Hot Topics

2/12/2009

An open letter to three U.S. Senators

Dear Senators Snowe, Collins and Specter,

Thanks for nothing. Or rather, thanks for $789 BILLION in pork. I'm sure that all three of you are feeling pretty proud of yourselves this morning; after all, you just saved the taxpayers of this country over $100 billion in EXTRA pork over the past few days. What an effort on your part! I'm sure that you are each just exhausted beyond all means.

Look, I enjoy an independent streak as much as the next guy, but can't you three at least start with a sense of fiscal conservatism before embarking on some sort of negotiating binge that produces 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars of future debt, and may not create sustainable jobs for nearly two years? Is this why you feel you were elected to serve the country? Oh sure, there's this new era of bi-partisanship in Washington right now, what with the new President saying there is, right? After all, we can believe him when he says that, because he's the President. Of course, having the partisans over on the House of Representatives side of Congress craft the so-called economic stimulus plan is not exactly the same as, say, having real economists or business leaders crafting a bill now is it? Please tell me Senators; what do any of those jackalopes over in the House of Representatives know about the business of economic stimulation? Who are the experts over in the House, Senators? Barney Frank? Maxine Waters? Nancy Pelosi? Which one of them have ever created a single, solitary job on their own in their entire life, except through the confiscation of someone else's hard work?

After all, why not choose the very people who helped to crash the banking and mortgage sectors through their failed policies to try to fix the REST of the economy?

And why didn't you heed the message from your own independent Congressional Budget Office, which said this plan didn't really do anything to create jobs? Why didn't you call a single, solitary economist into hearings to tell you the same thing? Why did you feel the need to rush this through without any kind of proper vetting?

Because the President wanted it on his desk by the middle of February? Is that REALLY a good enough reason to not stop this boondoggle in it's tracks and actually LOOK IT OVER ONCE OR TWICE before committing $789 BILLION tax dollars taken from us by the force of Government?

And now that we're all in agreement that this really won't help the economy in any way, shape or form, what do you each think you'll be getting out of this? The undying love and admiration of the Democrats in power? Do you even remotely think that the Democrats won't be gunning for you in 2010, 2012 and 2014 when your terms are set to expire? John McCain has reached across the aisle more than any of you have; how'd that work out for him in the last election? The fact is, you earned zero goodwill from the Democrats at the national party level by your latest capitulation, and you'll see that when you run for re-election next time.

So why'd you do it, Senators?

You just enabled a piece of legislation that will likely not do the thing it was advertised to do, by turning your collective backs on your party's fiscal conservative roots. This is a pork-laden, Socialist agenda-inspired travesty that the three of you enabled, and is the primary reason why Republicans no longer have majorities in the House and Senate - you can't keep from spending OUR money!

What should you have done differently? Successful negotiations require that the person or persons negotiating have to be willing to walk away from the deal. You should have signaled that willingness AND FOLLOWED THROUGH with it and killed the first version of this bill. Then, you could have met with everyone necessary to craft a bill that would actually STIMULATE the economy. No need to worry about speed here; the markets aren't going to improve anytime soon based on anything you do, anyway. They don't really listen to what Congress says or does, and we have a Socialist in the White House. If you think any investor is bullish on our economy for the next 3 years, think again.

But you had to kill this bill first. You failed step one.

So, what should have been in this bill? Tax breaks for everyone who pays taxes. Deep ones. Say, removing another 50%-75% of the tax burden off of those of us who pay taxes. Allow us to keep more of our own money. Don't worry - we know how to spend it better than you do. Trust me on this one. Add in some money for road and bridge improvements; our infrastructure is aging like Nancy Pelosi right in front of our eyes, and it doesn't look good (if you know what I mean). Low interest loans for small businesses, which create 85%-90% of all new jobs. But that's about all you needed to do.

Oh, sure, the Democrats and their minions in the media would have assailed you for being obstructionists; but since that's all you really can do in your party's weakened position, you should at least do it well. And if you can't take a little heat, maybe you shouldn't be in your positions anyway. But then, you could have begun SERIOUS negotiations with the White House once they knew you wouldn't knuckle under.

You three are supposed to be leaders, yet you caved in to irrational fears. Fear that you might be attacked. Fear that you might lose your elected positions. Fear that you might be seen in a negative light. Fear that you might as well do something wrong, than be seen to do nothing at all.

For this country to turn away from a Socialist takeover, you need to stop being afraid. Read the U.S. Constitution sometime. Read about the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence. They may have been afraid, but they didn't let their fears sway them from doing what was right. They would all be ashamed of you, and this country, if they were alive today.

8/28/2008

The (almost) firing of County Manager Rhonda O'Connor

9/2/2008

Update again!

Apparently, a couple of million bucks can buy a lot of BBQ, because Buddy Lang is throwing a "Thanks Rhonda" time for her Friday at 5:30 at Lang Signs. Now don't get me wrong, because I didn't receive the invitation directly (I'm crushed), but I'm sure anyone who was invited will have a chance to rub elbows with the two commissioners who'd never vote to get rid of our county manager even if it was proven she was the assistant to Dr. Mengele (for Bell supporters, read a history book).

9/1/2008

Update!

Even nut-case David Milum is defending Charlie, Jim and Rhonda on this issue. Since David Milum is wrong about virtually everything he touches or comments on, that says a lot about how bad this really is.

There is a problem in Forsyth County administration, and two commissioners are fiddling while Rome is burning. The problem is when it is your chairman; someone you elected in hopes that he or she would provide leadership in times of trouble.

That leadership went missing Thursday. Frankly, its been missing for all the tough votes during his tenure as chairman and for all but one vote during his tenure as commissioner, but it was sorely needed yesterday during a very public personnel issue. And once again, Charlie Laughinghouse failed to lead.

I'm going to preface the following remarks by saying that I have been in the middle of a 2-2 disagreement for months now regarding the lack of performance by County Manager Rhonda O'Connor. While I have not agreed with her handling of certain projects and responsibilities, I have refused to provide the third vote to remove her from office because her actions did not at the time demand her removal. That changed with the admission that we are not only almost $14 million dollars in the hole financially for 2008, but that we were given a budget to approve for this year that was $5 million dollars in deficit spending from day one. There have been many bricks added to the wall over her tenure, but this last one finished the project for me.

Let's look at a bit of history first. She has been reprimanded twice by this commission; once for failure to inform commissioners about something before a work session / executive session that would have provided us with better information in order to make an informed decision, and once for insubordination in refusing to allow two commissioners to add an agenda item to a work session. Failure to inform commissioners is a common theme for her, unless it is Charlie Laughinghouse. Ms. O'Connor has been counseled more than once that she was to treat all commissioners equally, as our own rules do not give the chairman any powers different than any other commissioner, yet she has refused to treat all commissioners in the same manner she does the chairman. We'll get back to this particular problem in a moment.

The commission was told this past April that we may be approximately $6 million under revenue projections, and that steps were being taken to reduce expenses. We were also told that more specifics would be provided in the next couple of weeks. No further information was provided to at least 3 commissions, and possibly not to all of us. At no time were we told that our budget also included a $5 million deficit in revenues that required us to transfer funds from county reserves to balance it. Fast forward to August, and we not only find out that we are $13.9 million dollars short in money vs. expenses, but that our budget CALLED for a $5 million transfer from county reserves from day one, and was shown as "other revenue" on the line item budget we were given to approve. That little tidbit of information was NOT presented to county commissioners during initial budget discussions. A little history on budgets is appropriate here. They are prepared by each department head, and vetted through finance and the county manager for a first pass-through before being reviewed by the county commission's Finance Committee. For the past 2 years, the members of that committee have been Charlie Laughinghouse and Jim Harrell. That committee then makes recommendations and adjustments before bringing a proposed budget to the entire county commission for approval. Clearly, Charlie and Jim failed in their duties to ask the right questions in their role as Finance Committee members, which may explain their actions over the past couple of weeks.

Nevertheless, we have a budget out of whack by almost $14 million dollars, and the county commission pretty much doesn't know the scope of that deficit. Meanwhile, an expansion of the commissioner's large conference room is undertaken (nice, but not needed), consulting contracts to prop up the county manager are requested and approved, extra pre-funding for the proposed jail is requested (fortunately denied) and commissioners are still not appraised of our burgeoning budget problems. All this is happening under the not-so-watchful eye of the county manager. We now get a proposed jail plan that appears to be about $20 million dollars bigger than it needs to be, and certainly has a whole lot of fluff taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for, and we still don't have proper financials to give to the voters in order to make an informed decision on a $75 million bond. Some of that problem lies with the lack of information coming out of the Sheriff's Department, but most of it is squarely on administration.

So for me, this is the last straw. I can put up with being treated differently by our county manager when it comes to not needing her constant bowing and scraping as she provides to the chairman, but when it comes to not being informed on issues such as I have articulated above, I draw the line. Unfortunately, two other commissioners choose to stick their heads in the sand and dismiss the real problems we are having as "personal agendas" and "lame-duck commissioners" and the ever-popular "We don't want to be perceived as having problems right now". But the problems are real, and they have to be fixed. They are not going to get fixed with Rhonda O'Connor in the county manager's job. Everybody else who knows what is going on gets it - Charlie Laughinghouse and Jim Harrell don't.

(By the way, neither does former commissioner Eddie Taylor, BFF of Buddy Lang. Yeah, the same Buddy Lang involved with our county manager. Eddie has circulated an e-mail to all his real estate and developer friends to try to keep Rhonda on board. Eddie's take on what is right or wrong is usually made by whatever someone tells him it is.)

One other thing. If you are $14 million in the hole, why are you still negotiating with the Taubman folks on monetary giveaways? We don't have the money, but folks like Jim Harrell and others will do anything to land a company that is going to come here anyway, and they haven't yet had the testicular fortitude to tell the folks at Taubman, "Love to see you come here, but we just flat-out don't have the money you want us to pay to attract you. You'll have to come here and make some money on your own". Fat chance of that ever happening.

This is one instance where I hate to be proven right, but I was against Rhonda's appointment from day one, and have consistently voted that way. I have attempted to help her by approving certain consulting contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that tried to augment the skills she lacked for this job, but that support ends now. This farce that Charlie Laughinghouse and Jim Harrell have perpetrated on this county's administration over the past few days needs to end next Thursday night. It is bad for the county and bad for our hard-working staff, and delays our ability to move on from this sorry affair.

5/28/2008

Cherry-picking commissioners to circumvent good government

A very disturbing phenomenom is being played out under the Chairmanship of Charles Laughinghouse; one that is stifling discussion, and allowing a minority of commissioners to make decisions on important issues facing this county without input from the remaining three. Many people might be saying, "Wait. I've heard this somewhere before". And they'd be right. Four years ago, another Chairman was doing the exact same thing. His name was Jack Conway, and our current Chairman was one of the more vocal opponents (next to me) of this particular process.

Here is 2008's version of this process. We have on-going litigation with the City of Cumming regarding SPLOST. One day before the county commission was to meet to decide whether or not to appeal a judge's ruling overturning the collection of SPLOST 6, two members of the Chamber of Commerce, James McCoy and Lynn Jackson, met with Charles Laughinghouse and Jim Harrell ONLY.

Why did they do this?

Because only one or the other of these two commissioner could squash any deal with the city by voting against any intergovernmental agreement, as our rules require a 4/5ths majority for an IGA. Since Brian Tam and Linda Ledbetter were known to be willing to give the city pretty much anything they wanted, and I was known to be against any agreement with the city, these two Chamber of Commerce leaders decided to employ the time-honored tactic of "divide and conquer". In other words, let's keep the elected representatives of this county out of the discussion, and do a back room, closed door deal without the prying eyes and ears of the people who took an oath of office to defend this county. We un-elected bureaucrats of the Chamber of Commerce (who, by the way, wouldn't stand up publicly for the SPLOST vote because of the mayor being against it), knowing better than the elected representatives of the people, are going to pressure one or more of these two commissioners to vote our way, regardless of the long-term implications to this county.

And it worked for them. In spades.

Rather than moving forward with the litigation, the 4/5ths majority decided to enter into negotiations with the city on what is fictionally called "an equitable split of SPLOST revenues".

But, as with every negotiation with the Good CM (Cumming Mayor) things bogged down when the rubber met the road. We sent suggestions of a rough framework for an IGA over to the city - they sent a draft IGA that looked almost nothing like our framework. We sent back an edited version of the IGA protecting the county's interests - the city sent back their original IGA before our changes took place. In other words, typical city / county negotiations. Do what we want you to do, or we'll sue. You (the county) don't exist to us. When the Good CM says that there was "good give and take between parties" in a negotiation it is all predicated on how much we give, and how much he takes.

