MCCSC School Board Out Of Line

At the September 20th MCCSC Budget meeting the Board’s President, Sue Wanzer failed miserably at one of the greatest responsibilities of a School Board Member, listening. Instead of creating an environment that is conducive to open and constructive dialog she created a hostile and unproductive atmosphere that accomplished absolutely nothing. The day after the meeting the Herald Times reported that a group of individuals presented a petition to the School Board that opposed the current budget proposal. What the Herald Times failed to report was the tantrum that Ms. Wanzer threw when she interrupted one of the petitioners asking him for his “source” for the data that was being presented in his handout. She then went so far as claiming the data was invalid because the source was not documented. As if this interruption wasn’t enough what happened next was truly beyond comprehension for an elected official, she ripped the petitioners report in half and threw it in the air in protest.

Several days have passed and the MCCSC or the Board President, which only exacerbates the situation, has offered no apology. Whether or not she agreed with the petitioners has virtually nothing to do with her actions. The School Board is elected and charged with the duty to represent the voters of the community in all school related matters and everyone of the people in attendance that evening that opposed the budget were voters. This “know it all” attitude is so very typical from the MCCSC School Board and unfortunately it only perpetuates the negative feelings many taxpayers have against them. On so many occasions this group has failed and failed miserably at validating their requests and presenting solid evidence and justification for their budget. This failure stems from their lack of even the most basic understanding of the budget. All too often they are simply mimicking what they have been told by engineers of this train wreck, more money equals better education. Rarely if ever do you hear a probing question about the budget from a MCCSC Board Member. They have an inherent fear that people will think badly of them or worse yet label them as unsupportive of public education.

The MCCSC budget is huge and it has an equally huge impact on the taxpaying citizens of this county therefore it is only fair that people have the opportunity to question and even oppose this budget if they so choose. For the MCCSC School Board to digress to a point where it fails to listen to constituents of the community it has failed the community and furthermore it has failed our children. The School Board should be setting the example for the rest of the school community to follow as I am doubtful this type of behavior would ever be tolerated from their students. Ms. Wanzer has proven she does not possess the proper skills and attitude required to be an effective leader. Her “take it or leave it” attitude, first about the sex survey and now about the budget shows she is both closed minded and unyielding, two unbecoming traits of a public official. All too often officials of the MCCSC have taken on an ultra ego that gets in the way of them doing their job. Unfortunately they quickly forget they are supposed to be holding “public” meetings where everybody is treated with respect, whether they agree with them or not. The children of the MCCSC deserve better and should not have to suffer the consequences of a dysfunctional School Board.

GOP Maps Better Than Current Maps!

The Herald Times recently did a one hundred and eighty degree about face by admitting the new GOP proposed Council district maps were a significant improvement over the current maps. This article validates everything the GOP has been working on by letting the people decide for themselves without the influence of political propaganda. Now that the average citizen has had an opportunity to look at the two maps side by side anyone with half of a functioning brain realizes just how gerrymandered the 2001 Democrat maps were. The outcry from within the Republican Party to correct these maps went on for far too long. The new maps have a significant reduction in the population deviation and make huge leaps in improving compactness. As for the recommendation of map one that would pit two seated Council members against each other over map two that separates the two of them it would appear the HT favors on the side of the voters by supporting map one.

Pat Williams the lone Democrat on the three person Redistricting Committee once again offered her biased views on the subject by indicating she was unaware of a reason to redistrict and further adding she was disappointed that it wasn’t being done with a bipartisan committee like it was done in 2001. First of all its doubtful anyone in the Democrat camp would have complained since the maps were drawn in their favor in three of the four districts, that’s a widely known and accepted fact. The Republicans have been peeved since 2001 but no one in the Party wanted to take on the responsibility to correct it until now. As for the bipartisan committee in 2001 that is as laughable as Bill Clinton’s “define sex” question. In 2001 there were two Democrats and one Republican, which was Jim Fielder, and he had the same amount of input then as Pat Williams had this time around. As for the comments about the mid-decade redistricting setting a bad precedent, it’s widely known that it would be extremely difficult for the Democrats to improve on these maps and that’s why they were making such a big deal about it now. If they make some attempt at redistricting again anytime soon and they cannot make valid argument for their attempt at an improvement they will only be setting themselves up for a legal battle they know that can’t win.

At this point the Democrats will have to retreat and lick their wounds as they have lost all hope of convincing the public of their position on redistricting now that the HT slammed the door in their face. Politics is like chess; some play it better than others and in this instance the Republicans played it like a master. Move after move, timing and strategy were all on their side. Now it’s up to the Commissioners to follow through with what they started and like the HT apparently most people agree with option one for the County Council districts. Politics is politics and the Democrats have had winner take all attitudes for some time, its time the Republicans learn to reciprocate. Former Chairman John Shean was apparently offered little help from the former leadership and in a short while he was able to rebuild the structure of the Party from the ground up. Now, with that foundation in place, the new Chairman will have that advantage should he choose to utilize it. The Republicans in Monroe County are slowly learning you can’t be complacent and play fair when your opposition chooses not to.

