republic to the original intent of our founding fathers. With the stakes this high, you would think Conservatives would would have given their strategy a bit more thought. After all, one would think the survival of the Republic should take priority over the personal ambitions of individual candidates.

It is common knowledge that splitting the opposition vote is a bad idea if you wish to unseat an incumbent or get a certain candidate selected in a primary. The results of such an effort are never positive. Being as all agree that this is a revolutionary election that demands revolutionary ideas, the historic manner in which the Republican primaries are conducted just may not have been the best way to go.

That brings us to the theory GE&P would like to put forward:

What would have been the result if the Conservative (and not so Conservative) candidates had met for a long weekend well BEFORE time for the caucuses, primaries AND FILINGS. This meeting would have included Santorum, Gingrich, Bachman, Cain, Perry and, yes, Paul. Since each of these candidates have certain strengths and weaknesses, egos should have been checked at the door and intelligent, rational thought should have been allowed to take control of the process.

Right out of the chute, it would have been agreed upon that Paul should be designated Secretary of Constitutional Government. Advising him would be a panel of twelve Constitutional scholars headed by, say, Dr. Peter Johnson, Jr. This panel would review existing Federal Laws and determine which violate the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. Documents would, then, be drafted and presented to the Congress for repeal of said law. This suggestion would surely prompt Paul to jump on board.

Next, it would be agreed upon that Gingrich would be appointed Secretary of State. His knowledge of Foreign Policy would put him in the position of being an excellent advisor to the administration on all associated issues.

Now the changes become a bit more complicated. Since, in Texas, Perry has demonstrated talent for creating jobs, he should be determined to be the Secretary of Labor. This Labor Department would not be the existing department. It would be a combination of all the existing departments that handle labor issues, including but not limited to the NLRB and Department of Commerce. All of the existing departments, bureaus, commissions, etc that pertain to labor issues would be abolished. The motto for the new department would be: "Our goal is to keep the nose of government out of business's business."

Since Santorum consistently demonstrates that his moral compass is unshakable, he could be trusted to head the new Department of Common Sense. This new department would oversee and suggest policy for all things government giveaway from grants to welfare programs. All existing Federal agencies involved in these activities would be abolished, including but not limited to DHHS and the Department of Education.

Cain would be the nominee to run for President. Since dependable polls indicate that, among the voting public, admitted Conservatives outnumber admitted Liberals 2 to 1, with the addition of 50% of the Liberal minority vote that Mr. Cain would attract, his election should be assured. This assessment in no way should be interpreted as demeaning Mr. Cain's talents and abilities or his qualifications to hold office. The numbers are just icing on the cake.

Bachman would be the choice for VP for much of the same reasons as stated above except we must replace "Liberal minorities" with "Liberal women". Again, this stated advantage in no way demeans or diminishes her accepted qualifications to hold this office.

After these initial determination are made, the whole group would decide which talent could be tapped to head the new Department of Finance, possibly Cantor. This department, with advice and consent of the original 6, would address abolishing the IRS and formulating a new tax system. (This would be yet another carrot dangled in the face of Paul) Additionally, the "TICKET" could add other co-runners to address additional problems plaguing existing government. Abolishing the EPA and starting the process to repeal Obamacare would be the first actions taken by the new administration.

Considering the fact that, so far in the process, Romney has been able to garner an average of only 30% of the vote, it is more than possible that this newly created "TICKET" would be alarmingly successful. But ultimate success would hinge on the unlikely probability that the candidates, as well as the voting public, would put the good of the Republic ahead of their individual ambitions and egos.

GE&P does not suggest that this "TICKET" would be the only way to go. The 6 could have possibly arranged the assignments in a different order. We have only suggested ONE possibility. If the original candidates had adopted some form of this option, the "LEFT" would not have accumulated the amount of ammunition for the general election that is now the case. With the existing system, each candidate has done a very good job of discrediting the others.

Now, we are ready to hear all the reasons why such a system would be unworkable. Also, if you agree with the idea, we would like to hear your suggestions for additions to the "TICKET". Have at it.

SCAM ALERT

2012-01-11T11:28:00.005-05:00

As part of our public service efforts, GE&P would like to warn the taxpayers of Berkeley County about a new scam that is being perpetrated against certain innocent citizens.

For as long as we can remember, we have seen roadside vendors selling their wares along the highways and byways of Berkeley County. These vendors provide a needed service to the community. Anyone can stop and pick up a watermelon on the way to a day at the lake or grab that necessary bunch of fresh collards on New Year's Eve. The wares available range from Christmas trees to veggies to household items.

If these roadside stands are located within an incorporated area of the County, Monck's Corner, Goose Creek, Daniel Island, etc., the vendor must pay whatever fee is required by that town. BUT, there is no BC Ordinance requiring a permit or business license if the stand is located in the unincorporated area.

Now that you know the way things are supposed to be, allow us to tell you what actually happened.

Shortly before Christmas last, a BC citizen set up a roadside stand in an unincorporated area of BC to sell Christmas trees. After a few days, a BC employee who works in Code Enforcement paid him a visit. This vendor was asked for his permit. Of course the vendor didn't have one since a permit to operate a roadside stand in the unincorporated portions of BC is not required by law. The Code Enforcement officer told the vendor he would have to either secure a $50.00 permit or shut down his operation.

The vendor inquired as to the number of the BC Ordinance that required the $50.00 permit. The Code Enforcement officer told the vendor there was no Ordinance but there was a County POLICY that required the permit if "you have a tent over your wares".

The vendor immediately went to the permit department at the BC administration building. When he inquired about getting the needed permit, the lady behind the counter said, " This is a real coincidence, we just got the memo on this about 10 minutes ago." The lady showed the vendor the memo that described the new "policy" on TENTS and AWNINGS. It might interest you to obtain a copy of this, if you want a good laugh, that is. The policy includes a "FEE" (which turns out to be $50) to cover the inspection of these potentially dangerous items (tents and awnings).

Consider, if you will, the impact this new "policy" could have on BC. Camp meetings use tents and awnings. Funeral homes use tents and awnings. Church bazaars use them. Yard sales use them. Most people selling anything alongside the road in the summertime use awnings. People having a cookout use awnings. The list goes on.

Now, we would like to mention one last little tiny fact. In order for the County Administration to impose any fee on 'we the people', there must exist an Ordinance passed by County Council. Would anyone like to venture a guess as to whether County Council has ever voted on this new "POLICY"?

NOW, THAT'S EMBARRASSING

2012-01-06T09:52:00.003-05:00

GE&P would like to make a bold statement giving a bit of free advice to the newest Charleston member of the Republican party, Mr. Elliott Summey. "If you are supposed to be a Republican, it might be a good first move for you to vote in support of the Republican candidate for Chairman of Charleston County Council." Just saying.

It is common knowledge that it is very difficult at best for Liberals to be elected to anything in Conservative South Carolina. Many Democrats opt to jump the isle and "officially" become Republicans in order to increase their odds of election. Unfortunately, many, if not all, of these "converts" maintain and bring along their Liberal philosophy. This is one reason the Republican party is infested with so many RINOs.

We can hear Mr. Summey's supporters now as they take a page from the Clinton playbook, "It is so unfair to criticize Young Elliott because his unwavering support of all that is Democrat was 'in the past' ". And they will be correct. After all, his actions took place YESTERDAY.

GE&P hopes that any Republicans who choose to come out today in support of Mr. Summey's announcement will consider this action very carefully. It is an undeniable fact that the memories of SC voters have improved measurably over the last few years.

PRECOGNITION IS SUCH A BURDEN

2012-01-05T10:54:00.004-05:00

In case you missed the notice in the P&C, Elliott Summey is holding a presser tomorrow to announce that he is switching political parties. His epiphany has been almost biblical in proportion. As of tomorrow, he will have suddenly transformed from a long-time Liberal Democrat into a Conservative Republican. That road to Damascus is well traveled. If there is any doubt in your mind that this move comes as a "complete surprise" to everyone, please recheck GE&P's post from 7/21/2011.

Here's some more food for thought that could NEVER happen:

Ken Ard resigns. (for the good of the party)

Larry Grooms is offered that position. (He jumps at it, solving Glenn's problem with the "back row boys")

Young Elliot can, then, run for Larry's seat. (Everybody's happy, right?)

Well, there may be a few flies in this ointment. You can take it to the bank that Glenn hasn't thought this plan through to all the "possible" ends. It is way too early for GE&P to let all the cats out of this bag but you can take it to the bank that there will be more to this story.

EDITORIAL COMMENT:

If our elected officials spent as much time, thought, and energy on solving the Country's, State's, and Counties' problems as they do in promoting there own self interests and aggrandizing their political security, we would all be in much better shape.

Don't you just love politics?

OFFICIAL BERKELEY COUNTY ANNOUNCEMENT

2011-12-17T07:39:00.003-05:00

"As part of the transparency initiatives at Berkeley County, County Council approved the purchase of a video capture system for Council meetings held in the Assembly room in Moncks Corner. The December 12th meeting of County Council was the first to be filmed. In an agreement with Home Telephone, this County Council meeting will be broadcast at 8:00 PM, on Wednesday, December 21, 2011, according to Robert Reimers, Home Telephone representative. It will appear on Home Telephone's cable network, on channel 6."

RED FLAGS ALL OVER THE PLACE

2011-12-01T10:20:00.004-05:00

At last Monday night's Council meeting, Supervisor Davis brought up an item that was not on the agenda. He wanted a Resolution passed giving County employees and elected officials a one time "disbursement" as sort of a Christmas bonus. It was pointed out to Mr. Davis that bringing up this Resolution when it was not on the agenda was a violation of FOIA.

Consequently, Mr. Davis has scheduled a conference call meeting for this afternoon at 2PM to address this Resolution. You haven't heard about this special meeting? Well, no wonder as no one on the agenda mailing list received notification.

GE&P has considered all the facts and has established a position: This Resolution is a bad idea for a number of reasons:

1. It goes without saying that our County employees are hard working and very deserving BUT these folks have good-paying, stable jobs with full benefits.

2. Our BC unemployment numbers are at 10+%.

3. This "disbursement" does NOT count toward retirement.

4. The tax liability for this money is far greater than that of a COLA or merit pay increase would be.

5. The taxpayers of BC, including the unemployed, could benefit from a tax reduction. Many of these taxpayers are County employees.

6. The budget process will begin shortly and the new SWMP Fee will be levied. Why not apply some of this excess money to that project?

7. BC's contribution to the employees' retirement fund is almost $5 MILLION in arrears. Will these few hundred dollars in hand right now mean more to County employees than retirement benefits and medical care in the future?

We are certain the very talented BC Finance Department is aware of all these facts. Why didn't the Administration take the time to consider all aspects of this move beforehand. Maybe they did. We must draw the conclusion that there is more to this than meets the eye. Isn't it a shame that folks immediately assume Mr. Davis is up to no good. Justifiably so.

A MATTER OF SURVIVAL

2011-11-18T06:00:00.006-05:00

In today's world of back-door deals and basic dishonesty, if one is looking for an example of complete "transparency", all one has to do is investigate the P&C's new comment policy. Common sense will lead you to a conclusion that is as clear as Charleston's July sunshine.

For years, anyone could comment on one of the newspaper's articles and NOT have his/her name made public. Many of these comments corrected erroneous "facts" written in the articles. Many times, folks with inside information on the story (employees, elected officials) would add details which shed new light on the subject. These folks could ill afford to have their names revealed for fear of job loss or other negative ramifications.

"In order to promote more civil discourse", the P&C now requires readers to post comments through a FaceBook account, which would result in "anyone" being given access to the poster's identity and private information. Kind of defeats the "Anonymous" idea, not to mention the "Friending" concept on FaceBook, huh?

Is the ultimate goal of the P&C as simple as it appears? Is it too embarrassing to have "Joe Blow from Cottageville" demonstrate the incompetence of the journalistic policies and the sloppiness of the reporting at this paper? (We really shouldn't even mention the quality of proof-reading so we won't.) Was this new policy put into place to stop the continuing exposer of this situation?

This move by the P&C appears to have solved their immediate problem. Judging from the existing number of comments, or the lack there of, there will now be limited interference from the public. Since most responsible (former) readers will not allow this unreasonable invasion of privacy, the comment sections are running a bit thin now.

As it stands, the P&C can now print any misleading story, slanted to any degree, without fear of any contradiction from the informed public.

We hope the P&C executives are not spending too much money on the celebration party, though. The paper has experienced a drastic decline in subscriptions over the last few years due to editorial policies. Now, it would appear they are losing a huge number of their on-line followers as a result of this new policy.

It would seem to defy logic for the P&C to continually follow a business plan that virtually guarantees the demise of the enterprise but that appears to be the case. It is equally frustrating to the casual observer that the solution to the difficulties of the P&C is painfully simple. If residents of the Tri-County area had access to a local paper that honestly and fully reported on items of general interest, they would buy it. These folks are very interested in issues like government corruption and crime trends. They are very interested in issues that have an impact on the economy.

These folks have had their fill of a newspaper that avoids the real facts and only presents politically correct fluff. But, this would require the absence of the Liberal mindset among the leadership of this fictitious newspaper. Unfortunately, this is something that's not going to happen at the P&C.

Over the years, due to questionable leadership, the News And Courier/ Evening Post organization has been reduced to "fish-wrap" status. Now, it appears the resulting P&C is ultimately headed for the ash heap of Charleston history. So sad.

FLASH BACK

A warm Sunday morning on the streets of Charleston.........

You wake to the melodious voices of the young newspaper boys singing.......

"SUNDAY MORNIN' NEWS AND CO-RI- OH."

HOLY COMMON SENSE, BATMAN

2011-11-06T08:29:00.005-05:00

The Talking Heads are into fits this morning trying to discredit the Cain/Gingrich debate last night in Texas. In actuality, we had two unconventional candidates engaged in an unconventional exchange presenting unconventional solutions to the mess created by Liberal government policies. These two candidates had the audacity to suggest we make an effort to abolish fraud from the Medicare system; stop encouraging portions of our population to expect "something for nothing"; and stop paying taxpayer dollars to able bodied Americans who prefer not to support themselves.

In all honesty, GE&P did not witness a simple "debate" last night. We observed evidence, potentially, that the outline of a "Ticket" is being formulated. The Left is in a state of shock.

BERKELEY COUNTY COUNCIL RULES

2011-10-29T07:48:00.010-04:00

For many, many years, there have been County Council Rules in place addressing the procedure for introducing and passing BC Ordinances. The process is very simple:

1. The Administration develops a "Proposal".

2. The "Proposal" is presented to County Council by title only, first at the Committee level. At this juncture, typically, there is no document available for review and, more likely than not, members of County Council are as much in the dark as to the details of the "Proposal" as is the public. At the Committee level, during consideration prior to "FIRST READING" there can be discussion of the "Proposal" and votes are taken. This procedure puts the issue "into the record" and sends the "Proposal" forward to the Regular Council meeting for "FIRST READING" where there is no further discussion or vote.

3. The next step is review prior to "SECOND READING" which takes place at the Committee level. At this point, the issue is opened for discussion and the members of Council should have documents as to the content of the "Proposal". But, at this step in the process, it is not unusual that the documents connected to the "Proposal" are yet to be finalized. County Council has to rely upon the administration for accurate and complete information on the issue. After the discussion is complete, a vote is taken. If the vote is positive, the "Proposed Ordinance" moves on to the Full Council. If the vote is negative, the effort dies.

4. The final step is review prior to "THIRD READING" which takes place at the Committee level. As with the last step, the "Proposal" is read, opened for discussion, and voted upon. With a positive vote, the "Proposal" goes forward to Full Council for "THIRD READING". When Full Council votes for the Proposal it becomes County Law. In a perfect world, at this point in the process, not only a legal document but also all supporting information for this "Proposal" would have been provided. But, history has shown this to not always be the case.

The time frame of this process can vary widely. If there is no hurry for the Ordinance, the full process of passage can take as much as three months. The "Proposal" can receive consideration prior to "FIRST READING" at the Committee meeting on the second Monday of a month and "FIRST READING" at the Regular Council meeting the fourth Monday of that same month. "SECOND READING" and "THIRD READING" can be done the month after and the month after that. But, if the issue is pressing, the process can be shortened measurably. "Special" Committee and Full Council meetings can be called to address the issue.

GE&P is cognizant of the fact that an "official" legal document, "THE ORDINANCE", cannot be issued before County Council has had the opportunity to make all desired revisions to the original "Proposal". But, there is no legitimate reason why this administration cannot issue a document containing the details of its "Proposal" prior to "FIRST READING". There is no legitimate reason why the public should not be fully informed on all matters of County government. There is no reason why the public should not know the intent and possible ramifications of all proposed Ordinances.

GE&P is, also, aware that former administrations have followed the same process for the passage of new "ORDINANCES". But, with all due respect, this administration has proven itself to be a horse of a different color. This administration has maneuvered issues through this process without full disclosure to Council. One glaring example of this subterfuge is the Hwy. 311 waterline issue.

Just because "this is the way things have always been done" does not mean it is correct or even acceptable in this new environment. With past administrations, Council could depend upon the fact that all pertinent information on any issue would be provided. Now, not so much.

County Council could correct this situation very easily. If members of Council would make it known to the administration that they would reject, at "FIRST READING", any new proposal that is not accompanied by a publicly available fact sheet, this nonsense would stop. But, don't hold your breath for this to happen. Some members of Council do not have the time to be involved to this degree of specificity connected to the governance of our County and others just do as they are told.

UPDATE ON OCTOBER 8, 2011 POST

2011-10-10T17:37:00.003-04:00

Today GE&P received a call back from Mr. Dan Brown, reporter for the Berkeley Independent. We discussed his article from last week's paper and Mr. Brown acknowledged that his statement about the "County being in violation of the Clean Water Act" was in error. He, also, agreed to review the DEHEC document that we have supporting our position on the SWMP. Mr. Brown said that he intends to investigate the issue and write a followup article.

WHEN THE GUARD DOG DIES

2011-10-08T10:07:00.011-04:00

Our Founding Fathers were, indeed, the most special people of all time. They formulated a form of government that is more perfect, more amazing, than any other that has ever graced the face of this earth. Also, they constructed their creation atop a bedrock foundation of Rights, one of which is the Freedom of the Press.

When we read the writings and letters of the Founders concerning Freedom of the Press, we learn just how vital they thought this element to be. They realized that the people needed a watchdog to keep an eye on even this pristine new form of government. They considered the Press to be an invaluable element in this "Great Experiment". They didn't consider the role of the Press to be inconsequential. In the Press, they entrusted the responsibility of being the "Fourth Branch of Government".

Since the days of the Founders, history shows that many of the original intentions of these great men have been eroded and bastardized. Some of these attacks have been minor and some have struck at the core of our Republic. One such threat has been the erosion in the trustability of the media. At one time, an American could confidently exclaim, "I read it in the paper so it has to be true and accurate". Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

GE&P could list the national outlets and electronic media sources that can no longer be trusted to provide us with truth in reporting but let's just concentrate on sticking really close to home. We are referring to an article that appeared in the Berkeley Independent this week. Mr. Dan Brown wrote an article to inform the public as to the results of the County Council meeting of September 26, 2011. His main topic in this article was the vote of Council on the Storm Water Management Program fee.

At the beginning of this article, Mr. Brown presented misinformation as true fact. Later in the article, Mr. Brown presented more erroneous information in the form of quotes attributed to Supervisor Davis. The entire article was awash with false information and misleading statements which, consequently, led the readers to false conclusions concerning the issue. GE&P can state with confidence that the BI article presents false information because we have official documents in our possession that directly contradict many of the statements made in this article.

GE&P has attempted to contact Mr. Brown but our call has gone unanswered. We wish we could ask a few questions so as to clarify exactly what led up to the printing of this misleading article.

"Mr. Brown, did you do any independent research on the subject of the SWMP prior to penning this article?"

"Mr. Brown, is it your policy to accept at face value, without obtaining independent verification, any factual statement made by an elected official?"

"Mr. Brown, do you agree with our Founders that the Press is the Fourth Branch of Government and, if so, how seriously do you take this responsibility?"

GE&P does not expect anyone, including ourselves, to be perfect all the time. Believe it or not, we have actually "misspoken" on an occasion or two but it is totally unacceptable for a newspaper article about an issue of so much import to the community to go this far in the wrong direction down the garden path. To add to the outrage, GE&P's offer to provide the newspaper with the official documents that disprove the statements in this article was rejected. We would have thought it might be beneficial to the public to confront Supervisor Davis with these documents and, then, write an article about his reaction.

GE&P would like to humbly offer some advice to all local publications: If you want to be considered "newspapers", then print the complete truth with as much accuracy as possible. Present your readers with all sides of the issues that impact their lives. If your only goal is to be considered a "shopping guide", then change your name and advertise yourselves as such.

CONGRATULATIONS, BC

2011-10-04T07:33:00.036-04:00

GE&P would like to do a bit of housekeeping today. We have noticed that a few threads have been left hanging from the very busy list of BC government happenings of late.

The taxpayers of BC experienced two major victories last week:

On Monday, by a 6/2 vote of County Council, a new SWMP Fee (tax) was rejected. All 4 of the Conservative Republicans and the 2 Democrats on Council helped achieved this taxpayer victory with their "NO" votes. As was to be expected, the 2 RINOs, Schurlknight and Call, supported the new tax with their "YES" votes.

On Tuesday, a Conservative Republican was elected to fill the vacant State House #100 seat. There was a well organized Democrat challenge in this race. The success for the Conservatives was due, in large part, to the leadership and organizational skills of the BCGOP Chairman, Tim Callanan.

Citizens who keep up with the shenanigans within BC government were not surprised that many oddities accompanied the vote on the SWMP "FEE" issue. It seemed that the Supervisor was convinced, right up to the moment the votes were cast, that he would be successful in imposing a new $1.4 Million tax on the people of BC. As the vote approached, the Council chamber was electric with anticipation. Conservative Councilmen Callanan, Fish, Farley, and Davis voted "NO"; Rinos, Call and Schurlknight voted "YES". Only the two Democrat votes were left to be cast. Piece of cake for the Supervisor, right? Not so fast.

As the Supervisor confidently sat displaying his customary smug little grin, Mr. Pinckney shocked the room as he voted "NO". The next 30 seconds seemed to elapse in slow-motion. The Supervisor's smug grin melted, replaced by an expression of disbelief. He turned toward Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Davis' countenance revealed his thoughts without him uttering a word, "SAY, WHAT?"

After Mr. Pinckney's "NO" vote, which meant the issue was defeated, Councilman Davis joked about his vote being irrelevant and unnecessary at that time. The Supervisor ignored Mr. Davis's comments and flew into a hissy fit. He announced that he planned to "write a letter to DEHEC, reporting the names of the Councilmen who had voted against the Ordinance". Possibly due to the rarity of disloyalty from any of his minions, the Supervisor truly made a fool of himself with his comments.

As amusing as the actions surrounding the actual vote were, there were other interesting events connected to this issue. Due to the curiosity of several taxpayers, it was learned that the proposed "FEE" had been added to the online tax bills several weeks prior to the vote of Council. These online documents were reviewed by numerous citizens and members of the media. Originally, the full "FEE" of $36 appeared on the bills. Shortly before the Monday Council meeting where the Supervisor introduced his new proposal to reduce the "FEE", the "FEE" was already reduced to $12 on the online bills. The day after the "NO" vote was taken, the "FEE" had totally disappeared from these bills.

The week before the Council meeting in question, members of the media contacted the administration to inquire about the "FEE" being on the tax bills prior to a vote of Council. The administration, via a second level official, assured the reporters that the "FEE" was definitely, positively, absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably NOT included on the tax bills. (GE&P's question to those who viewed the tax bill prior to the cleansing: "Who are you going to believe, the administration or your lying eyes?")

Another interesting thing happened during this time frame. For quality control reasons, it seems that there are "test runs" of the tax bills printed prior to the mailing dates. Consequently, being as the "FEE" was included on the electronic versions, the "FEE" appeared on the "test runs". Numerous folks witnessed this to be a fact. Oops. But, don't be concerned that any of these documents might have fallen into the "wrong" hands, establishing proof that "somebody" lied. The administration collected all of these incriminating documents and, we are certain, disposed of them properly. Really? (200+ year old advice from one of our Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin: "If three people intend to keep a secret, two of the three had better be dead people.")

The events surrounding the SWMP FEE are yet more examples of the bewildering mindset of this administration. Considering the debacle in Charleston County concerning their tax bills, it would have been perfectly understandable had the Supervisor admitted that the "FEE" had been included on our bills prior to a vote. He could have explained that, since he fully expected the Ordinance to pass a vote of Council, he included it as the tax bills were being prepared, so as to avoid any delay in the mailings. He may have received some criticism after the "NO" vote but he would have avoided being accused of being disingenuous. As it is now, it appears this Administration's first inclination is to tell a lie even when the truth would be of more benefit.

Just because the taxpayers have dodged the $1.4 Million new tax bullet, this is no time to sit on your laurels. Don't forget the budget process for the upcoming "physical" (We decided to use the spelling and pronunciation preferred by Mr. Schurlknight. After all, he is the Chairman of the Finance Committee so he must know from whence he speaks.)year is just around the corner. The SWMP "FEE" is bound to be put back on the table. It is incumbent upon the citizens to stay involved and insist that this administration adhere to the portions of the mandate that require citizen education and input.

It may come as a surprise to some that the execution of this mandate requires no special expertise other than familiarizing oneself with the Rules. All one has to possess is the ability to read and comprehend the English language. Consequently, input from regular citizens who have taken the time to educate themselves on the subject can only be of benefit to the County in this effort. If enough private citizens are involved in the process there will be a smaller opportunity for the Supervisor to "cook the books" and create a false justification for a huge tax increase next year. Fear not, Mr. Davis, BC citizens will not take their eyes off this ball.

GE&P has no intention of basking in the soft glow of success. Tune in tomorrow for an outline of our next campaign.

GREMLINS IN THE IT DEPARTMENT?

2011-09-27T17:49:00.006-04:00

More than a few BC taxpayers contacted GE&P today with the same really strange story. It seems each went on the BC Government website, went to GIS, and clicked on "Tax Info". On Monday, listed right under the amounts they were being charged for the Fire Fee and the Waste Disposal Fee was their new SWMP Fee of $36. When they consulted the website this morning, their SWMP Fee was listed as $12. Then, (we know you won't believe this one) when they went on the site this afternoon, the SWMP Fee had disappeared. Can you beat that?

NEWS ALERT

2011-09-26T21:44:00.004-04:00

TONIGHT, BERKELEY COUNTY COUNCIL VOTED 6 TO 2 AGAINST THE SWMP FEE!!!!!!

GE&P WOULD LIKE TO SAY:

THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN CALLANAN.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN FISH.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN FARLEY.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PINCKNEY.

As might be expected, Supervisor Davis pitched a hissy fit when the roll call vote was taken. He announced that he was going to write a letter to DEHEC and tell them the names of the Councilmen who had voted against the Fee. Oooooooooooooooo.

ISN'T THAT SPECIAL

2011-09-15T19:41:00.002-04:00

We thought the taxpayers of BC might be interested in a small piece of news. Your tax bills are all printed and ready for mailing. And, by the way, even though County Council has NOT voted to approve the new SWMP fee, it's included on your bill. Why bother to take a vote now; it's a done deal. We hope our illustrious members of County Council realize just how irrelevant they really are.

THAT'S ALL, FOLKS

2011-09-14T08:15:00.007-04:00

At the Committee meeting last Monday night, there was a lively discussion between Councilman Fish and Supervisor Dan Davis. Mr. Fish had the audacity to suggest that Mr. Davis planned to use the proposed SWMP Fee for purposes other than those suggested. Mr. Davis, according to the P&C said, "You cannot take that money and use it for other purposes," Davis said. "Let's don't play politics."

OH, REALLY?

Mr. Davis, you took 29% of the LOST money designated for property tax relief and used it for other purposes.

Mr. Davis, you took the FILOT money (realized from Google) that was designated to go to the BC School District and used it for other purposes.

Mr. Davis, you took $10 MILLION from the BCW&SA Fund Balance that was supposed to only be used for BCW&SA projects (according to SC Law) and used it for other purposes.

Mr. Davis, you opted to NOT adjust millage accordingly after reassessment which resulted in higher BC property tax bills and used the additional revenue for other purposes.

