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.
4 comments:
My middle school child would understand the budget better than Mr.Schurlknight. How did he get to be chairman of finances?
Oh I wish I could have been there to see Dan Davis' face... how DARE the Democrats cross him... perhaps their constituents are tired of paying for Dan's nonsense too.
How did Mr. Schurlknight get to be chairman of finances? What ever you conjure up in your mind is your answer!!! As suggested, since they lost the first half of this football game, we have to be very alert to their half-time changes/strategies/shenanigans!! Trust me, there will be many work hours, to include contractors, lawyers, experts, and wheeling and dealing with Council members, devoted to their efforts to reverse this decision next spring!
Anonymous, it doesn't take a "rocket surgeon" to figure out why Mr. Schurlknight is occupying that position. Mr. Davis provided "incentives" to establish/maintain his 4 supporting votes on Council. Mr. Pinckney got his $2.4 Million water line; Mr. Davis is getting his $3 Million Court house; Mr. Schurlknight gets to fool himself into thinking he is of average intelligence by trying to read his prepared notes at the Finance Committee meetings; and, as usual, Mr. Call is the cheap date.
You are correct that we must not allow Mr. Davis' effort to go underground. Mr. Davis has begun his campaign to reopen this issue. If you have any doubt, read the article in the Berkeley Independent this week.
Post a Comment