Councilwoman Travis Votes Against Cook Abatement / New Jobs

Last Tuesday the Monroe Council met and took action on a tax abatement request from Cook Incorporated, one of, if not the largest employer in Monroe County. The abatement request was to support a major expansion of Cook at the Park 48 site, which is reported to include up to 250 new jobs. At the meeting Democrat Council President Mark Stoops along with Vice President Sophia Travis and member Michael Woods each took their turn attempting to convince people that tax abatements do not have an impact on jobs. What should have been a slam-dunk took over an hour for the Democrats to test their support for voting against the proposal. The vote eventually came with a six to one count in favor of the abatement with Travis being the lone opposing vote.

With the Democrats posturing against the abatement what kind of message does this send one of the County’s largest employers? Does it say we are as committed to you as you are to us? Does it say we truly appreciate the millions of dollars you contribute to our local economy? It’s appalling this discussion ever took place. The Council members should have each taken their turn at showing their appreciation for Cook and all of the wonderful things they have done and are continuing to do for our community. For Travis to suggest that Cook doesn’t pay enough to its base hourly employees is absurd. Between the pay and the benefit package for these hourly positions it’s certainly up among the best locally and furthermore those jobs are direly needed and should be welcomed with open arms. Who are they to suggest Cook would expand here with or without the abatement? Who are they to micromanage Cook Incorporated by suggesting they should pay more to their employees?

What the opponents to the abatement fail to recognize is the variety of supporting salaried employees that will benefit from this expansion and by including their pay along with the base hourly jobs the average wage per hour will obviously be significantly higher. With length of employment increases and incentive pay even the base jobs stack up well against other local employers. When more and more companies are cutting their cost by eliminating benefits like health insurance Cook remains committed to a fairly generous employee benefit package. Trying to understand why these three Council members felt compelled to disregard all of the benefits this expansion brings and degrade the process is difficult to understand. With this display however it only proves what many have feared for some time. They have little or no understanding of business, how it works, its value to a community or how they have to compete in today’s global economy. While they attempt to convince those with high paying jobs that low paying jobs are not important they should try selling that to the working class people working two jobs without any benefits or health insurance.

These Democrats need to come down off their ivory tower and see how the other half lives by representing the working class that used to make up the majority of the local Democrat voters. They should realize when more people are employed that directly relates to an increased demand for new homes. These employees will need a place to raise their family and buy groceries. More homes equal more property taxes as well as more fuel for the local economy. Voters will not soon forget this blunder!

Saddle Up and Let's Ride!

At last weeks GOP caucus something interesting happened, something quite unexpected actually. What happened was what some precinct committee persons called a “record turn out” among the eligible voters with several more interested bystanders in tow turned out to elect a new Chairman. This record turn out obviously showed there is a huge amount of interest in the local GOP. Is it possible a sleeping giant has awoken? As expected there were two qualified candidates vying for the hot seat in local politics, Dan Aiken and Franklin Andrew. They both entered the race relying on their own strengths, each possessing their own brand of charisma and style. Aiken was proposing something closer to a corporate business structure or attitude with structure and accountability. Andrew on the other hand was touting more of a bravado “gitter done” style.

Another thing happened that I think surprised many in attendance. The vote wasn’t even close, reportedly sixty votes for Andrew with twenty for Aiken. Many had expected a much closer race with the possibility of two or even three ballots. With the outcome being so lopsided it avoided the typical party split within factions that usually occurs after a close election. In other words the outcome actually provided a healing of sorts and unified most of the party in one camp. I’m sure there are those with a more moderate outlook on local politics that have concerns about the outcome but it appears even they are willing to give someone else a chance to bring home the bacon. With so many party regulars showing up at the election and if they will just stay involved throughout Andrew’s tenure it certainly offers hope for the future.

It’s possible someone like Franklin Andrew is just what the GOP needed. As he lists his occupation as a horse breeder maybe he can utilize those skills and coral the wild mustangs that have pulled the GOP in different directions over the last few years. Next years election is right around the corner and it will be a good litmus test for his brand of leadership especially since he is fulfilling a term that will expire in early 2007. If Chairman Andrew can concentrate his efforts on winning the majority of local races next year by dividing his time and loyalty between that and the Sodrel campaign its possible the majority of the GOP will hitch there horses to his wagon and ride it to victory in 2007 and as we all know that would truly be an accomplishment.