Now, we are expected to believe that this leopard has changed his spots? We don't think so.

Mr. Davis, we know what your plan is. You intend to take this additional revenue and apply it to the expenses of existing departments of BC government. These departments are already addressing issues contained in the SWMP permit. This action will free up funds in the general fund for you to apply wherever you please.

Mr. Davis, we are realistic enough to know that you will be successful with this endeavor as you have already bought and paid for enough votes on County Council to do so. But, please do not insult our intelligence with this "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" approach.

SORRY 'BOUT THAT

2011-09-02T17:28:00.001-04:00

GE&P did a boo boo with the latest post. We got the date wrong. Please scroll down and read the August 30, 2011 post. We will correct ASAP.

"HEADS UP" REPORT

2011-09-01T10:16:00.004-04:00

If questions to GE&P of late are any example, lots of folks are curious as to what has happened to the effort to repeal the BC Ordinance which governs the distribution of the FILOT Funds. It would appear this effort has slipped from the front burner. Not so fast. GE&P would suggest you keep your eye on the recent Resolution connected to the South Carolina Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan. You might want to check into just how our FILOT Funds are connected.

We have to remember that DD can juggle more than one ball at the same time. The red flags go up when he makes a concerted effort to draw our attention to what his right hand is doing, SWMP. Caution: Watch that little bitty left hand.

GE&P Editorial Policy:

1. Never print anything as fact without documentation.

2. Always protect our sources.

3. Clearly indicate our personal opinions.

4. Rumors require at least 3 independent sources and are noted as such.

5. Don't release information prematurely.

Today, #5 is giving us a LOT of trouble. GE&P has been given a really delicious piece of information but, for a multitude of reasons, we have been asked not to release these facts at this time. We have the liberty to give you a hint, though. When this information comes to light, DD is going to have a fit that will make a three-year-old jealous.

SWMP FEE- BUSTED

2011-08-30T17:44:00.017-04:00

In case you didn't make it to the BC Council "Special" meeting last Monday night, we thought we would give you an update. We won't bore you with a blow by blow; we'll give just the highlights in the form of a few exchanges.

1. Councilman Steve Davis pointed out (from the DEHEC Fact Sheet) that according to the new permit requirements, only 25% of the outfalls are required to be tested within the first 18 months. He pointed out that, "if you are only required to test 25% as opposed to 100%, that has to reflect a cost reduction right there". (An outfall is any place where water runs off of any area and into a 'receiving body of water'. It can range in size from a slue that drains your lawn to a 6 foot drainage pipe.)

Response. Weelll. You have to remember that the boundaries are that of the watersheds. (?)

2. Councilman Callanan: "I find this to be a complete waste of money Federal mandate. All I care about is that we meet the absolute bare minimum standards. I don't want an exceptional program. I just want to meet the standards. What does DEHEC look at (to determine) the standards?"

Answer: "Weelll, we haven't even mapped the outfalls yet. Say we test 25%. Then DEHEC goes out and tests and finds that an outfall is impaired. Guess what? We're non-compliant." (?)

3. Councilman Davis: "You already have folks from Roads and Bridges out there digging ditches, can't they dip out a water sample at the same time."

Answer: "No. There are ways of digging ditches and ways of taking water samples and they're not the same thing."

4. Councilman Davis: "How are you going to put a fee on the animals that are putting illicit discharges into the run-off?"

Answer: -------------------------------

5. Councilman Davis: "Is it not true, because of existing BC Ordinances, that BC employees already address most of the requirements of the SWMP?

Answer: "I don't know anything about that document you're looking at." (DEHEC Fact Sheet)

6. Mr. Callanan: (After a long explanation as to why the start-up requirements would need the $1.4 Million) "So, this program seems to be front loaded with expenses. After the first year which includes the start-up costs, we won't need the entire amount in the out years?"

Mr. Carson: "No, that's not what I'm saying. We'll need the entire amount for several years."

7. Statement of BC "Expert": "One big problem is that BC is causing pollution of the Cooper River."

Councilman Davis: "What kind of pollution are we talking about here?"

"Expert": "We won't know 'that' until we do the testing."

Mr. Davis: (in exasperation) "Then how do we know BC's doing it?"

8. After an hour and a half of this stupidity, Councilman Callanan said, "I've been sitting here thanking God we are holding this meeting in a one story building because I have a strong impulse to jump out of a window."

9. One member of the "presentation team" was a lawyer who was touted as being an expert on SWMP. She explained that the EPA had concluded that the majority of illicit discharge was generated by urban development. EPA, and in turn DEHEC, has imposed these requirements to encourage local governments to deter development that could negatively impact water quality . She stated emphatically that the program "didn't make any sense and may never work" because entities bound under a permit have no control over unmanaged or adjoining entities. "The fact is that it doesn't make any sense and it never will". Needless to say, this lady was unceremoniously cut off, never to be heard from again.

10. Mr. Schurlknight asked Mr. Carson to provide the itemized expenses for this program for the first physical year.

At a later point in the conversation, Mr. Davis let it slip that some of the funds generated "could be used for Capital Improvements" which may forward the goals of the SWMP. Ooopps.

FACTS LEARNED FROM THE MEETING:

1. The SWMP is basically unworkable, makes no sense, and probably never will.

2. The main areas of concern in our bodies of water are dissolved oxygen deficiency and fecal chloroform. One of the main culprits in producing dissolved oxygen deficiency is the presence of natural vegetation. The main culprit in the fecal chloroform issue (99.9999% of the time) is the presence of wildlife in the area.

3. An "expert" contractor who stands to benefit a boatload of money from this program was a member of the "presentation team" tasked with convincing County Council that this mess is a great idea and necessary.

4. People who live in the non-regulated incorporated areas like Bonneau, Jamestown and St Stephens will not be subject to the new fee unless they agree to pay it. But, Mr. Carson suggested that Council may have some leverage with these areas by saying, "don't expect us to maintain your roads or drainage or something like that. There are ways to encourage (compliance)".

5. No matter how many intelligent arguments are put forward by County Council, Dan Davis is going to impose this new $1.4 MILLION tax, come hell or high water.

On the off chance that you are having difficulty understanding the new program, please allow us to clarify:

The EPA issued a NPDES through DEHEC to BC. As a result, BC has been designated to be a TMDL with SMS4s adjoining which requires BC to adopt a SWMP that uses BMP and BPJ. This is based on the CDP and will, conceivably, require the addition of a CEPSCI. The CFR, also, requires a COC. BC must send in an annual DMR complying with the ELG, issued by DEHEC. The proof of an ERP is, also, mandatory. In addition, BC must develop a LCP which must include an IDDE and a MCM to the MEP. In preparation, a NOI to request the MSGP is compulsory, and must include the PIS and the POC. The ultimate goal is for the WQS to remain within the WQBEL, complying with our WLA, by establishing WQMSs. The result is a TPOHS.

FACTS DON'T SUPPORT SWMP FEES

2011-08-28T09:29:00.013-04:00

The list of attempted justifications for a new SWMP FEE has proven to be as changeable as our low country weather. Each time one of the supporting statements made by one of Mr. Davis' administration is proven untrue, these folks miraculously come up with yet another. One would think that embarrassment alone would deter any further changes in tack. Apparently not.

When this issue first reared its ugly head several weeks ago, GE&P's first reaction was that "somebody's not telling us the truth". As the situation has developed, we are forced to consider an additional possibility, namely, many of the County employees tasked with getting this fee into place (come hell or high water) have not fully educated themselves as to the facts.

Early on, GE&P called for a fact-finding meeting with the Engineering Department. Our group was given many "facts" at that time that, upon investigation, turned out to be erroneous.

ALLEGED: BC is in danger of being fined for non-compliance with the SWMP.

TRUTH: As it turns out, we are in full compliance as we are operating under an extension of the old permit while the new one is being finalized. (Letters Dan Davis/Ann Clark, DEHEC dated 1/4/11, 1/12/11. and 1/14/11)

ALLEGED: The list of requirements contained in the new permit is extensive.

TRUTH: According to documents from DEHEC, Columbia, there are exactly 6 new requirements included in the new permit. 2 concern public education and involvement, 3 concern activities already being addressed by departments of BC government under existing BC Ordinances , and 1 concerns assurance to DEHEC that BC government, itself, is following the Rules.

ALEGED: The new requirements will impose a new heavy workload on BC.

TRUTH: BC already has Ordinances in place which address almost all of the requirements of the SWMP. Please consult BC Codes ( not limited to) Chapter 11, Article III, Chapter 26- Division 4- 26-61, Chapter 47, and Chapter 59.

ALLEGED: The SWMP would not require any additional employees.

TRUTH: NOW, it is contended that the program will require an additional engineer.

ALLEGED: Many BC employees involved in this issue will require extensive new training.

TRUTH: Being as these employees are already overseeing most of the issues connected to the requirements of the SWMP under BC Ordinance, they have been receiving regular required training.

ALEGED: Any training needed is VERY expensive.

TRUTH: BC employees now receive any needed training from the SC Institute of Governments at USC at a cost of $90 a course of study.

ALLEGED: BC is required to compile special expensive ariel photograph maps to comply with the requirements.

TRUTH: Under IDDE, ".......and, if possible, GPS and photograph."

ALLEGED: Additional funds will be required to pay for the man-hours required for compliance.

TRUTH: SWMP requirements parallel existing BC Ordinances. Compliance is already part of the job descriptions of existing employees.

This issue contains so many elements that it is very easy to get your eye off the ball. We must all endeavor to avoid allowing the superfluous components to cloud the main point which is, the new fee is not necessary. BC has salaried employees who are addressing the main issues of the SWMP at this time. The additional requirement is that BC sends an annual report of all the pertinent activities to DEHEC.

There is one additional fact that demands a mention. Under existing BC Ordinances, contractors must conform to an extensive list of requirements when they initiate a new project. Each step of this process requires a permit fee. The total sum of these fees is sizable. Also, following BC Ordinances, many of the fees cover elements included, in turn, in the SWMP. So, as we can clearly see, these elements of the SWMP impose no additional financial burden on BC government.

BC government has several Departments and Divisions of Departments that have historically addressed many of the issues involved with the SWMP: BCW&SA, Planning, Engineering, Flood Plans Review, Roads & Bridges, and Code Enforcement, to name a few. After reviewing official government documents and connecting the obvious dots, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Davis' ultimate plan is to transfer, from the General Fund and onto a new source of revenue, as much of the expense as possible that is involved in operating these Departments . Evidence that our conclusion is right on the mark is demonstrated in the administration's "Projected Cost Table". When the cost of the projected work is compared to the requirements of existing BC Ordinances, it is clear that these expenditures are being double billed or, at the very least, padded.

GE&P would encourage everyone to attend the SWMP Workshop on Monday evening, 8/29/11, at 6PM at the Supervisor's conference room. Being as Mr. Davis is so committed to compliance with the DEHEC mandate and that 1/3 of the new permit requirements are devoted to Public Education and Input, we are certain he will welcome your questions and comments. Ya think?

IT AIN'T

2011-08-23T07:23:00.047-04:00

Since our last post, GE&P, and others, have done an immense amount of research and acquired a voluminous stack of documents on the new Storm Water Management Program fee. Today we would like to impart to the taxpayers of BC new and sometimes corrected information on the subject. So, fasten your seat belts because you're in for a bumpy ride. We will endeavor to include enough information for you to understand the issue without causing you to doze off from boredom. Believe us, most of the documents involved would not qualify for the best seller list.

First, despite the clumsy wording of the SC State Statute, the SWMP IS mandated by the State to, supposedly, assure that local governments adhere to the Clean Water Act. When you read the original Act, or the directives from SC DEHEC for that matter, you immediately notice how vague and nebulous the wording is. It's all Greeny "pie in the sky" prose. Wouldn't it be "lo-ver-ly". But, let's start at the beginning.

The ultimate goal of the Clean Water Act is to have "all waters of the US 'swimmable and fishable' ". Sounds good. But, when we get down to the fine print in the mandate from the Feds to the State and from the State to the local government, the particulars of the Rules and Requirements are quite murky. It reads like they're making it up as they go along, which they are. Many portions seem left to interpretation. Many portions are so convoluted with bureaucratic BS that they cause headaches.

The most important element is for us to get a full understanding of exactly how insidious this overall "Plan" really is. This plan is a clear example of the Feds' intrusion into State government and, following, the State's intrusion into local government. The plan encourages yet another expansion of an already bloated government system, providing a plausible excuse for local governments to increase taxes. It, also, provides an open door to the possibility, or probability, of the misappropriation of public funds. As we all know, at this time, we have no control over changing the base issue but we can address and, possible correct, the latter issues. So, let's get to these issues that concern us at the moment.

Under the SWMP, the counties and municipalities are, generally, required to reduce existing (and potential) pollution and flooding created from the runoff of storm water and to eliminate the possible dumping into the environment of hazardous substances by existing (and future) industry. Among the specific requirements are, but not limited to, overseeing construction projects to assure that drainage systems are adequate and properly installed; monitoring post construction to assure that these systems are working properly; assuring that these systems are maintained properly; testing water sources to assure waters meet EPA standards; educating the public as to the necessity for the "program"; and sending detailed reports to "the powers that be" on all such activities of the entity involved.

We will all agree that most of the goals itemized by the SWMP are not only laudable but necessary. There's only one hitch to organizing this "NEW" program. The counties and municipalities of SC ALREADY HAVE BUILDING CODES AND ZONING LAWS THAT ADDRESS ALL OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES INVOLVED. Documents we obtained from SC DEHEC state this to be a fact. This leaves BC with two "administrative" projects to be completed in order to remain in compliance with the mandate; organizing some sort of effort to "educate the public" (brainwash the public) into accepting the necessity for this "new" program and compiling and sending in the "annual reports" to the Feds on every applicable element of our county business.

GE&P is in possession of letters from Dan Davis to Ann Clark, DEHEC Columbia, and from Ms. Clark to Dan Davis, which firmly establish that BC is in complete compliance with the permit we have been operating under for the last 5 years. Also, BC has successfully obtained an extension of that permit which will protect the County from any fines until the new 5 year permit is complete. REPEAT: BC IS IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATE.

DEHEC recommends that the entity involved, county or municipality, should create a Storm Water Management Program "department". They recommend hiring people to staff this new department. They recommend passing an Ordinance that imposes a "fee" to finance this new department. Do we all recognize the "expansion of government and increase in taxes" referred to earlier? We, the taxpayers, are being "told" we have to accept increased taxes (the fee) to support the organization of a new department to conduct business that, on the whole, is already being done by BC government employees.

From the facts established from the official documents on this subject, it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the imposition of an additional fee to support the SWMP is unreasonable and unnecessary. Mr. Davis is being disingenuous when he insists otherwise but what's news worthy about that statement? Mr. Davis sees this situation as an opportunity to collect additional revenue under the guise of complying with a Federal mandate. Could all this have anything to do with Mr. Davis' pet Sheep Island Project? Just asking. After all, he IS a bit short on funding there.

In support of GE&P's contention that the whole "Plan" is a bit more than questionable, allow us to provide some direct quotes from an inner office document from DEHEC:

1. "Establish a "SWMP Manual which can be amended without having to go to Council".

2. "When you collect a bunch of data, know how you're going to use it".

3. "Zoning and building codes (already) include a lot of the components needed to comply with Stormwater management permit requirements".

4. "Develop joint workshop with neighboring MS4s to encourage consistency and cohesion".

5. "Be as "Green" as possible".

6. "It is important to have a good funding source so that you may have funds to hire the staff needed to fulfill program requirements".

7. "Be flexible to allow for change".

8. "....try new things then use what works and discard what doesn't".

9. " If you have a good working relationship with the entities around your MS4 area then cooperating on the permit will save you a lot of work and money". (Reduce the fee? NOT)

10. "An educated public is involved and generally wants to do the right thing".

11. "Don't be afraid to copy what other people have found successful. Take proven ordinances and tweak them to local needs".

12. Stats from Horry County: "Average annual fee of typical gas station= $250: annual fee of typical shopping mall= $10K". (If you will notice, BC has only made public the intended fee for small individual properties with buildings. There has been no mention of the intended fee for gas stations or shopping centers or fast food places. If the final annual fee for these properties is going to be based on the amount of impervious area involved on the properties, hang on to your wallets and get ready for a $10 Big Mac.)

It is common knowledge that GE&P has a long history of being anti-Big Government. It is, also, true that Big Government entities are seldom as careless in divulging damaging information on themselves as is the case with EPA/SCDEHEC concerning this SWMP. Please ask yourselves: When you drive down I-26 and see the 70MPH speed limit, is that just a suggestion? Or is it a well defined LAW? Does the sign really mean that you can drive 90MPH if the 70MPH limit doesn't work for you? Are you allowed to "try something different"? If you buddy up with 10 additional cars and a few big rigs, is it then OK to drive 90MPH simply because "everybody's doing it"? Is it OK for this convoy to run over the County Mounty to avoid arrest?

Our analogy, admittedly, is a bunch of silliness but, upon review, so is the SWMP. If this program is on the level, wouldn't there be a set of established and well defined Rules? If the County has the responsibility of developing their own Rules, wouldn't there, at least be a set of Guidelines instead of telling the entity to "make it up as you go along"? And, why is the entity encouraged to develop a Manual that can be expanded or amended without the approval of Council?

The bottom line is simple:

1. The lion's share of the requirements of this "mandate" has historically been addressed by existing County government departments.

2. In the new permit, the County has two additional requirements that must be met: brainwashing, sorry about that, educating the public into accepting the need for the "Program" and sending in a more detailed annual report to DEHEC.

3. The majority of the information needed for the annual report is readily available from County records. BCW&SA, Engineering, Code Enforcement, and Roads and Bridges address the majority of the issues involved. All that is required here is having the existing employees collate the collected information to the report form. Over the last 5 years of the old permit, compliance with the SWMP has, according to the Finance Department, cost the County between $43,000 and $73,000 annually. The only requirement of the new permit that has not been mentioned so far in this post is that BC government has to assure DEHEC that BC government, itself, is not violating any of the DEHEC Regulations already in place to prevent pollution.

4. Of the 6 "expanded" requirements of the new permit, only 1 has to be met by the end of the first year. For others, the County has 3 years to comply. All of these requirements are administrative.

GE&P will be the first to admit that this SWMP is an imposition on BC government. It is intrusive, burdensome, and, quite frankly, a useless waste of time. It requires that unnecessarily redundant paperwork be done and it detracts County employees from other County business. BUT, for Mr. Davis to use this situation as an excuse to pad the County coffers is egregious. But, you have to admit that, on this occasion, Mr. Davis is being completely transparent. A fee (new tax) will be imposed on the taxpayers; salaries to certain existing employees will be paid with this new revenue; a dubious private contract situation will be developed (at inflated prices, of course)to perform work usually done by other employees; and then the newly created excess money can be funneled to his wasteful spending. This situation is beyond the perimeters of acceptable government behavior. Simply put, IT'S CROOKED AND CORRUPT.

REPORT

2011-08-13T22:52:00.011-04:00

GE&P attended the "Redistricting Forum" at Council Chambers on Saturday morning. The meeting was sponsored by the Berkeley County Chapter of the South Carolina Coalition for Voters' Participation. We were greeted at the door by the President of the group, Ms. Madelin Gibson- Guy.

There were several BC elected officials in attendance, Supervisor, Dan Davis, Councilmen, Pinckney, Schurlknight, and Davis and School Board member, Moore. State Rep. Joe Jefferson was introduced as an organizer of the event. Mr. Jefferson was the first to speak and briefly explained the redistricting process and, then, went on to inform the assemblage about the new Voter ID Law. It was unfortunate that Mr. Jefferson's explanation left the audience with the impression that, according to the new Law, a birth certificate would be necessary in order for a person to vote. Understandably so, this information was very distressing to many. Thankfully, Mrs. Nancy Corbin came to the rescue and explained that simply presenting a driver's license was all that was required. Upon hearing this, the crowd seemed relieved and more comfortable with the new Law.

Several people in the audience had questions on other topics and a very interesting and lively discussion ensued. Everyone who wished to voice an opinion or ask a question was given full latitude. Ms. Gibson-Guy oversaw the meeting with grace and expertise. GE&P commends her for her efforts.

By now, you have concluded there has to be a "BUT". And, you would be correct.

GE&P asked Mr. Pinckney why he was satisfied with District 7 having a deficit of 800 citizens instead of having its full compliment of 1/8th of the total BC population as the redistricting guidelines indicate. Mr. Pinckney would not discuss his reasoning on the matter. He would only parrot the worn talking point, "The District needs equity". Well, GE&P doesn't know what that means. Mr. Pinckney said the District may even lose more people(?), if he has his way.

GE&P made every effort to explain to Mr. Pinckney that we are no longer living in the 1930s. We get our proof from the fact that Congressional District 1, which is 80% White, just elected a Black man to the House of Representatives and the State of SC just elected a female of ethnic background to our highest office. Mr. Pinckney's reply to our statement, "You're bringing politics into this discussion".

Well, Mr. Pinckney, if you will, please allow GE&P to bring a few more pertinent facts to this discussion. The Voting Rights Act and the Rules and Regulations of the DOJ are in place to assure that minorities have a "fair opportunity" to achieve elected office. When it comes to redistricting, even the VRA and the DOJ will not allow "race" to be the "only factor" supporting a proposed plan. Race can be "a factor" but not the sole reason. Judging from the results of the SC 2010 elections, race doesn't seem to be a factor at all. AND, there is no protection in any of the guidelines to assure the election of a particular political party and, certainly, no provisions to guarantee the re-election of incumbents.

Mr. Pinckney is playing a very risky game with his gerrymandered redistricting plan and, more importantly, his attitude in general. He is attempting to pitt BC citizen against BC citizen for his own benefit. GE&P is realistic enough to admit that there are racists and bigots, both Black and White, living in BC and elsewhere, BUT, Thank God, their numbers are few. We firmly believe, from what we witness on a daily basis and from the meeting Saturday, the vast majority of people of every color who live in BC are good, moral people who respect their neighbors. And more than a few of this number are sick to their very souls of the race-baiting perpetrated by politicians and "leaders" who can't seem to acknowledge that a new social reality has developed. Here in BC, we will no longer accept being referred to as "the White Community" or "the Black Community". We are the "BC Community", the "SC Community", and the "Community of the United Staes of America". PERIOD.

NOTE: It would "behove" Mr. Pinckney to do some research on the former rulings of the DOJ on this subject. Historically, there are cases where one single letter of complaint has caused a redistricting plan to be rejected.

Now, did you really think this post would conclude without a report of a conflict between GE&P and our esteemed leader, Supervisor Davis? Silly you.

A gentleman in the audience asked Supervisor Davis about the possibility of getting a waterline on Hwy. 59. Everyone on the first row almost fell off their chairs when Mr. Davis told the gentleman that water lines to the entire county were not "economically feasible". Mr. Davis made this statement knowing he had allowed a $2.4 MILLION waterline (servicing less than 10 households) to be installed on Hwy. 311 solely to secure Mr. Pinckney's supporting vote on County Council. GE&P interpreted Mr. Davis' statement as waving a red flag in the face of a raging bull. GE&P took the opportunity to briefly refer to this reckless spending.

In rebuttal, Mr. Davis pointed out that "no taxpayer dollars were spent on the Hwy. 311 waterline". Mr. Davis stated that every dollar had come from "fees" paid to BCW&SA by customers. GE&P would like to thank Mr. Davis for this clarification and we would like to pass along a detailed explanation to the taxpayers of BC.

The activities of BCW&SA are funded by Customer Fees for service and Impact Fees charged to new construction. These Impact Fees are passed along to buyers of the houses or products of these businesses. So, here it is simply put. When you pay your "taxes" to BC government, you take the money from your right pocket. When you pay your "fees" to BC government, you take the money from your left pocket.

As you can see, these are two totally different situations. We hope everyone understands. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Davis.

IS IT "IS" OR IS IT "AIN'T'

2011-08-08T12:08:00.015-04:00

It is a crying shame that one spokesman for Charleston DEHEC is so confused. He actually thinks that this new Storm Water Management Program that Dan Davis wants to charge the Berkeley County taxpayers $1.4 MILLION to implement is really not a state issued mandate to Berkeley County. According to this misinformed state official, the only way for this DEHEC responsibility to be transferred to a County or municipality is for said County or municipality to request same. The "totally inaccurate" official account of the process is as follows:

1. The County or municipality applies to DEHEC for permission to take over this responsibility. (whatever that is)

2. DEHEC, after approval, issues a permit to the County or municipality.

3. The County or municipality pays $2000 to DEHEC for the permit.

4. DEHEC has no input or control over the County or municipal fees imposed.

5. A CASH COW is firmly tethered to the hitching post in front of the BC Administration Building.

As it seems the DEHEC office is much akin to those of the IRS and Social Security, answers to questions vary as to the person with whom you speak. Another "official" at DEHEC insists the Storm Water Management Program IS mandated by the State. So, GE&P decided to go to the horse's mouth for a definitive answer. We referred to SC Statute. Here is the applicable quote:

72-300

D. The Commission encourages the implementation of the Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act on a watershed basis by local governments.

As to the financing of this program, we learned that the statute provides choices. BC can either institute a county wide annual fee, payable by every property owner in the unincorporated areas, or impose a one time fee to all new construction.

72-306

A (1) If the delegated jurisdiction has a source of funding that is provided through local revenues, then the implementation of the delegated component will not necessitate the imposition of a permit fee to cover the cost of the delegated program component.

(2) In the event that one component of an overall stormwater management and sediment control program is not funded through the use of general or special funds, a non-refundable permit fee may be collected at the time that the stormwater management and sediment control plan or application for waiver or variance is submitted or approved. The permit fee will provide for the unfunded costs of plan review, administration and management of the permitting office, construction review, maintenance inspection, and education and training.
This seems pretty simple. The County can opt to either charge a fee to the entities who are actually causing the proposed "damage" to the environment or they can just charge everybody. You might be asking,"Why in the world would the County want to charge everybody?" That wouldn't make much sense now would it? Well, think again. There is one more little insignificant part of the statute.
72-306

B. Where the Commission is the implementing agency, the Commission may assess a fee not to exceed $100.00 per disturbed acre up to a maximum of $2000.00. No fee will be charged for land disturbing activities which disturb two acres or less. A fee of $100.00 will be charged for permit modifications.
Well, looky there. When the responsibility for this "program" is transferred from the Commission (State) to the County, the same Rules and one time fee limits would apply. If the County decides to pick the "one time fee" to contractors, they would be boxed into a limited revenue situation. When there is a $2000 limit on individual fees, exactly how many new construction projects would we have to secure in one year to match the proposed overall countywide fee total of $1.4 MILLION? (In many people's opinions, there may be a lot of derogatory adjectives that rightfully apply to Dan Davis but "stupid" is not one of them. Unlike Councilman Pinckney, who seemed to have trouble with his financial disclosure forms to Ethics differentiating between $250 and $2.4 MILLION in personal benefit from a municipal project, Mr. Davis has no trouble comparing the sums involved in this situation.)
Then, another question as to who should be paying for this boondoggle comes to mind. The SC Statute seems to be pretty clear, to a non-lawyer that is.

72-310

A. The financing of a stormwater utility with a user charge system must be reasonable and equitable so that each user of the stormwater system pays to the extent to which the user contributes to the need for the stormwater system, and that the charges bear a substantial relationship to the cost of the service.

A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Frank Carson told a small group of concerned taxpayers that an "interim" annual fee was going to be imposed on all property owners in the unincorporated areas. (Later, in the Berkeley Independent, he indicated that this "interim" fee would be spent trying to determine what the "actual" annual fee will be.) It is our understanding that Mr. Carson indicated the fee would be based on the roof area of the buildings and the amount of paved area on the property. This combined figure would determine the impact on the environment and, therefore, the amount of the annual fee. When asked if the amount of undeveloped acreage surrounding the buildings would have any positive impact on reducing the fee he said, "NO".

When asked if the "Program" would require any new employees, facilities, or equipment, Mr. Carson said, "NO". (Having read the Rules & Regs, it is obvious that 95% of this "Program" is administrative and well within the abilities of existing employees.) HOWEVER, Mr. Carson delivered a presentation to Council last Monday night itemizing all the new expenditures that justify the taking of the $1.4 MILLION.

