VOTING RECORDS DON'T LIE

To GE&P, as a political observer, one of the most exasperating practices of the Left would have to be  inconsistency of word verses deed.  A politician is free to say they are for or against anything under the sun but, when their voting record is in direct conflict with their words, we are obliged to ask at least a few questions.

Today, we will glean our examples of political duplicity from statements made by one of the candidates vying for the County Council District 3 seat, incumbent, Bob Call.  We will site statements made by Mr. Call in both a P&C article dated 5/14/12 and in one of his recent campaign mailings.  Then, we will note his actual voting record on each issue.

CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN OR LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

The first statement with which we take issue comes from Mr. Call's latest mail-out.  Mr. Call claims that he "works with like-minded conservatives on Council" and describes himself as a "Conservative Republican".  It is quite true that Mr. Call works with and votes with like-minded members of Council but that number certainly does NOT include the 4 Conservatives on Council. The present make-up of Council has two voting blocks; (1) the Conservatives, Mr. Fish, Mr. Callanan, Mr. Farley, and Mrs. Davis, and (2) the Supervisor's coalition, consisting of Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Steve Davis, Mr. Schurlknight, and Mr. Call.   Without exception, on every controversial issue, Mr. Call votes with the Supervisor's coalition and against the Conservatives.  Mr. Call NEVER joins the 4 Conservatives in support of any issue.

These voting blocks were first evident during the reorganization of Council in January, 2011 when Mr. Call led the charge to change Council Rules and consistently voted with the Democrats to strip away any and all power from the Conservative Republicans.  It is only necessary for you to attend one Council meeting to understand the results of Mr. Call's efforts.  This coalition is so well known that it was discussed in the 5/14/12 P&C article. We suppose no one should be surprised that Mr. Call consistently sides with the Democrats because it is a fact that the first time he ran for this County Council seat, he ran as a Democrat and lost.

THE BUDGET

At every opportunity, Mr. Call brags that he has been instrumental in establishing the "first balanced budget in Berkeley County in over 12.......15.........16 years", according to which number makes him the most comfortable on that particular occasion.  Well, the fact is that Berkeley County government is  required, by law, to have a balanced budget.  This law has always been observed.  Mr. Call and the Davis administration have done no more toward achieving a balanced budget than was done in the 16 years of the former administration.

FINANCING BERKELEY COUNTY 

After making this false claim about the budget in his campaign mail-out, Mr. Call goes on to tout the vastly improved condition of Berkeley County's financial situation since he got involved.  Let's look at that situation a bit closer.  After the Davis administration was in control for only two short years, the credit rating of Berkeley County dropped like a rock due to the fact that Mr. Davis squandered the lion's share of the Fund Balance he inherited from the previous administration.  It has taken years for this rating to begin to creep back upwards.

In order to accomplish this upswing, Mr. Davis, ultimately with the assistance of Mr. Call:

• Has illegally taken $10 MILLION from the Fund Balance of BCW&SA and transferred a portion of it to rebuild the depleted Fund Balance. 
• They have had to "appropriate" the $3 MILLION annual FILOT funds from Mount Holly that were, originally, earmarked to repay a Santee Cooper loan.  After the repayment was complete, these funds were supposed to be divided with the School System.  Mr. Call, by his supporting votes,  has helped the Supervisor deprive the School System of any portion of these funds.  
• With Mr. Call's support, this administration continues to confiscate 29% of the property tax relief that was intended to relieve the tax burden on Berkeley County property owners. Mr. Call stated in his campaign letter that "By law, twenty-nine percent of those funds are to be used at the discretion of the county".  If you read the text, you will see that it really says "MAY BE USED". The choice to take this 29% or to let it remain to the benefit of the taxpayers is entirely that of the Supervisor and his supporters on County Council of which Mr. Call is one. 
• After reassessment, the county usually reduces millage in accordance with the increase in assessed property values.  Last reassessment, the Supervisor, with the support of his voting block which includes Mr. Call, decided to decrease millage by only one mill.  This resulted in higher property tax bills for most.

LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX

It is necessary to remind folks that this property tax relief comes as a result of a Local Option Sales Tax or LOST.  There were two failed attempts to pass this LOST. Only after County Council signed a pledge to apply the full 100% of the revenue collected to property tax relief did the measure pass on the third attempt.  When present Council members who voted to take the tax relief away were criticized for going back on the pledge of Council, several members of Mr. Davis' coalition, including Mr. Call,  said they didn't feel bound by the pledge since they were not on Council at the time.


The first time any consideration was given to taking the 29% was in the fall of 2007.  At that time, Supervisor Davis suggested using the funds to pay for improvements to the detention center.  When the funds were actually taken, Mr. Davis used the excuse that Berkeley County had to have matching funds in order that we would not lose a state grant connected with the Jedburg project.  Most members of Council supported this action because the Supervisor promised he would only take the money for one year.  Years later, it was stated that the funds from the 29% were being used as a guarantee against funds we were getting from the State Infrastructure Bank.  Now, according to Mr. Call, these funds are being used to establish a Capital Improvement Fund so the County can purchase equipment instead of leasing it.  If you'll recall, this is the same kind of equipment that was involved in the 2010 deal in which BC purchased 2008 equipment at 2010 prices and no one ever found out where the money that reflected the difference in price went. 


EDUCATION FUNDING


In his campaign mail-out, Mr. Call stresses that Berkeley County and future employers need well educated people to man their workforces. He lists the innovations toward this end by the Berkeley County School System as if he had anything to do with it.  Mr. Call, however, does not mention the fact that he often cast the deciding vote to deprive the School System of their fair share of operating revenue from the Mount Holly FILOT.  Also, Mr. Call doesn't mention that he voted for the new Multi-County Parks FILOT distribution formula which decreases the share of funds allotted to the schools. Even using the old formula, the Supervisor, with the support of Mr. Call, shorted the School System over $8 MILLION over the last three years.  


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


It is difficult to take seriously any of Mr. Call's statements, whether in the P&C article of 5/14/12 or in his mail-out, pertaining to Economic Development or to believe that Mr. Call has the vaguest clue as to how to accomplish the same.  His own vague statements raise red flags. While trying to defend his accomplishments he touts:

• "complex, integrated system of suppliers and transportation we have built". 
• The Boeing Dreamliner assembly plant...located just one mile outside our county's borders
• "Green Energy Programs" ...will become revenue producers and could eventually attract related industries.  (Since their inception, these programs have, in fact, drained tax revenue. )

Concern over Mr. Call's disingenuous statements is exacerbated when you consider other statements he has made on the record;

• Mr. Call thinks it's a good idea for Berkeley County government to operate at a profit.
• Mr. Call thinks you, the taxpayer, should buy him an Ipad.
• Mr. Call is pro-choice.
• Mr. Call made racist remarks in a P&C article.

We fully anticipate that Mr. Call will describe this blog as a smear piece, however, every statement made by GE&P is supported by official documentation.  Check the record before you pull the lever.