Accountability In Politics

As many are already aware our county is slated to have one additional Judge / Court appointed by the Governor in 2006. The need for this additional court was sold to the citizens of Monroe County as a virtual necessity with a price tag of around $400,000 a year. The decision to move forward with the request was based on the cost estimate provided by the Judges to the County Council. As the reality of the new Court draws near the actual anticipated cost of the new Court has been elevated to a whopping $1.7 million, four times the original estimate. When questioned about the difference between the original estimate and the real cost few acceptable responses were offered. The reality is citizens and County officials were sold the new court with a seriously underestimated budget and furthermore had the real cost of the new courts been used it is highly unlikely we would be anticipating a new court anytime soon.

It has been suggested the County Council failed to probe the Judges proposal to discover that it only included the cost of the Court and failed to recognize all of the additional support staff and expenses that would be required should the proposal be implemented. The additional costs are to include staff for the County Clerk, Prosecutor, Public Defender, Probation Department and or Sheriff’s Department. That oversight by itself is unacceptable but what is even more discouraging is now the current estimated cost for just the Court’s portion of the budget is $719,000 almost double what was originally proposed. Why do you ask, it appears they failed to properly anticipate the cost of facilities to house the court plus some other associated costs they conveniently overlooked in the original proposal?

What I fail to understand is why we elect individuals to represent us and then fail to hold them accountable for their incompetence. In the private sector businesses are held accountable by consumers through a variety of outlets the least of which is the conscious choice of deciding to do business with any given firm at any given time. If we are cheated or treated badly we tend to decide if the product or service is worth the additional cost and make our purchases accordingly. However, in Government we tend to accept being treated poorly simply because the cost of their oversight is being spread over a larger group. If a local car repair facility provided an estimate for repairing your vehicle of $400 and when you went to pick up your car the actual cost was closer to $719 my guess is the average person would be outraged. Why would someone be upset at the car repair shop when your elected officials do this on a daily basis? The only logical answer is with the car repair the additional cost will be borne solely by you? Should we be any less outraged when our new Court’s estimated cost escalated from $400,000 to $719,000 than we are about a car repair being $719 rather than $400, after all its just a matter of moving the decimal point around?

Elections are unfortunately more about personality than they are about capability and until that changes we will always be faced with near voluntary governance and little or no accountability. People should be outraged when elected officials fail to perform their duties and recognize their responsibility to the citizens they represent. When elected officials reward departmental oversight with the allocation of additional funding beyond the original cost estimate or budget they’re simply perpetuating a system of offering incentives for negative behavior and poor performance. Currently departments are rewarded for submitting false or poorly prepared budgets. The motivation is oversell the concept and undersell the price with the reward being additional funding when needed. In our current dilemma our Council was faced with funding an additional court at a cost that was up to four times higher than the original estimate. Somehow our elected officials feel compelled to make up for this incompetence by throwing additional funding at their feet. Occasionally it would do the system good to just say, we’re sorry but you’ll just have to figure out how to run your department with the funds that you requested, nothing more and nothing less. You told us you need $400,000 and that’s how much you get. We all bear the cost of these oversights and it’s just a matter of moving the decimal point to figure out how much it costs each of us individually.

The County's Budget, Hardly The Bear Necessities!

Last Thursday evening the Monroe County Council voted to approve the 2006 budget. The budget was approved with a five to two vote, Republicans Marty Hawk and Trent Jones with the dissenting votes. Perennial complainer David Grubb spoke at the public comment segment to castigate members of the Council in his own special way, unfortunately Mr. Grubb was not the only irrational item on the agenda. The Council approved a budget with a $6.9 million increase or 15% increase over last year. Other than Mr. Grubb no one else showed up to oppose the proceedings, just the type of mandate that has lead to this ridiculously inflated budget. The other big disappointment of the evening was Council Member Sue (I’m not a politician) West voted with the Democrats. The budget would have passed without her vote so it is unclear what motivated her to ally with the side of this liberal spending machine.

The Democrats hailed the budget as one of the best in years with an unprecedented level of input and cooperation. With a four to three majority it appears the Democrats provided the input and the Republicans provided the cooperation. The concerns are vast and many as we enter an era under Democrat control. Concern was shown but certainly not heeded about the dangerous practice of spending down cash reserves to the tune of one million dollars. Formerly the Auditors office under the able leadership of Barb Clark provided the County with a healthy cash balance, one that cushioned against the need to borrow to meet the County’s obligations through the lean months leading up to the States mid-year dispersement. If Barb Clark were still the Auditor I'm sure you would have heard her chastising the Council for even thinking of such an ill-advised scheme. Instead with Newmann at the helm in the Auditor’s office the rough seas are rising faster than the Council’s 2006 budget as she offered little opposition to the process.