We need to remember that this "Program", with slight deviations, has existed in BC since 1993. Even as Mr. Carson was listing the extensive expenditures required for the upcoming years for this "Program", the Finance Department of BC government, at the same meeting, listed the past expenditures as being from $49,000 to $73,000 annually. These funds were comfortably provided by the general fund. The requirements of the "new" permit do not measurably deviate from those of the past so there is no way to justify the imposition of a $1.4 MILLION new tax burden on the property owners of BC.

So, here we have it in a nutshell. Mr. Davis is hellbent on taking $1.4 MILLION more from the taxpayers of BC. He has his 4 "paid for" members of County Council who will vote for anything he wants. This arrangement is additionally egregious due to the fact that 2 of these Councilmen represent areas populated with a substantial number of people who simply cannot afford any addition expenses.

One of the biggest arguments for this new "Program" is that surrounding Counties and municipalities already have it in place. To GE&P, this is not a valid argument. If something is unfair and, simply put, WRONG, it doesn't matter if everyone is doing it. It's still WRONG.

NOTE: On the surface, there would seem to be some doubt that these fees are enforceable as the "official" documents of BC government show a built-in 20% non-complience factor.

DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE

2011-07-27T09:16:00.008-04:00

GE&P attended the County Council Redistricting Workshop last night. As a citizen of the greatest County on the face of the earth, the greatest State in the Union, and the greatest County in the State, we found some of the discussion very distasteful.

The moderator, Mr. Bowers, is a well respected and long term demographer. His assignment at the meeting was to educate everyone on State law and DOJ requirements regarding redistricting. He was very professional and presented the information clearly in a manner that was easily understandable to all. The problem for GE&P arose, not from the manner of presentation, but from the content of the information related. It was this information that we found basically offensive.

Mr. Bowers distributed a fact sheet that contained the redistricting requirements in order of priority. He emphasized that the first three items on the list were of utmost importance and were absolutely essential to formulating a successful plan that would pass DOJ muster. These three items concerned only one issue, guaranteeing that there will be two minority Districts in BC that are capable of reelecting the incumbent. The LAST item, in terms of priority on this list was PUBLIC INPUT.

As we see them, these requirements present a few insurmountable problems for those charged with formulating the redistricting plan to coincide with all the applicable laws:

1. The Black population of BC, according to the 2000 census, was 26.6% of the total population. According to the 2010 census, the Black population of BC had diminished to 25.4% of the total.

2. A sizable percentage of this 25.4% of our Black population has dispersed from the traditionally rural "Black communities" and has relocated into other parts of the County. Many of these citizens have relocated into the "general population" of the urban incorporated areas. They have opted, understandably so, to settle in subdivisions and communities that are not referred to as populated by a certain race. They have chosen to live in areas where they are referred to as simply "a good neighbor" with no reference to race. Being as this voluntary dispersement is so random and widespread, it is impossible for any redistricting effort to "segregate" these families into a particular district.

3. There has been an influx of "Newbies" in BC over the last 10 years. Many of these new citizens have moved into the rural parts of the County. The addition of these new citizens, mostly whites, has affected the ratio of white to black in population counts in areas that were, at one time, predominately black.

This is one segment of the redistricting issue that GE&P finds totally confusing. We thought the goal of this county is to create a homogenized society where race, religion, or national origin is never an issue. We thought the whole idea revolved around not considering the color of one's skin but the content of one's character.

At the workshop, one member of County Council who opted to refer to himself as "a minority" stated that "if this plan succeeds, come next election, there won't be any minorities on County Council". He was referring to the proposed plan's ratio of black to white voters in his District. Another member of Council questioned the validity of this statement by reminding everyone that Tim Scott won his bid for Congress in District 1, facing a voting population that is 80% white. The "minority" Councilman replied, "Yea, but those are Republicans". When presented with the possibility that he had suggested that white Republicans would happily elect a Black candidate but white Democrats would not, the "minority" Councilman became irate and vehemently denied that he had implied any such thing.

From all the information gathered from the workshop, GE&P deduced that State law and the requirements of the DOJ are aimed at guaranteeing the election of a Black candidate in 2 of our Council Districts. The "minority" incumbents seem to be more concerned with the election of a candidate of a certain political party or, moreover, a certain political ideology.

GE&P will repeat our long-time position on this issue. We detest the 1930ish practices of denying any person their Constitutional rights, no matter their skin color. We actively support equal opportunity for every citizen. We support "One man, one vote". We support open and fair elections. We believe any person should be allowed to stand for the elected office of their choosing. But, we, also, believe the race baiting resulting from the restrictions imposed by the DOJ is disgusting. The good people of SC have risen above the reprehensible problems of the past that required intervention by the DOJ. The election of Tim Scott is the proof of that statement.

After reviewing all the SC laws and DOJ requirements on this subject and taking into consideration the geography and population disbursement of BC, along with the "minority" Councilmen's goals, GE&P can envision no workable solution to this conundrum. So stop trying to divide Berkeley County by race. Stop the race-baiting. The only way to make any redistricting plan adhere to all the existing SC laws and DOJ regulations, considering the numbers we have to work with, is to go back to segregated neighborhoods and districts and GE&P wants no part of that kind of social regression.

We, the majority of black and white citizens of BC, have advanced beyond that. We, the majority of black and white citizens of BC, look upon each other as neighbors and allies not as adversaries and enemies. We, the majority of black and white citizens of BC, truly resent a small minority of the population who continues to try to convince us otherwise. It is past time for this ever shrinking group of people to stop the divisive rhetoric and join the rest of us who are trying to make BC the best place in the world to live.

THIS OUGHT TO RING THE SCHOOL BELL

2011-07-23T18:35:00.008-04:00

Did everyone check the agenda for the County Council meeting for this coming Monday night?There's a very interesting little item on the agenda of the Finance Committee. It seems Mr. Davis wants to repeal BC Ordinance 96-1-2. Ten to one you don't know what that Ordinance covers. Well, let us be the first to enlighten you. The Ordinance says in part:

"......Berkeley County designates that the distribution of the fee-in-lieu of ad valorem property taxes pursuant to the Industrial Park Agreement received by Berkeley County for park premises located in Berkeley County (the 94% portion) be made to each of the taxing entities in Berkeley County which levy an ad valorem property tax in any of the areas comprising the Berkeley Park in the same percentage as is equal to that taxing entity's percentage of the millage rate being levied in the then current tax year for property tax purposes,.........."

At present, the fee-in-lieu of tax revenue has a set procedure for distribution. Williamsburg County gets 1%, the BC Economic Development Fund gets 5%, and the remainder is divided between the taxing entities of the county. Since the School District is one of these entities, they should get their share. According to the source you ask, in the past, this share was in the neighborhood of up to 64%. But we must remember that Mr. Davis has already taken the portion of these FILOT funds provided by Mount Holly. So the amount of funds received by the School District has been lowered.

Now we need for you to put on your thinking cap. Follow these dots. An Ordinance is in place that states the School District is legally entitled to a portion of the FILOT money collected in BC. Mr. Davis has already deprived the School District of their portion of funds from one FILOT source, Mt. Holly. Now, Mr. Davis wants to repeal the whole Ordinance that gives the School District the legal right, based on millage, to a percentage of the remaining funds.

Everyone should be aware that this FILOT money has been a large part of the School District's funding since 1996. When the County was being run in a fiscally responsible manner, everyone realized that funding the School District was an important endeavor. Obviously, this administration has a different set of priorities since Mr. Davis puts more import on a $2.4 million water line that serves 7 families and a $1.6 million mud hole.

We have all seen the articles in the newspaper stating that the School District is begging for donations to provide the basic needs of the students. Does anyone in his right mind believe this administration will give the School District jack if not forced to do so by this Ordinance? Did Mr. Davis come up short on Mr. Steve Davis' new courthouse?

What do you think will happen to the budget of the School District if and when Mr. Davis withholds the remainder of this FILOT money? What will happen if the School District is forced into the position of being the villain by raising your taxes just to meet needs? Mr. Davis will be able to sit there with his smug self and brag that he didn't raise taxes.

Many BC teachers supported Mr. Davis in both of his elections. Looks like this decision has come back to "bite cha". There was no uproar from that quarter when Mr. Davis took the Mt. Holly funds from the School District. We have to wonder if they will maintain that silence now.

RIGHT HERE IN RIVER CITY

2011-07-22T20:57:00.012-04:00

We know a lot of you are all exercised about the State and Federal Redistricting. So you will not be surprised that the fancy footwork and downright crooked activity has sifted down to the Berkeley County Council Redistricting Plan.

We are certain all of you received notice of the Council Redistricting meetings, right? Well, you may be surprised that they have been going on for over a year now. And, after a thorough check, GE&P learned that at least 4 of the present members of County Council were not notified of these meetings either. Anybody care to guess which 4 members that could be?

As usual, we will give you a little background on the process. First, the number of citizens in the county is established by the census. We are working with the 2010 census in this case. Since there are 8 Council Districts in BC, the total number of the population is divided by 8 and each District is supposed to have pretty close to that number of population. These individual numbers are broken down by total District count, then, by race, and then by voting age folks. Each District is supposed to be contiguous. In other words, all parts of the District have to be connected in some manner.

The Proposed Plan which, by the way, has a large bold note saying "NOT FOR PUBLICATION", is very interesting. For this post, we decided to confine our comments primarily to District 7. We will get to the others later.

Following the number gathered from the 2010 census, each Council District should have a population of 22,230. This goal would be achieved if the county was divided exactly evenly into 8 parts. Since this hardly ever happens, the proposal always has a "deviation percentage" included. This deviation can be either plus or minus. In a perfect world, this percentage should be very small. In a crooked world, not so much.

According to this new Plan, (and remember, we don't know who formulated this Plan) District 7 only has a population of 21,430. This number leaves District 7 800 short of its fair share. Even with the shortfall, District 7 has 48.37% white people of voting age and 47.10% black people of voting age. But, Mr. Pinckney isn't worried about these numbers since he represents all the people.

Now that we have the proposed numbers established, let's get to the map of District 7. Most District maps are drawn with natural boundaries such as rivers, roads, or communities. District 7 doesn't quite meet these guidelines.

District 7 touches three other Districts, 6, 8, and 4. In order to pick up the deficit of 800, District 7 would have to take some folks from one of these other Districts. We can discount District 8 because Mr. Steve Davis is not going to relinquish one of his voters because he, too, already has a deficit of 632. (Do we notice a pattern here?) District 4, also, has a deficit but of only 245, so that's out. That leaves District 6 with its surplus of 410. Oh my goodness, would you look at where District 7 meets District 6.

We have a nice neat boundary along Hwy. 6. Mr. Pinckney gets the left side of the road and Mr. Schurlknight gets the right side. We have the same scenario in the middle section where the two Districts intersect, Mr. Pinckney to the left side of the road and Mr. Schurlknight to the right. But, then we come to the area where the two Districts meet along Hwy 176. District 7 follows an imaginary line just northwest of Cane Bay. This puts Cane Bay into Mr. Schurlknight's District.

Now let's look at this issue from a purely non-political point of view. If District 6 has a surplus of 410 and District 7 has a deficit of 800, wouldn't it make good common sense to shift the 410 from District 6 to District 7? Wouldn't that be more e-qui-ta-ble?

If you are interested in the issue of County Council Redistricting you may want to attend the workshop to be held in the Supervisor's conference room on Tuesday July 26th at 6 PM. The meeting will not be open for public comment but you might find it informative none the less.

THE POLITICAL RUMOR MILL

2011-07-21T11:33:00.007-04:00

Don't you just love politics?

Our favorite part of this game would have to be the various rumors that one hears. We have to admit one funny thing is that there are lots of rumors about the Left going Right but very few the other way around. We heard a real doozy the other day that we thought you might enjoy. First, we'll fill in the facts and, then, we'll get to the rumor.

Sen. Glenn McConnell has made it abundantly clear that he is no longer a fan of Sen. Larry Grooms and the Tea Party Conservatives known as the "back row boys". This group keeps gumming up the works for Glenn by blocking his big government spending schemes. Most recently, Larry had the unadulterated gall to disagree with "His Holiness" on some major redistricting issues. Larry was looking out for his constituents and, in the end, Larry's position won the vote and the day. Sen. McConnell was not pleased with Sen. Grooms. He voiced his displeasure loudly and at length on the senate floor.

As a result of Sen. Grooms' disobedience, (and challenge to Glenn's supreme authority) Sen. McConnell would love to get rid of this thorn in his side. Being as Larry is the most senior member of this troublesome Tea Party crowd, wouldn't it be great if Glenn could only come up with a scheme to replace him with a more easily controllable RINO who would support McConnell's big spending initiatives?

Sen. McConnell is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that is in charge of Senate redistricting. Sen. Grooms is in Senate District 37. When the map for the "new" District 37 came out, something had been added, a little corner of Park Circle in North Charleston. At the time, no one thought too much of it.

Since everyone knows that Charleston has more than its share of Democrats and RINO elites, it is not unusual to see more than one of either attending the East Cooper Republican Lunch. But, it is a bit unusual to see a Charleston County elected official and supposed "Republican" escorting a known Liberal Democrat around like he is some kind of dignitary. Well, lots of heads turned when Charlie Lybrand, the Charleston RMC, escorted Liberal Democrat, Elliot (somebody) into the last luncheon. Young Elliot was even invited to speak before the Republican gathering. He bragged about being a Democrat and voting Democrat but stressed that he had appointed "some" Republicans to "some" board seats. (we imagine that brought the crowd to its feet) Did we forget to mention that it so happened that Sen. Grooms was the guest speaker that same day? Anyway, after young Elliot finished his speech, he and Mr. Lybrand were observed huddling with some of the Charleston GOP officials.

After this event, it became general knowledge that the little corner of Park Circle was added to District 37 and surprise, surprise, guess who lives there? You got it, none other than young Elliot. Thats when some politically savvy folks started connecting the dots and the rumor mill began to go wild.

Could we be watching the groundwork for a McConnell secret plan?

Why is Glenn breaking the 11th commandment when it come to Sen. Grooms?

Is Sen. Grooms being set up for a challenge?

Could this Liberal Democrat be persuaded to switch parties?

Will Roy and Trigger get to the ranch in time?

Don't you just love politics?

YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK

2011-07-19T20:15:00.005-04:00

Well, Folks, it looks like Mr. Davis and his merry men are on the verge of shafting the BC taxpayers yet one more time. In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Davis has never seen a revenue source he won't exploit. Case in point, Storm Water Management.

To begin with, the name is a bit misleading. One would think this program has something to do with "storm water". It doesn't. This new County agency has been designated with the responsibility of monitoring water quality in the rivers and streams of Berkeley County. This designation came in the form of a mandate from DEHEC which, in turn, was mandated by the EPA. Not all Counties in all states are bound by this mandate. The Feds decided to pick and choose who will have to comply and who gets to skate. Unfortunately for us, Berkeley County drew one of the short straws.

When GE&P learned of this new program, we, and a small group of other concerned citizens, arranged a meeting with Mr. Frank Carson. Mr. Carson is heading up the new program and he very kindly agreed to meet with us to answer our questions and address our concerns. The meeting was held this afternoon. We did get answers to all our questions but we did not have our concerns diminished. If anything, our concerns were only exacerbated.

The documents outlining this mandate are something to behold. When one searches for the goals of the program, one finds the text lacking in particulars. There are vague generalities and an inordinate quantity of bureaucratic gobbledygook. The scariest parts are the sections which list the provisions that must be included in the Berkeley County Ordinance covering this program. We will list the provisions of greatest concern and the explanations we received from the meeting.

ORDINANCE: The County MUST include an article that SWMP agents have the right to enter any private property at any time they choose.

EXPLANATION: Agents will only enter private property AFTER the owner has received notice of same. (this is NOT the wording of the mandate)

ORDINANCE: In Berkeley County, property owners and users should finance the Storm Water Management system to the extent they contribute to the need for the system and benefit from the system, and charges therefore should bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the service, and every effort should be made to fairly spread the cost of the system to all property owners and users.

EXPLANATION: Not all property owners contribute to the "problem" (the "problem" could not be defined in the first place) and no one could indicate any benefit that anyone attending the meeting would derive from the "system". We hope that's clear as mud.

LIST OF ILLICIT DISCHARGES: Laundry Wastewaters/grey water, Radiator flushing disposal, Carpet cleaning wastewater, Spills from roadway accidents, and EFFLUENTS FROM SEPTIC TANKS.

EXPLANATION: No one should worry about the septic system prohibition. This only means if the septic system is broken and the effluents are pouring out on the top of the ground or into a ditch. It has nothing to do with the effluents that go into the drain lines. (Again, that's NOT what the regulations say.)

The "interim" fees will be as follows:

Rental unit---------$18

Mobile Home------$18

House---------------$36

Church & School---$72

Businesses----------$105

We were unable to obtain a definite count on the actual number of these units in BC as the agency has yet to do a complete survey. These fees were "approximated" from a "sampling" resulting in an "estimate". NOTE: The $2.4 Million Hwy. 311 water line survey "estimated" that there would be 114 tap-ins when, in actuality, there turned out to be only 7. Ooops.

But we KNOW this government agency will be far more efficient.

One member of the group asked if the funds collected under this new fee would be used for any other purposes than those of the Storm Water Management Program. (tongue in check) We were assured that State statute mandates that the revenues collected by any utility be used only for that utility's activities. (You're probably thinking about the $10 Million that Mr. Davis "borrowed" from BCW&SA's Fund Balance, aren't you? Well, stop that.) We KNOW this government agency would not let a thing like that happen to them.

At the end of the meeting we had learned quite a few things.

We learned that the Storm Water Management Program has little to nothing to do with storm water.

The new agency will not have to hire any new people.

The people who will be assuring that BC is in compliance with the mandate will be present employees already on the payroll.

The new agency will not require new housing.

The agency will be required to fill out an annual report to DEHEC on their activities.

The agency will be required to educate the public as to what a necessary job the agency is doing.

The most important job of the agency will be to sample the water in our rivers and streams to be sure it is in compliance with DEHEC standards.

The main contamination culprit these folks will be searching for in our waters is fecal matter. (It was admitted that, if the fecal matter turns out to be from deer, raccoons, possums, squirrels, or other critters, a solution to the problem will require more research.)

All of these valuable services are only going to cost you $1.4 Million in the first year and a yet to be determined sum in the out years.

There were a few more things we learned that were extremely frustrating.

No one could tell us just exactly how any of our properties were contributing to what ever the problem is that this agency is supposed to solve.

No one could tell us just exactly what will be the benefit to us for paying this fee to support this agency.

No one would even discuss the possibility of these funds experiencing an unforeseen "inter-departmental transfer" to the BC General Fund.

So, here's the long and short of it, Taxpayers.

You're getting an agency that you don't need; that you don't know what it's suppose to do; that you don't know what is the problem that it's suppose to solve; that completely obliterates your private property rights; and all this goodness will only cost you $1.4 Million in the first year.

At least you don't have to worry about Mr. Davis raiding this fund balance. Can anyone say,

"CASH COW?"

THE FICKLE FINGER OF FATE

2011-06-28T06:33:00.021-04:00

For some unfathomable reason, there are people in our society who just love to push the envelope to the maximum degree. Sometimes, this is not a bad thing. Records are set; discoveries are made. Society usually benefits in some way by these efforts. BUT, there are equally as many people who engage in this extreme behavior to the detriment of society. You can equate these people to spoiled children who manage to misbehave on a regular basis without correction. If they get caught pulling the cat's tail, they blame it on their brother. If they get caught stealing a cookie, "Daddy said I could have one."

We have all known of people who belong to this latter group: Madoff, Wrangle, Parish, Weiner, and of late, Blago. We have marveled at the fact that folks of this ilk seem to seldom if ever get punished adequately for their bad behavior. If they are finally brought to task, years of damage and economic carnage have passed. It is doubly frustrating and annoying when these people are elected officials handling our tax dollars.

Well, take heart. Sometimes, there is such a thing as poetic justice. Sometimes, these folks push the envelope a bit too far. Sometimes, they try to add just one more straw to the overburdened camel's back and they are brought to account for their actions. We have such a case to report today.

All of the regular GE&P readers know and cringe at many of the policies of the present BC administration:

You knew it was wrong when the Supervisor acted in direct opposition to a vote of County Council concerning the re-branding of the BCW&SA. All he had to do to get out of that little mess was say, " Ooops, my bad" and go his merry way with many of his illegal changes left in place due to the expense to the County of changing everything back to the way it was. First big win for the Supervisor.

You all knew it was wrong when the Supervisor allowed a $2.4 Million water line with less than 10 tap-ins to be installed, without the knowledge of full Council, to the relative front door of a Councilman's house because he needed the support of this Councilman to establish his vote control. The criticism of this project was manipulated by it's supporters and culminated in the opposition being dubbed "racists". The fact that this project was not economically feasible was pushed to the sideline and deemed immaterial. Eventually, the furor died down, the water line was installed, and the Councilman's support was secured. The Supervisor wins, again.

You all knew it was wrong when the Supervisor proposed taking back 29% of the property tax relief derived from the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST). The first two times the LOST was proposed, the taxpayers voted it down by referendum. This new tax succeeded only when Council vowed that "100% of the revenue derived from the tax would be applied to property tax relief". The Supervisor ignored this promise, misinformed some members of Council, and mustered sufficient votes to take the 29%. Since, he has used these funds to finance some of his wasteful spending. The Supervisor wins, again.

You all knew it was wrong when the Supervisor proposed a 30% increase in the water and sewer rates. At that time, BCW&SA had an enormous fund balance. (Funds contained in the fund balance are deemed "surplus", comparable to a savings account.) The Supervisor blamed the necessity for this increase on the rules of the bonding companies. He explained that the bonding companies required a mandatory ratio between revenue and the debt. Several of his advisors testified to Council that this was, in fact, true. The incomprehensible element to this argument was that the size of the surplus had no impact on this ratio. (Would it not be astounding if, at one point in time, a BC advisor, after being shown documented proof that this person had provided misinformation to Council, answered, "I know that, but, if one lies with enough conviction, the statement will be taken for the truth.") A sufficient number of Councilmen were convinced of the necessity for the increase and the measure passed. The Supervisor wins, again.

You all knew it was wrong when the Supervisor began referring to BCW&SA as a "department" of BC government. You voiced disapproval when he announced that he proposed a "transfer" of funds from the fund balance of W&S to the general fund of BC government. He defended this action by saying it made no sense for one "department" to borrow needed funds when another "department" had surplus funds just laying around unused. In January, 2008, Resolution 08-01 was approved "to transfer an amount not to exceed $10 Million from the BCW&SA to the BC General Fund". The Supervisor wins, again.

You all knew it was very wrong when the Supervisor decided to cut out all opportunity for opposition to his policies by reorganizing County Council Rules. Existing Rules and precedent were violated or ignored; the Committee system was bastardized; and, in the end game, only the Supervisor's supporters on Council had any control over the decision making process. With positive input from the County advisors ratifying the process to establish all these changes, the new Rules were put into place. Since that "reorganization", four members of County Council have had no input whatsoever in the policy making process of BC government. Consequently, when the Supervisor now makes a proposal, no matter how outrageous, the vote is always 4/4 with the Supervisor breaking the tie in his favor. This maneuver was a genuine coup and the Supervisor wins, again.

You all knew it was wrong when, considering the state of the economy, the Supervisor proposed his new Capitol Improvements plan: the $6 Million purchase of the old fairgrounds property (using the seller's appraisal) to locate the $22 Million "Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus", a proposed new $3 Million court house in St. Stephen to secure another Councilman's supporting vote, a proposed multi-million dollar library in Hanahan that even the Mayor of that town doesn't support, spending millions of dollars on expanding the senior citizens center in Moncks Corner, and playing musical chairs with numerous agencies in the county at a cost of more millions of taxpayer's dollars. The actual list of proposed projects is far too long to include here. We only named the most egregious offenders. With the cooperation of his supporters on County Council, the Supervisor obtained approval for this agenda. Another win for the Supervisor.

At last, we come to the part where the tide changes. As a wise man once said, "Be careful that you don't drive something into the ground until you break it off." Unfortunately for the Supervisor, his actions at Monday night's County Council meeting indicate he has never heard this cautionary tale.

Late last week it became public knowledge that the Supervisor intended to submit a budget Ordinance for fiscal year 2011/2012 that would combine the BC budget with that of the BCW&SA. It was argued in many circles that this rumored move was highly unlikely due to the fact that extensive research proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that BC Law and SC Statute clearly forbade such action. If anyone would like to read the statutes for themselves, please refer to S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-300 through 6-1-330, S.C. Code Ann. 4-9-30(5)(a), and BC 1992 Ordinance NO. 92-06-08. The proof that the language of the 1992 Ordinance has never been repealed can be found in BC 2010 Ordinance No. 10-07-18.

When this combined budget was introduced during the Finance Committee meeting Monday night, Councilman Callanan referenced the 2008 Resolution transferring funds out of the BCW&SA's fund balance and suggested the County would be following a slippery slope if this combined budget was to be adopted. He suggested that the County would be placing itself in a precarious legal position. Mr. Calanan voiced some concern that the head of Finance, Mrs. Smith, at a previous meeting, had indicated that Council could vote to forgive the debt to W&S if it should so choose. He said this action, should it happen, would leave W&S at a disadvantage concerning the recoupment of its funds. The Supervisor, however, put everyone's concerns to rest when he announced that he wanted to adopt this combined budget strictly for the convenience of simplicity and that he had no intention of commingling the funds. (Well Sir, we don't know about you but that assurance surely takes a load off our mind. Silly us thought this whole exercise was formulated so BC government could get it's hands on BCW&SA's surplus. We are truly relieved that we were mistaken.)

Also, Mr. Callanan made a motion that any revenue collected that exceeded expenditures under the 2011/2012 budget be dedicated to property tax relief. He said his goal was to return some of the 29% from the LOST to the taxpayers.

Councilman Fish introduced a motion that a continuing resolution be adopted so that Council could hold a workshop on his budget analysis that could save the County approximately $1 Million. Also, he quoted the BC law that states the "transfer" of the $5 Million from the BCW&SA fund balance was illegal. Needless to say, both Mr. Callanan's motion and Mr. Fish's motion failed when a vote was taken in full Council. You have to remember these two Councilmen have no vote on the Finance Committee thanks to the Supervisor's new Council Rules. Sounds fair to us.

Ultimately, when a vote was taken on the new combined budget, the result was 4/4 with (here comes a big surprise) the Supervisor breaking the tie in favor of his budget. Supervisor Dan Davis, Councilman Bob Call, Councilman Cauldwell Pinckney, Councilman Steve Davis, and Councilman Jack Schurlknight all voted in favor of this combined budget after hearing Mr. Terry Hardesty read the SC Statute forbidding the commingling of W&S's revenues with those of BC government. To date, these four members of Council who support the Supervisor have faithfully marched like lemmings to the beat of the Supervisor's drum. Unfortunately for these faithful supporters, they may just have unwittingly marched off the proverbial cliff with this latest vote. If the 2008 Resolution didn't exist, it would be easier for a judge to believe the Supervisor's story about only wanting simplification of the Budget Ordinance. His statement about having no intention of commingling funds might be believable if he had not already taken funds from the W&S fund balance and put them into the general fund of BC government. But the 2008 Ordinance brings all of his assertions into question.

Now, the die is cast. The deed is done. Mr. Davis' administration has no choice but to face the possible consequences of his actions. Could this be the first big loss for the Supervisor?

As with most things political, GE&P has more questions than answers:

Does anyone think that BC government's use of BCW&SA's fund balance as a revenue source is illegal?

Is this very thing the goal of this administration?

Has this plan been in the works since the W&S rates were raised years ago?

Was the combined W&S/BC government budget Ordinance the first step toward combining the revenue of both entities?

Does this administration think it will cause less controversy to gain revenue by this means as opposed to flat out raising taxes?

If you have the answers to any of these questions or would like someone to try to answer them, please call your member of the BC delegation. GE&P would very much like some answers.

PROFIT?

2011-06-27T12:30:00.004-04:00

GE&P read the P&C article this morning about Cypress Gardens with great interest and, we must confess, greater confusion. The article provided many valuable facts and figures but the conclusions drawn from this information were right out of the Twilight Zone.

GE&P supports Cypress Gardens as the golden asset to the county that it is. Our only argument is with the manipulation of the facts as presented in this article.

EXAMPLE:

"The county paid off its ($3.5 million) debt from a surplus fund."