So somehow, word must have gotten back to James McCoy and Lynn Jackson that the potential for an agreement on SPLOST was about to come crashing down around our heads due to the galactic stupidity of city leaders, so they hastily set up ANOTHER meeting with their two favorite commissioners, Laughinghouse and Harrell. This time, they brought the Good CM, and representatives of North Georgia Community College, who will ultimately benefit from having the future aquatic center on their future site. In yet another closed-door meeting without 3/5ths of the elected representatives of the county present, a minority of commissioners gave away the store (yet again) in a 6-hour negotiating marathon.

All without contrary input from anyone.

Is it legal to do things this way? Absolutely.

Is it RIGHT to do things this way? Absolutely NOT.

Backroom deals (minus the smoke-filled rooms) are bad government, and current Chairman Charles Laughinghouse knows that. After all, he complained about it loudly enough in 2005 and 2006 when Jack Conway fostered it. But this is the government you get when your Chairman is more concerned about positive press than good government. Only one person can allow this type of backroom wheeling and dealing to occur, and that is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners. When virtually EVERY meeting he has is behind closed doors, it gets ingrained in you to have meetings behind closed doors, as has occurred over the past 12 months of Charlie's tenure as Chairman. We've come full circle on good, open government in less than 2 years, and the results are just the same - bad decison-making by a small group of elected officials cherry-picked for their loyalty.

James McCoy and Lynn Jackson are not substitutes for your elected representatives. These negotiations should have occurred in an executive session under litigation with everyone present, so that contrary views could have been voiced.

One commissioner of principle, either Charles Laughinghouse or Jim Harrell, could have made open government happen by refusing to participate in a back room deal. They each failed the citizens of Forsyth County on two very important occasions this month. Time, and the voices of the people who elected them, will determine if they get that message.

5/9/2008

Help Wanted! Skilled Negotiators on the County Commission

Well, in another stunning example of negotiating prowess, a super-majority of your elected representatives sat down and gave the people who voted for them the proverbial finger in the eye. It is interesting to note that on the same day that at least 2 commissioners refuse to listen to the constituents that voted them into office, the school board delays their redistricting plan in order to get MORE public input. When was the last time the school board outdid the county commission in listening to our constituents? And despite what another commissioner may think, I talk constantly to the people who helped get them elected, and whom I worked hard to convince to vote for them, and these folks are NOT very happy right now. Way to kick the people in the teeth who invited you into their homes and donated money to your campaigns, guys!

But I digress. Using the same negotiating skills that gave The Avenues - Forsyth every variance they requested, and that will likely give the Taubman folks every dollar they have demanded of us, Commissioners Laughinghouse, Harrell, Tam and Ledbetter just gave away a clear win in SPLOST litigation, and added another $12.5 million of your county dollars to sweeten the pot to the city that sues the county at the drop of a hat.

Look closely at the offer on www.cumminghome.com

The county gives the city 5 things, and the city gives us 1. Man, that's great negotiating!

But let's look even closer at the "compromise". Your elected majority not only did what we complained about other counties doing, which was the equvalent of negotiating a SPLOST litigation away on the courthouse steps - they went ONE STEP FURTHER!

Your stalwart majority of county commissioners just negotiated a settlement AFTER we had the litigation and WON! We're now not only a laughingstock within our OWN COUNTY, but the rest of the counties across the state will be joining in on the merriment as they read what we have just done.

But you know who is laughing the hardest this morning?

The Mayor and the rest of the City of Cumming.

They just stuck it to us for $12.5 million, and got all the favorable rulings for the county thrown out of court at the same time. What a deal!

Unless, of course, the city shows even more galactically stupid reasoning and rejects our offer. We can only hope.

Of course, when you try to get just ONE commissioner to listen to reason by using FACTS, you get the usual lame excuse "That is your opinion", which is doublespeak for "I can't argue with you on the basis of facts, so this is all I have to lean on".

Today, a majority of county commissioners continued the same, tired method of appeasing dictators; something that has never worked in the past, and will never work in the future. We not only have one Neville Chamberlain, we have four in Forsyth County (for Bell supporters, read a history book). One additional principled stand would have kept this from happening, yet one additional principled commissioner could not be found.

Never have so few done so little for so many.

5/1/2008

Mixed ruling on SPLOST challenge

Despite what you might read in the dino-media over the next couple of days, the county prevailed on far more points of law than the city did in their challenge to SPLOST 6 yesterday. While the judge's ruling ultimately invalidated the SPLOST vote for now, his ruling is, to say the least, incompehensible based on the law as written.

We'll go over each substantive point and what it means to Forsyth County.

Where we lost:

Judge Stone found that the county failed to list all projects expected to be completed in SPLOST at the time the SPLOST resolution was PASSED, which was on November 1, 2007. However, there is NO legal basis for that ruling, as no language in the SPLOST law exists that even comes close to mandating that. Moreover, there is no logic in having all your SPLOST projects approved at the time the resolution is passed, as the voters do not read the resolution, they read the ballot language in the voting booth. He specifically did NOT mandate that all projects be on the ballot language, so what's his point? We do not know that, and expect that his ruling in this regard will be overturned in the Supreme Court.

Judge Stone also found that the county was obligated to list each and every city project requested on the ballot, even if the money allocated for those projects would not fund the entire list of projects. So even if the city is expected to receive only $11.7 million in revenue, the county has to list all $50 million in requested projects. He claims that the county has tied the hands of the city by only listing a project that the city claims cannot be built with the funds allocated. However, in court, the city admitted that the county called the city and verified that the parking deck was the project THEY WANTED on the ballot, even though they knew they wouldn't get the funds to build it entirely. Additionally, adding the entire list of projects to the ballot language will further confuse the voter as he or she sees $50 million in projects listed, but only $11.7 million (or less) in dollars. We think this will also be overturned rather quickly by the Supremes.

We also think the Supreme Court will not look favorably on overturning an election approved by 70% of the voters. No argument can be made that this large a majority didn't get it right the first time.

Also, knowing the litigious nature of the Good CM and his five hand puppets, we are certain that if 8 projects are listed on the ballot, and funding isn't provide for all 8, he'll be in court sometime before the SPLOST ends to demand that we fund "what the voters approved".

So, if you are a city supporter, today you'll see a win for the city.

But no so fast. The county prevailed on far more points than the city did yesterday.

Where we won:

The court ruled that, absent an Inter-Governmental Agreement, the split of population percentage is entirely legal and correct.

The court ruled that the county doesn't have to choose between ONLY Level-1 or Level-2 projects, and can in fact lump all projects into a broad catagory as all counties have done in the past. In fact, were the county or city to insist that Level-1 and Level-2 projects be identified, the city's split would be much lower, as 20% of the revenue would have to be dedicated to those Level-2 projects, and the 96%-4% split would be applied to the total amount LESS the Level-2 project costs. This means that the city could actually get only $8 million instead of $11.7 million. Not a good ruling for the city. File this under "Be careful what you wish for".

The judge also ruled the the county has no requirement to list all county projects on the ballot. Duh!

Judge Stone also ruled that the city and county do not have to enter into detalied negotiations. In fact, while he preferred that both sides showed more willingness to negotiate, he found that there was nothing legally wrong with what either side did.

He also ruled that the county did not exhibit bad faith in their negotiations, and refused to order attorney's fees awarded to the city.

Judge Stone also allowed the county to submit into evidence our bond validation order, which establishes that at least one legal body (state Superior Court) has already ruled that our resolution and ballot are legal. He didn't have the authority to overturn that, and we'll take that to the Supremes as well.

So, what does this all mean?

If we appeal and win:

Everything moves forward and the city gets 4.29% and a smaller parking deck if they so choose.

If we appeal and lose:

The earliest that a new vote can occur is the General Election on November 4, 2008. SPLOST 5 ends on June 30, 2008. That means that retailers will have to re-program their registers to reflect the loss of 1 cent tax that will not be collected. If voters approve the new ballot in November, the earliest that the tax can be re-imposed is around February of 2009. That means about 8-9 months with NO SPLOST revenue for the city or the county. That means no money for the Taubman project, nor for Great Wolf Lodge. It means a delay in getting the intersections done around the new Lambert High School in time for opening day.

Now it is up to a majority of commissioners to decide which way the county needs to go. We'll see which ones are willing to stand up for the county's rights and which ones are willing to settle for less. Our rulings were made with SPLOST language; the city's rulings had no language backing up the judge's opinion. We know the Good CM is very interested in entering into "negotiations" with the county this morning, as he has a window of opportunity to get more than what he deserves to get. We'll see if his negotiation style has changed any. Either way, my preference is to appeal this ruling and plan for another vote in November if we lose the appeal.

1/25/2008

Cherry-picking commissioners to circumvent good government

A very disturbing phenomenom is being played out under the Chairmanship of Charles Laughinghouse; one that is stifling discussion, and allowing a minority of commissioners to make decisions on important issues facing this county without input from the remaining three. Many people might be saying, "Wait. I've heard this somewhere before". And they'd be right. Four years ago, another Chairman was doing the exact same thing. His name was Jack Conway, and our current Chairman was one of the more vocal opponents (next to me) of this particular process.

Here is 2008's version of this process. We have on-going litigation with the City of Cumming regarding SPLOST. One day before the county commission was to meet to decide whether or not to appeal a judge's ruling overturning the collection of SPLOST 6, two members of the Chamber of Commerce, James McCoy and Lynn Jackson, met with Charles Laughinghouse and Jim Harrell ONLY.

Why did they do this?

Because only one or the other of these two commissioner could squash any deal with the city by voting against any intergovernmental agreement, as our rules require a 4/5ths majority for an IGA. Since Brian Tam and Linda Ledbetter were known to be willing to give the city pretty much anything they wanted, and I was known to be against any agreement with the city, these two Chamber of Commerce leaders decided to employ the time-honored tactic of "divide and conquer". In other words, let's keep the elected representatives of this county out of the discussion, and do a back room, closed door deal without the prying eyes and ears of the people who took an oath of office to defend this county. We un-elected bureaucrats of the Chamber of Commerce (who, by the way, wouldn't stand up publicly for the SPLOST vote because of the mayor being against it), knowing better than the elected representatives of the people, are going to pressure one or more of these two commissioners to vote our way, regardless of the long-term implications to this county.

And it worked for them. In spades.

Rather than moving forward with the litigation, the 4/5ths majority decided to enter into negotiations with the city on what is fictionally called "an equitable split of SPLOST revenues".

But, as with every negotiation with the Good CM (Cumming Mayor) things bogged down when the rubber met the road. We sent suggestions of a rough framework for an IGA over to the city - they sent a draft IGA that looked almost nothing like our framework. We sent back an edited version of the IGA protecting the county's interests - the city sent back their original IGA before our changes took place. In other words, typical city / county negotiations. Do what we want you to do, or we'll sue. You (the county) don't exist to us. When the Good CM says that there was "good give and take between parties" in a negotiation it is all predicated on how much we give, and how much he takes.

So somehow, word must have gotten back to James McCoy and Lynn Jackson that the potential for an agreement on SPLOST was about to come crashing down around our heads due to the galactic stupidity of city leaders, so they hastily set up ANOTHER meeting with their two favorite commissioners, Laughinghouse and Harrell. This time, they brought the Good CM, and representatives of North Georgia Community College, who will ultimately benefit from having the future aquatic center on their future site. In yet another closed-door meeting without 3/5ths of the elected representatives of the county present, a minority of commissioners gave away the store (yet again) in a 6-hour negotiating marathon.

All without contrary input from anyone.

Is it legal to do things this way? Absolutely.

Is it RIGHT to do things this way? Absolutely NOT.

Backroom deals (minus the smoke-filled rooms) are bad government, and current Chairman Charles Laughinghouse knows that. After all, he complained about it loudly enough in 2005 and 2006 when Jack Conway fostered it. But this is the government you get when your Chairman is more concerned about positive press than good government. Only one person can allow this type of backroom wheeling and dealing to occur, and that is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners. When virtually EVERY meeting he has is behind closed doors, it gets ingrained in you to have meetings behind closed doors, as has occurred over the past 12 months of Charlie's tenure as Chairman. We've come full circle on good, open government in less than 2 years, and the results are just the same - bad decison-making by a small group of elected officials cherry-picked for their loyalty.

James McCoy and Lynn Jackson are not substitutes for your elected representatives. These negotiations should have occurred in an executive session under litigation with everyone present, so that contrary views could have been voiced.