With the bite of a rabid pit bull one item that is going to take a chunk out of next years funding plan is the county's fleet maintenance budget. Ignoring soaring fuel costs, the council in all its infinite wisdom approved a 2006 budget that is actually $13 less than the current budget. All the while being faced with $3.00 a gallon fuel and knowing the current budget is already on empty with four months still to go. While the Democrats were straining Thursday to pat themselves on the back for this budget it was done knowing it has more holes in it than a roll of Swiss cheese. When the County’s fleet budget is depleted and it can no longer fuel the trucks to plow the roads we can all thank this Council for all of its hard work and then swallow hard when they force an additional appropriation on us.

The newly elected Democrats ran in the last election on a platform of increased spending in the area of social services. They came through on their promises and in a big way with a $300,000 increase in funding for Options for Better Living. Many voters had reasonable expectations their promises would be kept by offsetting expenses or cost savings in other areas but that certainly wasn’t the case. Their vote was never meant to be a mandate for unlimited spending but when the County’s budget exceeds the annual cost of living index by double digits you can bet someone didn’t do their homework. A good question to be asked at this point is how many people will have a 15% increase in their income next year, likely very few? Remember regardless of what the tax rate is in 2006 it is being artificially buoyed by cash reserves. Whether your feeding the budget or feeding a bear, once you start feeding it, it never goes away and it just keeps getting bigger.

The Next GOP Chairman

Following the resignation of GOP Chairman John Shean, much information is being circulated, some factual and some less than factual, about potential candidates for upcoming caucus when the precinct committee men and women will elect Monroe County’s next GOP Chairman. The one fact that has come out of all of this is the Caucus will be held at the GOP headquarters September 12th at 7:30 in the evening. Another fact that has come out is that precinct committeeman Franklin Andrew has announced his candidacy and is actively campaigning for the opening. Reportedly Mr. Andrew narrowly lost to John Shean in the last caucus about a year and half ago. Another fact is that Vice Chairman and current acting Chairman Amy Marie Travis has made it known she will not be seeking the job full time. Probably a smart move on her part as her job in the Prosecutors office would undoubtedly suffer under the demands of County Chairman. The only other people on the Central Committee currently are Andy Dodds, Treasurer and Bryan Lemonds, Secretary, no official word yet on either of them as a potential candidate. Either would probably be worthy candidates but history has not been kind politically to former Chairman and word is they are both interested in future public service.

Currently with the announcement of just one candidate, Franklin Andrew has got the jump on others at this point as it was reported he was actively seeking support the day after Mr. Shean’s announcement. Some within the Party are concerned about his close ties to Leo Hickman, Bud Bernitt and the far right ultra conservative faction of the party. Mr. Andrew does have an advantage of several years of political involvement with various campaigns including his own although it is reported that his lack of involvement in the local party since Shean took office is a concern.

The only other name with any credence that has currently surfaced in the rumor mill is Dan Aiken, a current precinct committeeman and former campaign chairman for Andy Dodds’ unsuccessful bid for County Council in 2004. Mr. Aiken a relative new comer in local politics has been very visible over the last year taking on many responsibilities within the Party’s structure. His supporters are reportedly more moderate and would probably include most of the current elected office holders.

As Paul Harvey says, and now for the rest of the story, rumors are furiously circulating in both camps as the jockeying among potential candidates are underway. As phone calls are being made and alliances formed word on the street is apparently the Democrats are already requesting background information on current and rumored candidates. I’m sure they would like nothing more than to see someone with a sordid past elected as Chairman. This certainly is something worthy of further consideration, as most people would agree a County Chairman’s past needs to be squeaky clean. Hopefully anyone with a checked past would avoid dragging the party down that road.

The Monroe County GOP is at a virtual crossroads, its lack of success in the last city election and more recently the county election gives serious concern for the direction of the GOP under new leadership. The Chairman’s job is by in large a thankless and horrific drain on a persons time. Everyone has different expectations, some of which are virtually unachievable. Citizens of Bloomington and Monroe County are not as likely as they once were to vote straight ticket which is why many believe its important to find a leader that will appeal to those closer to the center politically. Someone less radical and more moderate would also appeal to a broader range of potential candidates for future GOP tickets. Hopefully those that will get the opportunity to vote will ask the tough questions that need to be asked. What have they done in the past, what are they doing presently and where they plan to take us in the future? Will they have the time and resources to devote to this most important position? Which candidate will give the GOP its best chance to win? Are they seeking the job because they truly want to move the party forward or is there an ulterior motive? It’s possible other candidates will surface at the eleventh hour but regardless it’s a tough post to fill and good candidates will more than likely be in short supply.