FACT:

BC government illegally took this money from the fund balance of the BCW&SA. This administration, using accounting slight of hand, maneuvered these funds, ultimately, into BC's general fund.

EXAMPLE:

"By the numbers, $61,352 estimated profit."

FACT:

The taxpayers of BC are providing $647,000 a year in property taxes to Cypress Gardens. If we are providing subsidies to the expense column, how can these people claim that a positive bottom line is "profit"?

It's time for the misinformation to stop.

FOR THIS DAY

2011-06-19T06:42:00.002-04:00

"Daddy's hands were soft and kind when I was crying.

Daddy's hands were hard as steel when I'd done wrong.

Daddy's hands weren't always gentle but I came to understand,

There was always love in Daddy's hands."

THANKS TO "THE NERVE"

2011-05-14T17:39:00.008-04:00

After Filibuster, Senator Eyes Budget Cuts, Tax Refunds

By Eric K. Ward  The Nerve 

S.C. Sen. Tom Davis wants to cut next year’s proposed state budget by at least $149 million and have that money refunded to South Carolina taxpayers. The senator’s proposed cuts and rebates could be twice that amount, or closer to $300 million, based on calculations he attributes to Senate Finance Committee staff. Davis, R-Beaufort, says he plans to propose a series of amendments to implement the spending cuts and tax rebates when senators resume deliberations next week on a budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year, which begins July 1. The Senate has been debating an approximately $21.8 billion budget since the final week of April. Members of the chamber plan to pick it back up when they are scheduled to reconvene Tuesday at 10 a.m. Again citing Senate Finance data, Davis says the general fund portion of the proposed budget would grow from $5.1 billion this year to $5.86 billion next year, an increase of $760 million or nearly 15 percent. “And my point was households haven’t seen that kind of an increase in their incomes,” Davis says of an unusual, five-hour filibuster he mounted against the budget on the Senate floor Thursday. “I mean they’re trying to make ends meet.” The general fund, about one-fourth of the budget, consists of state tax revenue. The rest of the budget comes from “other” funds, mostly fees and fines, and federal funds. Davis says the Legislature, and state government in general, should abandon its spend-whatever-we-collect mentality and instead focus on core functions, discontinuing activities outside of its mission such as economic development.  

Send it Back  Whatever money remains after that process, he says, “Let’s send it back to the taxpayer. Essentially we’ve over-collected.” Davis provided The Nerve with an advance copy of nine budget amendments he plans to introduce. Most of his would-be cuts and taxpayer refunds would come from a $100 million reduction in Medicaid, a federal- and state-funded health care program for the poor, elderly and disabled. Another amendment proposes a 10 percent reduction in funding to the Commission on Higher Education and state-supported colleges and universities. The schools “must reduce administrative and non-classroom instructional programs to absorb the cost,” the amendment says. Five of the amendments similarly seek 10 percent funding reductions to a host of agencies and departments, including the House and Senate, and all nine constitutional officers except the attorney general and adjutant general. The 10 percent list also features the Public Service Commission and the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. The Department of Consumer Affairs would get about $565,000 less. Davis says he reviewed the Senate Finance allocations to each entity compared to its core mission and asked staff members of the committee to calculate his proposed savings. Adding the figures, The Nerve came up with a little more than $149 million. The total listed in the documents, however, is double that amount – $298 million. Davis says he isn’t sure how to account for the discrepancy.

  Income Tax Rebate Fund It could trace to a formula outlined in another of his amendments. That one would set up an “Income Tax Rebate Fund” in the S.C. Treasurer’s Office. The office would use the formula and the fund to compute and issue refunds to taxpayers. Late filers would not qualify. The final Davis amendment calls for using any general fund revenue collected through the first three quarters of next fiscal year in excess of projections to help pay off nearly $1 billion in state debt to the federal government for unemployment benefits. Asked why he would take the largest share of his cuts out of Medicaid, Davis says the budget the Finance Committee presented to the Senate would grow Medicaid by $200 million, meaning the program still would receive $100 million more over this year even if his suggested cut passes. Also, Davis notes that the Legislature has taken steps to reduce Medicaid costs by repealing several provisos. Those measures mandate certain Medicaid services, such as medically necessary chiropractic care. Another one of the provisos prohibits the state agency that manages Medicaid, the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services, from reducing payment rates to hospitals and other Medicaid providers. South Carolina is the only state with a lock on its Medicaid provider rates, according to state officials and health care industry representatives. Health and Human Services officials have said they are planning to cut rates 10 percent overall, but reductions for different industry sectors would vary. The Nerve asked HHS for a response to Davis’ proposed $100 million reduction. “Instead of taking 10 percent from the Medicaid provider line, we’d have to take around 18 percent,” agency director Tony Keck said in an email from HHS spokesman Jeff Stensland. Continuing, Keck wrote, “Since most of our saving strategies, such as reducing NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) days, would be maxed out, most of the additional 8 percent would have to come from eliminating or significantly curtailing optional services and programs. “We’d also have to look at additional rate cuts to managed care organizations and providers.” 

 Commitment on Amendments  Davis says he agreed to end his budget filibuster only after receiving a commitment in writing from enough of his fellow senators that would allow him to bring his amendments to the floor for a vote. Under Senate rules, doing so requires the consent of three-fifths, or 60 percent, of senators present. While Davis spoke against the size of the budget on the floor of the chamber Thursday, he says his desk mate, Republican Sen. Phillip Shoopman of Greenville, approached all of their colleagues on hand asking where they stood on the matter, checking off their positions accordingly. Only three senators said they would oppose the Davis amendments being voted on, according to the list Davis provided: Republicans Hugh Leatherman of Florence, Paul Campbell of Berkeley and Ray Cleary of Georgetown. Sens. Thomas Alexander, R-Oconee, and Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston and president pro tempore of the chamber, were marked as “present.” Sens. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, and Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, were recorded as unsure. Davis said he did not know how to explain the “present” answer. Efforts to reach Shoopman on Friday were unsuccessful. Reach Ward at (803) 254-4411 or eric@thenerve.org.

It would appear Senator Campbell finds himself on the wrong side of an issue, again. He contrived reasons why he, originally, would not support the Voter ID bill and now, he refuses to back spending cuts to reduce the budget. Let's see, exactly when does Senator Campbell come up for reelection? We'll have to make a mental note of that for future reference.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

2011-05-02T07:39:00.004-04:00

Many thanks to the Navy Seals who rappelled into Usama Bin Laden's compound and achieved justice for the 3000 Americans killed on 9-11.

The official report from the CIA stated, "The Navy Seals gave UBL the opportunity to surrender before they shot him."

For years now, the description of the shortest possible period of time has been "the time between when the light turns green and when the woman behind you blows her horn". From this moment on, the shortest possible period of time will be described as "the time between when the Navy Seal asked UBL if he wanted to surrender and the time he shot the SOB in the head".

USA USA USA

IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN A RAILROAD?

2011-04-27T15:44:00.006-04:00

In 1994 lawmakers invested $17 million in Air South. Three years later the company went bankrupt and 700 South Carolina workers were laid off.
In 1997 Marine Energy Systems was promised enormous taxpayer-funded incentives. The company announced the creation of 700 jobs. Less than three years later, the company was bankrupt.
In 1998 Western Star Trucks was offered a massive investment package that included a reduced fee in lieu of property taxes and $25 million in exchange for 400 jobs in North Charleston. Two years later the plant closed.
For two decades politicians gave millions – in cash – to Policy Management Systems Corp. In 2000 the company laid off 700 workers, was bought out, and the new company laid off 550 more.
South Carolina taxpayers have spent more than $100 million on a new “research park” called “Innovista.” Politicians promised it would attract millions of private sector investment dollars. Today, the buildings are unfinished and largely empty.
More than $40 million in state and local tax dollars have been spent in the Midlands alone to develop the “hydrogen economy.” Two hydrogen fueling stations cost $1.45 million. There are only two hydrogen-powered cars in the state, one of which costs more than $100,000.

This preceeding information was provided by the South Carolina Policy Council.

We think everyone will agree that these practices are outrageous. Unfortunately, we don't have to go out of Berkeley County to find similar egregious waste of taxpayers' dollars. All we have to do is look toward the end of Sheep Island Road.

We must go back to 2006 where the story of the "Sheep Island Road Industrial Project" begins. The controlling entities have changed names several times so, to avoid any confusion, we will refer to the only part of the "Project" concerning TBC. A FILOT (Fee In Lieu of Taxes) was executed in 2006. TBC would pay taxes at a rate of 6%, with a Special Source Revenue Credit of 15% of that amount.

On October 12th, 2009, Supervisor Davis executed a document amending this original FILOT agreement. In this new agreement, the SSRC was raised from 15% to 100% for 15 years. Also, in this agreement, TBC would only pay 25% for the final 5 years of the term. In simple terms, this means TBC would pay NO TAXES for the first 15 years.

As if this agreement didn't give away the farm enough, Mr. Davis executed yet another amended FILOT agreement with TBC on December 13th, 2010. In this newest agreement, TBC's tax exempt status was extended to 40 YEARS.

The reasoning was:

Whereas, the County has determined, in anticipation of the expected economic development impact of the Project, that it is in the best interest of the County to further induce the undertaking of the Project by extending the Fee Term, initially established to be twenty (20) years in the Original Fee Agreement, by twenty (20) years for a total of forty (40) years.

These agreements establish beyond question that Berkeley County can expect to get exactly nothing from TBC in the way of taxes for the foreseeable future. That removes any revenue gains from this equation. Now that we know what BC is NOT GETTING from TBC, let's look at what BC is GIVING TBC.

According to BC Resolution R10-03, on the 25th day of January, 2010, BC accepted a grant from the South Carolina State Ports Authority in the amount of Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000), for the purpose of providing "aid in the construction of a new interchange located at approximately mile marker 197 on I-26." (Sheep Island Road) On the same day, Resolution R10-04 was adopted. This document details a grant from BC to TBC for $2,550,000 "for the relocation, acquisition, installation and other related costs associated with TBC's material handling equipment, generators, security systems, and other equipment." Also, on January 25, 2010, Resolution R10-05 was adopted. This Resolution grants TBC another $4,173,000. In the document, this money is earmarked "to assist with the costs of site work, utility installation (including water, sewer, telecom and electrical service) and engineering and design costs......".

The South Carolina State Ports Authority can legally grant monies to counties for infrastructure projects but is restricted by law from giving monies to private businesses. GE&P interviewed two members of BC Council concerning the coincidental transfers of these funds. We were told that no laws were broken BUT the laws have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

Moving right along, on February 8, 2010, BC Resolution R10-08 was adopted. This resolution accepts a $15,000,000 grant from the South Carolina State Ports Authority "to use for the costs of facilitation of construction management and to aid in the costs of construction of a new interchange in support of the County's economic development efforts....". According to this document, this Resolution supersedes R10-03, previously mentioned. At the end of this new document, it specifies the total amount of $15M can be used "for public purposes" even though the description paragraph states the money is to be used for the new interchange.

On February 22nd, 2010, Resolution R10-12 was adopted. This Resolution grants TBC another $2,100,000 "for the construction of certain public roads, including Drop Off Drive and other adjacent public roads."

To date:

SCSPA granted $7M to BC and BC granted $6,723,000 to TBC on the same day, 1/25/10.

SCSPA granted to BC an additional $8M, totaling $15M in February 2010 and BC granted TBC $2,100,000 same month.

TBC will pay NO BC taxes for 40 years.

Just when you think this mess couldn't get any worse, there's more. The State Infrastructure Bank had indicated it would contribute $25M toward the new Interchange. Since then, due to reduction in State revenue, they have withdrawn this offer. The town of Summerville offered $5M toward the new interchange because those folks learned two hotels planned to build in the same area. Summerville added one little string to its offer though. They wanted to annex the area into their town so they could get a share of the property taxes and the accommodations tax. Well, BC said, "No way, no how" to that suggestion. So Summerville withdrew their $5M. To add insult to injury, when the hotel companies realized they could end up in a situation where they had to pay taxes to two entities, they pulled out of the deal, too.

Considering the fact that TBC has no BC tax liability and BC has deferred a huge amount of their startup costs, should this economy continue to decline, what is there to deter this company from just packing their bags and leaving the BC and SC taxpayer holding the bag? In a word.......NOTHING.

GE&P IS STILL AT WORK

2011-04-09T20:27:00.001-04:00

GE&P is working on another expose. We know it is taking a long time but excellence doesn't come quickly. Stay tuned.

EVEN THE MEDIA GETS IT

2011-03-29T07:37:00.001-04:00

http://www2.counton2.com/news/2011/mar/28/spending-spree-berkeley-county-creates-tension-ar-1641045/

This report points out the difference between the Liberal view and that of the Conservative.

WHO'S SURPRISED? JUST ANOTHER DOT TO CONNECT.

2011-03-27T07:39:00.006-04:00

For a couple of years now, many Conservative Republicans in Berkeley County have accused Supervisor Dan Davis of being either an outright Liberal Democrat or, at least, a "Republican In Name Only", (RINO). As far as GE&P is concerned, these tags equate to "six of one and half dozen of another". Mr. Davis has denied these accusations and has repeatedly, even as late as the 2010 Primary and General Election, described himself as a "Conservative Republican".

The controversy between Mr. Davis and the Conservative base reached a crescendo during the biannual reorganization of County Council in January, 2011. During these meetings, Mr. Davis and two of the supposed Republicans on Council, Jack Schurlknight and Bob Call, joined forces with the two Liberal Democrats, Pinckney and Steve Davis, to revamp Council Rules, taking all power and influence away from the four true Conservative Councilmen, Fish, Callanan, Farley, and Cathy Davis.

Since this alliance with the Democrats was solidified, Mr. Davis has managed to pass ALL of his proposals. The vote on Council ALWAYS come out 4/4, with Supervisor Davis breaking the tie in his favor.

As many of you know, the BCGOP is in the process of the biannual precinct reorganization. If you would, please allow us to outline the process.

Each precinct in the County has a meeting to elect it's representative to the County Executive Committee, it's Precinct President, and other precinct officers. They, also, elect their delegates to the County GOP Convention. These meetings represent the grass roots' organization of the Party. Any and all Republicans who live in the precinct are welcome to attend and participate in these precinct meetings.

To assist each Precinct organizer, GOP Party Headquarters provides a packet of information. In this packet, there are instructions as to how to conduct the meeting, forms to denote attendees and new members, and a list of contact numbers for known Republican voters in the Precinct. In the past, this list was divided into TWO segments. One list contained the names of EVERYONE who voted in the latest GOP Primary and one contained the names of consistent Republican voters. This "Strong Republican" list was most useful when organizing the Precinct meetings but compiling this list is very time consuming as one must research back several Primary cycles. This year, for whatever reason, Party Headquarters decided to ease its workload and only provide the complete list of those who voted in each precinct in the latest GOP Primary.

In the last few weeks, GE&P has received numerous phone calls and emails from GOP Precinct organizers complaining about their call lists. These folks were telling us that a large number of names on their lists have turned out to be Democrats. As a result, GE&P investigated these lists. Sure enough, these 2010 lists contain some rather revealing statistics. Would anyone believe the majority of names on these GOP primary voter lists are those of known DEMOCRATS?

How can this be? Why would so many Democrats cross over and vote in the GOP Primary in 2010?

Golly Gee, let's see if we can figure out this conundrum. We know we can if we all put our heads together and follow the dots. Let's start with the things we all agree are indisputable fact.

1. The two openly Liberal Democrats on County Council are members of Supervisor Davis' coalition.

2. One openly Liberal Democrat on Council, Pinckney, has received a $2.4 MILLION, 8 mile water line to his front door that services less than 10 households and a $1.1 MILLION water line that services only his constituents in another part of his District.

3. The other openly Liberal Democrat on Council, Steve Davis, has happily told anyone who will listen that he has been promised a $3.5 MILLION courthouse and Senior Center in his District.

4. These two openly Liberal Democrats on Council consistently vote WITH Supervisor Davis.

5. Voter turnout for Primary elections are historically low, usually between 15% and 20%.

6. Being as SC has "Open Primary" instead of "Registered Party" Primary elections, anyone may vote in anyone's Primary. When a large number of Democrats decide to vote in the GOP Primary, the election can be tainted. The same fact applies when the situation is reversed.

The following exchange contains the gist of many of the Precinct Organizers' contact calls:

GOP Organizer: "Hello, this is (name of organizer). I'm calling for the BCGOP to remind you of the Precinct reorganization meeting on 3/29.

Contact: "I don't know why you are calling me. I am a Democrat."

GOP Organizer: If you are a Democrat, why did you vote in the GOP Primary in 2010?"

Contact: "I was told to go out and vote for Dan Davis."

Now that we have these facts established, let's discuss the implications of this unholy coalition. Many folks wondered, many out loud, why these two Liberal Democrats, Pinckney and Steve Davis, would join forces with three self proclaimed Conservatives, Schurlknight, Call, and Dan Davis. (All five in this coalition state they are merely trying to achieve bipartisan cooperation on Council.) But, what has been the end result?

Even though Supervisor Davis claims to be a "Conservative", his actions tell a different story. He took 29% of the property tax relief provided by the LOST from the taxpayers which resulted in higher property tax bills. He raised the water and sewer rates by 30%. By choosing NOT to reduce the millage comparably, almost everyone's property tax bills went up after reassessment. He (some contend illegally) took $10 MILLION from the Fund Balance of BCW&SA. He took MILLIONS of dollars from the BC School District by co-opting the FILOT funds from Mt. Holly Industrial Park. At the same time, Supervisor Davis has gone on a spending spree that would put Obama to shame.

All of these actions were achieved with the cooperation of the 2 Liberal Democrats, Pinckney and Davis and the 2 RINOs, Schurlknight and Call. We know what's in it for Pinckney and Steve Davis. What the benefit is for Schurlknight and Call remains to be reveled.

Supervisor Davis claims to be a Conservative Republican. But, he was elected with organized Democrat support and his power is dependent on "compensated" Democrat support on County Council. Lead by Supervisor Davis, our County government is following a "Liberal Tax and Spend" agenda. Our 4 Conservative Republican members of County Council have been silenced.

Dan Davis, Jack Schurlknight, and Bob Call are Conservative Republicans?

YOU CONNECT THE DOTS.

THE WOLF IS AT THE DOOR

2011-03-01T20:18:00.013-05:00

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?

AND YOUR POINT IS?

2011-02-19T08:27:00.002-05:00

The best way to assure a large attendance is to announce a meeting and NOT tell the public "WHEN" or "WHERE". This happened with Dan Davis' announcement in the P&C today of his free State of the County address to be held on March 1, 2011.

Once again the citizens of Berkeley County are given a prime example of the efficiency of Davis' administration. Good grief!

TOO THIN TO BEAR WASHING

2011-02-15T07:21:00.005-05:00

GE&P attended the BC Council Committee meetings last night. If anyone needed an explanation as to why Mr. Davis insisted on changing Council Rules and abolishing the Committees of the Whole, these proceedings provided all the information needed.

Mr. Davis officially got the ball rolling on his Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus last night. All of his supporting cast were there armed with documents to justify the purchase of the old fairground property for this project. He plans to spend $1.6 Million, $100,000 an acre, for this property. All supporting evidence was positive toward the purchase until you actually look at the facts.

Mr. Dennis Fish, one of the four Conservatives on Council, asked if an appraisal of this property had been done. Ms. Ewing and Ms. Smith said it had. Mr. Fish asked specific questions about the appraisal, "When was it done, how was it done, and could he see a copy of the document?"

Then the County Assessor came forward to provide the details of the appraisal. He confirmed the appraisal had been provided by the SELLER. He said he had dealt with the appraiser in the past and was happy with his work. But, GE&P noticed a few discrepancies with the Assessor's details. First and foremost, the "comparables" noted in the appraisal were not properties that have been "sold". They are properties that are "on the market". As we all know, "asking price" does not denote actual property values. One can ask any price one wants but that doesn't mean that price is valid or will be met.

GE&P did not notice Mr. Fish being provided with a copy of this document.

Mr. Fish asked for an explanation about the actual ownership of this property. In his question he, also, wanted an explanation of the tax records on this tract. The tax records show the Agricultural Expo, owned by Mr. Ben Flemming, not the American Legion, as being the owner of the tract. The records show 4 reassessments DOWN of the tax burden on this property in 2010. The sale history of this property on the BC records ends with a 1978 transfer of title. These are a few of the existing facts that bear further explanation. Unfortunately, none of these questions were satisfactorily answered last night.

Mr. Fish asked if Mr. Davis had investigated any other properties. Mr. Davis said, "No". Mr. Fish went on to suggest another property that has been offered "at a much reduced price". Mr Davis defended his selection of the fairgrounds property because he needed a property that would be on the public bus line. This argument is not valid as the "other, cheaper" property is, also, on the public bus line.

As more supporting evidence for this purchase being a good idea, Mr. Davis pointed out that, after moving the health department out of the old hospital property, he planned to refurbish that building to house extra courtroom space to alleviate the strain on the main courthouse. He neglected to mention that there is underutilized courtroom space at the sheriff's department building. This fact was addressed at a Council meeting early last year.

Mr. Davis could not, or would not, give the total price of his "Campus" project or the source of the funding to pay for it. It just so happens that GE&P knows the answer to both questions. According to the official BC Local Option Sales Tax Capital Improvements List, the Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus will cost the taxpayers a minimum of $22 Million and will be funded with a combination of the 2010 $10 Million bond and the 29% from our LOST property tax relief. We all remember this 29%. This is our property tax relief that was stolen three years ago under the pretext that BC would go bankrupt without it. Now that Mr. Davis has his hands on our money in a more permanent fashion, he can spend it as he chooses.

It was rather obvious to GE&P that not many of the onlookers in attendance last night were fooled by the proceedings. From the comments we overheard, everything was as clear as glass to all. From start to finish, this deal is, at the very least, questionable. At worst, it reeks of government corruption. Anyone who has watched an expert at the old shell game knows how it works. The object is to keep the shells moving so fast and in so many directions that nobody knows exactly where the pea is located. In this situation, the pea is your tax dollars.

HEY, RIGHT HAND, WHAT'S THE LEFT HAND DOING?

2011-02-10T16:13:00.006-05:00

As you have read in the P&C, there has been a huge furor created over a meeting of the Transparency Subcommittee that was held last Monday night. It seems the meeting did not receive the proper notice to the public. For surreptitious reasons, the Democrat Councilman from District 3 has conscripted the cooperation of his favorite surrogate to stir the pot on this issue. This less than informed mouthpiece obviously did not do his homework and has made some rather unfortunate statements.

The finger of blame for not properly noticing the meeting has been pointed, by this sub, at an innocent person. To the chagrin of the Democrats, popular opinion is that the County attorney had the ultimate responsibility to assure that the public notice had been issued. Since the attorney knew of the meeting in advance and did, in fact, attend the meeting, would it not be reasonable that she should have assured public notice?

In their attempt to falsely assign blame for this mishap they have drawn undo attention to this matter and the BC administration has done what it does best, create a circular firing squad, inadvertently hitting one of their own.

Also, the Democrats got their facts wrong on the people who attended the meeting. They listed several private citizens who were nowhere near the administration building that night. This misinformation further erodes what little credibility these people had.

Now that you know what actually happened, lets get into WHY it happened.

Informed sources have spread the word that the SLED investigation on the "burn your house down" issue has concluded. Without the excuse of a pending investigation, why isn't the approval of the February 22, 2010 minutes on the agenda for Monday night's County Council meeting?

Also, the issue of the purchase of the fairgrounds property for the Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus IS on the agenda for Monday's Council meeting. The unanswered questions about this transaction could fill a book.

According to the BC tax records, this property is owned by the Agricultural Exposition, Inc. GE&P has learned that three local businessmen are the principals in this organization. Nowhere on the tax records is the name of the American Legion connected with this property. There is no "sale history" on record since 1978. And, the taxes owed for this property have been reassessed DOWN so many times in the last year it would make your head spin to read the record. GE&P inquired about these unusual records but was unable to get an explanation from any BC office. The only definitive reply we were able to get was, "I've never seen anything like this so you'll have to speak with my boss." After that transfer to "the boss" was completed, the well of information sort of dried up.

The plans for this project (Facilities Study) notes the need of 7 to 8 acres of land. The fairgrounds property in question contains 16 acres. As we understand, Mr. Davis wants to buy the entire tract, use part for the Campus, and try to resell the remainder at some point in the future, for a profit. This tract has been assessed by the sellers at $1.6 Million. That amounts to $100,000 an acre. According to BC records, the BC Assessor concurs with this assessment. Several real estate experts in the area disagree. These experts say this price is inflated and resale at a profit would be doubtful, to say the least. The big question is,"Why would Mr. Davis be so agreeable to paying an inflated price for this property?"

There is yet another fly in the ointment when it comes to purchasing the fairgrounds property for Mr. Davis' new Campus. Have you heard about the other property that has been offered to BC for this project? Oh yes, there is an alternative.

This other property is conveniently located; has easy access; is exactly the right size; and can be purchased for a MUCH more reasonable price. You may wonder why you haven't heard about this other property. Well, there's a good reason. Mr. Davis is hell-bent on building his Health and Human Services Campus no matter what the taxpayers think. He and the four other Democrats on Council have the votes to do it. There is no way to stop this project. If it became public knowledge that the County has the ability to purchase the necessary land for a fraction of the price of the fairgrounds property, the outcry might just upset this apple cart. (or should it be 'this table' under which this $1.6 Million has to pass?)

In this situation, as it is with almost every issue in which this County government is involved, be sure to ALWAYS look behind the action. Don't ever think the current flap is the real issue. Just because you think you know what the right hand is doing, don't take your eye off the left.

GE&P urges all taxpayers to attend the Committee meetings next Monday night. Admittedly, due to the new organization of Council, only the 5 Democrats (4 Councilmen and Supervisor Davis) have any influence on any of the votes, but you will still have the opportunity to witness government corruption at its best.

GUEST POST

2011-02-05T22:31:00.005-05:00

In early January, Berkeley County School Superintendent Dr. Anthony Parker announced to the Berkeley County School Board his intention to retire at the end of the current school year. In just a few short days that decision changed from a pending retirement to Dr. Parker’s employment ending immediately and him being paid until the end of the year. As of this writing there’s much speculation and misinformation as to the reasons for his immediate retirement. I hope this column sheds some light on how this unfortunate situation came to be.

In the two short years Dr. Parker has been the leader of the District much has changed from the previous administration. The District went from building new high schools like Cane Bay High at 80 plus million dollars to models costing half or less. The current Cane Bay Middle School is targeted at less than $20 million versus the $46 million proposed by the previous administration. Dr Parker had a ten year vision and plan to build the future schools required as student population grows. The plan was based on sound data from the growth study initiated by Dr Parker and would have saved the taxpayers of this county several hundred million dollars versus the old method.

With Dr. Parker’s leadership, we went from a District with differing departments “working in silos” to a District that has a shared vision and purpose with the “centerpoint” focused on student learning. We became a District where school principals are expected to be the instructional leader, their school’s budget directly tied to their individual school improvement plan, and each improvement plan addressing the District goals set by the Board and Superintendent. We became a District that values its teachers. Instead of increasing class sizes and mandating furlough days, we eliminated 88 central office positions. We became a District that values personal growth and development, values best practices, and expects teachers to share and help each other in Professional Learning Communities. We became a District that values the dedicated hard work by maintenance, custodial and food service staff, values Dr. Parker communicated directly. These values and principles are evidenced every day just by walking into a school and seeing the way they look today versus 2 years ago. We became a District leading the way by engaging the community in decision making and the Superintendent actively participating in local education organizations such as the regional Education Foundation. We went from a District where the Superintendent spent much of his time in his office to one where the Superintendent spent much of his routine, 70 plus hour weeks, in all of the schools engaging principals, staff, and students.

Just a few months ago Dr. Parker received an annual review that was profoundly positive. In fact, Dr. Parker agreed to extend his contract period to a total of five years. All was relatively well until Dr. Hinson and I left the Board. Both of us would have stood steadfast against attempts to micromanage Dr. Parker. I suspect the minor level of interference increased dramatically since November and Dr. Parker decided he could not effectively lead in that atmosphere. The District and Dr. Parker entered into an employment agreement when we hired him that spelled out each other’s responsibilities and included provisions for either side to terminate the agreement. Since the District is paying Dr. Parker to the end of the year I assume he had cause to be paid. I would not be surprised if there is a non disclosure clause in the agreement announced at the special meeting on the 13^th. His departure is certainly a failure of the Board’s leadership.