One commissioner of principle, either Charles Laughinghouse or Jim Harrell, could have made open government happen by refusing to participate in a back room deal. They each failed the citizens of Forsyth County on two very important occasions this month. Time, and the voices of the people who elected them, will determine if they get that message.

5/9/2008

Help Wanted! Skilled Negotiators on the County Commission

Well, in another stunning example of negotiating prowess, a super-majority of your elected representatives sat down and gave the people who voted for them the proverbial finger in the eye. It is interesting to note that on the same day that at least 2 commissioners refuse to listen to the constituents that voted them into office, the school board delays their redistricting plan in order to get MORE public input. When was the last time the school board outdid the county commission in listening to our constituents? And despite what another commissioner may think, I talk constantly to the people who helped get them elected, and whom I worked hard to convince to vote for them, and these folks are NOT very happy right now. Way to kick the people in the teeth who invited you into their homes and donated money to your campaigns, guys!

But I digress. Using the same negotiating skills that gave The Avenues - Forsyth every variance they requested, and that will likely give the Taubman folks every dollar they have demanded of us, Commissioners Laughinghouse, Harrell, Tam and Ledbetter just gave away a clear win in SPLOST litigation, and added another $12.5 million of your county dollars to sweeten the pot to the city that sues the county at the drop of a hat.

Look closely at the offer on www.cumminghome.com

The county gives the city 5 things, and the city gives us 1. Man, that's great negotiating!

But let's look even closer at the "compromise". Your elected majority not only did what we complained about other counties doing, which was the equvalent of negotiating a SPLOST litigation away on the courthouse steps - they went ONE STEP FURTHER!

Your stalwart majority of county commissioners just negotiated a settlement AFTER we had the litigation and WON! We're now not only a laughingstock within our OWN COUNTY, but the rest of the counties across the state will be joining in on the merriment as they read what we have just done.

But you know who is laughing the hardest this morning?

The Mayor and the rest of the City of Cumming.

They just stuck it to us for $12.5 million, and got all the favorable rulings for the county thrown out of court at the same time. What a deal!

Unless, of course, the city shows even more galactically stupid reasoning and rejects our offer. We can only hope.

Of course, when you try to get just ONE commissioner to listen to reason by using FACTS, you get the usual lame excuse "That is your opinion", which is doublespeak for "I can't argue with you on the basis of facts, so this is all I have to lean on".

Today, a majority of county commissioners continued the same, tired method of appeasing dictators; something that has never worked in the past, and will never work in the future. We not only have one Neville Chamberlain, we have four in Forsyth County (for Bell supporters, read a history book). One additional principled stand would have kept this from happening, yet one additional principled commissioner could not be found.

Never have so few done so little for so many.

5/1/2008

Mixed ruling on SPLOST challenge

Despite what you might read in the dino-media over the next couple of days, the county prevailed on far more points of law than the city did in their challenge to SPLOST 6 yesterday. While the judge's ruling ultimately invalidated the SPLOST vote for now, his ruling is, to say the least, incompehensible based on the law as written.

We'll go over each substantive point and what it means to Forsyth County.

Where we lost:

Judge Stone found that the county failed to list all projects expected to be completed in SPLOST at the time the SPLOST resolution was PASSED, which was on November 1, 2007. However, there is NO legal basis for that ruling, as no language in the SPLOST law exists that even comes close to mandating that. Moreover, there is no logic in having all your SPLOST projects approved at the time the resolution is passed, as the voters do not read the resolution, they read the ballot language in the voting booth. He specifically did NOT mandate that all projects be on the ballot language, so what's his point? We do not know that, and expect that his ruling in this regard will be overturned in the Supreme Court.

Judge Stone also found that the county was obligated to list each and every city project requested on the ballot, even if the money allocated for those projects would not fund the entire list of projects. So even if the city is expected to receive only $11.7 million in revenue, the county has to list all $50 million in requested projects. He claims that the county has tied the hands of the city by only listing a project that the city claims cannot be built with the funds allocated. However, in court, the city admitted that the county called the city and verified that the parking deck was the project THEY WANTED on the ballot, even though they knew they wouldn't get the funds to build it entirely. Additionally, adding the entire list of projects to the ballot language will further confuse the voter as he or she sees $50 million in projects listed, but only $11.7 million (or less) in dollars. We think this will also be overturned rather quickly by the Supremes.

We also think the Supreme Court will not look favorably on overturning an election approved by 70% of the voters. No argument can be made that this large a majority didn't get it right the first time.

Also, knowing the litigious nature of the Good CM and his five hand puppets, we are certain that if 8 projects are listed on the ballot, and funding isn't provide for all 8, he'll be in court sometime before the SPLOST ends to demand that we fund "what the voters approved".

So, if you are a city supporter, today you'll see a win for the city.

But no so fast. The county prevailed on far more points than the city did yesterday.

Where we won:

The court ruled that, absent an Inter-Governmental Agreement, the split of population percentage is entirely legal and correct.

The court ruled that the county doesn't have to choose between ONLY Level-1 or Level-2 projects, and can in fact lump all projects into a broad catagory as all counties have done in the past. In fact, were the county or city to insist that Level-1 and Level-2 projects be identified, the city's split would be much lower, as 20% of the revenue would have to be dedicated to those Level-2 projects, and the 96%-4% split would be applied to the total amount LESS the Level-2 project costs. This means that the city could actually get only $8 million instead of $11.7 million. Not a good ruling for the city. File this under "Be careful what you wish for".

The judge also ruled the the county has no requirement to list all county projects on the ballot. Duh!

Judge Stone also ruled that the city and county do not have to enter into detalied negotiations. In fact, while he preferred that both sides showed more willingness to negotiate, he found that there was nothing legally wrong with what either side did.

He also ruled that the county did not exhibit bad faith in their negotiations, and refused to order attorney's fees awarded to the city.

Judge Stone also allowed the county to submit into evidence our bond validation order, which establishes that at least one legal body (state Superior Court) has already ruled that our resolution and ballot are legal. He didn't have the authority to overturn that, and we'll take that to the Supremes as well.

So, what does this all mean?

If we appeal and win:

Everything moves forward and the city gets 4.29% and a smaller parking deck if they so choose.

If we appeal and lose:

The earliest that a new vote can occur is the General Election on November 4, 2008. SPLOST 5 ends on June 30, 2008. That means that retailers will have to re-program their registers to reflect the loss of 1 cent tax that will not be collected. If voters approve the new ballot in November, the earliest that the tax can be re-imposed is around February of 2009. That means about 8-9 months with NO SPLOST revenue for the city or the county. That means no money for the Taubman project, nor for Great Wolf Lodge. It means a delay in getting the intersections done around the new Lambert High School in time for opening day.

Now it is up to a majority of commissioners to decide which way the county needs to go. We'll see which ones are willing to stand up for the county's rights and which ones are willing to settle for less. Our rulings were made with SPLOST language; the city's rulings had no language backing up the judge's opinion. We know the Good CM is very interested in entering into "negotiations" with the county this morning, as he has a window of opportunity to get more than what he deserves to get. We'll see if his negotiation style has changed any. Either way, my preference is to appeal this ruling and plan for another vote in November if we lose the appeal.

1/25/2008

Into the belly of the beast

Tuesday night I survived attending a meeting of the anti-SPLOST committee. Most of the people were nice enough, even if not very well informed.

The usual dis-information was being presented about how many projects have not been completed, why isn't a jail and courthouse on SPLOST instead of all these road and public safety projects, why aren't commissioners elected by district . . .

Yeah.

That particular topic was discussed more than any other topic. You'd think these people would want to be informed about SPLOST by someone who actually knows what is going on with SPLOST, but no; they just did a whole lot of complaining about the fact that commissioners are elected county-wide, rather than by district.

Hey, if you want to have that happen, vote for Jon Flack. He's dumb enough to push for that idea.

Anyway, the majority of people there didn't want to hear the facts, they just wanted to grouse about their lot in life. To be fair, many of these folks don't get to see a lot of the projects that have been completed in previous SPLOSTs, because they don't travel the roads where the problems exist in greater numbers.

But enough of the sympathy vote. It's time to pick apart the claims made by the committee in their presentations and on their joke of a website (for a big laugh, go to www.cummingforsythtaxrelief.com).

My responses will be in bold.

Their first bullet goes like this:

NO TAXATION WITHOUT EXPLANATION
SPLOST V MANDATED that SPECIFIC project be completed by the county commissioner. As yet, several road projects and a 30,000 sq. ft. $7.8 million addition to administration building are pending. SHOW US THE MONEY!

Click on this link:

http://www.forsythco.com/pdf/files/SPLOST5ROADSTATUS.pdf

to see the projects completed under SPLOST 5.

Are all road projects completed? No. But the county did not receive $.75 on the dollar for every dollar of road costs as we were promised in 2003 - only $.15 on the dollar. Plus, construction costs ballooned in the past 5 years including right-of-way costs. Still, we have completed 70% of all road projects with the $.60 per dollar state deficit, and an 11% expected reduction in SPLOST revenues. Add to that, we have another 10% of planned projects either under construction today, or expected to have the state contracts let in February of 2008. We have completed all but three parks and rec projects, but two of those are the city's responsibility, not ours. We have completed all but two of our public safety projects, and have acquired land for one (Fire Station 7), and hope to have land for the other (Fire Station 6) shortly. Senior Center expansion is completed. Cumming Library expansion is completed. Hampton Library is ready to be built.

In all, over 78% of all planned SPLOST 5 projects have been completed or are underway.

However, we are under the heading of asking for explanations. The city of Cumming had only 5 projects that they were responsible for under SPLOST 5. The record shows that only one project has been completed thus far in 5 years, one project has been scaled back in distance and scope (Pilgrim Mill Rd.) and three projects have not yet even begun. While the county has a stellar record of SPLOST accomplishment, the city has completed only 30% of their SPLOST 5 projects.

80% for the county on 145 projects; 30% for the city on just 5 projects. Maybe this committee should be asking the city some tough questions. They're the ones with some explaining to do.

But let's look at their next issue:

NO TAXATION WITHOUT OBLIGATION
SPLOST VI determines categories, but not the particular projects for expenditure. The commissioners recently appointed an ad hoc committee whose recommendations are legally non binding and could be disregarded. As the current ballot is written, any small special interest group can benefit from all the funds, diverting monies from important projects elsewhere in the county. SHOW US THE MONEY!

This one is too easy. The SPLOST 5 ballot contained the very same language, as described in the article below this one. The same rules apply to SPLOST 6 as did SPLOST 5; you do the projects you can with the money you can raise, and either abandon a project for good reason in the next SPLOST, or complete it in the next SPLOST. Special interest groups cannot change the list, and sufficient contingency funds have been set aside for cost everruns and emergency projects not contemplated in 2008. Just like we've done with every previous SPLOST, none of which the city opposed.

Complaint number 2 just doesn't fly.

But wait! They have more:

NO TAXATION WITHOUT STIPULATION
SPLOST VI tries to sneak in $260 million dollar general obligation bonds on top of the 1 cent sales tax. Again, no specific projects are designated. All we know is that none of these monies will go toward the necessary new jail (approximate cost $50 million) and courthouse. You can look forward to increased property taxes to fund those projects. SHOW US THE MONEY!

Here is where the lies begin. Yes, lies. Not mis-statements, not errors; lies. As clearly stated in the ballot language, the county commission is asking to bond $160 million of the expected SPLOST revenues raised to fund road and intersection projects in order to complete them earlier than 5 years. Not $260 million. The bonds will be paid for by SPLOST revenues and SPLOST revenues only, as we are asking to bond only 75% of our worst case scenario of expected revenues. We'll get to the courthouse in the much-anticipated, world-famous www.davidrichard.info lightning round.

Their final bone of contention is this:

NO TAXATION WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION
The proposed split of the money with the City of Cumming is unjust. While the city generates over 20% of the revenue, the county wants to cut their share of funds to 4.29%. Study shows that 25,000 people work or live in the city daily, and 125,000 vehicles traverse the roads. SPLOST is meant to fund infrastructure and capital improvements. The city is due their fair share. SHOW US THE MONEY!

Here now, is the crux of the matter, and the real reason why the city has formed this committee. The city isn't getting their share of the take as they did in previous years. That is because this county commission refuses to knuckle under to the extortion demands of the good CM (Cumming Mayor). So the good CM is having a hissy-fit. This county commission took an objective look at all the projects that the city and county believed were needed to be completed, and the city's list came up short on need, and long on want. Needs get funded; wants don't. If only 6,000 people live in the city, and 25,000 people supposedly commute to the city, then they are using county roads to get there. Guess what? The county roads have to be improved or people won't come to the city. And the argument that the city collects 20% of SPLOST revenue would hold so much more water if the city didn't keep annexing county commercial property into the city once the county has done the development.

