EVEN THE MEDIA GETS IT

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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

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