I will be offering a strong letter of recommendation for Dr. Parker in whatever endeavor he may choose to pursue. He has proven to be an effective educational leader and if he decides to continue as a Superintendent in another district they will reap the rewards of his talents and work ethic if they will let him do his job. As for Berkeley County we will have a hard time explaining Parker’s departure to prospective new superintendents so I sincerely hope the Board considers this in their treatment of future leaders.

Terry Hardesty

THAT'S VERY CLEAR, MR. OBVIOUS

2011-01-26T10:37:00.017-05:00

Yesterday, we gave a brief rundown as to the "accomplishments" of Monday's County Council meeting. Today, we would like to explain some of the technicalities of the new Council system.

At the reorganization meeting earlier this month, Mr. Davis led the charge to change County Council Rules. He insisted that the committees of the whole were not working well. He said the old system took too long and most of the citizens didn't have a clue as to what was going on. He said his new system would fix all these problems. He contended that committees comprise of only 5 Council members would be much more efficient and easier for the public to understand.

Let us begin with a brief overview of the old system:

1. Under the Council of the whole system, ALL members of Council sit on EVERY committee.

2. The Chairman of a committee does not have a vote. (unless there's a tie)

3. On several vital committees, one of Mr. Davis' supporters was chairman.

4. This meant the 4 Conservatives had a majority vote on several vital committees.

5. This threw a monkey wrench into many of Mr. Davis' plans.

Now, let's look at the New system:

1. Under the new system, there are only 5 members on each committee.

2. The Chairman still doesn't have a vote.

3. On the new vital committees, Mr. Davis seated all 4 of his supporters.

4. With only one vote on these committees, the Conservative Councilmen have no effective voice.

5. Mr. Davis has complete control of the agenda.

Then, when controversial issues come before full Council, the vote is tied 4/4 and Mr. Davis breaks the tie in his favor.

At the first full Council meeting under the new and improved Rules, things did not go as smoothly as advertised. It soon became apparent that it wouldn't be "efficient" to have the audit report given to the Finance Committee alone when 3 members were excluded. Also, it proved problematic to have "just" the Finance Committee go into Executive Session, leaving 3 Council members in the dark.

Finally, the situation was rescued by that pinnacle of intellect and sense of fair play, Councilmen Call. He announced that it was never the intent of the new Rules to exclude any member of Council from any of the Committee meetings. He said he wanted the input of all members of Council on all issues. He, also, stated that all members should be allowed to attend all Executive Sessions.

In case you missed anything, let us recap the new change in Council Rules:

1. All Council members attend all Committee meetings.

2. All Council members attend all Executive Sessions.

3. All Council members can voice opinions during Committee discussions but only Committee members can vote.

4. On the vital Committees, the 4 Conservative members of Council still have no voice.

As usual, Mr. Call decided to deviate from Mr. Davis' script and has thrown a bright light on the true facts of the situation. Now, thanks to Mr. Call, it is quite clear why Mr. Davis wanted these new Rules. The 4 Conservatives will be included in all functions of Council except the vote.

Do the meetings move more quickly? NO

Is the process more efficient? NO

Are the proceedings more understandable? NO

Is there more unity on Council? NO

The new Rules achieve only one change. The 4 Conservative Councilmen have been affectively disenfranchised.

Due to Mr. Call drifting off the reservation, Mr. Davis has inadvertently achieved complete transparency.

WHAT "WE" HAVE ACCOMPLISHED

2011-01-25T08:19:00.006-05:00

GE&P attended the BC Council meeting last night. Or, at least we think we did. We're not sure. Judging from the events we think we witnessed, we could have just accidentally meandered into the Twilight Zone. But, being as the proceedings were so far fetched and so removed from the normal operations of a Representative Republic, they are worth noting.

We will begin with the audit report.

During the course of this presentation, it was difficult to discern whether Mr. Finney was explaining the financial state of the county or presiding over a testimonial to the Supervisor, Dan Davis. (At notable points during this salvo of accolades, GE&P observed several members of the audience lifting their feet off the floor.) Mr. Davis was all smiles, seemingly pleased that the script was being delivered as written.

But, there are a few glaring facts that Mr. Finney neglected to mention.

1. On the first graph of his presentation, the bar representing the Fund Balance for 2010 far outreached that of 2006. In fact, the Fund Balance for 2006 was in excess of 16%. But, we are certain this misrepresentation was a minor error by the graphics department.

2. The report said, "As of 6/30/10, the Fund Balance was 15%." Mr. Finney did not answer the question as to what percentage is present as of today. Many people, much to the chagrin of Mr. Davis, know that the FILOT funds from Mt. Holly and the remainder of the money borrowed or transferred (according to which version the county is using today) from BCW&SA was deposited into the Fund Balance account just long enough for these funds to register on the 2010 audit. After that feat was accomplished, these funds were transferred to the general fund. From there, it is anyone's guess as to when or where these funds were spent. The only unavoidable fact is that these funds are no longer there.

Mr. Finney did not mention that the FILOT funds from Mt. Holly are one and the same funds taken from the BC School District. Granted, these funds legally belong to BC government but there was a long time agreement that these funds were to be shared with the School System to supplement the School System's revenue. Mr. Davis dispensed with that agreement and kept all of the funds.

Also, GE&P is somewhat confused about the $10 Million loan/transfer of funds from the BCW&SA Fund Balance. At one point in time, when the legality of this transaction was questioned, the forces that be said this was a LOAN because it would be illegal to transfer funds from the Authority to the general fund of BC government. Last night, we were told that this was an INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFER OF FUNDS. Which is it? It appears to GE&P that legal opinions from BC government are dependent upon many factors, namely, time of day, temperature, phase of the moon, day of the week, and which lie Mr. Davis wants to justify.

All in all, the testimonial, excuse us, audit report was long on fictitious kudos and short on applicable and accurate particulars.

Then the Finance Committee went on to try to preempt Mr. Callanan's attempt to address the Transparency issues. Mr. Schurlknight attempted to place the blame for this issue not being addressed earlier on the shoulders of Councilwoman Cathy Davis. Mr. Schurlknight stated that Mrs. Davis was appointed chairwoman of that subcommittee and she had never called a meeting. This sounded valid until Mrs. Davis pointed out the fact that Mr. Schurlknight had never announced the members of the committee. The last she heard of this potential committee was when Mr. Schurlknight said he "would get back to her when he had the committee formed".

Mr. Davis was correct when he stated it would be "political suicide" to ignore the Transparency issue. The folks are watching. But, Mr. Davis has a few big problems. He cannot afford to allow an independent effort to televise the Council meetings. If the general public has the ability to witness the proceedings in full, Mr. Davis would be facing an uprising of protest. He has to maintain editing rights so only that which he wants to be made public will be and that which he doesn't won't be. It will be interesting to watch how he solves this problem.

Televising the Council meetings is not Mr. Davis' biggest problem. The Resolution, also, calls for making ALL financial records easily accessible on the county website. This move would mean disaster for Mr. Davis. As things stand now, a private citizen or even some Councilmen cannot get their questions answered about how the tax dollars are spent. Funds travel around the county in a manner that would put a check kiting scam to shame. (The Fund Balance is but one example.)

Another Example: Several citizens who regularly attend the Council meetings observed construction of a water line project underway in the Queeney community last year. These folks knew they had heard nothing about this project at the Council meetings. They notified their member of Council. (The law says that ALL contracts exceeding the Supervisor's discretionary spending limit of $50,000 must be approved by Council) Their Councilman knew nothing about the project. When members of Council questioned the fact that the project was underway without the approval of Council, they were told that Greene Construction Company had "gotten a jump" on the project but a contract had not been signed yet. It is of note to remember this was a $1.2 Million project and the Supervisor wants us to believe this company would purchase material and complete over 50% of this project without the safety and security of a signed contract. Staff members told Council they had to approve the contract (after the fact) or risk a lawsuit by the contractor. Council approved the contract (we wouldn't have) and as if by magic, two weeks later the document appeared with a current date. No one asked that Greene Construction provide their copy of the contract. The issue was dropped.

Now, GE&P has learned of yet another example of Mr. Davis' transparency policy at work. As we all know, the Hanahan/ Murrey Blvd. Intersection Improvement Project is well under way. The project is due for completion in June 2011. The cost of this project is between one and two Million dollars. According to Banks Construction Company, the bid for this project was accepted on August 10, 2010 and the contract was signed on October 8, 2010. This contract was never presented to Council for approval. At least 4 members of Council knew nothing about this contract. When an inquiry was made, BC government claimed this project was bid, and the contract assigned, by SCDOT, not BC. Even if it is common practice to delegate this authority to SCDOT on some projects, permission for this action would have to come with approval of Council. It didn't.

Maybe we were asleep when this happened but we would beg the question, "When did SCDOT acquire the power to usurp the legal authority of Berkeley County Council to control and approve the expenditure of BC's designated tax dollars?"

There were other lapses in protocol and deviations from Law and Rule exhibited at the meeting but why bore you with repetitions of behavior that only applied to different issues?

In all honesty, GE&P must commend Mr. Davis and his other four Rinocrats on County Council for a job well done last night. Mr. Davis' script was concise and so easy to follow that even Mr. Call didn't louse up his part. (And that's saying a lot) Mr. Davis orchestrated the proceedings beautifully and his four followers definitely earned their forty acres and a mule.

WHO'S ON FIRST?

2011-01-23T21:24:00.004-05:00

GE&P is predicting that the County Council meeting tomorrow night has the potential to turn into a real Chinese fire drill. Consider this scenario if you will.

The committees now have only five members each. The agenda for tomorrow night's meeting notes an Executive Session for the Finance Committee. None of the four Conservative members of County Council sits on that committee. If that committee holds an Executive session, only seated members of that committee and possibly lawyers will be able to attend. You can't attend and we can't attend. Also, the Rules state that, outside of the meeting, no one can discuss items covered during this Executive session.

Here's the question: How can all eight members of County Council vote on an issue covered in Executive Session if only four members know any of the facts of the issue discussed? We know Mr. Davis will counter by saying Mr. Fish was asked to sit on the Finance Committee and declined. That is true. But, even if Mr. Fish did sit on that Committee, how would that solve the problem for the other three Conservative Council members?

We expect Mr. Davis to break the Rules yet again and invite the non-committee members to attend this Executive Session. Would we be out of line to suggest that our four Conservative Council members will probably not agree to voluntarily break the Rules?

It would appear that Mr. Davis' new and improved Rules are working well so far.

ALERT TO ALL BC VOTERS

2011-01-21T19:28:00.002-05:00

GE&P would urge all concerned citizens to attend the BC Council meeting on Monday evening at 6 pm. The meeting will be held at the County Administration Building.

This will be the first full Council meeting since Supervisor Davis changed all the Rules. Attend and see how well everything works out.

2011-01-18T21:34:00.027-05:00

RESOLUTION

TO OFFICIALLY AND PUBLICLY CENSURE COUNCIL MEMBER ROBERT O. CALL, COUNCIL MEMBER JACK H. SCHURLKNIGHT AND SUPERVISOR DANIEL W. DAVIS

WHEREAS, Council Member Robert O. Call, Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight and Supervisor Daniel W. Davis sought elections as Republicans in the Berkeley County General Elections, and

WHEREAS, Council Member Robert O. Call, Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight and Supervisor Daniel W. Davis publicly and actively campaigned as Republicans, and

WHEREAS Supervisor Daniel W. Davis attended and addressed the Berkeley County Republican party on more than one occasion, and

WHEREAS, Council Member Robert O. Call, Council Member Jack H Schurlknight and Supervisor Daniel W. Davis have rendered irrevocable damage against the Berkeley County Republican Party and, specifically the Berkeley County Republican Party Executive Committee, by their premeditated, deliberate and irrevocable actions, and

WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, Supervisor Daniel W. Davis publicly participated in Council Member Caldwell Pinckney’s (Democrat) election victory over Republican candidate William Fennell, and

WHEREAS, Supervisor Daniel W. Davis, on three different occasions publicly misrepresented the Berkeley County Executive Committee’s official request, by Resolution, dealing with transparency in three very specific areas, and

WHEREAS, the official request, by Resolution, did not request a reorganization of Berkeley County Council as presented by Supervisor Daniel W. Davis, and

WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, Council Member Robert O. Call and Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight publicly participated in the victory celebration of Democrat Council Member Caldwell Pinckney, and

WHEREAS, Council Member Robert O. Call and Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight supported Supervisor Daniel W. Davis in the misrepresentation of the proposed Berkeley County Party Executive Committee’s Resolution requesting transparency, and

WHEREAS these actions exhibit extraordinary disloyalty to the countless Berkeley County Republicans without whom their careers as elected officials would never have been possible.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BERKELEY COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE publicly censure and repudiate the actions of Council Member Robert O. Call, Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight and Supervisor Daniel W. Davis.

ADOPTED in a meeting duly assembled this _____ day of _______ 2011.

BERKELEY COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

This is the official Resolution to censure these three elected "Republican" officials.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM DANIEL W. DAVIS,

BERKELEY COUNTY SUPERVISOR, AND JACK H. SCHURLKNIGHT AND

ROBERT O. CALL, BERKELEY COUNTY COUNCILMEN

Late last night, we learned that we had been censured by the Berkeley County

Republican Party (BCRP) Executive Committee. Before we address the censure, we

would like to point out that we were not given an opportunity to address the allegations

listed in the censure. This is a complete violation of due process, which is an absolute

right, guaranteed by the Constitution via the 5th Amendment. It is astonishing to us that

the executive committee--the leadership--of a political party would so blatantly violate a

pillar of our country’s fundamental Constitutional rights.

There are two specific allegations in the censure. The first is that we publicly

participated in a local Democratic candidate’s election victory on November 2, 2010. As

a gesture of goodwill, we did congratulate Mr. Caldwell Pinckney, Jr., on the night of the

election; he is a decent man and an exemplary public servant. Other local Republican

leaders and businessmen publicly and/or financially supported Democratic candidates

without being criticized by the local executive committee. We would ask the BCRP

Executive Committee to explain why a congratulatory visit to a fellow councilmember

has, as stated in the censure, “. . . rendered irrevocable damage against the Berkeley

County Republican [P]arty . . . ” or has ”. . . exhibited extraordinary disloyalty . . . ” to

Berkeley County Republicans? In addition, why does public and financial support for a

Democratic candidate not garner the same criticism we have received?

The second item the censure addresses is that of transparency. We share in the BCRP

Executive Committee’s call for transparency. As a first step, we wanted to ensure a

clear, understandable legislative process. In reviewing ways to make the process

easier for the public to understand, it appeared obvious that, before spending large

amounts of money investing in the visual and audio equipment necessary to televise the

council meetings, a more fundamental issue of clarity and transparency during the

meetings needed to be addressed. We were hopeful that the transparency sub-

committee, formed in May of 2010 and chaired by Councilwoman Cathy Davis, would

address not only the requests in the proposed resolution, but other issues of

transparency as well. In the absence of a recommendation from Mrs. Davis’ sub-

committee, the Chairman of County Council took the initiative to begin to address this

issue. The fact that the BCRP Executive Committee can find fault for that is

incomprehensible. Furthermore, why has the chairman of the Berkeley County

Republican Party, who is also a member of County Council, not made a motion to have

the meetings taped and televised? And again, we ask, how does attempting to

streamline the legislative process to improve clarity and transparency “. . . render

irrevocable damage against the Berkeley County Republican Party . . .” and “. . . exhibit

extraordinary disloyalty to the countless Berkeley County Republicans . . . ”?

Finally, in light of the recent tragedy in Arizona as well as the recent observation of

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, we call on all residents of Berkeley County, both

Republican and Democratic, to rise above the current level of vitriolic rhetoric, and to

engage in informed and respectful debate about the issues. The discussion has

become negative and personal, and is not leading to any solution of the major issues.

We were elected to represent all citizens of Berkeley County, not just the conservatives,

not just the Republicans, not just the Tea Party, but also the liberals, the Democrats, the

independents, the Green Party, and any other group that might be out there. It is not an

easy task, as we must balance various viewpoints in determining the best course of

action for the future of Berkeley County. However, it is a task that we are committed to

do.

Respectfully Submitted,

Daniel W. Davis,

Berkeley County Supervisor

Jack H. Schurlknight,

Councilmen, District 6

Robert O. Call,

Councilmen, District 3

January 18, 2011

First, we will address Mr. Davis' comments about "Due Process".
If these three elected officials were members of the BCGOP, the SCGOP and BCGOP Rules would have been followed and they would have been called before the Committee to answer all complaints. Since neither man belongs to the BCGOP but are officials elected as Republicans, our Rules process does not apply to them and censure is the correct avenue for addressing complaints against them.
Now, we will address the complaints contained in the censure.

We accused the three of supporting a Democrat in a contested election. In Mr. Davis' reply, he did not deny the charge. He justified his behavior and that of the other two by saying that "another Republican" in BC was guilty of the same behavior and we didn't censure him. There was another notable Republican in BC who supported a Democrat in the November election. But, the big difference in the two cases is the "other" Republican was a member of the BCGOP but demonstrated the good character and integrity to resign his position with the party BEFORE he came out publicly with his decision. The two cases are by no means even similar.

Secondly, we accused the three of misrepresenting the BCGOP's Resolution asking the County Council for transparency. Nowhere in this Transparency Resolution did the BCGOP Executive Committee request a change in Council Rules. We requested that the finances of BC government (revenue and expenditures) be put on line and that the County Council meetings be televised. Period. (At the time, Mr. Davis said the county could not afford to televise the Council meetings.) But, on at least two public occasions, Mr. Davis used the Transparency Resolution as "evidence" that the BCGOP Executive Committee wanted the changes in County Council Rules that he orchestrated at reorganization of Council. These statements by Mr. Davis were utterly false.
NOTE:

Mr. Davis has argued that Transparency is the only result of his drastic changes in Council Rules and organization. This statement is, to say the least, disingenuous. Before the changes, the 4 Conservatives on Council could exercise some control over reckless spending by Mr. Davis. The failure of Mr. Davis' plan to purchase the Carolina Nursery property is but one example. After the changes, Council no longer has "committees of the whole". Each committee now has only 5 members. On the newly arranged committees that handle the taxing and spending for the County, Mr. Davis has seated his 4 Democrat supporters, leaving only one seat for one of our Conservatives. Simply put, his 4 supporters do Mr. Davis' bidding on these committees. The result is ONE MAN RULE.

Getting back to Mr. Davis' reply to the censure, we would be remiss if we didn't publicly disavow Mr. Davis and the other two for the opportunistic and self-serving reference to the tragedy in AZ and the MLK holiday. Democrats across the nation tried to blame individual Conservatives, Conservative talk radio, and Conservative groups such as the Tea Party, for the senseless violence of one deranged nutjob in AZ. Now, our three homegrown Democrats, masquerading as Republicans, are attempting the same shameful maneuver. How could they possibly connect a censure for their political behavior with the perpetration of such violence? This political expediency is shameful. Isn't it odd that the louder these three protest being called Liberal Democrats the more they act just like Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Davis, Mr. Call, and Mr. Schurlknight were not personally attacked in this censure. They were CENSURED for improper political activity and misrepresenting a BCGOP resolution. And, so far as these three advocating civil discourse, would this cause not be better served if Mr. Schurlknight would stop referring to his political opponents as a "very vile, venomous, hate-driven group"? And would the atmosphere not be more congenial if Mr. Call would stop referring to one Conservative County Council member as a Nazi, Hitler, and a KKK member? We won't even go into all the negative personal attacks on numerous members of the BCGOP made with the knowledge of Mr. Davis by one of his supporters.

Mr. Davis' actions have proven that he has, and never has had, any intention of working with the Conservatives on County Council or the Conservative voters in BC. He knows very well that 1/2 of Council and a huge number of Conservative voters disagree vehemently with many of his policies. These Conservatives have made their thoughts on the issues very clear to the Supervisor but their words have fallen on deaf ears. Mr. Davis has never made any attempt to include the 4 Conservatives and their ideas in the governing process. Since Mr. Davis has achieved total control over BC government by joining forces with the other Democrats on County Council, he has displayed nothing but contempt for the 4 Conservatives on Council and the Conservative voters of BC.

Mr. Davis, as a citizen of this great nation has the Constitutional right to say anything he choses, whether his words are true or not. Mr. Davis never misses an opportunity to fully exercise these rights.

CAN ANYONE SAY, "ABOUT TIME?"

2011-01-17T23:20:00.003-05:00

Tonight the Berkeley County Republican Party Executive Committee voted unanimously to censure Dan Davis, Bob Call, and Jack Schurlknight.

The basis of the censure is as follows:

1. Dan Davis, Bob Call, and Jack Schurlknight supported and campaigned for Democrat Caldwell Pinckney in the November, 2010 District 7 Council race against the Republican, Bill Fennel. The three even joined Mr. Pinckney in celebration at his victory party election night.

2. Dan Davis repeatedly misrepresented a transparency Resolution issued by the Executive Committee to County Council. Mr. Davis used the Resolution as support for and justification of his reorganization of County Council.

Copies of all documents will be posted ASAP.

AT LEAST HE'S CONSISTENT

2011-01-13T21:18:00.005-05:00

We, along with 20 or so other BC citizens, attended Supervisor Davis' community meeting in Goose Creek tonight. The results would have been annoying if they weren't so predictable. Folks asked questions and, with most, Mr. Davis either totally avoided an answer or provided false or misleading information. Nothing new on this front. But, just for fun, we will recount some of the exchanges.

The question came up about the 29% of our property tax relief that has been taken by Mr. Davis. First Mr. Davis said the funds were being used to satisfy debt. Then, he changed course and said the funds were being used for Capital Improvements.

Mr. Davis was asked by several people about the Fees In Lieu of Tax funds that had been taken from the schools. For once Mr. Davis answered the question directly and honestly by admitting the funds belonged to the county and he would spend them as he pleases.

Mr. Davis, for the third time, blamed the changes in Council procedure on the Resolution demanding transparency sent to him by the BCGOP. We attempted to correct this misconception by pointing out that the Resolution demanded transparency by way of taping the Council meetings for airing on a local cable channel but our protest fell on deaf ears. We asked if Mr. Davis would give our videographer permission to plug into the Council chamber's sound system. Mr. Davis said one of the Councilmen would have to make a motion and Council could vote on it. Considering the makeup of Council and who has the tie breaking vote, that should provide a real solution.

So, all in all, the meeting was the same old dog and pony show we've all seen a thousand times before. The only real difference was that there were many new faces in the crowd. Of these new folks, the majority were not buying the answers they were given and they saw through the rhetoric. This fact is very encouraging.

If any of the readers want more specific information on any of the issues mentioned here, please comment.

HAVE PATIENCE, PEOPLE

2011-01-13T09:15:00.002-05:00

GE&P has received zillions of calls inquiring as to when a new post will appear. Give us a break. Repeating stories about what has already happened won't increase your knowledge or expose corruption. Each of these results requires a huge amount of investigation.

Fear Not, news is on the way.

STARTING THE NEW YEAR OFF RIGHT

2011-01-03T11:05:00.003-05:00

Dave Munday wrote a very balanced story in the P&C today on the County Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow night. He outlined the controversy over Supervisor Dan Davis' intention to change our form of County Council operations. The article gives both sides of the argument and indicates the importance of tomorrow's meeting.

As is always the case, here is where things go haywire.

GE&P received numerous calls this morning from people who read the article or heard about the article through the grapevine and checked the P&C website to leave a comment. No one could find the story on line.

GE&P called the P&C to inquire as to the reason for the exclusion of the story on line. We were told it is the practice of the P&C to post stories on the website as soon as they are submitted. Since this story was submitted late last night, it was posted immediately. We were told that the story had been posted in the story index for January 2, 2011. That was yesterday. Well, that makes a lot of sense.

There's just one tiny thing wrong with this explanation. GE&P and several others searched the P&C archives today for this story and it wasn't there. Had the story been posted last night, it would have popped up under the search. How many of you readers are wondering about exactly what's going on with our only "newspaper of general circulation"?

UPDATE:

GLORY BE!!!!!

GE&P just received a call and, guess what? This article has been moved to today's P&C story index. It is the LAST article on the list. Considering the number of complaints the P&C received about this issue, maybe they reconsidered their decision as to placement of the article? Hmmmmmm. You can bet that Mr. Davis is not pleased with this development.

IT'S ALMOST HERE

2010-12-22T07:58:00.001-05:00

GE&P would like to wish all our readers and contributers a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR.

THE END OF OUR TETHER

2010-12-19T09:05:00.004-05:00

You all knew the day was coming. You knew GE&P would not be able to remain silent forever. We exercised all measure of control but there is a limit to how much can be tolerated without response.

Over the past months, we have read with interest, and some gritting of teeth, the accounts posted on Face Book about how unrealistic and unfair it is to our little Darlings of today to have the foreboding presence of uniformed policemen on our public school campuses. "The presence of these law enforcement officers only bring out aggression in the adolescent." GE&P has a one word reply, "BULL".

It would appear that the experts are constantly struggling to find a solution to the lack of discipline in our public school systems. Well, fear not. GE&P has come to the rescue. Here you go.

Let's rewind to the early 1950's. You are entering the main hallway of St. Patrick's elementary school which contains grades 1 through 8. On your right as you pass the front door is the office. In this doorway stands Sister Mary Thelma. She is an imposing woman dressed from head to toe in black. Her only adornment is an oversized rosary with wooden beads which drapes from her waistband almost to the floor. As you look down the hall, you see doors on either side which lead to classrooms. Each of these doorways contains another woman dressed exactly like Sister Thelma. There is only one BIG difference between these 8 other women and the one standing at the office door. Securely gripped in her right hand, Sister Thelma holds an 18 inch steel ruler. The other 8 have no need for this accessory. They have Sister Thelma.

Sister Thelma never smiles, as this action may lull some unfortunate soul into thinking, mistakenly, that she just might be human. She isn't. She is a discipline machine and she performs this function very well. Whistle in the hall?.....WHACK. Get caught chewing gum?....WHACK. Don't have your homework?.....WHACK. Find yourself accidentally standing in the wrong place at the wrong time?.....sorry 'bout that...WHACK.

In Sister Thelma's world, and St. Patrick School IS her world, it is extremely rare that a parent is called in to resolve a problem with a student. A situation is NEVER serious enough to require police presence. 99.9% of discipline problems are handled by Sister Thelma's tool of correction. God forbid you should create a problem large enough to warrant a visit from the priest at the church just across the corner. This action could earn you constant surveillance for months by Sister Thelma. You'll be watched in the lunchroom; you'll be watched on the playground; you'll have your bathroom visits timed; and you'll be escorted on and off the school grounds. Not good, but effective. And never once did it cross your mind to consult a lawyer.

Granted, accounts like this cause Liberal everywhere to cringe. But, if you will, look at the outcome. None of us suffered abuse. None of us ended up in the hospital. None of us carry any permanent scars. None of us ended up on drugs or in jail. The one thing that we DO have is a sincere respect for law and order. We possess an indelible awareness of what kind of behavior is acceptable in civilized society. When we compare what is being done now and the outcome, with what was done then and the outcome, was Sister Thelma's methods all that bad? We think not.

SO OBVIOUS IT'S NOT FUNNY

2010-12-18T18:59:00.003-05:00

Unless you have been living in a cave for the last two weeks, you've probably heard of Supervisor, Dan Davis' latest brainstorm. He wants to implement major changes to County Council Rules. Allow us to explain how his wonderful new plan will work.

Mr. Davis wants to throw out Robert's Rules of Order Revised in favor of the Model Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for South Carolina (Model Rules). These Rules are much abbreviated and do not contain the complete guidance provided by Robert's Rules. Consequently, when a situation arises that is not addressed in the Model Rules, Robert's must be consulted. The Model Rules were developed by a committee appointed by the SC Association of Counties. When the product was completed, even the chairman of the committee and several of the committee members described the product (Model Rules) as confusing and unneeded. At the latest survey, only 7 of the 46 SC counties have adopted these Model Rules. Of these 7, only 2 actually use them. The other 39 counties have rejected the Model Rules out of hand. With his decision to adopt the Model Rules, Mr. Davis is , once again, swimming up stream against conventional logic. But, could there be a method to this madness?