So four primary complaints knocked down due to lack of facts. But this committee isn't done with complaints. Let's move to the rapid-fire round!

The Ballot Is Written In Such A Way It Can Mislead The Voter.

The same language was used in all previous ballots, and the Association of County Commissioners in Georgia and The Georgia Municipal Association each use this very same ballot language across the state. The city's own representative organization (GMA) recommends the same ballot language we are using.

Rush To Put SPLOST VI And Bonds On February 5^th Ballot

Uh, SPLOST 5 expires on June 30, 2008, and there is no election until July 19th of 2008. Doesn't it make sense to place it on the Feb 5th Presidential Primary? And there was no rush. We began discussions with the city within the alloted timeframe for the ballot and met every requirement of state law.

Amounts Were Set Prior To Identifying Projects

Yeah, so what? So were all past SPLOST amounts. You need to know how much you are going to spend before you divide up the projects. Unless, of course, you're the city and don't practice responsible fiscal operations.

The Committee Recommendations Are Non-Binding And Therefore Cannot Be Enforced

Not true.

Many Past Recommendations Were Not Followed

Not true.

Burdens The Citizens With Additional Taxes With No Guarantee That Projects Will Ever Be Completed

Not true.

Past Projects Are Not Complete But The Money Is Gone. Where Did It Go?

All projects accounted for, except of course, for the city's incomplete projects. Answered above.

SPLOST Violates The Law

The city's lawsuit was thrown out of court in less time than it takes to get a pizza on Super Bowl Sunday. Go Pats!

Projects Have Not Been Adequately Identified

Not true.

FUTURE BONDS BURDEN

Only one bond, to be paid for by SPLOST revenues, and only 75% of expected revenues are bonded.

Unknown By Most Citizens, The Following Bonds Are Scheduled To Appear On The Ballots In The Future:

$100,000,000.00 In February 2008 For Green Space / Parks & Recreation

True.

$80,000,000.00 To $100,000,000.00 In June 2008 For The New Jail

False. There are no figures for a new jail as yet, so no bond is scheduled for July as yet. The past jail and courthouse was estimated to be only $90 million together, so how does this figure get so large?

$100,000,000.00 (Estimated) For A New Courthouse New Courthouse

False. No bond anticipated for a courthouse in the near future.

With These Bonds, We Are Facing Staggering Debt That Is Approaching $500,000,000.00

Someone here can't count. $160+$100+$100=$360, not $500, with a probability of less than the $360 million

A Yes Vote Means You, Your Children And Grandchildren Will Be Stuck With This Burden For 30 YEARS

Not true. Bonds go for 20 years.

All in all, a very pitiful performance by the anti-SPLOST committee. But then, when the facts aren't on your side, what else is there to do except lie and tell half the story?

1/18/2008

De-bunking the SPLOST ballot myth - and other absurdities by the city's campaign

You know, this whole thing about the city suing the county over the ballot language for SPLOST 6 has been bugging me for a while. The city says that the ballot language is illegal, because it doesn't specify the projects to be funded.

Now to be fair, I say "the city" here in this article, but what I really mean is the good CM (Cumming Mayor) - after all, have you ever seen a single city councilman say or do anything that the good CM didn't want him to? I have this image of a many-armed ventriloquist (the good CM) with his hands up the backs of 5 people making them say everything he says. Sounds pretty accurate to me.

But I digress.

Since we deal in facts here at www.davidrichard.info, let's take the competing SPLOST 5 and SPLOST 6 ballot questions and go over them line by line. I know, I know; this is going to be a bit tedious for some, but it should be very instructive to those who are buying the whine of the month from the good CM.

The titles are exactly the same:

To Continue the Existing One (1%) Percent

Special Purpose Local Option Sales and

Use Tax for Certain Capital Projects

Next comes the general language. The order is slightly different, but the general categories remain the same. I'll put the categories together so that the reader can see the similarities in the language:

SPLOST 5:

“Shall a special one (1%) percent sales and use tax be imposed in Forsyth County for a period of time not to exceed sixty (60) months commencing July 1,2003, and for the raising of not more than

SPLOST 6:

"Shall a special one percent sales and use tax be continued in Forsyth County ( the “County”) for a period of time of five years for raising not more than

OK, so far so good. Just more specificity on a date certain with SPLOST 5. Certainly not the stuff lawsuits are made of.

SPLOST 5:

$12,250,000 for parks and recreation

SPLOST 6:

park and recreation facilities for not more than $13,500,000

Oops! Our bad! We put the dollar amount at the END of the sentence. The hypocrisy of it all!

SPLOST 5:

$4,762,000 for library facilities

SPLOST 6:

library facilities for not more than $7,200,000

There we go, continuing the dastardly deed or reversing the dollar amounts. Oh, the humanity!

SPLOST 5:

$400,000 for cultural facilities

SPLOST 6:

cultural facilities for not more than $6,000,000

How could we have been so blind? We just keep confusing the poor CM with this underhanded ballot language!

SPLOST 5:

$5,500,000 for public building projects

SPLOST 6:

No language because we don't have any public building projects in SPLOST 6

SPLOST 5:

$18,580,000 for public safety improvements

SPLOST 6:

public safety facilities for not more than $17,800,000

Need I say any more?

SPLOST 5:

within Forsyth County, Georgia

SPLOST 6:

all for the benefit of the County

Still good here . . .

SPLOST 5:

and for road, street, and bridge purposes for a period of time not to exceed sixty (60) months commencing July I, 2003, and for the raising of not more than $99,100,000 within Forsyth County, Georgia

SPLOST 6:

$218,702,500 for roads, streets, bridges and sidewalks

Wow! This one might be confusing to the good CM, because the new ballot has less words to explain what we are trying to do.

SPLOST 5:

and for raising of not more than $2,300,000 for historical preservation, for $6,000,000 for parks and recreation, for $3,100,000 for green space restoration and preservation within the City of Cumming, and for road, street, and bridge purposes for a period of time not to exceed sixty (60) months commencing July 1, 2003, and for the raising of not more than $8,000,000 within the City of Cumming?

SPLOST 6:

the acquisition, construction, remodeling and equipping of a parking deck, at an estimated cost of $11,797,500, all for the benefit of the City of Cumming?

This must be the sticking point with the good CM. The language is decidedly different when it comes to the city. But wait - this language is only different in one respect. I wonder what that could be, boys and girls? That's right; the city's dollar amounts are much, much lower in the SPLOST 6 ballot language than in the SPLOST 5 ballot.

How could we have been so stupid?

SPLOST 5:

No language regarding a general obligation bond

SPLOST 6:

If imposition of the tax is approved by the voters, such vote shall also constitute approval of the issuance of general obligation debt of Forsyth County in the principal amount of $160 million for the purposes of funding the County roads, streets, bridges

and sidewalks.

We added that so we can bond out less than 75% of our worst-case scenario for SPLOST revenues so that we can get road projects started faster. Shame on us for trying to do things quickly.

So there you have it ladies and gentlemen. The city's argument that the ballot language is illegal can be summed up on one posting on one website. Here is the kicker.

Now that you see the similarities in the two ballot questions, the question has to be raised:

If this new ballot is illegal because each and every project wasn't specified in the SPLOST 6 version (as is their claim), why didn't the city declare the SPLOST 5 ballot similarly illegal? It actually had LESS specificity than the SPLOST 6 ballot when spelling out city projects!

The answer is simple.

The city sued us, declaring that the SPLOST 6 ballot is illegal in their feeble minds because the numbers are lower for the city, not because the language is illegal.

Now onto other anti-SPLOST committee absurdities.

Former county commissioner Eddie Taylor apparently is in agreement with the good CM that the SPLOST ballot is illegal. Funny thing about that. I'm looking at a set of minutes for a called meeting of the Board of Commissioners dated December 16, 2002. These minutes recount an action by the commissioners to give 15% of the SPLOST 5 take to the City of Cumming, including $12.2 million additional dollars for Buford Dam and Pilgrim Mill Rds. The vote passed 3-2 to authorize the split and the ballot language for SPLOST 5 moved forward. Care to guess who the third vote was to agree with the ballot language as written in 2002?

Yeah, that Eddie Taylor.

I guess the ballot language was legal as long as the city's pockets were being properly lined, right Eddie? It is amazing how the memory dims over the course of 5 years, isn't it? What is even more amazing is that the rumor mill out there says that Eddie is contemplating a return to feeding from the public trough in order to reprise his stellar years as county commissioner once Linda Ledbetter steps down. Somehow, I don't see that happening.

Some questions that need to be answered:

Anti-SPLOST signs that don't have the contact information of the person or committee authorizing them are springing up around the county. Doesn't that violate state campaign laws?

City facilities being used for meetings of the anti-SPLOST committee. Is the committee paying for the use? If not, is the city violating state law by using government facilities to campaign for or against a ballot question?

Did anyone see that foolish and pathetic website that the city or committee has just put up for their anti-SPLOST campaign? I could create a better website in my sleep - wait a minute - I already have! Who is paying for that piece of trash, and who is hosting the site? More illegal activity, perhaps?

If the city really wanted the state Supreme Court to expedite the appeal of their stunning court loss regarding the SPLOST ballot, why did they wait 21 days after the ruling was entered to file their appeal?

1/7/2008

How do you know when an anti-SPLOST committee member is lying?

When their lips are moving.

Or in our case this morning, when their fingers are typing letters to the editor to the local fish-wrapper.

This week, we have been treated to the first of what I am sure will be many letters to the editor, solely designed to scare the voters into defeating the upcoming SPLOST vote. As always, though, if you want to make your case to the people, you'd better be telling the truth. Sadly, when dealng with many things associated with the City of Cumming and the good CM (Cumming Mayor), the truth is a little short on supply.

Let's begin with the obvious, and work our way down to the absurd.

First up is Mr. Patrick Bell of Cumming. Mr. Bell writes a letter that is so blatantly false that no one could fail to make the case that he is either lying through his teeth, or is the biggest buffoon to ever walk upright. Oh, there I go insulting people again! Sorry - bad habit. Mr. Bell, it should be noted, is a card-carrying, charter member of the good CM's select committee to defeat the SPLOST. And as we've seen in the past with everything the good CM touches, if the facts are not on your side, make them up!

Mr. Bell writes: "I have reviewed the ballot as it will be presented to the voters. Under the question titled "To Continue the Existing One (1%) Percent Special Purpose Local Option Sales and Use Tax for Certain Capital Improvements" there is an innocent sentence snuck in at the very end. It reads "If imposition of the tax is approved by the voters, such vote shall also constitute approval of the issuance of general obligation debt in the principal amount of $160 million for the purposes of funding County roads, streets, bridges and sidewalks." A $160,000,000.00 question!

This question will bring the total generated to $378,702,500 with zerocommitment from the commissioners on where it is to be spent. More important is the question about the issuance of a bond that has been innocently added to the end of the SPLOST renewal. Sneak it on at the end where very few will notice and by the time they do it's too late?"

Pardon me while I get up from the floor from laughing so hard.

Mr. Bell, here is clue #1: The $160 million in bonds is to pre-fund the portion of SPLOST revenues generated for transportation projects. The bond is NOT in ADDITION to the $218 million in SPLOST revenues; it is that portion that we can borrow on in anticipation of revenues. That allows us to actually build the transportation projects earlier, before the costs go up. You see, Mr. Bell, the county doesn't have a sugar-daddy across the street that we can sue every time we mismanage a project (like Pilgrim Mill Rd. for example), so it is better for us to bond a safe portion of anticipated funds in order to get the work done sooner. The amount anticipated to be bonded (and we don't have to bond the whole amount) is 73% of the anticipated SPLOST revenues, and is less than what our current SPLOST has generated in 5 years.

In short, Mr. Bell, it is prudent fiscal policy on our part. And you have just lied to the readers of the FCN.

Now let's move onto one Michael Smith. Mr. "Smith" writes in his letter that he isn't going to vote for SPLOST because it is funding a private business venture, namely the up to $5.1 million for Great Wolf Lodge at Mary Alice Park. Let me first say that in principle, I agree with Mr. Smith regarding his opposition to using tax dollars to fund private ventures, and was the only commissioner to vote against that giveaway. But that is where our similarities end.