Next, Mr. Davis wants to eliminate all committees and committee chairmen. He wants to replace this existing committee system with "workshops". Mr. Davis contends this move will encourage open discussion and provide a better forum for all members of Council to participate in all areas of government. He insists that this new process will not diminish any member of Council's individual powers of oversight. Mr. Davis says any member of Council can place any item on the agenda. Under the new plan, there would be one full Council meeting per month.

In the humble opinion of GE&P, these contention are no less than absurd. In the first place, no action can be taken in a workshop. The only thing a Councilman can do in that setting is voice an opinion. At the end of the meeting, nothing is official and, therefore, nothing has changed. Nothing has been adopted or rejected. To quote Councilman Fish, "A workshop is just a dog and pony show. It's schoolyard show and tell."

With the existing system, each Councilman heads a committee that is responsible for a different department of government. Citizens can contact the appropriate Councilman when there is a problem in that area. If this committee system is abolished, there would be no point of contact for citizens and no direct individual oversight of the various departments of government by any Councilman. This new system would relegate the job of each member of the County Council to an advisory capacity.

As to the contention that, under this new system, any member of Council will be allowed to add an item to the agenda, that might very well be true. BUT, it is equally true that Mr. Davis, as Supervisor, chairs the full Council meetings and, as chairman, he has the power to strike any item of his choosing from the agenda for any or no reason.

Shall we cease and desist with the polite amenities and describe this new plan for what it is?

As it stands right now, Council is comprised of 4 Conservative Republicans and 4 Liberal Democrats. At regular Council meetings, Mr. Davis provides the tie breaker when there is a 4/4 vote. (Remember this) Mr. Davis and the 4 Democrats ALWAYS VOTE TOGETHER. As it exists now, all spending issues not previously included in the budget must come through the Committees. For example: One of the 4 Democrats heads the Finance Committee. At committee meetings, the existing Rules disallow the Chairman of a committee a vote. Therefore, with the present system, when unreasonable spending issues arise, the Conservative Republicans on the Finance Committee enjoy a 4/3 majority vote. Consequently, the Conservatives on Council block many of Mr. Davis' big spending projects at the committee level. (Has the lightbulb come on yet?)

Also, under the existing Rules, all information on contracts, purchases, and transfers of funds must be disseminated to all members of Council through the W&S, Public Works and Purchasing, and Finance Committees. This is the method through which Council members stay informed as to what is going on with our tax dollars. If the new Rules abolish the Committees and do not include this oversight ability to the members of Council, how will any of us know what is being done by our County government and how our tax dollars are being spent? So far, Mr. Davis has not provided anyone, including members of Council, with a draft of his new and improved Rules.

As we recounted in yesterday's post, Mr. Davis has grabbed money from the property owners, W&S, the School System, the fund balance and any other source on which he could place his greedy little hands. Coupled with this, he has a massive new multi-million dollar building agenda waiting in the wings. Mr. Davis has already proven what he will do if no one is looking. He proceeded with the rebranding of W&S, took away the FILOT funds from the schools, took $10 million from W&S, installed political payoff water lines, depleted the fund balance, and virtually destroyed Cypress Gardens, all without a vote of Council.

The only people who he thinks are standing in the way of him having a completely free hand with BC government are the 4 Conservative Republican Committee Chairmen. His simple solution, get rid of the Committees and, in so doing, the Committeemen. Then, he would be left with only the full Council meetings on which he has a solid 4/4 vote. He breaks the tie and, presto, he gets his way on every issue. This would remove any obstacles from his goal of ONE MAN RULE.

But, Mr. Davis has made one serious mistake. He forgot about "WE THE PEOPLE"

HINT OF A TAX HIKE?

2010-12-17T18:56:00.003-05:00

Supervisor, Dan Davis held his December "Community Meeting" on Thursday night. This installment of his current propaganda effort was held in Cainhoy for the 8th Council District. GE&P received several reports from those in attendance.

The meeting began with the usual 20+ minute monolog by Mr. Davis. Once again, Mr. Davis made the false statement that his administration presided over the first balanced budget in BC in 16 years. Note to Mr. Davis and his crack finance team: When the last number on your spread sheet is in the minus, you are running a deficit.

Mr. Davis stressed that the State had cut funding to BC. He explained how many County positions had been eliminated through attrition and that there had not been any layoffs. Then, he mentioned, in passing, that many Counties had adopted a process of rolling blackouts for the EMS in order to stay within budget. GE&P advises that you pay close attention to obscure little remarks like this one. It could be a precursor to the old "OMG, if we don't raise taxes, we'll have to close the Washington Monument" tactic. Stay alert.

Even though the number of folks in attendance was small, the questioning was active and to the point. This is by no means to imply that these questions were answered. The overall impression voiced to GE&P by attendees was that they ended up with more questions than answers.

One taxpayer indicated he was happy that the Carolina Nursery property deal had fallen through. He questioned Mr. Davis as to the value of even considering incurring more debt when the County was facing such an uncertain economic future. Mr. Davis stated the purchase would not have cost the taxpayers anything as he intended to pay the $14-$16 million cost with the FILOT (fee in lieu of taxes) from county businesses. We all need to remember, this FILOT is the same funding that was supposed to be paid to the School System. (Mr. Davis simply took these funds from the schools earlier in the year.)

As a followup, one person asked for a ballpark figure as to how much the State had cut funding in the last year. This person couldn't get an answer even though the Supervisor, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, and the Director of the Finance Department were all present. GE&P would think that such an important figure that was affecting the County's finances so negatively would be right on the tip of their collecting tongue. Not so, in this case.

As would be expected, GE&P has a few questions of our own.

Since Mr. Davis took office, he has appropriated 29% of our property tax relief from the LOST.

Mr. Davis has raised our water and sewer rates by 30%.

Mr. Davis has burdened us with another 1 cent LOST. (Local Option Sales Tax)

Mr. Davis has "borrowed" $10 Million from W&S's fund balance

Mr. Davis has "redirected" much of the FILOT (Fee In Lieu of Taxes) funds away from the School System and into the general fund.

Mr. Davis failed to make the customary adjustment to the millage rate after reassessment, which resulted in even higher property taxes.

Mr. Davis attempted to get BC into the real estate speculation business with his plan to purchase the Carolina Nursery property.

Now, we find that Mr. Davis has signed a purchase agreement for BC to buy 16 acres of land (old fairgrounds) to build his "Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus" at a cost to the taxpayers of $20+ Million. This purposed facility won't even house County agencies. It will house DSS, Head Start, and DEHEC.

Also, part of his grand plan is to refurbish the old hospital building to house a new "Dan Davis Judicial Center".

When we add the cost for these "necessary" projects to the money needed for a new library for Hanahan, the purchase and renovation of the Food Lion Property, the Berkeley Senior's facility in Moncks Corner, a new and improved Emergency Operations building (to the tune of $9 Million), and a new Courthouse in St Stephens (to guarantee Steve Davis' future support on Council) to the numerous other projected "investments" envisioned by Mr. Davis, the price tag comes to over $54 Million. Even when we combine our LOST revenue through 2014 with yet another $10 Million bond that has already been floated in our names, completion of these projects still requires an additional $15 1/2 Million.

Question 1.

Where do you think Mr. Davis will "find" this shortfall?

Question 2.

When we add the additional revenues listed above to the existing sources of revenue the County already enjoys, Fines, Forfeitures, and Fees, Licenses and Permits, Interest income, State and Federal funding, Existing property taxes, Interfund Transfers, and the ever so popular Miscellaneous Income, where the hell is all the money going?

Question 3.

If the County is in such financial straights, why would we be involved in all this new unnecessary spending?

Question 4.

Could the fact that the 4 Conservative Republican members of Council are assured to oppose this reckless spending be the catalyst for Mr. Davis' desire to change Council Rules? (More on this topic tomorrow)

GE&P and countless other taxpayers of BC are totally confused by many of Mr. Davis' positions. Out of one side of his mouth he says how financially strapped the County is becoming. Then, at the same time, he proposes borrowing and spending clear to the horizon. In our humble opinion, the spending needs to stop so we can get our financial house in order in preparation for the leaner times yet to come.

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE

2010-12-12T14:35:00.002-05:00

GE&P would like to make one thing perfectly clear. The greatest majority of our posts are directly connected to political issues. We do not personally attack people, and this includes politicians. When we discover situations or "relationships" among the county leaders and controllers of our tax dollars which directly affect the taxpayers, we have no qualms about blowing the whistle. We only post statements and information for which we have irrefutable proof.

GE&P has long contended that our Berkeley County Council is equally divided by a vote of 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats, with a tie-breaker vote cast by yet another Democrat. Because of this, many tax and spend policies have been adopted. This brings us to several exchanges via email and Face Book to which GE&P has become privy. In these exchanges, GE&P is viciously criticized for circulating false rumors. One of the so called "false" rumors is that County Councilman, Bob Call is, in fact, a Democrat. Mr. Call has been quoted as saying, "I was a Republican before Timmy (Tim Callanan) was even born."

In support of our contention, GE&P would encourage our readers to go to SCVOTES.ORG.

Search for Berkeley County Votes Cast In General Election Held in South Carolina November 6, 1984. Scroll to the County Council, District 3 race results. There you will find the candidates who ran and the vote count. You will see that Mr. Cox, Republican ran against Mr. Robert Call, Democrat and the Democrat, Mr. Call, lost the race 2 to 1.

Mr. Call suffered this resounding defeat when he ran as a member of the party whose platform he truly supported because the voters of his district, even today, wouldn't elect a Democrat as dogcatcher. Consequently, the next election cycle, Mr. Call ran again for the same seat but, this time, simply substituted the "D" behind his name with an "R" and was successful. See how easy it is?

GE&P does not recognize a true Republican by the letter behind the name. We recognize them by their actions and that would not include following the Democrats with their tax and spend policies. Case closed.

LOST REVISITED

2010-12-09T19:55:00.005-05:00

We are certain all of you remember the famous Local Option Sales Tax issue from years back. BC government tried for several years to get "We the Taxpayers" to agree to this new tax. Twice we rejected it out of hand. It wasn't until County Council gave its word, in writing, that 100% of this tax would be credited to property tax relief that the taxpayers agreed to the increase. This was done by way of a referendum.

Fast forward to Dan Davis' first term of office. In the 2008/2009 budget year, the taking of the 29% was skillfully hidden within the budget, supposedly for only that budget year, and most taxpayers were blissfully unaware of the theft. However, when time rolled around for the 2009/2010 budget process, the cat was out of the proverbial bag when Mr. Davis, again, included the taking of the tax relief money. Mr. Davis realized he would face major opposition to this move so his faithful surrogates jumped to his defense. For months we heard how cash strapped the county was and if we didn't relinquish 29% of our LOST tax relief, the county would literally go belly up. We heard this story repeated by all four of Mr. Davis' Democrat supporters on County Council. This budget was passed and 29% of our tax relief was taken, again.

In the 2010/2011 budget process, the taking of the 29% was, once more, included. We hadn't heard such poor-mouthing from elected officials in all our lives as we heard from Mr. Davis and his other 4 Democrats on Council. "If the money from our 29% wasn't included in the budget, employees would have to be laid off." "The county wouldn't be able to meet its obligations." "The county wouldn't be able to keep the lights turned on." "All the poor little children would starve and they would be forced to sleep outside in four feet of snow." The taxpayers and the 4 Conservative Republicans on Council (Fish, Callanan, Farley, and Mrs. Davis) weren't buying this story. Finally, when Mr. Davis realized he had overwhelming opposition, he and his four other Democrats resorted to breaking Council Rules to adopt the budget. In defense of their actions, Mr. Davis and his four Democrat supporters on Council (Pinckney, Schurlknight, S.Davis, and Call) painted a very grim picture as to what would have befallen the county had they not taken our 29%.

Well, guess what? GE&P knows in advance that this revelation is going to shock one and all but.......THEY LIED. The truth has a funny way of rearing its ugly head when you least expect it. They are not spending the 29% of our tax relief money on employee salaries. They are not spending it on the light bill. They are not using it to meet county obligations. And, they are not feeding and housing those poor little starving, freezing children with it either. Would you like to know where our tax relief money is really being spent?

SIDEBAR: Since GE&P doesn't want to tip our hand prematurely and allow Mr. Davis to realize exactly how much we do know, we will only give you a partial list of his planned uses for our tax relief money. Here goes.

THE DAN DAVIS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES CAMPUS

$20+ Million. This complex is planned to sit on the 16 acres next to Ace Hardware in Moncks Corner. This is the land for which Mr. Davis has negotiated a purchase contract for $1.6 Million (that's $100,000 an acre based on the sellers assessment) without the knowledge of (the four Conservative Republican Councilmen) or approval of Council. This "campus" will not house county offices or agencies. It will house Head Start, DSS, and DEHEC. Last time we checked, these were all either State or Federal agencies. Isn't that sweet? There is much, much more to this story still to come.

THE STEVE DAVIS ST. STEPHEN COURTHOUSE/SENIOR CENTER/LIBRARY

This little project is cheap by comparison. It is projected to cost a mere $3 Million. But, this price doesn't include the cost of the land. Another $318,000 is budgeted for land purchase. Question: Even if you were to pay $10,000 an acre, wouldn't that be a purchase of almost 32 acres? Now, that's a parking lot. On a completely different subject, can anyone help us out and tell us how to correctly spell the word "kickback"?

At this time, we won't go into the projected purchase/renovations of the Food Lion ----$4.75 Million or the construction of a new Emergency Operations building------$9 Million.

All of these and many more of Mr. Davis' pie-in-the-sky ideas (not mentioned yet) would be wonderful, if we could afford them. But, in fact, we can't. When Mr. Davis first took our tax relief money, it was supposed to be for only one year. After three years, he still contended the county would go broke if he didn't keep taking it. Now, we learn exactly how he plans to spend our hard earned tax relief dollars.

Even when we combine the 29% of our tax relief derived from the Local Option Sales Tax with the $10 Million bond that has been issued, (that means more debt) the financing of all of Mr. Davis' new projects still falls short by multi Millions of dollars. Where do you think this additional shortfall will come from?

GE&P has a suggestion. If you think these plans reflect an acceptable expenditure of our tax relief money, sit at home and watch a sit-com next Monday night. If you disagree with Mr. Davis' plans, come to the County Council meeting and voice your disapproval. The Council meetings are held in the Council Chamber at the Administration building in Moncks Corner at 6:00PM on the second and fourth Mondays of each month.

NOTE: Tomorrow we will discuss the fact that Mr. Davis wants to strip County Council of its power of oversight by changing Council Rules. This maneuver you truly won't believe.

LOW DRAWER AND DISHONEST, AGAIN

2010-11-26T07:59:00.002-05:00

On the off chance you haven't heard yet, a high level Berkeley County elected official has been caught in a rather embarrassing position. This official is being sued for divorce by a wronged spouse. It seems this official was caught "red handed ?" with a long time "friend". The confusing part is that almost every living soul in Berkeley County, with the possible exception of the spouse, knew about the affair for years.

Normally, GE&P would not waste one drop of ink on such disgusting, salacious behavior, but as usual, there's more to the story.

It seems this unfortunate revelation didn't just happen yesterday. The blow-up happened some months ago and the elected official paid off the offended spouse to keep quiet until after the Nov. 2nd election. Isn't that sweet?

GE&P has established a firm position on this issue: The original bad behavior falls far beneath the moral and ethical standards of the majority of Berkeley County voters. But more importantly, for this official to deliberately pull the wool over the eyes of these same voters by promising to 'sweeten the pot' with the divorce settlement if the spouse remained silent until after the election, goes beyond the pale. This level of manipulation and deceit has no place in Berkeley County.

"If your spouse cannot trust you, why should the taxpayers?"

REPUBLICANS? WE DON'T THINK SO

2010-11-18T20:57:00.002-05:00

By now, we suppose all of you have received your invitation to the big event. On the slim chance you haven't heard about it, allow us to fill you in. Ambassador Robert Royall is throwing a big shindig at his Silk Hope plantation "honoring" our very own Supervisor, Dan Davis. The invitation contains, in small print, the fact that contributions between $250 and $1000 will be gratefully appreciated. Please make all checks out to the Dan Davis reelection campaign.

It is really amusing how the truth will always come out. You see, there is more to the story. Everyone in Berkeley County has seen the photo, released by Bob Call, of Dan Davis standing in Democrat Caldwell Pinckney's living room on election night, helping Mr. Pinckney celebrate his win over his Republican challenger in the Council District 7 race. Even the willing accomplice, the Berkeley Independent, tried to convince everyone, by implication, that the photo in question was taken at the Cross Community Center upon a different occasion. It wasn't.

Now Mr. Davis is receiving this great honor from none other than Ambassador Royall, appointee of both Gov. Beasley and President Bush. Good, strong Republican, right? Wrong. This is the same Ambassador Royall who supported and campaigned for none other than Vincent Sheheen during the last election.

Isn't it interesting how these "republicans" with a small "r" (we like to refer to them as RINOS) stick together? In fact, the only reason these people put an "R" behind their names on the ballot is that, otherwise, they could not be elected to any office of any consequence in Berkeley County. It would serve the voters well to remember this the next time they step into the voting booth. Unless, of course, some voters simply enjoy being played for fools.

AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE

2010-10-20T10:17:00.002-04:00

We attended Dan Davis' 7th Council District meeting in Cross last night. The meeting hall was packed and, it seemed, everyone had a question. Mr. Davis was well prepared to face any eventuality since he brought with him every department head known to man. County vehicles filled an entire row of the parking lot.

On most fronts, there were no surprises. Davis was confronted about the Hwy. 311 water line and, of course, he dodged all questions. (It's still Jim Rozier's fault) He was asked about the expense of the number of county vehicles parked outside. He dodged that, too. He was asked about the portion of the Fee In Lieu of Tax funds he has stolen from the school system. He wouldn't talk about that either. We are all familiar with Davis' response to these important issues. He simply says the subjects are "old" and moves on to the next question that he has no intention of answering.

It is a bit redundant to recap this behavior from DD (Diminutive Dictator). His tactics of refusing to answer direct questions and/or obfuscating issues to his own benefit have become legendary in Berkeley County. There is no news in this area. But, there was one issue brought up last night that was truly shocking.

A very nice black lady who lives on Asazlee Dr. at the edge of Cross stood up and politely asked Mr. Davis for some help with a problem in her neighborhood. She explained that there was a rehab facility located a few doors from her home. Residing in this facility are numerous registered sex offenders. She said she was concerned for the safely of the children in the neighborhood as these residents from the facility are unsupervised and roam the neighborhood at all times of the day and night . She said they regularly gather on the cul-de-sac where she lives and remain there until the wee hours of the morning. She recounted one incident when she was walking along her street and one of these people jumped out of the woods at her. It was obvious that this lady was very upset and concerned about the whole situation.

It came as no surprise to anyone in the room who had any experience with DD that he did not personally address the concerns of this lady but passed the question off to one of his flunkies. Eric Greenway proceeded to explain the zoning laws to the degree that everyone's eyes began to glaze over. It was obvious to all in the room, except DD and his band of merry men, (sorry Nichole) that this lady didn't give two hoots in hell about the zoning laws. She was concerned about her personal safely and that of her children. But, as usual, this very serious issue was buried under a pile of DD's bureaucratic BS and the lady's legitimate concerns went unaddressed.

We, as with the majority of you, don't live anywhere near Asazlee Dr. and we are in no danger from this situation. But, in our humble opinion, when ANY citizen in Berkeley County is put into a situation of peril, it is the business of EVERY citizen of Berkeley County. The supervisor was remiss when he neglected to personally address the concerns of this lady. His offhanded remark at the end of the exchange was, "If you've got a problem, call the sheriff."

Once more, but certainly not for the last time, we would like to thank those 8000 idiots who put us in this position. If the last four years are any example, things will only get worse.

GUEST EDITORIAL

2010-10-12T11:53:00.000-04:00

Guest Editorial: Haley is right choice for South Carolina

Published Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:11 AM

By Tim Callanan
Berkeley Independent

In June of this year a true milestone was reached in South Carolina politics.

For the first time the voters defied the pundits and elitist Columbia powerbrokers and voted for someone who they thought would bring true reform to the tired Good Ole Boy system that has controlled South Carolina politics for generations. They voted overwhelmingly for Rep. Nikki Haley, a Republican from Lexington. They saw in her someone with whom they could identify.

Nikki is a first-generation daughter of immigrants who exemplifies the values and freedoms that this nation has afforded her. She is a working mother and a wife of a soldier who has learned to balance the family checkbook during tough times.

Nikki did not run for public office because she felt she was entitled; she ran because she saw a system that ceased being accountable to the citizens it was supposed to serve, a system badly in need of reform.

Nikki has been fighting for South Carolinians for years. When she won her seat in the statehouse she did so by defeating one of the longest serving and most powerful incumbents. Nikki hit the ground running and quickly acted to fulfill her campaign pledge to bring smaller, more accountable, more efficient and more transparent government to South Carolina.

Her first target was to make legislators accountable for their votes by mandating house votes be on the record rather than the traditional tactic of hiding behind unanimous consent and voice votes. To the average voter this may seem like a common sense proposal but it put her at odds with good ole boys in Columbia and ultimately resulted in her being stripped of her committee post. This action only strengthened her resolve and with her continued efforts on behalf of the taxpayers she was able to convince her House colleagues to join the fight for transparency and she prevailed.

When she announced her candidacy for governor, she promised to continue with her record of reform as the state’s first female chief executive. With better-funded and better-known candidates in the race, she was not given much of a chance. But as she crossed the state delivering her story and message of reform, it resonated with the voters.

I witnessed this first hand in April when she spoke in front of our county executive committee meeting. She turned a room of largely undecided voters into supporters. Three weeks later she won the Berkeley County GOP straw poll; two weeks after that Sarah Palin endorsed her and a 20-point poll deficit was eliminated.

It was about that time that the Columbia “Republican” elites went apoplectic. They took out their playbook of sleazy campaign smear tactics and began to unload on her. They questioned her fidelity, her faith and her finances. They proved time and time again their willingness to reach new lows in order to bring down Nikki’s surging candidacy.

Unfortunately (for them), they did not count on two factors. The first was that they were up against a candidate who has proven her mettle in battle and was not going to back down. And second and more importantly, they did not anticipate a newly energized and informed electorate that was intelligent enough to see through this pathetically transparent attempt to destroy the reform candidate.

Voters passionately joined her fight to reform Columbia. Moms, dads, military families, small business owners and working families know her as one of their own. Her message of more efficient and accountable government resonated. The voters answered the call and she won the primary with a historic plurality.

Now with one month until the general election, the “Republican” elites are at it again. Recently, a group of GOP “has beens” and “also rans” decided it would better serve their interests to back a liberal Democrat if that meant they could protect the status quo. They are not going to let a working mom from Lexington derail Columbia’s infamous Good Ole Boy money train without a fight.

So expect more arrows and mud to fly in the direction of Rep. Haley in the coming weeks. As always, I expect Nikki will prove her mettle and forge ahead, just as I expect the voters of South Carolina will reject these tired smear tactics and answer the call once more and elect Nikki Haley as the 116th Governor of South Carolina.

Mr. Callanan is the Berkeley County GOP Chairman and a Berkeley County Councilman.

GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY........MISSED

2010-09-24T08:42:00.002-04:00

Exhibiting proper manners is usually a very good thing. Demonstrating professional behavior and decorum is, also, admirable. Attempting to avoid embarrassing your adversaries and maintaining civility in the public forum should usually be pursued. BUT, there are exceptions to these rules of behavior. If one is walking down a street at night and a thug jumps out of the dark and falls upon you, all bets are off and you must fight for your very life. That is exactly the position in which the BC School System finds itself on the issue of funding.

The facts are simple. For many years there was an agreement between BC Government and the BC School System as to the division of the Fee In Lieu of Tax funds. Now, Supervisor Dan Davis has decided he wants, and fully intends to take, a larger share of these funds to finance his agenda items. There is a myriad of smaller periphery issues connected to the main issue but this is the crux of the disagreement.

GUEST POST

2010-09-13T15:10:00.002-04:00

Hello Everyone,

Well, the initial firestorm about the Healthcare Bill has been extinguished. Now, the ashes must be cleared and a road forward constructed. In this debate, there was little, if any, substantive contributions from REAL practicing physicians as to the merits of this grand plan and how it would effect the day-to-day doctor/patient relationship that has been the bedrock of medical practice from ancient times (Hippocrates). These ten predictions are from me to help you understand where we will be once Mr. Obama leaves office in January 2017 (an eleventh prediction!!). These predictions are based on solid data and a 25 year practice experience.

1. Up to 200,000 physicians will quit or retire. The average age of the practicing physician in America is 49. Each one of these doctors will take four jobs with him. The New England Journal of Medicine (liberal as it comes in medicine) actually predicted 250,000 doctors leaving practice. Well, you do the numbers. I will be one of them.

2. The Federal government will continue to decrease reimbursement to physicians in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to unsustainable levels. Doctors will be forced to join the new National Physician Manpower Corps or face economic disaster. This will happen in primary care first and specialist physicians will follow.

3. Many states will be driven to the brink of bankruptcy as more and more individuals will now qualify for Medicaid. In South Carolina alone, the estimate is 480,000 more people on Medicaid. The state will be forced to make drastic cuts in education, transportation and other programs to support this. Taxes will soar here and elsewhere to support these programs. California is looking at 3.2 Million more residents on MEDI-CAL! Who would want to live there?

4. Hospitals across the USA will close because of unsustainable cuts in funding and increased lawsuits. The border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California will be especially hard hit as more undocumented people from Latin America come to the USA for health benefits. More jobs lost.

5. Pharmaceutical companies will have massive layoffs. They have already started as they are forced to pay higher taxes and receive less for their products through government programs, especially Medicare. Drug R&D will essentially be non-existent in the USA due to lack of revenue and liability.

6. Healthcare rationing will be implemented in small steps. The first programs to be restricted will be dialysis, organ transplants, oncology care, and neonatal services. (KIDS DO NOT VOTE) Vaccines will be in chronic short supply, if available at all, as the reimbursement will not cover costs. Ultimately, the FEDS will take over almost all vaccination programs.

7. The additional taxes to support the massive expansion in Medicaid, pharmacy coverage in Medicare, and coverage of illegal persons in the USA will accelerate unemployment. A permanent unemployment rate of 12-14% here will be a reality.

8. Abortions and other progressive initiatives will be covered by the new plans.

9. The government currently covers 55% of all lives in the USA by Medicare, Medicaid, and the military programs. Once that number exceeds 85%, a single payer system will take it all just like England and France. Think of what that will really mean for you and your family who have been perhaps accustomed to on-demand medical care with excellence.

10. Finally, as 10,000 baby boomers go on Medicare daily starting in January 2011, the Federal deficit will explode and likely top $22 TRILLION by January 2017. And do not forget Social Security, pension bailouts, and the California bailout will be looming. OUCH!

I do not know one doctor who would turn a patient away. This is not part of our "culture". However, the current administration has a general distain for physicians and their generally conservative values. Despite what many in the progressive movement think, physicians are small businessmen who provide jobs, pay taxes, provide uncompensated care, and support their communities at many levels. The NEW doctor who is left will likely have all of the compassion of their predecessors, but in the final analysis, will expect the same entitlements generally provided to most Federal employees, i.e. time and a half over 40 hours, paid health, dental and disability insurance, six weeks paid vacation plus CME and, of course, retirement with COLA!! (cost of living adjustment) I am glad that I was able to practice medicine at a time when the doctor/patient relationship really had value. This will not be the case in a single-payor Federal system as the system design does not allow that type of special relationship. Please share with me your thoughts but please base any criticism on sound facts not emotion.

Bless you all,

Dr. Salvatore Moscatello

Elms Digestive/Endoscopy Center

GOOD IDEA..... BUT.

2010-09-13T08:36:00.004-04:00

Supervisor Davis planned and chaired a "Citizens' Meeting" on Daniel Island last Thursday night. According to Mr. Davis, in his opening remarks, he formulated this plan before the primary but waited until after the fact to put the plan into action, as he didn't want the plan to appear self serving. He stated that he realized a great number of voters are interested in the workings of County government and have many concerns and questions. He went on to say he understood that many of these folks couldn't make it to the Council meetings and he wanted to create a forum where people in each District could participate in the process. He noted that he planned to have one of these "open" meeting each month until he had included every Council District. The next meeting has been announced and is to be held in District 7.