A little history is in order, so that readers can make an informed judgment regarding this particular problem. First, the Great Wolf Lodge project was the good CM's project from the very beginning. As such, many, many things were promised to be funded by the city in order to get this company to build here. And, truth be told, the city and state will be forking over much money to bring Great Wolf here to Forsyth County. However, the good CM was too busy writing checks his, ahem, account - could not pay. So where does he look to when he hasn't got the money to do something? Across the street to his sugar-daddy, of course. Now, the up to $5.1 million has now been reduced to less than $1 million now that the estimates for the road improvements are in, so it is not as bad as first thought.

But the bigger question to voters and to Michael Smith is this: Do you throw the baby out with the bath water? Now that the cost to fund this road improvement is .003% of the total SPLOST expenditure, do you vote the whole thing down because $800,000 of $218,000,000 is earmarked for a private business? Where is the logic in that course? Even my stance against this expenditure isn't enough to make me vote against the whole tax. Mr. Smith, your argument is a joke.

Finally, let's move on to Lynn Poole Pruitt. Ms. Pruitt writes such utter nonsense that I am not sure that she is actually paying attention to this issue. She writes: "Naturally, SPLOST funding for projects is slow if the county waits until the money is collected to contract the project. However, if the voters approve a $270 million "general obligation bond" attached to the SPLOST, the cost to the community will virtually double.

I will also vote against the $150 million "general obligation bond" for parks and recreation that will be repaid by property tax."

Fact check time, Ms. Pruitt!

There is NO $270 million "general obligation bond" attached to SPLOST. None. This is either a gross lie on your part, or a gross lack of understanding. As stated above, there IS a $160 million bond to be paid back by SPLOST revenues. Property taxes will NOT GO UP as a result of this bond.

There is NO $150 million Parks and Rec. bond on the ballot. There is, however, a $100 million bond for Parks and Rec. Pay attention, please!

Desperate times for the City of Cumming and the good CM call for desperate measures. As such, you find frivilous lawsuits being filed to steal money they have no right to, select committees packed with city cronies whose sole purpose is to defeat a tax measure that will improve transportation and public safety, and public comments by the good CM and others that are either blatant lies or just plain stupid. If the letters to the editor this weekend were part of the orchestrated campaign to defeat the SPLOST, then it is truly sad that these people will have stooped to this level. If they were just written in ignorance, then it is a sad statement on the level of attention being paid to very important issues by some of the voting public.

12/17/2007

SMACKDOWN!

With apologies to the good folks at WWE, the City of Cumming was summarily smacked in the kisser this morning in just 1 1/2 hours by a senior superior court judge. He essentially dismissed all complaints by the city as being too soon to rule upon, as there has been no vote yet taken on any matter, and dismissed the city's foolish motion for damages with prejudice; meaning that even if the other parts of the case heard later are upheld, the city cannot ever receive $38 million in damages from the county.

The bottom line is that the county's legal counsel presented a well-researched and finely crafted argument that the court cannot even begin to entertain any action unless the SPLOST vote passes. The city could then sue to overturn the election (if they are so idiotically-inclined) by saying that the ballot question was illegal and cannot be enforced, but that can only happen if the ballot measure passes.

In other words, the mayor had a tantrum, and it took a senior superior court judge all of 90 minutes to spank him and send him to his room.

Now we let the voters decide. What a concept!

11/24/2007

What do the the Mayor and your Thanksgiving turkey have in common?

The answer is they're both over-cooked and ready to be leftovers.

Nothing else could explain the good CM's (Cumming Mayor) recent public meltdown in city chambers last week. Yes, the man who has received less votes per election than my high school class president has decided to form a committee of people to campaign against the upcoming SPLOT vote.

Well, there's 600 votes we have to worry about.

Let's look at some of the classifications of people he wants to have serve on this august committee (according to the local fishwrapper). We'll comment below each as needed:

The Cumming-Forsyth County Chamber of Commerce

- While certain members of the CofC are clearly in the mayor's pocket, anyone he gets from that organization will be easily identifiable by the fact that they will be holding his coat for him 24/7. And didn't you recently complain about them being a "political" organization and withheld your dues for a year? Consistency, Mr. Mayor, always consistency.

The banking community

- Our projects help to manage the growth issues in this county. The city's proposed projects do not. Which side do you think will win that argument?

The Board of Realtors

- Do you think congested roads help real estate agents sell houses? Neither do I. And just how many business and residential opportunities are available in the City of Cumming vs. Forsyth County? I know of one coat-holder in particular who will gladly sign on to this, but he is one of the most ineffective people when it comes to swaying opinion I have ever seen.

The AARP

- Barking up the wrong tree here, Mr. Mayor. In general, they really like what Charlie, Jim and I have been doing.

Local political parties

- Barking up the wrong tree here, too. Unless he thinks he can get the local Dems to back his plan. Any group that had Jon Flack as their chairman might still have enough people without logical thinking processes in place, but since they have shown signs of improvement, I don't think they'd lke to join in this one.

County Commissioner Linda Ledbetter

- (insert your own joke here)

And just why does the good CM feel the need to defeat this vote? The answers, as shown in the fishwrapper's report, show how little he knows about finances and the county in general. Maybe he should get out a bit more; say, outside of the city limits now and again. The FCN report is in bold.

"What angered the mayor is the addition of $160 million in a general obligation debt to fund roads, bridges and sidewalks.

Gravitt cited a report from the executive director of the Georgia Municipal Association, which he said shows a 10.7 percent drop in the state's sales tax collections in September and a 10 percent drop in October, totaling nearly $100 million.

"I don't know anybody that wants to raise property taxes," Gravitt said. "If the county government bonds $160 million on this, who's to say the property owners are not going to pick up the tax to pay this $160 million debt?"

Still, he said, "I don't believe that they want to arbitrarily say we want you to raise our taxes, and basically that's what our commissioners have done.

"They're trying to ram it down our throat and we're going to stand up and be counted."

OK, now it is time for a little Finance 101, just to show how little the good CM knows about money management. The county currently has received over $180 million in SPLOST revenues from the current tax. Since the time the current SPLOST was voted upon, the city and county have both engaged in adding retail space, and the county will shortly have the Avenues at Forsyth opening on Exit 13, and the possibility of a huge mega-mall near Exit 12.

So if our CURRENT take is approximately $200 million in sales taxes over the full 5 years, and even if sales taxes do go down approximately 10% each year, we'd only receive $180 million in sales taxes during the NEXT SPLOST if there were NO CHANGES to our retail offerings. Since the language allows us to bond UP TO $160 million, we'd still be well within the rock-bottom low end of tax receipts, with $20 million to spare. WITH NO NEW RETAIL SPACE BEING ADDED!

Is there a collective "Duh" being heard around the county this morning? There should be.

As in, "Duh, Mr. Mayor, you don't know squat about money."

Or, "Duh, Mr. Mayor, isn't it more cost-effective to bond projects at today's prices rather than wait until the revenues are generated when future costs are higher?"

Or, "Duh, Mr. Mayor, they are only proposing to bond a maximum of 75% of their most conservate estimates of potential revenues, so how could property taxes possibly go up?"

Or in the immortal words of Gary Coleman, "What you talkin' about, Willis?"

But let's get to the real reason the good CM is working so hard to form this all-important committee to campaign against the SPLOST tax:

He knows his court challenge to our vote is going nowhere, and he needs a backup plan for when his case gets shot down in spectacular flames. He's also trying the age-old tactic of keeping his mug in the news and trying to keep a failing argument alive in the media, hoping to sway public opinion with lies and ignorance.

But remember this Forsyth county residents; this is a man who would rather see your roads remain un-improved, your intersections clogged, and your public safety jeopardized by trying to vote down this tax. All because he didn't get to rape you again for money he doesn't need to build projects he can't justify because they don't fix any major problems within the city or the county. Small men with large egos have no place in government, as they are too prone to let their personal agendas take over.

You can vote to extend this tax or not based on the information you read and the way you educate yourselves on this issue. The projects articulated in the SPLOST list will still need to be completed whether the tax is extended or not, so if the good CM's phoney argument is that property taxes will be raised by having a sales tax fund their completion, think about what could happen to your property taxes if the sales tax is not extended. Projects will either not get done, or taxes must be raised in order to complete them.

So stand tall, Mr. Mayor. I like our chances of reason over your egotistical rantings anyday.

Still, he said, "I don't believe that they want to arbitrarily say we want you to raise our taxes, and basically that's what our commissioners have done.

"They're trying to ram it down our throat and we're going to stand up and be counted."

Is there a collective "Duh" being heard around the county this morning? There should be.

As in, "Duh, Mr. Mayor, you don't know squat about money."

Or, "Duh, Mr. Mayor, isn't it more cost-effective to bond projects at today's prices rather than wait until the revenues are generated when future costs are higher?"

Or, "Duh, Mr. Mayor, they are only proposing to bond a maximum of 75% of their most conservate estimates of potential revenues, so how could property taxes possibly go up?"

Or in the immortal words of Gary Coleman, "What you talkin' about, Willis?"

But let's get to the real reason the good CM is working so hard to form this all-important committee to campaign against the SPLOST tax:

So stand tall, Mr. Mayor. I like our chances of reason over your egotistical rantings anyday.

11/15/2007

Is it a feud if both sides don't think it's a feud?

I love it when people create fiction, especially when it comes to city / county issues. We've already talked about the fiction created by the city attorney in his initial arguments regarding SPLOST and the county commission's efforts to finally get an equitable share of money to improve much-needed county infrastructure.

But the best fiction of all is when certain residents, media coat-holders (meaning, of course, the Forsyth County News "editorial board"), and elected officials start talking about how the county is just reacting to the city because they feel that some of us have a beef with the city or it's mayor.

Pardon me while I cough up a hairball.

Does the city have a feud with the county? I don't know. I really don't care, either. My job is to represent the best interests of the citizens of Forsyth County, both in and out of the city limits. It doesn't even matter if the good CM (Cumming Mayor) likes me or not. Since I'm not about to share a milk shake at the local DQ with him anytime soon, he and I don't really have to get along. In fact, the good CM isn't even a blip on my radar screen, so long as he isn't trying to screw the county out of money.

Now to the other commissioners, I can't speak to whatever slights, either real or perceived, may have occurred with them but I have never sensed in any of the others who have been targeted as being "against" the city any animosity towards that body. Of course, all of that probably went out the window when the city decided to sue us over the SPLOST vote. I suspect that any overtures made by the city will be seen in a much different light following their latest attempt at tax extortion.

But I digress.

So when is a feud a feud?

Is it a feud when the FCN "editorial board" says it is? (Oops, I feel another hairball coming up.) Probably not. Make that definitely not.

Is it a feud when a fellow commissioner says it is? File that under not only no, but heck, no.

Is it a feud when people who write a letter to the editor say it is a feud? Nah. Especially when the letter writer suggests that the city council appoint county commissioners. Then you know the writer is not in possession of their full mental faculties. After all, has there ever been a vote by that august body that didn't have all five hands raised at the same time? Walt Disney created more life-like responses with his animatronic figures - at least they move independent of one another.

It just appears to me that the only thing that makes this a feud between the city and the county are two things: because people who want the city to continue to rape the county say it is, and because a majority of commissioners have finally said no to continuing the rape.

Remember, no is not a bad word in government; especially when it comes to taxes. I realize that some people may never have been told no before in their lives, but that doesn't mean they never should have had the pleasure. It is a measure of the character of person to see how they handle being told no. I guess we all can see how that turned out this past month. If there is, in fact, a feud going on between the city and the county, remember these facts when thinking about which side is actually feuding:

Who has refused an offer from the county to fully-fund a newer, larger, deeper water intake into Lake Lanier?

Who refused to sign an agreement to pay the city for additional sewer capacity after the city agreed to sell it to us?

Who has threatened to sue the county if we didn't pay over $8 million in cost overruns on the Pilgrim Mill Rd. project?

Who has sued the county over SPLOST VI allocations?

Whose negotiating position has always been that if the county refused to agree to their demands, we'd be sued?

Who has refused every overture by the county to jointly co-operate on water issues with state and federal entities?

The obvious answer is: The City of Cumming.

So the next time someone mentions a feud going on between the city and the county, ask them this question: If four of the five current commissioners wouldn't have known the good CM if they had tripped over him before running for public office; and the city government, through their mayor and city council have been the ONLY constant for the last 25-30 years, just who is at the root of any supposed feud?

If such a feud does exist, it is certainly not of our making, nor is it coming from this building.