Up to this point, everything was wine and roses. Then Mr. Davis inadvertently opened the flood gates by asking, "Does anyone have any concerns or questions?"

"What effort is being made by the County to work more closely with the School District concerning economic development and its impact on the School District?"

"What effort is being made to assure that the School District gets its fair share of the FILOT funds from the Mount Holly Park?"

"Why was the existing ordinance allotting the FILOT over-ridden?"

"Why is the County pursuing a "no bid" process for the purchase of heavy equipment?"

"Why is the County so reluctant to provide information to concerned individuals and groups concerning these issues?"

"Why does the County expect the School District to blindly enter into an agreement with the County on the Jedberg project without having the Mount Holly dispute settled?"

"Why are there no plans to install a bike/walking path from St. Thomas Island to Daniel Island so the school children can safely walk to school?"

GE&P could go blow by blow with the attempted answers to these questions but that would be redundant for regular attendees of the Council meetings. We will just hit the high points.

Mr. Davis assured everyone that the County has always worked very closely with the School District concerning the impact economic development has on the School District. But, when Mr. Davis called upon the District to confirm this fact, he didn't receive an affirmative answer.

Mr. Davis connected the School District's effort to secure the FILOT funds to the story of the Little Red Hen. He indicated that the School District hadn't really done anything to secure the funds so had no right to expect to receive them.

Two people in the audience pointed out that the Roads and Bridges spokesman was disingenuous when he said the County followed an open bid process for heavy equipment because of the specifications required for bidding. One equipment supplier stated the specifications published on several contracts excluded all bidders save one supplier.

One attendee was told that all requests for information from the County were answered in a timely manner. When this person pointed out that his request was made in May of 2010 and still remained unanswered, an administration spokesperson said the County had to research the request back 20 years because the County didn't want to give out incomplete or inaccurate information. When asked if he had been sent a letter to this effect by the County, the spokesperson said he had not.

The meeting was scheduled and advertised to last from 6-8 PM. At 7:05 PM, Mr. Davis announced that he thought all issues had been addressed so he would call the meeting to a close. He did so and beat a hasty retreat to the parking lot, leaving most of the attendees gathered in small groups to continue the dialog. Most of the crowd didn't disperse until the 8 o'clock hour.

A thoughtful person would have assessed this meeting as a rousing success. Everyone was polite and respectful. Issues were addressed. No one was refused the opportunity to speak. Judging from the questions and comments, it was obvious the attendees were well informed and had done their homework on the issues. It appeared the only ones displeased with the outcome were members of the County administration.

GE&P has never claimed to be clairvoyant BUT we have a prediction. "The citizens of Berkeley have seen the first and the last of the new 'Citizens' Meetings'."

ANSWER THIS ONE

2010-08-26T08:34:00.002-04:00

At last Monday night's County Council meeting, several of the county volunteer fire departments submitted a request for some additional funding. The amounts of money for each station were not exorbitant. The largest amount was $22,000. These funds were earmarked for such things as hoses and helmets, as the existing hoses leak and the helmets the firefighters are using now are of last century's vintage.

Well, "some" of the Councilmen sprang into action. They wanted an itemized list of the expenditures. According to one Councilman, "We have to insist on transparency on this request". That started an extensive discussion among "some" of the Council. These Councilmen grilled a volunteer fireman who was in attendance and happened to have an itemized list of the materials needed. These few Councilmen wanted "justification" for the request.

GE&P sat there listening to this dog and pony show. We couldn't help but be amazed at the hypocrisy. In 2008, when Mr. Pinckney introduced the contract for his $2.24 MILLION water line to his front door, there was virtually NO discussion, let alone dissension. When the subject of Mr. Steve Davis' "courthouse and library in St. Stephen that he can be proud of", (this will cost the taxpayers over $3.5 MILLION) there were no protests about this budget item.

BUT, when the people who protect our very lives ask for some little piddly amount of money to purchase vital equipment for their jobs, these same Councilmen want to be assured as to the use of every single penny of the request. Has anyone ever heard the story about the man who strained at a gnat and then swallowed a camel?

UPDATE ON YOUR KISS

2010-07-29T09:08:00.002-04:00

GE&P did some more investigation on the nursing school issue and stumbled onto something very interesting if not confusing. According to a source close to the Supervisor, Mr. Davis had instructed Mr. Schurlknight to bring up the issue of funding the nursing school during his Finance Committee meeting. This would have had to have been done "without objection" as the issue was not on the agenda. At some point during that dog and pony show of a Council meeting, Mr. Davis changed his mind (?) and told JS to forget his original instructions as he would not have the money to fund the school this year.

It was obvious to all present that the nursing school delegation was left scratching its collective head at the end of the meeting. Now, it is clear that it was deliberately left spinning in the wind. Had Mr. Fish's budget been considered, including the cuts in wasteful spending, BC could have comfortably included funding for this worthwhile project. Embarrassment piled upon embarrassment. Thanks, again, to "The 8000".

AND, YOU DID'T EVEN GET A KISS

2010-07-28T07:40:00.008-04:00

GE&P would like to take this opportunity to thank the 8000+ Dan Davis supporters (hereafter referred to as "THE 8000" ) for the fact that a County budget was adopted that, for the third year, takes 29% of our property tax relief, resulting in higher taxes for all BC citizens. To showcase just how unbelievably gullible "THE 8000" really were, let's look at another bit of history.

As the primary began to gear up, the Supervisor's race developed a few key issues. Among these, two were obviously developing 'legs', the taking of 29% of the property tax relief to fund BC government spending and the fact that Davis got a huge pay increase while forcing BC employees to take unpaid furlough days. Judging from public opinion at the time, these two issues possessed the power to scuttle the Davis reelection campaign. Common sense indicated the taking of the 29% would mean higher taxes. And, the records clearly indicated Davis had received a huge pay increase and the BC employees had been forced to take unpaid furlough days. It became obvious that no amount of lies could change these facts.

Most politicians would have hesitated to make any obvious reversals on their established policies so close to an election, realizing that the voters would see through any such efforts. But, Mr. Davis knew something that GE&P didn't know. Somehow he knew just how gullible and uninformed "THE 8000" really were. So, he went to work.

On 4/26/10, at a regular Council meeting, Mr. Davis' crack finance person announced some unbelievably good news. (The key word here is "unbelievably") It was announced that the county had "found" some money they didn't even know they had. Coincidentally, the amount of the extra money was exactly enough to cover the cost of the furlough days, $581,000. Glory Alleluia! How serendipitous was that? Just weeks before the election, Mr. Davis' uncanny leadership abilities had restored this lost income to the county employees. Mr. Davis and his supporters wasted no time in spreading the great news. Of course, this maneuver had absolutely nothing to do with removing a major negative campaign issue from the landscape. Good job but there was more work to be done.

On 5/19/10, Davis held a special Council meeting. At this meeting, the proposed budget was the main topic of discussion. The Conservatives on Council wanted to remove the taking of 29% of the property tax relief from the budget and find other ways (such as reducing the size of government) to fund county government spending. Mr. Davis was oh so cooperative and agreeable with this idea. As a result, the ordinance was written to exclude all of the 29% with the exception of $500,000 for matching funds for the Jedburg project. "THE 8000" were jubilant. Presto! Another negative campaign issue was removed from the table. However, GE&P, the Conservatives on Council, and 7000 informed voters saw through this ruse. All of us knew the final vote on the budget could be postponed until AFTER the election and the wording of the ordinance could be changed back to its original form at that time.

GE&P feels obliged to mention yet another fraudulent maneuver that was very carefully timed around the election. We assume you are all aware of the effort to establish an expanded nursing school at Trident Tech. Well, prior to the election, Mr. Davis was one of this effort's staunchest supporters. At least this appeared to be the case. His position on the issue secured a large number of Davis votes in the primary. Now that we have given the history of this fairy tale, we will spring forward to the present and focus on the way things really are.

COUNTY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7/26/10: As demonstrated by The Dark Side on Council, Robert's Rules of Order, County Council Rules, and Protocol are no longer applicable. (We should include common courtesy in this list) Dan Davis and his willing accomplices on Council literally butchered Parliamentary Procedure to accomplish their goals. The Dark Side amended the budget ordinance to reincorporate the 29% of our tax relief. (As we and others had predicted) To the amazement of many in attendance, the questionable tactic were

supported by the county's legal advisors. The procedural contortions demonstrated by The Dark Side during this process would have given any kangaroo court in history cause for envy. The end result of this embarrassing display of creative process was that Davis achieved his original goal of stealing 29% of the Property Tax relief from the citizens of BC. He didn't stop there.

The large group of organizers for the new Trident nursing school were at this Council meeting. It would be assumed they were there for a reason. GE&P learned from some members of this group that Mrs. Thornley expected to be called upon to make a speech. It is documented by his own words before the election, Mr. Davis supported funding the new school. Unfortunately, for the supporters of the school, this meeting and the passage of the budget took place after the election that secured Mr. Davis' position for another four years. Mr. Davis no longer requires the support of this voting block. GE&P has it on good authority that Mr. Davis now contends there is no money in the budget to fund the school.

The end result is there for everyone to see. Mr. Davis stole our Property Tax Relief just as he intended from the start. Mr. Davis has left the new Nursing School hanging out to dry. GE&P has two cautionary words for all County employees: FURLOUGH DAYS.

WANT TO HEAR MORE?

2010-07-22T21:36:00.004-04:00

Louis Walker

CHAPTER ONE

There are people you meet during your life's journey that you forget the day after you meet them. Then there are people you meet that you remember till your dying day. If you have a minute, I'd like to tell you about a person I met who fits very securely into the latter category. His name was Louis Walker. Louis was already old when we met. At least he seemed old to me at first. But, after I listened to him speak and got to know him better, I wasn't really sure. I have a perfect picture of him in my mind, but, when it comes to putting Louis into words, that's difficult. Describing what he looked like is easy. Describing who he was is a different story. He wasn't a physically imposing man. He was actually rather slight and nondescript, standing less than 5' 10” tall and weighing maybe 140 lbs soaking wet. His head was crowned with thick, unruly, snow white hair. His features were average with maybe a slightly larger than normal nose. You could have encountered him on the street and never noticed him except for two things, his laugh and his eyes. Louis's laugh could make a dead man split his sides and Louis's eyes...oh, those eyes. If you've ever been to the Caribbean and noticed the blue of the deep water under the noon sun, you've seen the color of Louis's eyes. And, the color was liquid. There was an actual sparkle to them when he was happy or in a teasing mood. There was an endless depth to them when he was angry or very serious. His eyes were a force to be reckoned with. No one could help trusting and believing those eyes. No one could ever lie to those eyes.

So far as Louis the person was concerned, he was a walking contradiction. He was capably but unaccomplished. He was intelligent but uneducated. He was kind and caring yet totally uninvolved with the world around him. He had been married and had several children but acknowledged no family. He was perfectly satisfied to sit alone in his small house and entertain himself. He didn't ask anyone for anything and didn't appreciate it when someone asked something of him. He took a side job now and then when he needed money for food or cigarettes. He didn't worry about what tomorrow would bring. He would say, “I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.” Under the right circumstances, I do believe Louis would have given you the shirt off his back. He was basically a nice person. The main problem with him was he just wasn't much worth a damn. Don't misunderstand. He wasn't mean or hateful or anything like that. I don't think he would have done you wrong if it would have done him good. It's just I guess he didn't put a lot of stock in the part of the Bible that talks about talents. You see, Louis had talent up to his eyeballs. He just didn't make use of many of them. I heard it said you could bring a building or repair problem to Louis in the morning and by mid afternoon he'd have your problem solved. Though he had the skill to implement the solution to your problem, he would never volunteer to help with the work. Louis could sink a well, build a house, fix a car, or cook a meal if he had wanted. He knew a lot about a lot of things. He just chose to do very little. I always thought had God injected into Louis just a small measure of ambition on top of all those talents, this old man could have been a millionaire several times over. But, here we have one of those “If” things that Louis always talked about saying, ”If frogs had wings they wouldn't keep bumping their butts on the ground.”

I think I forgot to tell you just how I met Louis. I have always been the kind of person who loves to explore. One of my favorite pastimes is checking out stores that sell a lot of old, discarded items. Now, I'm not talking about stores with names like “Lowcountry Antiques”. I'm talking about stores with names like “Joe's Junk”. I've learned you can find some of the most interesting things in such establishments. That's what I was doing the day I first met Louis. I had heard of such a store over in Ravenell which is about 20 miles from where I lived. I was told the store was down a dirt road about a mile or so off the main road, Hwy 17. That sounded like fun to me so off I went in search of new rummaging grounds. I had been driving around the area for more than an hour, having arrived about noon. I had driven down every dirt road I could find. Being as Ravnell is very close to the coast, it is honeycombed with marshes and small streams. All of the dirt roads in the area have several small bridges along their course. I suppose there must have been a nail or something in one of the small wooden bridges I drove across because, as I came off that particular bridge, my right rear tire blew out. A flat tire never makes your day but I wasn't too upset being as I knew very well how to change it. It was the early afternoon so I didn't worry about dark catching me out there in the middle of nowhere.

I wasn't on what could exactly be described as a well traveled thoroughfare so I just stopped the car right where it was, in the middle of the road. All went well as I got the jack and the spare out of the trunk. As I started to set up the jack, I realized there was a potential problem. I said I was driving on a 'dirt' road when I had the flat, well, that's not exactly accurate. The road was covered with deep sand as are many unpaved lowcountry roads. When I started jacking the car, the jack just sank into the sand. Trying to appear not quite so stupid, I decided I'd better look around for something rigid like a board to put under the base of the jack to prevent it from sinking. Because I was so focused on the flat tire, the jack, and the sand problem, I must have had tunnel vision because I didn't notice I had company until I turned around to look for the board. I was more than a little bit startled when I realized an old man was standing in the gravel driveway behind me watching my every move. I decided I would be polite and say “Good Afternoon” because I'd always heard that most ax murderers react positively to good manners. He replied, “Good Afternoon”, as he walked into the shade of the tree line on that side of the road and sat down on a stump. I felt a bit more comfortable with him sitting there as I still had a white knuckled grip on the jack handle. I said something about the jack sinking into the sand and my need for something solid to put under it. He nodded his head affirmatively and told me someone had dumped some pieces of concrete from a driveway down by the wooden bridge. He suggested I might find something useful there. I thought to myself, “Well, thank God, chivalry is not dead yet. This old fool is still stomping it.”

I walked the short distance back to the bridge and peered down the ditch bank. Even though the area looked like an ideal environment for really big snakes, I climbed down to see what I could find to solve my problem with the jack. I found a piece of concrete slab somewhat smaller in circumference than a #2 washtub and about 4 inches thick. It was flat on one side and would serve my purpose well. The only problem I faced was getting the heavy bastard back to where the car was. After the initial strain of pulling the heavy weight up the ditch bank, the going got surprisingly easier. As it turned out, that deep sand was good for something. It acted like a skid. Leaning over at the waist, I got behind the load and pushed. With the smooth side down, the concrete rock mostly glided over the sand. Every so often, though, the front of the rock bogged down and the sudden stop would send me to my knees. The thought crossed my mind, “So this is how the Egyptians moved those heavy stones to build the pyramids.” Of course, there were thousands them doing the pushing.

As I was straining with the slab, I saw, out of the corner of my eye, the old man still sitting, contentedly, in the shade. He didn't make one move or offer to help. Finally, I reached the car with my heavy load. I scooped out the loose sand from the area under the axle so the slab would sit level and low enough that the jack would fit between it and the axle. Did I happen to mention that this story took place in late July? Well, it did. And as everyone knows, July in the Lowcountry usually brings temperatures in the upper 90s to low 100s with humidity levels somewhere around 4000% . This particular July was no exception. By the time I got the flat off and the spare ready to go on, there wasn't a dry thread on me. At each point in the process, placing the jack, loosening the lugs, raising the car, taking off the flat, I stole a glance at the old man sitting on the stump in the shade. That old man was really beginning to get on my last nerve. After I managed to strain the spare up and on and finger tighten the lugs, I looked over my shoulder to find the old man had quite silently disappeared.

The job was on the downhill run now. I let the jack down, finished tightening the lugs, replaced the hubcap, and removed the concrete slab from under the car. I must have been a sight to behold. Wet with sweat, sand was stuck all over me from grubbing under the car. My hair was stringing down on my face. I was not in a good mood. As I pushed the slab to the edge of the road and sat back, exhausted, against the newly installed wheel, I became aware that the old man was back. I looked up to see his hand outstretched toward me offering a six ounce bottled Coke. Without any hint of a smile he said, “You look like you could use a cold drink.” That was the first time I had been close enough to the old man to notice his eyes. I reached up for the Coke and said, “Thank you. I do hope this hasn't caused you to exert yourself too much.” Then came that laugh. It was deep, genuine, spontaneous, and infectious. I couldn't help but join in. My mood ascended from just below crappy to the most joyous laugh I had had in years. The sparkle in the old man's blue eyes virtually danced. By the time our laughter was brought under some control, we were both sitting in the middle of that sandy road wiping away the laugh tears that were running down our faces. He reached out his hand to shake mine and said, “Hello, I'm Louis Walker.”

LOOKS LIKE THEY'LL NEVER LEARN

2010-07-20T18:18:00.007-04:00

With the SC Supreme Court's ruling against them still ringing in their ears, for printing a known lie that defamed an innocent person, the Post & Courier just may have stepped into it, again. Note from GE&P: If you happen to hold any stock in the insurance company that carries the P&C's liability coverage, we would advise selling short ASAP.

On 7/19/10, the P&C ran a front page story titled "Months pass as minutes stand still". Accompanying this headline was a picture of Councilman Dennis Fish and Councilman Bob Call. Alongside the photos was a quote from Councilman Call, repeating a false accusation against Mr. Fish. Prior to the release of the article, Mr. Fish informed the P&C that the accusation was false and reminded the reporter that the official recording of the meeting in question does not contain the alleged statement in Call's accusation. According to Mr. Fish (and GE&P) the reporter admitted he had listened to the recording and didn't hear any such statement. Mr. Fish explained to the reporter and to GE&P exactly what he had said. Mr. Fish insists he was speaking to Mr. Call and not to Mr. Schurlknight. But, the alleged statement was repeated in the article all the same.

As usual, GE&P thinks it beneficial to provide you with some history. This issue finds its roots in late 2009. At that time, several members of Council (the Conservatives) sought information as to how hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, realized from the Accommodations Tax, were being spent by the Chamber of Commerce. Their inquiries were met with a solid brick wall. These Councilmen decided to meet the problem head-on. In January, 2010, they nominated five new members for the Accommodations Tax Board. Please realize these nominations were to fill vacant seats.

The nomination process was followed and five new members were successfully appointed. Then, the popcorn hit the fan. These new members scheduled a meeting and they voiced their intention of ordering an audit of the Accommodations Tax accounts . (It is normal operating procedure for a new board to call for an audit of accounts before they take responsibility for the funds as they are legally responsible after they take control.) Mr. Davis, Mr. Call, Mr. Schurlknight, and Mr. Pinckney (the Dark Side) did not appear happy with this prospect.

We move on to the February 22nd Regular Council meeting. In a process that broke all the rules and ignored the fact that all the positions on the Accommodations Tax Board were legally filled and there were no vacancies, the Dark Side decided to appoint a new slate of members. (The only ways to legally replace a member is either 'for cause', if the member resigns, or their term has ended) None of these situations applied in this case. The legal process was not followed. The Dark Side just decided to replace the five new members so they did.

The Conservatives on County Council, including Mr. Fish and Mr. Callanan, protested strongly. They pointed out that replacing their slate of board members without due process was illegal. The Dark side ignored these protests. Being as Mr. Davis has the support of four of the eight members of Council, the issue received a tie vote. Then, of course, Mr. Davis broke the tie and his effort to restructure the board was successful.

GE&P interviewed Mr. Fish concerning this matter. Mr. Fish said he did address Mr. Call about the illegal appointment of the new slate of board members. Mr. Fish admitted his patience was running thin. He said, in exasperation, he told Mr. Call (not Mr. Schurlknight) that he would make every effort to get the original board members reinstated, hold an audit of the accounts, and, if any of the money was missing, he "would burn all their asses".

Being as this effort on the part of the Dark Side was blatantly against the Rules and obviously illegal, something had to be done to divert the public's attention. After what must have been a lengthy planning session, the "I'll burn your house down" plan was initiated. This plan would require that the minutes be held from approval being as a brief review by a five year old could tell the accusation was false. Also, the details concerning the Accommodation Tax Board could not under any circumstances be released to the public.

So, there we have it in a nut shell. Prior to 2010, we had an Accommodations Tax Board (having responsibility of oversight)with no records of having met in two years, (until last month when minutes of two meetings [which just happen to be carbon copies of each other] just happened to materialize) hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars not accounted for, a supreme effort on the part of the Dark Side which resulted in assuring there would be no oversight and certainly no audit, and a sensational false accusation against Mr. Fish that the ever accommodating P&C was happy to put on their front page to keep the attention off the real issue.

GE&P would like to take this opportunity to tip our collective hat to the Dark Side. You really know how to git 'er done. And, as long as you can depend upon the P&C to continue to be your willing accomplice, you'll probably get away with this one, too. Congratulations to those very thoughtful 8000+ voters who put us where we are. We hope you're proud.

PERSONAL NOTE

2010-07-12T21:10:00.002-04:00

GE&P would like to extend our deep and sincere sympathy to the Capps family. During this time of terrible loss, please know that our thoughts and prayers are with you all.

UPDATE ON JUNE 17, 2010 POST "THE MAN HAS NO SHAME"

2010-07-04T07:26:00.005-04:00

More than a few of you were upset and appalled when you learned that Supervisor Davis had, yet again, made a contradictory statement that went unchallenged by the media. The incident to which we refer is Mr. Davis' two different and distinct explanations as to why he missed the June 14th County Council meeting.

At the meeting itself and in a P&C article the next day, it was stated Mr. Davis had missed the meeting "due to a death in the family". However, during an interview on WTMA a few days later, Mr. Davis said he missed the meeting because he went to a campaign strategy meeting. Amazingly, after being repeatedly informed of this contradiction, several members of the media did follow up with Mr. Davis for a clarification.

Hold onto your seats because this one is going right out of the park.

Mr. Davis had a perfectly understandable and acceptable explanation as to why some people perceived his statements as contradictory. This is the way it happened. Mr. Davis had this long time friend at the flea market who had been very ill and this friend and Mr. Davis were so close that he/she seemed like family and this friend was supposed to die on Monday so, of course, Mr. Davis knew he would be unable to go to the Council meeting BUT the person didn't die as scheduled after all so, being as he had already planned not to go to the Council meeting, Mr. Davis just decided to go to the campaign strategy meeting instead.

Well now, that clears everything up. GE&P has no problem with that explanation and we believe this account completely as we are certain do you. We are confident that the fact that Mr. Schurlknight was out of town that night and would not be at the meeting to provide Mr. Davis with his critical "fourth vote" to tie up any controversial issues that might arise, had nothing to do with Mr. Davis' absence.

It is so reassuring to know that we taxpayers can always depend on our leadership to illuminate any misgivings or misunderstandings we may have with our County government. We don't know about you but after this clarification, we will sleep much better tonight.

WHO WANTS TO BET

2010-06-30T16:58:00.001-04:00

Who wants to bet the "lawmaker" who didn't pay his/her taxes was NOT a Republican? If it was, now THAT would make a headline.

WHAT A CRYING SHAME

2010-06-24T20:49:00.007-04:00

We are certain that most of the old timers out there remember when shark fishing from the Folly Beach pier wasn't against the law. The process was pretty simple. The fisherman dumped "chum", a mixture of blood and guts, into the water and waited for the sharks to arrive. It didn't take very long before the water was alive with the large tooth monsters. Then, the fisherman would bait his large hook with half of a mullet and go to work.

In case no one has noticed, we have a similar feeding frenzy going on in the local media right now. The only difference is, sharks are not the target. This frenzy is aimed at Congressman Henry Brown. Channel 5 News and WTMA radio have aired stories concerning remarks allegedly made by the Congressman on the night of the Republican Primary run-off election. According to these TV news stories and topics of discussion on WTMA talk radio, Henry Brown called the voters of Berkeley County "fools" for reelecting Dan Davis, Supervisor. These stories have been edited for effect and have spread through the county like wildfire. The big problem is THE BASIC STORY IS NOT TRUE.

On the night of June 22nd, we were at the Musicman where Mr. Brown was holding his election night party. When the news came in that Mr. Davis had won the election, the TV news crew approached Mr. Brown for his comments. We were standing directly behind the interviewer and listened to every word that was exchanged. At no time did Mr. Brown refer to the voters of BC as fools. During the lengthy interview, he did say he thought the voters of BC "HAD BEEN FOOLED" by Mr. Davis' false statements during the campaign. As any thinking person knows, there is a wide canyon between saying someone has been fooled and calling someone a fool. But, we have to assume certain members of the media are not numbered among the thinking people. They created a firestorm over something that was never said.

Mr. Brown attempted to correct the misstatements made on WTMA by calling in to set the record straight. It was embarrassing to listen to the disrespect heaped upon Mr. Brown as he tried to correct the false reporting. The host would ask a question of Mr. Brown and, before Mr. Brown had any chance to answer, the host would pepper him with yet another accusatory question. The host of the show even went so far as to allow callers to join the pile-on.

The most egregious misleading report came from Channel 5 news. After the WTMA hatchet job, a reporter from Channel 5 called the Congressman for an interview. Realizing he had been placed in an untenable position, the Congressman refused the interview by saying, "I said what I said and I stick by it". Even after the Congressman said he refused to go on the record, the Channel 5 reporter recorded this remark and included it in the report, giving the false impression that Mr. Brown had admitted saying what he was accused of saying. As we all know, "cut and paste" can create anything you want. This was not the best example of honest reporting.

GE&P has received numerous calls from BC voters who saw the Channel 5 report and are" very angry that the Congressman could say such a thing about them". They believe this story simply because it was on TV news. We tried to correct their wrong impression but failed. The damage is done. People are convinced the story is true. The Congressman will carry this black mark to his grave. No one will ever see the raw footage from the original interview. Why would Channel 4 run this footage? That would prove a really hot story to be a crock and what would that do to viewership?

Congressman Brown, our numbers here at GE&P are, admittedly, small but we would like to offer you our sincere apology for the treatment you have received from the media and some citizens of BC over the last few days. We appreciate your years of service to Berkeley County. It breaks our hearts and shames us that these citizens choose to reward your years of faithful service with this verbal lynching. What a crying shame.

BORING, BORING, BORING

2010-06-22T12:00:00.001-04:00

Received yet another Dan Davis mailing. Since it only contained the same old lies, we will refer you to the posts of June 18th and 19th.

WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDERS SAY?

2010-06-20T22:33:00.011-04:00

During the birth process of this great nation, the Founders realized early on that a "free press" would be essential if this new form of government was to survive. They considered this element so vital to our nation's success that they equaled it in import to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion". In the Federalist Papers, the Founders explained that the "press" carried a huge responsibility along with its freedoms. The "press" would be responsible for keeping the masses informed as to the conduct of the government. That was the original plan.

Jump forward to 2010. Today, it seems our newspapers have only one goal in mind, sell large volumes of advertising. Reporting the truth and keeping the public informed has been relegated to a secondary or even non existing goal. Point in fact: The P&C editorial supporting the reelection of Dan Davis, Supervisor of Berkeley County.

Being as no name was attached to this endorsement, we don't know to whom to address our comments. We would assume you know who you are, unless the P&C simplified this effort and just let Dan Davis write it himself.

The first reason given for this endorsement was all the road improvements BC has experienced due to the new one cent sales tax initiated by Mr. Davis. So far, the only activity we've seen is the decimation of a few score ancient oak trees along Hwy. 17A. The majority of the roads we travel are still in the same deplorable condition as they have been in for years. Several people, including GE&P attempted to get the P&C to report on the $4 MILLION spent on the debacle of a new intersection at Hwy. 6 and Hwy. 311. This wasted money could have been used to pave Hwy. 6 from the old Cross fire tower all the way to Moncks Corner. The P&C reported little to nothing on this subject.