11/04/2007

SPLOST suits, lies and videotape

Now, we'll start off this little column with a disclaimer:

"The responses to the City of Cumming and, specifically, to it's mayor are based on the coverage of the Forsyth County News; a local media company with a proven bias in reporting news designated to enhance the city and denigrate the county."

Now that that is out of the way, let's get to the baloney. The pertinent quotes from Friday's news article will be in bold, with my responses below.

As Cumming Mayor H. Ford Gravitt put it, his city was left with no choice but to litigate Forsyth County's decision on a proposed extension of the 1-cent sales tax.

Of course the good CM (Cumming Mayor) had a choice in whether to litigate or not. You litigate when something is done illegally or if harm was caused to you. You don't litigate because you didn't get what you demanded from a body that had no reason to comply with your demands. Spoiled brats litigate when they don't get what they want.

"The three stooges across the road didn't even have the courtesy to call us and let us know we were getting 4.29 percent," Gravitt said during a called meeting Thursday morning.

This quote is just plain funny. Am I Moe, Larry or Curley? Just so long as I'm not Shemp. I never liked Shemp. Now to us not calling him to let him know what he was getting? What a crock. He knew two weeks ago what the city split was going to be. He attended a public meeting in our large conference room and sat right across from me. He was asked very specifically by me, which was captured on both audio and video tape by the way, if he understood that the board of commissioners was offering him either a 10% agreement for 6 years or a 4.29% agreement for 5 years. He stated in that very same open meeting that he clearly understood what was being offered, and he declined the 10% offer from us. Not once, not twice, but three specific times. Those are the facts. A transcript of the tape can be provided to anyone wishing it through open records, and the videotape can be seen on www.cumminghome.com

"I thought neo-Nazism ended back in World War II, but I think it's still going across the road."

It is far different to accuse a person or an entity of things such as blackmail or arogance (especially if it can be proven), and Lord knows I've done my share of accusations when trying to expose the city and the CM for the type of organization they are, but resorting to calling anyone, especially elected officials "Nazis" goes beyond the pale. What the Nazis did in the 1930's and 1940's was inhuman and reprehensible, and to compare that horror to not getting money to build a parking deck or aquatic center is morally repugnant.

Following the 10 a.m. meeting, where council voted 6-0 to pursue a lawsuit against the county, an executive session was held to discuss specifics of the suit with City Attorney Dana Miles. "There are a number of reasons why we believe the statute has not been complied with by the county in terms of this resolution," Miles said during the public meeting. "We think the county is engaging in illegal fiction. It's like saying, 'It quacks like a duck, it flies like a duck, it walks like a duck, but we're going to call it a fish.'"

OK, now to a bit of semantics, which is more fun for someone like me who appreciates precision in language than most people. "Fiction" is something that isn't real. So the question has to be asked; If it isn't real, how can it be illegal? Let's hope they city attorney doesn't use that term during the pleading - he might be laughed out of the courtroom.

"They're going to put about $220 million of this money into roads and streets, but they don't identify any roads or streets," Gravitt said. "But yet they identified the city as building a parking deck. How can they identify the city, but they don't identify their own roads?" Miles said it "hit me as strange too. I guess maybe they don't want the voters to know where they're going to spend this money on roads."

This one is too easy. We approved a ballot question that needs to go for a vote on the February Presidential Primary. The voters need to know as much about this as possible before voting on renewing the tax. The city gave us their prioritized list of projects and reconfirmed that prioritization the day of our last meeting. One (or even five) projects can reasonably be specified on a ballot question without making the ballot question too long for voters to read in a timely fashion. The county has almost $700 million in capital improvement projects planned over the next 20 years, and we (unlike the city), will be giving our constituents a voice in prioritizing those projects in the next couple of months. But even if we did have a prioritized list today, we would never have approved a ballot with hundreds of projects listed that voters would have to read before casting their ballot. That list will be provided well before the voters will have to make their informed choice.

"They haven't listed the eight projects that you sent them, even though the state law requires them to do that and give voters the chance to decide whether or not to approve the spending of those monies on those projects," Miles said. "They've deprived the voters of that right."

Talk about illegal fiction. The city needs a new attorney if they think this argument is going to fly in court. Nothing, repeat, nothing contained in SPLOST law requires us to list all the candy store requests by the city to have voters approve them. Nothing. No voters have been deprived of any rights, and the voters do have the right to vote down the SPLOST if they don't agree to the split or if they don't agree with the commissioners way of doing things. They can also vote us out of office the next time through if they don't like what we did.

While the county has maintained it has tried to work with the city, Gravitt said the city has never been offered any intergovernmental agreement for SPLOST.

"The three stooges across the road didn't even have the courtesy to call us and let us know we were getting 4.29 percent," Gravitt said during a called meeting Thursday morning.

"I thought neo-Nazism ended back in World War II, but I think it's still going across the road."

While the county has maintained it has tried to work with the city, Gravitt said the city has never been offered any intergovernmental agreement for SPLOST.

Bull. Check the tape. The city (through the good CM) was clearly asked in our open and public meeting if they would accept 10% for six years. The city refused the offer not once, not twice, but three times.

This mayor, by his actions and comments over this issue, is now completely out of control. And it is because he is no longer IN control that he is now OUT of control.

10/19/2007

SPLOST split and the City of Cumming

What an interesting week of events in the potential future life of SPLOST.

We've chronicled on this website some on the issues regarding this tax, and the needs of the county over the wants of the city. We've chronicled the city's failure to be good stewards of the SPLOST dollars they have received in the past; especially this past go-around.

Well the city came a-callin' last week to issue their every 5-year demand for money to build things that are not in the best interests of the county as a whole, or are so low down the priority list that you couldn't see them with a good telescope. The usual pleas for money and "fairness", as well as a very unusual insult towards the county were heard, and in a very wise move, were summarily rejected by a majority of this board.

The city came in with their usual requests, but this time, they wanted not only the 15% they got last time, but based on the list they provided and the expected revenues generated, they came asking for 21% of the next 5 years of SPLOST revenues! That, my friends, is the definition of testicular fortitude.

And what a list it was.

$15 million for a new parking deck. Of course, the location of that deck is about as far away as you can get from just about all our buildings downtown, except for maybe the current courthouse. The good CM says that it is needed for judicial parking, except that the new courthouse will not be where the existing courthouse currently resides, and while we have a good idea where a new courthouse will be, it is not cast in stone, nor would it be close to the proposed parking deck.

So why waste money on a parking deck that no one will end up using, and is not really needed right now?

$8 million to complete the acclaimed "aquatic center". This has been chronicled before, but the last SPLOST said that only $6 million would be needed to build an aquatic center, and that $6 million has been spent. Does anyone see an aquatic center being built? I didn't think so. So why another $8 million? The city claims it is to fund "Phase 2" of the aquatic center, but "Phase 1" hasn't even been accomplished. Now let's get to the important point in all these discussions:

Is an aquatic center "needed", or is it just "wanted"?

Because when we take your money by force, the least we can do is put it towards those things that are needed first. But I digress.

How about widening Samples Rd. to four lanes from Mary Alice Park Rd. to SR20? Sounds like a great idea, except that we (as a county) recently ponied up well over $1 million dollars to extend Marketplace Blvd. to Mary Alice Park Rd. to enable the new Sembler project; right-of-way the city should have had the developer donate instead of forcing us to pay them. Why widen a road less than 1/2 mile away, when another is currently under construction?

$3.5 million for right of way purchase at SR9 and Mary Alice Park Rd. Can you say "let's bail out the city, boys and girls?" Sure you can. I knew you could. After all, didn't the city claim that they committed about $10 million in incentives for the Great Wolf project? Maybe that figure is down to $6.5 million right now, and mybe that figure is further reduced to about $1.4 million in incentives since they just conned the county into providing $5.1 million towards the Great Wolf project, even though we were never in that loop until money was needed.

How about $1.5 million for sidewalks on SR9? Who lives on SR9 between the city and Veterans Memorial? And isn't SR9 planned to be widened in the future? Why build something that will only be torn up?

Anyway, you get the gist of these requests. Wants. Not needs. Nice to haves.

Sorry, but this COUNTY has needs, and they are very big ones.

Fix the traffic problem.

Provide for adequate public safety.

Those important things don't get done if we give $50 million dollars to the city for frivilous projects, or even $35 million at 15%. So the city will now get 4.29% of the SPLOST take, based on the last census. It is still $10 million dollars.

And it forces the city to make some very hard chioces on what is really important to them:

Wants, or needs?

Of course, this issue isn't over. Some people can't take no for an answer, and some people have to serve their masters until the very end. So the issue will once again be resurrected this Tuesday afternoon by commissioners Tam and Ledbetter.

I'm guessing - fat chance.

The city (in the form of the CM) was offered 10% of the SPLOST take for the next 6 years. He was offered this deal three times in public, once very specifically by me making sure he understood that he was giving up 10% for 6 years and getting 4.29% for 5 years. He refused the 10% each and every time.

He was given a choice, and he chose poorly.

Of course, he always has the option to sue us, which he has threatened before, and I am sure will threaten to again.

Now others, including the local fishwrapper, want us to try again. They claim that revenue will be "lost" by not having a six-year agreement. They are just that stupid to believe that baloney.

We are currently at the end of a 5-year SPLOST. It's worked so far, hasn't it? So we have to go for an extension one year earlier than planned. Who cares? Nothing is actually lost here; merely it's completion is pushed back another year until the next SPLOST is approved. And if we do our job right, the people will give us a renewal the next time.

The fishwrapper thinks that this lack of accord is based on satisfying old grudges.

What grudges?

Can the fishwrapper's "editorial board" come up with any specifics regarding the aforementioned "grudges"?

Of course not. But we expected the usual sucking up from the fishwrapper to those who pay their bills and buy their friendships.

What some people, the fishwrapper included, cannot fathom is principled leadership (that would be standing up for what is right and making sure that taxpayers are given the best bang for their buck). The city has articulated wasteful wants in their SPLOST list. I don't pay for wants. The county has articulated over $650 million in needs over the next 20 years, and we need the funding to accomplish them. If the city can come up with viable projects next time around, good for them. It isn't as if they are going to go hungry - after all, they still receive 15% of every penny in sales taxes from the LOST program until at least 2012.

Hmmm. . . Has there ever been an accounting of how THAT money has been spent?

8/04/2007

What's not getting done in this county - and what is

There is a lot of jawing going on right now about dissention on the county commission, and how that is keeping us from getting things done that the people want us to do.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

A. Because the job is getting done, and

B. It doesn't take everyone in place to get the job done.

Let's explore the actual facts about what is and isn't getting done.

What is getting done:

1. Commissioners, rather than developers, are determining whether a zoning gets passed. What a concept! To be sure, each of us has had a lapse of judgment every now and then (some more recently than others), but for the most part, this commission is sticking to proper land use far better than our previous commissions. In addition, district courtesy on re-zonings is pretty much dead, and should be killed off entirely. Just because a commissioner wants it, doesn't make it a candidate for passage. There have been some very interesting 3-2 votes this year in favor of, and against other, re-zonings. As I have stated before, we have 5 pretty independent commissioners right now, and the voting blocs that many people feared really haven't materialized. It means we now have representative government - thank goodness!

2. In the first 7 months, this commission has put a residential moratorium in place that has allowed us to do the following things:

A. Perform the first-ever infrastructure study in the county's history. We knew we had issues. We now know where, and how bad those issues are.

B. Suggest changes to our Unified Development Code that will slow the growth down in this county and provide real quality growth; not just larger homes on smaller lots. Some managed growth advocates are waffling a bit on previous stances, but we'll still get most of what the voters wanted when they put a majority on the board that would be dedicated to slower growth.

C. Put plans in place to add sewer and water capacity where needed.

D. Get a handle on which roads need to be improved, and give us a starting point for SPLOST project lists.

3. Put in place a budget that is expected to pass earlier (by three months) than any previous budget in the county's history. For the first time, the budget reflects an accurate picture of where money is to be raised and where it should be allocated. The budget focuses on addressing the shortfalls that previous commissions created in public safety funding, and no longer funds the Fire Department from the General Fund.

4. Purchased land for a future jail and Sheriff's headquarters building. No previous commission has ever entered into a bond vote with land guaranteed to house a jail. No previous commission has ever had final architectural plans in place in order to have a firm figure on what a jail might cost. We will before we go to the voters for a bond.

5. Put together a standardized package of financial incentives for businesses thinking of coming to Forsyth County.

6. Put rules in place that allow a minority of commissioners (whoever they may be at the time), to place items on an agenda for discussion.

7. Roads projects are moving forward or being completed.

8. Planning staff and inspectors are still doing their jobs.

9. Water is still flowing, and we have a better handle on usage and delivery than any previous commission.

10. We are researching where extra sources of groundwater might be present in the county to help us past short-term shortages.

In short, to paraphrase Benito Mussolini, "The trains are still running on time".

Now, what haven't we done that should have been done?

1. Hired a county manager. Now, to be fair, the county has been running just fine since Jeff Quesenberry resigned over a year ago. It has required a great deal of extra time by our Interim County Manager, department heads and fellow commissioners since then, with longer and extra meetings that have been needed to move things forward, but the work is getting done.

So what else isn't getting done? I don't know. Maybe some of you out there can tell me, or rather, us what you think. I'm just not getting any complaints from residents about things not getting done that they want done. Can't fix roads faster than we are doing due to limitations on SPLOST revenues. Same for park properties.

All in all, the complaints from some that we are lacking in accomplishments as a board ring pretty hollow when you look at the facts. However, some people just never let facts get in their way of a good complaint.

1/20/2007

Lack of honesty, ethics and principle mark County Manager loss

We lost a potentially great county manager candidate today.

Why did this happen?

Because two members of this commission can't put the needs of the county above their personal issues, and that is a very, very sad thing to witness.

In Thursday's issue of the FCN, Linda Ledbetter made an unusual statement: "Over the last seven months we had a lot of people who were more qualified than [Randall Dowling]." Oh, really? Let's look at the facts regarding the candidates interviewed for County Manager over the past seven months, shall we? Below is a table highlighting all the candidates considered during the past interview cycle for County Manager. The names have been omitted to protect those who didn't want them out in the public if they were not going to get the job. As any objective observer can see, Randall Dowling is head and shoulders above each and every candidate this commission interviewed.

Sammy Rich	Randall Dowling	Candidate A	Candidate B	Candidate C	Candidate D	Advantage
Assistant County Manager – 4 years	County Administrator – 4 years	County Administrator – 1 year	Elected official – 4 years	County Administrator – 2 years	County employee	Randall Dowling
Planner – 2 years	County Administrator – 6 years	Elected Official – 4 years	Private sector manager – 9 years	City Manager – 1 year	County employee	Randall Dowling
Planning Engineer – 6 months	Assistant County Administrator – 3 years	Private sector manager – 3 years	Private sector manager – 3 years	City Manager – 4 years	County employee	Randall Dowling
No	SPLOST planning	No	No	Yes	No	Randall Dowling, Candidate C
No	Supervised Jail Construction	No	No	No	No	Randall Dowling
No	Supervised Justice Center Construction	No	No	No	No	Randall Dowling
No	Supervised Fire Station Construction	No	No	Yes	No	Randall Dowling, Candidate C
Masters in Public Administration	Masters in Public Administration	No	No	Yes	No	Randall Dowling, Sammy Rich, Candidate C
No	Bachelors in Public Administration	No	No	No	No	Randall Dowling
Civil Service experience	No civil service experience	No civil service experience	No civil service experience	Civil Service experience	Limited civil service experience	Sammy Rich, Candidate C

So where is Linda Ledbetter coming from with her statement to the Forsyth County News? Lord knows, because I certainly don't. Certainly, the facts do not support her claim.

Now that we've handled part of the honesty factor, let's go a bit deeper into some ethics issues that have been raised as well.

In Friday's FCN, Brian Tam was "troubled" by Mr. Dowling withdrawing his application in the early round of interviews. Brian was also quoted as saying that "he could not disclose the reason Dowling gave for his indecision about the position since the issue was discussed in executive session."

That, my friends, is a lie. Not an omission, not a mistake, not an error.

It is a lie.

There have been no executive sessions where Mr. Dowling's reasons for his earlier withdrawal have been discussed. Until Friday morning, I didn't even know what Randall's earlier reason was until I asked him. More importantly, Mr. Dowling had never discussed the reason for his earlier withdrawal with any other county commissioner, and was never asked that question by Brian Tam or Linda Ledbetter during their interview of Randall Dowling. Maybe it was because, according to Mr. Dowling, these two commissioners asked him virtually no questions of any substance during his interview, and spent the vast majority of the time telling Mr. Dowling how Charlie Laughinghouse and I are bad people. Maybe, if he were asked, Mr. Dowling would have told these two commissioners about how he felt when he was disrespected by them during the first round of interviews, when he sat in our waiting room for over two hours waiting for one or the other of them to show up to interview him, finally being able to speak to me after I rushed back to the building from an appointment with the Corps of Engineers regarding Bethel Park. Maybe after being told to set aside two other days during the work week in order to meet with these two commissioners, Mr. Dowling might have felt that he wasn't being treated as someone should who is being sought after for such a position.

So if it was so important to Brian Tam, why wasn't the question asked? And why was it an issue now?

The answer speaks to the ethically-challenged nature of some members of this board. Two Saturdays ago (on Jan. 6th), Brian Tam sat in Charlie Laughinghouse's office and told Charlie that he (Brian) would vote for Randall Dowling, if Charlie would vote to keep Brian's aide. Note, he didn't say Brian's and Linda's aide; Brian was just concerned about his own personal comfort. More importantly, Brian was willing to sell the county's best interests down the river over his own personal needs and desires.

Charlie was, understandably, unwilling to sell his vote on this issue.

Not getting what he wanted, apparently Brian Tam has decided that since he can't get what he wants, it's time to get even. He knows that we have a reputation for replacing County Managers like we change underwear around here, so if he could make the candidate a bit skittish about coming here, he can make the new majority look bad. The only problem is that another candidate has now refused to come here, and especially considering the reasons why, we may never get a qualified person on board to run this county.

This is what happens when we elect people without a core set of principles. When you don't believe in anything but your own personal interests, you can't do the right thing when a tough decision comes to you. You may not make up stories about other candidates, as Linda Ledbetter has done. You may not create a fictional problem out of nothing, as Brian Tam has done. And you never try to sell your vote to the highest bidder - ever.

Oh, they'll try to spin this with more lies and bluster, but the facts are there for all to see. This wasn't a principled decision based on information known to them; it was one made purely out of spite and without any thought for the future of Forsyth County. The only reason Randall Dowling refused to come to Forsyth County was due to the fiction, lies, and lack of ethics by Brian Tam and Linda Ledbetter.

Their comfort over the county's needs. If they had any shame, they would be ashamed of themselves right now.

1/16/2007

Looks like we have ourselves a new County Manager!

Today we announced that Randall G. Dowling, current County Administrator of Gordon County, GA has agreed to release his name for the required 14-day notification period per Georgia law.

Through extensive negotiations with Chairman Charles Laughinghouse, myself and our county attorney, Ken Jarrard, we have found a person even more qualified than our previously announced candidate. Mr. Dowling has been a county and city administrator or assistant administrator for over 19 years, and brings a wealth of knowledge on SPLOST and bond financing. He has a proven track record of success, and in the majority of the board's estimation, is the right person to move Forsyth County forward by implementing our shared goals.

Pending successful completion of the 14-day notification period, I hope this board will unanimously approve Mr. Dowling and put the needs of the county first and foremost. We've gone too long without a dedicated county manager, and it's time to get experienced leadership in this position for years to come.

10/12/2006

I must have hit a another nerve . . .

The expected assault from the "It's for the children!" crowd came today, in the form of an unusually shrill response from the liberal group Citizens4kids, who is understandably championing the SPLOST and bond vote coming up this November. The good news is that I am already used to arguing with people who don't use facts to back their case (see Jon Flack), so this one is about as easy.

The response below in italics is from Julie Tressler, cheerleader for Citizens4kids, and supposed conservative Republican. We'll get into the supposed part later in her response to my posting against SPLOST. My responses will be in red. Notice throughout her whole rant, never once does she defend her position with anything but name calling. At least I provide facts when I have to defend my positions.

Mr. Richard,

As usual, I’m astounded at your willingness to put your hypocrisy into print.

Shades of Jon Flack! Start out by calling me names and claiming I am hypocritical of something. I'm assuming Julie means that I am two-faced in some way, but for the life of me, she doesn't even try to make that particular point. But hey, she can sure throw around the polysyllabic words, can't she?

Your latest rant about the SPLOST is pompous, presumptuous and offensive to the people (voters) of Forsyth County.

Yet, for some strange reason Julie, I can't find anything in my copy of the U.S. Constitution that protects you from being offended . . . Maybe that education I received isn't so bad after all, now is it? And by the way, do YOU speak for "the people (voters) of Forsyth County?" (see below)

For all your talk about how you are such a responsible, "for the people" politician, you certainly are out of touch. Let’s face it. You don’t represent the people of Forsyth County. You represent Dave Richard and that’s all you represent! I have news for you. You don’t speak for all of us.

Actually, technically, I DO represent the people of Forsyth County. Being elected by them makes that so. So frankly, I have a bit more of a leg to stand on in this particular argument than you do. However, to your point, when I speak, I do speak only for myself. It just so happens that I also happen to have a bunch of people that agree with me, as I am sure you do as well. However, I don't ever take criticism personally, unless someone lies about my position in doing so. Maybe you should take that same approach, otherwise, it makes your response sound a bit strident.

I’m part of the Citizens4Kids campaign that you are so quick to dismiss as a bunch of liberals. You couldn’t be more wrong on so many counts. I’m a conservative Republican and have been all my life. (Unfortunately, I’m having a little trouble identifying with my so-called party leaders in Forsyth County as of late. Libertarians in disguise, perhaps?)

Ooooh, the Libertarian thing again! Are you sure you aren't related to Jon Flack? Needless to say, the local Republican Party is filled with real conservatives that first and foremost believe in fiscal responsibility. We don't just believe in the things that matter to us, and dismiss the things that don't. You should come to one of the meetings and try introducing yourself to some of them sometime. I attend regularly - do you?

Citizens4Kids is just what the name implies…a bunch of CITIZENS! Remember us? We’re the ones you just finished insulting.

I don't insult citizens in general, just those that don't believe in accountability in their government for the sake of their own personal agendas - like being a real estate agent perhaps.

I’m not a politician. I don’t have any hidden agendas.

Gee, that's funny. I'm not a politician either (Politicians, in general, lie. I prefer elected official or public servant), and I don't have any hidden agendas, either. See, we DO have something in common! My agendas are up front for all to see, as you may have noticed.

I’m just a concerned parent who is forced to take on the task of educating other parents about the issues at stake here to combat ridiculous, self-serving, radical mentalities such as yours.

Forced? Who forced you? Are you saying that you are doing this under duress? Have you notified the Sheriff's office? Is that what happens when you drink the Kool-aid the school system serves to you? And please identify what self-serving and/or radical mentalities I may have shown to you.

While you’re busy pontificating from your elected throne and accomplishing nothing, I’m out talking to other parents all day long and guess what…we DO care about having state-of-the-art schools.

Before you go any further in stating things that are obviously untrue, you may wish to explore the "Accomplishments in Office" section on the navigation bar to the left. Always check your facts before engaging me in debate. I talk to parents as well, but I talk to parents who think independently and those who favor both sides. I don't just talk to a select few who happen to agree with my viewpoint.

And we DO care that our children need foreign language to get into college and to exist in today’s world (whether we like it or not, it’s reality). And we DO care about having school nurses…not because we’re irresponsible and send them to school sick (although thanks for the insult anyway!), but because many of them have asthma and diabetes and other illnesses that require monitoring and medication to be administered. They fall down, they get hurt, they have emergencies that teachers aren’t trained to deal with. We DO care about keeping up with technology and are not interested in educating our kids in three-room schoolhouses like you attended on your other planet.

On my other planet? Ouch, that hurt - not! I haven't had an argument like this since third grade. Yeah, you'd rather spend $63.6 million on a school that has a $1 million "international food court", right? There's a great use of MY tax dollars. I'm sure you're thrilled with the $5 million of your tax dollars spent previously for whiteboards that are only used by about 1/3 of all teachers, right? I'm sure the two football fields sound just fine to you, don't they? Ask your conservative Republican self if these expenditures are fiscally responsible. If you are being honest with yourself, the only answer is NO.

Oh yeah, and on the college thing? Not everyone needs or wants to go to college. Get your extra education for your children without putting the tax burden on the rest of us. Maybe if we focused on educating our children over fancy buildings, our test scores would be higher than Fulton County's.

It is well documented that our children are receiving a quality education in Forsyth County (one of the best in the State) and we DO care about keeping it that way.