The next justification for reelecting Mr. Davis, according to the P&C, is all the economic development attributable to Mr. Davis' efforts. The article includes Moulton Logistics and Gildan, as examples. They don't mention that neither Mr. Davis nor his crack economic development team knew anything of either of these additions to BC's job market until after both concerns had already established themselves. Since the FILOT agreements were already in place for these locations, there was no need for negotiations with BC government. Neither does this article include the fact that BC, under Mr. Davis' leadership, has lost ten times as many jobs as it has gained. The "industrial park planned near Jedburg" was not the brain child of Mr. Davis. Credit for this project has to go to its creator, John S., whom Mr. Davis fired soon after the plan was underway. And, for the P&C to include the pie in the sky "likely spinoff development from the Boeing expansion" as an accomplishment of Mr. Davis, strains credibility.

The "green energy" bragging point should have included the fact that both these projects are costing the taxpayers money, not saving it.

The P&C is correct in saying Mr. Davis served as city administrator of Hanahan. What they neglected to say is, when Mr. Davis was hired for this position, the city of Hanahan had a surplus of $2 MILLION. When he "left" the job, the city had a $3 MILLION deficit.

Finally, the article says Mr. Davis "provided a steadying hand" on County Council and "dealt capably with budget difficulties". In fact, Mr. Davis formed a coalition of 2 Democrats and 2 RINOs to offset the votes of the 4 Conservatives on Council. This resulted in him casting the tie-breaking vote on many items of wasteful spending during the last 2 years. Several of these votes involved suspicious infrastructure projects that benefitted his supporters. The P&C was made aware of these questionable activities but refused to investigate or report on them. When citizens investigated the issues independently and provided the P&C with documentation of irregularities, the P&C still refused to report on them.

When it comes to financial issues connected to Mr. Davis, the P&C neglected to report on the problems with the FILOT situation with the school system. They didn't think it was important to report that the schools had been short changed over $4 MILLION by Mr. Davis' attempt to "balance" his budget. They didn't think it was important to report that Mr. Davis took $1 MILLION from the BC Economic Development Fund for the same reason. They didn't think it was important to report that Mr. Davis approved, without the knowledge of Council, a $2.24 MILLION water line to the front door of one of Mr. Davis' supporters on Council. They didn't think it was important to report that, for the third year, Mr. Davis is arranging events so he can take 29% of the property tax relief from the citizens of BC. P&C has written several scathing articles about Charleston County Council trying to take a mere 10% from their citizens. The P&C didn't think it was important to mention that Mr. Davis has depleted the fund balance by $5 MILLION. The P&C didn't think it was important to investigate where the $10 MILLION taken from BCW&SA was spent or for that matter, whether the "taking" was even legal. All they said was he "dealt capably with budget difficulties".

The issues included here are only covering those mentioned in the P&C endorsement of Mr. Davis. Credible, documented information on all these issues, and countless others, has been provided to the P&C from several sources over the last two years. Routinely and repeatedly, the P&C has refused to report on them. It has become increasingly apparent that the P&C will not touch a story derogatory of Mr. Davis, with a ten foot ink pen. Now, without even the slightest consideration of any facts, the P&C has chosen to endorse the behavior of Mr. Davis.

We have always thought the goal of journalism was to answer the "who, what, when, where, and why" and to maintain at least a shadow of their original civic responsibility. Isn't it sad that the Tri-County area doesn't have a real newspaper?

NOTE TO THE P&C: Our puppies thank you.

HOW MUCH MORE???

2010-06-19T18:11:00.003-04:00

Now, Dan Davis is claiming he had the Hwy. 311 water line installed to support industry. We all know just how much industry is located on Hwy. 311. There's Grooms' deer processing, which employs......................uh....................Mr. Grooms. And then, there's the sweet shop just on the other side of Pinckneyville. Oh wait, the Sheriff closed that down because of drug activity. And, of course there's .......uh........uh........uh....... There's nothing else. There's not even large enough tracks of land to support industry, even if someone would agree to part with any of the land, which no one will.

Mr. Davis' lies aren't even any fun any more. Folks are getting very angry.

THIS IS OUR SHOCKED LOOK

2010-06-18T22:12:00.017-04:00

We realize this is getting a bit monotonous but we must report and let you decide. We just received yet another Dan Davis mailer literally dripping with endorsements. WHERE DOES HE FIND THESE PEOPLE?????? We spent two hours on the phone this afternoon asking old time residents of BC if they knew any of these folks. The results were astounding: One retired school board member, one fire chief, and one would be stalker. The identity of the others was a complete mystery to everyone we spoke with. Even if these folks are from BC, how can they be so uninformed?

One stated he was very impressed with the number of jobs Davis had brought to the County. Really? We gained 80 jobs and lost 800. Now, that's something to aspire to.

One said Davis had run a totally positive campaign. Why doesn't she mention the puppets Davis has engaged to go around spreading unfounded rumors about his opponent?

One said Davis "never does favors for friends" and "stands up for the taxpayers". Why didn't she mention the $2.24 Million water line to secure Pinckney's support on Council or Davis stealing 29% of our property tax relief while raising the water rates by 30%?

One mentioned that Davis "dedicated 24 hours a day to keeping BC strong". Does this include the hours spent at the flea market and at Geranimo's?

One brought Washington into the conversation, AGAIN.

One said he admired the fact that Mr. Davis "built his own business from scratch". We wonder if this gentleman has ever looked at the incident reports concerning activity at the flea market? PSA: If your lawnmower turns up missing, give us a call and we will be happy to make a suggestion as to where to go look for it. Remember, always record your serial numbers.

One man said he couldn't vote for someone who slings mud. Sir, there is a huge difference between "slinging mud" and itemizing a person's official record of behavior.

Finally, one person claimed Mr. Davis had achieved a budget surplus this year. Mr. Davis took $10 MILLION from the BCW&SA fund balance. He took $1 MILLION from the Economic Development fund. He took $4 MILLION from the FILOT fund that rightly belongs to the School System. He enacted another one cent sales tax. He depleted the BC fund balance by over $5 MILLION. And, he has failed to contribute more than $1 MILLION to the County retirement fund. Even when you include all these ill-gotten gains, this year's proposed budget does NOT contain a surplus.

We would encourage everyone to look at the long list of prominent people who have either endorsed or are supporting Henry Brown for Supervisor. Then look at the list of those who endorse and support Mr. Davis. This alone should send a message.

A LEOPARD DOESN'T CHANGE HIS SPOTS

2010-06-18T10:50:00.012-04:00

For the benefit of those of you who weren't around this area for the Republican Primary in 2006, you need to be aware of Dan Davis' campaign style in that election. A flyer from Mr. Davis arrived in the mailboxes of many voter the day before the election. This flyer detailed an accusation that Jim Rozier, the incumbent, had spent taxpayers' money to purchase a stadium box for himself at Clemson. The big problem with this accusation was that it was totally false. The issue had been put to rest by an extensive investigation weeks prior to the mailing. The local newspapers had run articles disproving all the charges. Mr. Rozier had provided a cancelled, personal check with which he had purchased the box. Clemson had provided a certified letter saying the BC check upon which the allegations were based was payment for a legitimate venture between BC and Clemson. These small facts did not deter Mr. Davis. He sent out the flyer anyway. When he was confronted with his actions after he won the election, he said, "The mailing was already in the pipeline and couldn't be stopped". Everyone believed he couldn't stop the mailer with a full three week notice. SURE.

Well, Mr. Davis seems to have decided to repeat his successful activities of 2006 in his reelection campaign against Henry Brown. He is hoping that just enough voters are gullible enough not to look beyond the misleading headlines of the P&C. We would like to start with the issue of Mr. Brown's stock purchases in 2009 as reported in the WSJ. GE&P has read the entire article and, to begin with, we are baffled as to why the Journal would have published this piece of questionable journalism in the first place. After reading the piece in its entirety, we could find no there there. The article admits that Congressmen are allowed by law to buy and sell stock. The Journal said there were no violations found, either legal or ethical. So, exactly what was the point of this article? Mr. Brown and others legally bought and sold some stock. ???????????WHATS YOUR POINT?

One of Mr. Davis' unfortunate puppets, however, opted to edit the article and make it appear that the Congressman had done something wrong. The redacted email points to the passage of the Stimulus Bill as proof there was misconduct on the part of Henry Brown. HELLO, Mr. Brown voted AGAINST the Stimulus Bill. And, as no small point of interest, has anyone asked exactly WHO was the puppet who disseminated this contrived story? We would suggest everyone focus their attention on the Berkeley County Chamber of Commerce. Does anyone know of any "special" friend Mr. Davis might have over at the Chamber? Does anyone care that this deliberately misleading story was sent out from the Chamber's email list? Were there any taxpayers' dollars involved in this activity? Follow the lead of the P&C and don't bother to ask Mr. Davis any of these questions. We are positive he had nothing to do with this. We would even go so far as to imagine he wasn't even aware this was happening. Just ask his and see.

Now, GE&P would like to give you a heads up on, possibly, the next fabricated issue. We aren't sure Mr. Davis will have the time to pull this one off, but there is a chance. We wouldn't put anything past him. We digress, on to the issue. Through third parties, GE&P has learned that Congressman Brown's staff members have received a few casual calls from the press inquiring as to how they separate their time between staff work and campaign work. Being veterans of Mr. Davis' campaign style, GE&P smells a rat. Could it be that we will all receive a mailer on Monday accusing Mr. Brown of using his Congressional staff for campaign reasons? No, not even Mr. Davis could be THAT obvious.

THE MAN HAS NO SHAME

2010-06-17T09:03:00.002-04:00

GE&P, along with countless others in attendance, felt sympathy for Supervisor Dan Davis last Monday at the Council meeting, when it was announced that Mr. Davis would not attend the meeting because of a death in his family.

This morning on the Kelly Golden radio talk show on 94.3, WSC, Mr. Davis stated that he, for the first time, had missed the Council meeting Monday night. In way of explanation, he went on to say, that night he was "PREPARING FOR A CAMPAIGN MEETING."

WE ARE SPEECHLESS.

FREE BUBBLE UP AND RAINBOW STEW

2010-06-16T20:03:00.009-04:00

GE&P is happy to announce that no one in BC will be expected to go to work next week. Your full paycheck will be in the mail. All the grocery stores will be giving away free food and drinks for the next month. All the gas stations in Moncks Corner will have their pumps open 24 hours a day with no payment expected.

Please pardon us but we just got our "Dan Davis for Supervisor" mailer and we decided to continue in the same vane. If Mr. Davis' claims were not so absolutely outrageous they would have become boring by now. How many times do we have to prove his rhetoric to be completely fabricated before he will no longer have the unadulterated gall to repeat it?

LOW TAXES: Dan Davis has stolen 29% of our property tax relief for the third year in a row, increasing our tax burden. Dan Davis has raised our water rates by 30%. Dan Davis has initiated a second one cent sales tax. Dan Davis has stolen $4 MILLION from the school system, leaving us to make up the difference. Then Dan Davis has the nerve to try to connect Henry Brown to the Obama administration.

ECONOMY: How can Dan Davis brag about a 12% unemployment rate? At least he had the good sense to edit his "Supervisor's Blog" and remove the claim that he created 1500+ new jobs in 2009. That lie was too easy to debunk. On this issue, again he foolishly tries to tie Henry Brown to the Obama administration.

BALANCED BUDGET: We imagine the whopper about the first balanced budget in 14, uhh 16, uhh 18 years must have drawn Mr. Davis too much flack to repeat so it's not included in this mailer. In fact, during the 3 1/2 years that Mr. Davis has been in office, he has depleted the BC fund balance by $5 MILLION. He has added another one cent sales tax. He has taken $1 MILLION from the Economic Development Fund. He has raided $10 MILLION from BCW&S's fund balance. He has cheated the BC school system out of $4 MILLION from the FILOT from Google. With all these ill gotten gains, what fool couldn't balance a budget? Once again, according to Dan Davis, Henry is responsible for Obama.

TRANSPARENCY: How can Dan Davis allow the word "transparency" to escape his lips? Has anyone heard about the "rebranding" issue? Has anyone heard about the Hwy. 311 water line debacle? Has anyone heard about Mr. Davis' $20,000 raise while BC employees were facing unpaid furlough days? And just this week, has anyone heard that even members of County Council can't gain access to a contract for the (in progress without Council approval) Wassamassaw water project? Now, Mr. Davis is blaming Henry Brown for the Obama healthcare bill that Mr. Brown actively opposed.

BAILOUTS: Mr. Dan Davis "pulled together to lower spending" by furloughing BC employees while giving himself a hefty raise. He "built up our reserves" by squandering the fund balance to a level low enough to endanger our credit rating. He "helped small businesses" by witnessing the closure of numerous businesses in BC, resulting in almost 800 lost jobs. Here we go again, Mr. Davis blames Henry Brown for the actions of the Democrat majority in Washington.

PROFESSIONALISM VS. POLITICS: Here Dan Davis accidentally tells part of the truth. He is indeed a professional, a professional flea market operator and he has brought all the talents associated with that calling to the Supervisor's office. He knows all there is to know about shady, back door deals, operating with a total lack of integrity, conjuring fabricated accomplishments out of whole cloth and, quite frankly, dealing in junk. His only criticism of Henry Brown's accomplishments is that the people of SC expressed their confidence in Henry's ethics, professionalism, talents,and integrity by repeatedly reelecting him to office. And, Mr. Davis faults Henry for offering to, once again, serve the people of BC.

For any misguided individual out there who intends to vote for Dan Davis next Tuesday, might we suggest that you remember to go by the Pig and pick up your free groceries afterwards but, whatever you do, don't quit your day job.

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

2010-06-16T11:16:00.003-04:00

GE&P ENCOURAGES EVERYONE TO COME TO THE POLLS NEXT TUESDAY AND SUPPORT HONEST, OPEN, AND PROFESSIONAL GOVERNMENT IN BERKELEY COUNTY. IF YOU STAY HOME AND DON'T VOTE, DON'Y COMPLAIN ABOUT HIGH TAXES AND CORRUPTION IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

VOTE HENRY BROWN, SUPERVISOR

VOTE SHARON SHULER, CORONER

DAVIS DOES IT AGAIN

2010-06-16T07:50:00.006-04:00

BC taxpayers were very upset when they learned that Dan Davis had approved a $2.24 MILLION water line to Caldwell Pinckney's house on Hwy. 311. Being as this pipe was already in the ground, there was nothing that could be done to get our taxpayers' money back. With this Hwy. 311 water line in place, Davis had secured Pinckney's support on Council. With 2 Democrats and 2 RINOs voting in unison with Davis, our 4 Conservatives' hands were tied. Remember, Davis gets to cast the tie breaking vote.

Well, this unholy alliance has struck again. On June 14th, there was supposed to be a Council meeting. The committees were supposed to meet, also. By breaking all the rules of Council and parliamentary procedure, Dan Davis had placed the budget on the agenda. As it turned out, one of Mr. Davis' fellow RINOs, Jack Schurlknight, was unable to attend the meeting that night. Without his coalition intact, Mr. Davis knew he would not have the votes to pass his budget so he cancelled the meeting. The committee meetings remained on the schedule.

All went well until it came to the Committee on Public Works And Purchasing, Item C. (2.). Mr. Micah Miley very casually presented the Wassamassaw CDBG Water Project for approval. This approval of Council is a MAJOR step in getting any project done. As it turned out, Mr. Miley wasn't seeking approval for the project itself. He was seeking approval of the contract to commence work on the project. Unbeknownst to Mr. Miley, or anyone else at BCW&SA, the four Conservatives on Council had been informed of a few facts concerning this project.

Mr. Callanan, the Chairman of the Water and Sanitation Committee, asked Mr. Miley a list questions about the procedure in getting any project approved. After about the fourth question, Mr. Miley looked concerned. Then Mr. Callanan asked the "killer" question, "Mr. Miley, if all these steps are legally necessary to get a project approved, could you please tell me why this project is already almost 40% completed?" We could see the blood drain from Mr. Miley's face. He began to stammer.

As Mr. Callanan asked for dates and particulars about the project, the story became more and more convoluted. Finally, Mr. Colin Martin came forward to save the day and began to apologize for the "oversight" on the part of W&S. He said they had realized only last week that they had "neglected" to get the approval of Council so they came forward immediately to correct the error. GE&P couldn't help but notice that Mr. Miley hadn't said a word about this "mistake" before Mr. Callanan pointed it out.

Mr. Miley said twice that BC was at no risk because he had only given verbal permission for Green Construction to begin the work. He said no contract had been signed. Mr. Martin repeated this statement. Anyone who believes that any company is going to buy materials and begin work on a MILLION DOLLAR PLUS project without a signed contract, we have some prime swampland we would like to sell you.

During Mr. Martin's apology, he said, "Something like this has never happened since I have been at W&S". He must have forgotten about the Hwy. 311 Project. And the Alvin Project. And the Miracle Academy (Gants Road) Project. Not one of these water projects followed the established track for approval by County Council required by law.

The Wassamassaw Water Project is being partially funded by a CDBG Grant of $500,000. This grant money cannot be awarded until a contract is signed and a construction conference is held by COG. By law, all contracts MUST be approved by the County Supervisor. It would be virtually impossible for the project to have gotten to this point without BCW&SA and the Supervisor noticing that County Council had not given its approval. Our four Conservative members of Council are investigating this situation as we speak.

There is one more small wrinkle to this story. The Queenie Road area, where this water line is being installed, just happens to be in Mr. Caldwell Pinckney's District. The work commenced three weeks before the Primary, without the knowledge or consent of Council. Since it is a given that Supervisor Davis MUST approve all contracts, are we dealing with yet another POLITICALLY based expenditure?

NOTICE TO THE INSATIABLE

2010-06-15T08:01:00.008-04:00

GE&P is very flattered that so many of you are reading our humble offerings. Many have complained that we do not post often enough. Please allow us to explain a bit.

The facts and accounts presented here don't come knocking at our door. We have to get out and beat the bushes, dig through County records, and interview experts and the folks involved in every issue. All this takes an inordinate amount of time and effort. Sometimes it takes, literally, weeks to gather enough information to present an accurate, factual account of a situation. Unlike some of our critics who shoot from the hip and spout rumor, innuendo, and opinion, we insist on relaying only factual information. We, too, hear a lot of rumors. When we hear one that catches our attention, we go to work to either verify or debunk it.

As you all know, since the Primary, the air has been thick with all kind of stories. That means we have been extra busy. We will attempt to bring you up to date on the biggest issues.

Unless you have been hiding under a bushel, you know there will be a run-off for County Supervisor. Henry Brown and Dan Davis were tied in the number of votes each received on June 8th. But, there is a wild card, Minnie Blackwell, the third candidate. She received about 20% of the vote and she has thrown her support and these votes behind Brown. She is giving interviews in support of Henry and actively participating with the Brown campaign for the run-off. Minnie Blackwell is a prime example of a person whose first priority is the welfare of BC. She is to be commended for her efforts.

True to form, the Davis campaign is attempting to create a straw dog in its attempt to discredit the Brown campaign. Davis contends Henry Brown is dishonest because he chose not to run, again, for the 1st District seat and chose, instead, to run for County Supervisor. Also, Mr. Davis is attempting to tie Mr. Brown to the activities of the present (Obama) administration in Washington. The final straw added to this dog is Mr. Davis' contention that, if elected Supervisor, Mr. Brown will reinstate the Rozier administration.

We interviewed Henry at length on these subjects. Henry said he had tired of the traveling and "felt the need to come back home". When his intention to leave Washington became public, he was approached by scores of BC citizens, each imploring him to consider a run for Supervisor. Each voiced the opinion that four more years of the Davis administration would be disastrous for BC. Each sited Mr. Davis' questionable handling of BC's finances and his dubious ethics and integrity. Mr. Brown loves BC and could not ignore the loud calls for him to continue to serve.

Mr. Brown pointed out what all informed people already know; the leadership and both houses in Washington are controlled by Democrats. The Republican minority, of which Mr. Brown is an active part, has virtually nothing to say about policy these days. For Mr. Davis to attempt to hang "Washington" around Mr. Brown's neck, depicts one of two things, ignorance or deceit. Considering Mr. Davis' record for veracity, GE&P opts for the later.

As to Mr. Rozier coming back to office in BC, we can assure everyone that is something that is not going to happen. Since leaving office almost four years ago, Mr. Rozier has operated his own consulting business. He works maybe two days a week and makes more money than he can count. He takes regular trips to destinations around the world. His time is his own and he doesn't have to contend with the stress and responsibility of running BC. Use your good sense and tell us, if you were in Mr. Rozier's position in the cat bird's seat, would you want to go back to a 9 to 5? Neither would we and neither does he. He is very happy where he is.

Mr. Davis is desperate. He will do anything and say anything to try to keep his position. It is up to you to do your homework and verify the validity of the words you read here. You will find they are all true. Then you will go to the polls on June 22nd and elect Henry Brown, Supervisor.

WE HAVE ARRIVED

2010-06-07T19:05:00.004-04:00

Well Folks, we have finally arrived at D Day 2010. The Republican Primary is tomorrow.

All the promises have been made.

All the lies have been told.

All the mud has been slung.

Now, the outcome is up to us, the voters. We get to write the end of this story. We get to decide who leads our government for the next four years. Take the time tonight to call just one neighbor and remind them how important the election tomorrow is to them. If someone needs a ride to the polls, offer one. We have all seen first hand what happens when apathy controls elections. Don't let that happen again. Go out tomorrow and VOTE. Let your voice be heard.

While we're on the subject, allow us to make these suggestions:

VOTE HENRY BROWN, SUPERVISOR

VOTE DENNIS FISH, COUNCIL DISTRICT 5

VOTE CATHY DAVIS, COUNCIL DISTRICT 4

VOTE TERRY HARDESTY, COUNCIL DISTRICT 6

VOTE SHARON SHULER, CORONER

We have thoroughly vetted these candidates and we can assure you their elections will be beneficial to Berkeley County. All will bring integrity, honesty, and professionalism to their offices.

WE HOPE WE'RE WRONG

2010-06-06T12:43:00.003-04:00

How much wishful thinking does it take to believe that the girl from Peru is the first girl Joran Van der Sloot has murdered since killing the Holloway girl five years ago?

SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO OWN IT

2010-06-06T08:55:00.022-04:00

During this primary season, Supervisor Dan Davis has been running hard......away from his record. During his campaign speeches, he has fabricated accomplishments, attempted to rationalize shortfalls, and brazenly lied about tax burdens he has inflicted upon the citizens of BC. If it weren't for pesky little details like County records and County Council minutes, possibly no one would have been the wiser. Unfortunately for his reelection efforts, he is finding there is no way to avoid these facts. He has established a record over the last 3 1/2 years as BC Supervisor and now he is forced to own it.

The issue that has drawn the most attention this election cycle is the infamous 29% of the proceeds from the Local Option Sales Tax that Mr. Davis pilfered from property tax relief. This seems to have become a very sore subject with the voters. It's funny how testy folks can get when you make a formal deal with them and then break your word. It appears Mr. Davis is learning this lesson in spades.

At a debate sponsored by the Lion's Club, Mr. Davis was confronted by his challenger, Henry Brown, about the taking of the 29%. Mr. Davis made every attempt to justify the taking of the tax relief but it was obvious the audience wasn't buying any of it. (NOTE: When basically the entire gathering displays a negative head shake, you've lost your point. ) A casual poll after the event indicated little support for Mr. Davis' positions. At a candidate forum held by Trident hospital, the results for Mr. Davis were pretty much the same.

At the Supervisor's debate sponsored by the BCRP, Mr. Davis was met with major criticism of many of his policies. Again, Mr. Henry Brown addressed the issue of the 29%. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Davis how he could justify taking the property tax relief, especially from senior citizens who may have to forgo purchases of food or medicine in order to pay the additional taxes. Mr. Davis had no reply. Seriously, he didn't open his mouth to respond.

Later at this same event, Mr. Davis claimed he was not responsible for the inclusion of the 29% in the budget. He falsely placed the responsibility for this decision squarely at the doorstep of County Council. But, when Mr. Brown pointed out that it was he, Mr. Davis, who cast the tie-breaking vote to include the tax relief in the budget, Mr. Davis had no comment. Really, he didn't deny that he cast the vote. He didn't dispute anything Mr. Brown said. He just sat there. Once again, those pesky County Council minutes proved problematic for Mr. Davis.

During this campaign, Mr. Davis has falsely claimed to have balanced the budget for the first time in 18 years. (16 years if you read his mail-out) In fact, a balanced budget is mandatory. He has falsely claimed to have lowered taxes. In fact, he has taken 29% of our property tax relief, raised the millage by one mill, raised water rates by 30%, and initiated ANOTHER one cent Local Option Sales Tax, all resulting in higher taxpayer obligations. He has falsely claimed he has lowered debt. In fact he has floated a $150 MILLION bond issue for the 17-A project, floated a $10 MILLION general obligation bond, borrowed $10 MILLION from BCW&SA, and took $4 MILLION from the BC School System. He has done all this while depleting the fund balance to below 4%. On these issues, County records let the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Davis' M O is very interesting. He makes whatever statements, true or not, that serve his purposes. If no one notices a falsehood, fantastic. If someone does notice, he just ignores it and goes on to the next subject.

It is time for the voters of BC to admit that a mistake was made when Supervisor Dan Davis was elected 3 1/2 years ago. It has turned out, as many contended at the time, that Mr. Davis' resume did not indicate the expertise required to lead BC successfully. Ultimately, he was not qualified for the job. Additionally, his actions since election have not reflected the level of integrity and good character the voters expected.

A large majority of the voters in BC are to blame for this blunder. There are 111,177 eligible voters in BC. There are only 75,000 registered voters. In the 2006 BC Republican Primary, of the 75,000 registered voters, only 12,000 (17%) turned out to the polls. Of those, only 6,096 or 8% of the total, voted for Mr. Davis. Think about that statistic. 8% of the registered voters made the decision to hire Mr. Davis to run our County. (Source: BC Election Commission) Considering these facts, is it not possible that we got exactly the kind of wake-up call we deserved?

One of the greatest things about our form of government is that no election, however disastrous, is the last one. There will always be another chance to correct a bad decision. For a couple of years, our County government has been hogtied by an inept Supervisor leading a coalition of tax and spend Democrats and RINOs. Next Tuesday we will all have the opportunity to correct our mistakes. GE&P urges every registered voter to go to the polls and have his/her voice heard.

Support the folks who have fought to save our tax dollars by voting to reelect DENNIS FISH, DISTRICT 5 AND CATHY DAVIS, DISTRICT 4

Vote to REPLACE a RINO with a TRUE CONSERVATIVE by electing TERRY HARDESTY, DISTRICT 6

GUARANTEE EXPERIENCE, HONESTY and INTEGRITY in OUR LEADERSHIP by electing HENRY BROWN, SUPERVISOR.

RECOGNIZE a QUALIFIED, COMPASSIONATE PROFESSIONAL by electing SHARON SHULER, CORONER.

BERKELEY COUNTY DESERVES ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO HAVE EARNED OUR ADMIRATION AND RESPECT. CHARACTER DOES MATTER.

ANNOUNCEMENT

2010-06-05T17:59:00.002-04:00

GE&P would like to thank our contributors for all the great tips submitted. Also, we would like to suggest that anyone who wishes to discuss any further information, please include your email address along with your comments and we will respond. We never publish any personal information or addresses. Remember, we could not provide this service without your help.

WORDS MEAN THINGS

2010-06-03T18:23:00.008-04:00

GE&P read with interest a Letter To The Editor in the June 2, 2010 edition of the Berkeley Independent. The writer began the letter with what appeared to be the best of intentions. Voters were encouraged to educate themselves as to the issues and as to the qualifications of the candidates. This was all good.

Then the writer seemed to veer off course a bit. He said, " That is why voting is so important to have a true democracy." Well, Mr. Writer, you have hit upon one of our pet peeves. Here in America, we do not live in a "true democracy". We live in a Representative Republic.

He went on to say, "A voter has to know the difference to make a difference. The voter has the knowledge and ability to guard against dictatorial practices that lead to bureaucracy." "Bureaucracy" is a nice sounding $10 word but it certainly doesn't fit here.

Let's play the old grammar school game: A is to B, as C is to ?

Dictatorial practices lead to bureaucracy as a 40 foot tsunami leads to sand in your shoes.

Sorry, if we're being picky.