Saying we are one of the best school systems in the state that consistently comes in near the bottom of the barrel nationwide is like saying your child is the tallest in a room full of short people (and no, I'm not insulting short people here!). For a county that is consistently in the upper echelons of per capita income across the nation, we sure have a big problem ponying up our own tax dollars for our own kid's education. And if we have the income and education levels to justify a good school system, why aren't we demanding better standards ABOVE the national average, rather than proclaiming how good we are against the bottom?

We hold our educational system here to a high standard and they have consistently delivered against overwhelming odds, despite what you would like to mislead people to believe. We DO care if our schools are overcrowded from the uncontrolled growth in our county and we are smart enough to realize that it takes money to build new schools to house these children. It has to come from somewhere. We would rather it come from SPLOST money than have our property taxes raised and our property values decline just so you can prove your misguided point.

First of all, no one has ever said that it doesn't take money to build new schools. I just want it spent more wisely first. And please prove your point about property values declining. There is no evidence that property values decline in any county that funds their own education system, either through sales or property taxes. Stop the uninformed scare tactics that liberals love to use to get folks to increase government spending.

You talk of punishing the schools and teaching them a lesson…who exactly are you punishing, Mr. Richard? The children of Forsyth County? The CITIZENS that you claim to represent?

See under my plan, Julie, no one gets punished. The excessive amount we pay for new construction goes down, we still build the schools we need in the short term, and we get fiscal responsibility along the way in the long term. All good things conservative Republicans actually believe in (just in case you didn't know that). What I don't do is jump on the "spend any amount of money on any conceivable plan we can come up with because it is for the children" bandwagon. I look to make government more efficient and more cost effective, and I actually do it. So here are a couple of questions for you:

1. Have you ever, even once in your life, ever questioned the excessive spending habits of this or any past school administration?

2. If the growth pattern of the school system hasn't ever grown more than 9% per year in the past 6 years, and a new Board of Commissioners has been elected to slow the growth down in this county, and the developers in this county claim that many of the supposedly 40,000 homes already rezoned will not be built due to economic and other reasons, why are you willing to believe the school board when they claim that school enrollment will increase 13% per year?

3. If you ARE willing to admit that they are expecting too many students than they claim, why aren't you demanding that they scale back the size of these buildings BEFORE you give them any more money?

You’re certainly not punishing Paula Gault, although you seem hell-bent on doing so. If you ask me, she and the Board of Education have done a better job managing the consequences of the undesirable growth in the county than our esteemed Board of Commissioners.

Hey, give us a chance. We just this past election got a majority on board to control the growth, and we don't get to start until January.

Perhaps when she retires from her current position she’d be willing to take on your job? I’d vote for her in a heartbeat over the likes of you. Her track record is much more impressive.

I'd take that challenge in a minute.

Julie Tressler
Citizens4Kids Chairperson
Concerned parent of a 4th and a 6th grader in Forsyth County Schools
Homeowner, taxpayer, business owner and registered voter in Forsyth County

Come at me with facts, Julie, not name-calling. Go ahead, poke holes in my charges with information, not the shrill cry of the uninformed. Justify the excesses, the false information the school system is using, and tell me why the plan I propose to fix this problem won't work in your mind. I don't think you can. You sure didn't do a very good job here.

And by the way, your credentials don't trump anything of mine, for I am a concerned parent of a 11th and a 12th grader in Forsyth County Schools, and a
homeowner, taxpayer, business owner and registered voter in Forsyth County as well.

10/2/2005

Now I guess I'm really on the right track

Update: Apparently, Mr. Flack has had a bit of trouble actually defending his characterization of my performance, in that he has failed again to refute any FACTS stated on this website, which is OK, because as we know, Democratic leadership certainly never relies on facts, just disinformation.

Needless to say, the five or ten people who read their website have been treated to what seems to be an endorsement of both Jack Conway as chairman, and the school board's actions in endorsing special elections. Frankly, if that is their strategy for next year's elections, I hold little hope for either Jack's, or any school board members re-election.

But thanks for the laughs this week, Jon. We've been having a whole lot of fun with the Commissioner Hothead thing around town. It shows how little you know about this county and it's leaders, and that is just fine with me. Someday, maybe, you'll screw up the courage to call me or meet me so that you can actually know who and what you are talking about. I'm not holding my breath, though.

It is said that you are known not for the friends you have, but rather for your enemies. Well, I must be doing a great job, because our local Democratic Party hack, Jon Flack, thinks I am a hothead and that my policies are wrong because I'm on the losing side of 3-2 votes so often.

Let's see where I have been on the losing end of 3-2 or 4-1 votes during this year, and see if Jon has anything right. Bet you can't guess where this one is going . . .

Losing votes:

Approving Jack Conway for Chairman - Need I say any more?

My first choice for Planning Commission - Yeah, I'll take the hit for that, but we're better off for it with my second choice.

Conducting a Tree Canopy Study - You're not saying that we shouldn't have done this study, are you, Jon? What will your Democratic base say about you not thinking it was good policy to try to protect our tree cover? How was this wrong policy, especially since the county didn't have to pay a dime for it?

Aides and Cars - Why should I spend taxpayer dollars when I don't need to, Jon?

Click It or Ticket resolution - I just don't think random stopping of cars is Constitutional according to the original Framers' idea of how this country was formed. Do you want government to stop you for any reason that is not harming anyone else, Jon? I don't. But that's right, you're a Democrat, and you want government in our pockets every day.

Helipad approval - Sorry, but I just don't think adding a place where helicopters can take off and land near an existing power substation is a good idea. Do you, Jon?

Sewer agreement with the City of Cumming - Boy, am I ever glad you didn't get into office when you ran, Jon. You probably would have voted for a bill you hadn't seen before that evening, hadn't had a chance to read, and ended up costing Forsyth County about $1 million dollars more than our previous agreement. Smart move, Jon.

Violations of the Land Use Map - Sorry, but if you think that violating my campaign promises is a good idea, I'm content to disagree with you, Jon. If you think managing our growth is a bad policy, Jon, it is no wonder you lost so stunningly last year.

Commissioner pay raise - I'm proud to be on the losing end of this vote. Are you saying it is good policy to triple your own salary at the taxpayer's expense, Jon? Not me.

So, constantly on the losing end of 3-2 votes, Jon? If you take away the many losing votes on the Land Use, you come up with 8 losing votes since my term began. That's it, Jon. Eight. And I'll bet you'd have a hard time defending any one of those approvals as being good for the county. But we wouldn't know that, because you've never spoken to the county commission on any issue, or floated any proposed legislation to us in your tenure as Democratic Party Chairman. Go ahead, Jon, tell us which policy I mentioned above that you would have supported.

But hey, let's not focus on the negative here. Jon also claims that I am ineffective, too. Let's look at my policies that have passed so far this year:

Fire Ordinance improvements - A much better ordinance designed to protect our citizens in public places, and to protect our firefighters from the unknown in commercial buildings. I'll stand by this one, Jon.

FLIP program - Passed unanimously, Jon. Has already saved about $200k in taxes that you no longer have to pay. Think that one is wrong, Jon?

Public comments moved to the beginning of meetings - You're not for closed government, are you, Jon? I'm not, and am proud to be behind this move.

Killing the Sign Kiosk program - Sorry, but my copy of the Constitution doesn't protect us from clutter of our own making. This program needed to be killed.

S-Curve realignment - Not my district, but my suggestion was adopted that did not reward a developer their way at the expense of the county and private residents.

Holding developers to the Land Use Map - In my district we have consistent, reasoned policies on how we should develop our county, with simple conditions that protect the landowner and the community without injecting government in the building business. Ask both sides of this issue how effective my policies have been.

Pine Lake Dam litigation end - I was the first to move we end this nightmare, and guess what, Jon, we did.

Commission Election changes - Guess who brought this to an end this year, Jon? You bet.

SB-5 lobbying efforts - I helped convince Sen. Stephens to pull his support for this lousy bill.

And all this done by a first-term commissioner in his first nine months. And there is still more to come later this year, hopefully with the end to the Business Occupancy Tax in 2006. So this time, Jon, pay attention.

Now, as to Jon's assertion that I am a "hothead". It would carry much more weight if Jon had actually met me or even spoken to me in his short time as a resident of this county. He hasn't. He might try to talk to the people in the Administration Building I work with on a weekly or daily basis, or the residents and citizens I have helped over the past year in my role as county commissioner. He might also learn the definition of the word "rhetoric", the first of which is the art of speaking or writing effectively.

You see, Jon, its easy to complain about something or someone when you don't actually do anything else. Its easy to carp about things in the local paper, knowing that they won't call you on your inaccuracies, or that you won't have to defend yourself in an actual debate. There is a reason why you couldn't get 30% of the vote when you ran for the state house. You were wrong on the issues, and you were wrong on the facts; just as you are wrong now.

But if you'd actually like to meet the person you know so little about, you can call me at home at 678-947-6152, or set up an appointment to come by and meet me. I'm available to all my constituents, as even the ones who disagree with me already know.

9/25/2005

Clearing up some wrong information

Once again, a resident of this county chooses to spout off on something he knows nothing about, basing his thoughts on one newspaper article and nothing else. Actually, in this case it is two residents, but one in particular proves to be especially uninformed. And once again, the joy is in being able to respond to the accusations publicly on a weekly basis, rather than wait a month for my turn at the paper. It is worthy to note that neither man bothered to call me or anyone else involved with this story before writing their letters, which makes you wonder where their true motivations lie. And by the way, guys, I've done my research through our roads and planning department, had discussions with our appointed attorney, our county manager, and ALL the affected neighbors concerning this issue, including the Hansards. Who have YOU talked to in order to be informed about this?

So for Mr. Joe Aeschliman and especially for Mr. Scott Simmons, this one's for you!

First of all, to Mr. Simmons assertions, since they are so numerous and so completely wrong:

His accusation that I alone am responsible for taking the county down a path he doesn't like is ridiculous. No one commissioner can, by law, determine policy or direction. We are a board of five, and a majority of commissioners must agree before any action is taken. Sorry, Scott, but you are wrong right off the bat.

Next, his hope that an alternative plan would be implemented. Do you think we just make up these actions without attempting alternatives? Yeah, Scott, we just sit in executive session and say, "Gee, who can we slap a stop work order on today?" Get real, Scott. We tried negotiating with all parties, especially the Hansards, but they didn't want to even attend negotiating sessions in an attempt to compromise. You're two for two, Scott.

To Scott's third assumption that CA's Trail is just a trail, wrong again. It is a county-maintained right-of-way. If this were a baseball game, you'd be out on strikes, Scott.

Fourth accusation: My doing this for "political purposes". What political purposes, Scott? Could you be a bit more specific? Have you completely ignored what has occured over the first 9 months of my term, or have you not been paying attention at all? I don't play favorites, Scott. With anyone. I don't bow down to the good 'ol boy network, or anybody else, including residents who think they know something they actually don't. I concern myself with the law, and what is right.

To Scott's fifth assertion that we'd like more tax revenues from a large house, I say this: I don't give a damn about increased tax revenues. My only concern is with the rights of ALL property owners, including the county's rights to public access. Money and the tax value of your home doesn't buy you any more rights than anyone else; at least not in District 4.

As to both men's assertion that the county attorney is involved in this case, they seem to be either taking the word of the Hansard's attorney, who wrongly thinks that she is driving any actions on this board's part. Either that, or they each have some personal animosity towards one member of our county's legal firm. In any case, all three are wrong. From day one, we have had an independent attorney from a completely separate law firm handling this matter, with specific instructions on who he can and can't talk to. He can't talk to anyone associated with the Jarrard and Davis law firm - period.

On the final couple of points (and if this were a fight, it would have been stopped in the third round), it may come as a shock to these two gentlemen, but government doesn't always do things right every time. We do occasionally make mistakes. What prompted our discovery of this issue was when the Hansards filed for a variance to a wall height they were proposing to build. At that point, when it was clear that their intention was to build a solid structure where none previously was, we found the right-of-way, which was confirmed by neighboring property owners. So, sorry, but the Davis thing doesn't hunt here, either.

Bottom line, we are not a party in any personal property dispute between neighbors, we are simply defending our contention that we have a right-of-way to protect. It is no different than if someone tried to close off the end of any street in Forsyth County, simply because they had the attitude and money to do so. You wouldn't expect us to just let that happen, and frankly, you'd be outraged if we did.

So Joe and Scott, next time try to not embarass yourselves so publicly by writing on something about which you clearly do not know anything. And maybe you should try to get your information from more than just the FCN, or the Hansards. But on a final note, maybe Nancy Roche had a point when she said she only wanted informed people to vote in elections . . . .