NEWS FLASH: HAS JUDGE MURNER DONE IT AGAIN?

By: Dewey R. Wotring

Has Duane Murner done it again, that is, has he held an illegal meeting of the Fiscal Court for the third time in his short career as an elected official? You would think that Murner, who claims to be a Harvard graduate, would not be a slow learner. However, it is beginning to look as though that is just exactly what he is. On the other hand, if he is not a slow learner, is he just devious, underhanded, or-well you know all the other terms that could be used to describe him?

I have received a copy of Murner's response to the allegation by Magistrate Scott Davis in which Davis claimed that Murner conducted a meeting in violation of the open meetings law. There is the old saying that "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you are guilty, than to open it and remove all doubt". In my opinion, Murner's response has removed all doubt. Murner states that he could have used two other sections of law to conduct the meeting. The obvious question that comes to mind is: Why didn't he use those sections of law? This statement alone is evidence that Murner discussed issues outside personnel.

As for discussing the possibility of hiring or firing sewer district employees, it is my opinion that that decision should be made by the sewer district board who pays the employees. Further, Murner had already mentioned in open court that he was considering the possibility of two private vendors taking over the sewer district. Therefore, any employee of average intelligence would have immediately known that there was a possibility that they would lose their job or that the conditions of their employment were likely to change. After all, if everything were going all right, there would be no need to consider a private vendor.

Yes, the public was made aware of the legal basis for the closed session. However, Murner has admitted that the session went far beyond the discussion of personnel. Although I do not know what was discussed during the closed session, I suspect that much more was discussed than what Murner has admitted to in his response to magistrate Scott Davis. There is just something that Judge Murner seems to like about secrecy. In addition to the illegal closed sessions in which he has been involved he refuses to make public the identity of the secret donor to the county. My bet is, that he will be forced in the very near future to disclose the name of that donor. If one penny of taxpayer money is wasted trying to defend any action to conceal the name of that donor, in light of the recent Kentucky State Supreme Court decision, the people of Oldham County should demand the resignation of Judge Murner. I am sure we will be hearing more about that here at oldhamcountywatchdog.com.

DOES BOYLE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JACKASS AND AN ELEPHANT?

Dewey R. Wotring

 

I have recently posted an article about Shawn Boyle’s presentation to the Oldham County Fiscal Court regarding the tax rate being considered by the court.  As a result of the article, I received an email from Boyle in which he called me a “jackass.” Boyle took the liberty of preparing the email on the taxpayer’s time and sending it at the expense of the taxpayers from his Oldham County government email account.

 

Now, most people know that the donkey (jackass) represents the democratic party and the elephant represents the republican party.  Since I am a registered republican, how could I possibly be a jackass? 

OCEDA REPORT TO FISCAL COURT

By:  Dewey R. Wotring

 

On September 16, 2008, Joe Schoenbachler, the executive director of the Oldham County Economic Development Agency (OCEDA) appeared before the Oldham County Fiscal Court for the purpose of updating the court on the activities of OCEDA.

 

Schoenbachler tried to dazzle the court with charts and graphs.  He went on to explain the position which Oldham County is in from an economic standpoint and he used much of his presentation explaining what the targeted industries for Oldham County were and how they had selected these industries.

 

However, what appeared to be on the mind of some of the magistrates was what OCEDA had actually done to bring industry into the county.  More specifically, Magistrate Iva Davis wanted to know if OCEDA had any brochures to present to prospective clients.  Apparently shortly after taking office she had questioned Schoenbachler about the availability of a brochure for prospective clients.  At that time, Schoenbachler apparently had assured her that a brochure was in the making. Now, several months later, Magistrate Iva Davis wanted to know if the brochure was available, however Schoenbachler responded that it still was not.  When pressed on the issue by Magistrate Iva Davis, Schoenbachler stated that there were more pressing issues such as community development and infrastructure. Magistrate Iva Davis asked Schoenbachler if OCEDA were to be approached by a prospective business, would they have any materials to give to the company?  Schoenbachler stated that OCEDA does not have anything to give to a prospective business right now.

 

Magistrate Iva Davis pointedly ask Schoenbachler what OCEDA was doing at the present time to attract businesses.  Schoenbachler stated that they were trying to make sure that their web site was available, that their contact information with the state was properly maintained, and they were trying to maintain the relationships with businesses that we have because most jobs are created by existing businesses within the community.

 

Magistrate Voegele wanted to know if the OCEDA was waiting for people to come to them or was OCEDA being aggressive and trying to showcase Oldham County.  Schoenbachler responded by saying, “We don't have a significant marketing plan together right now.  We don't have any fancy brochures and that type of thing that we send out to people.”  He said that OCEDA had not done a good job of going after industries in the past since 2000.  (Yes, that's right, eight years)

 

When asked by Voegele about creating an “incubator business” to help entrepreneurship Schoenbachler responded that a typical incubator business needed about 30,000 square feet of space while a lot of entrepreneurs were not looking for space because they could work out of their homes. Thus, rather than seeking space, they were looking for other assistance.

 

Magistrate Scott Davis requested that future presentations show what results have been accomplished by OCEDA.  He also expressed his concern about the lack of any marketing material.  He said that OCEDA should be able to do more than manage a web site and maintain contacts with the state.

 

It does not appear that the county is receiving much for their investment in OCEDA.  To me, it was apparent that Schoenbachler’s presentation was more about smoke and mirrors than it was about accomplishments.  The three magistrates who questioned Schoenbachler are to be commended for their efforts. What is sad though is that after eight years of doing a poor job of going after industry, is the fact that other Magistrates and the County Judge did not question Schoenbachler.  Isn’t it time that his feet are held to the fire?   Shame on the rest of the Fiscal Court members if they continue to approve financial support in the future for OCEDA if the return on investment isn’t greatly improved.   

MURNER'S PENCHANT FOR SECRECY

By: Dewey R. Wotring

 

The Courier-Journal Newspaper reported today that Oldham County Magistrate Scott Davis has filed a complaint accusing Judge Duane Murner of holding an illegal closed session meeting on September 16th.   According to the agenda for the Fiscal Court meeting, the closed session was held to discuss “personnel” according to the guidelines set forth by KRS 61.810. However, Judge Murner seems to already be implicating himself in this matter. It appears that he told the Courier-Journal that the meeting was held to discuss the possibility of an outside company taking over the sewer district in addition to getting a sense of how Fiscal Court members felt about the possible takeover.  

 

How does Judge Murner believe that discussion about such topics relates to “personnel”?  It appears that Davis likely has a valid issue with the information from this closed session not being discussed openly in accordance with law. One should remember, that this is not the first time that Murner has been involved with closed meetings that he was a part of, which were questioned for legality. It seems that Murner has a penchant for secrecy. After all, he is the same person who has kept the identity of a large donor a secret from the public.

 

I certainly hope that all of the facts regarding this meeting do become public and likely the matter of whether or not this meeting should have been public will be decided by either the Attorney General or Circuit Court.  It is well known to many that Judge Murner has a strong desire to control the sewer system expansion throughout Oldham County, as he strives to expand capacity for additional new residential housing development.   Judge Murner took in thousands upon thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers who expect him to do whatever necessary to ensure sewer capacity for their high density developments.  

THE "NEW" PROPERTY TAX RATE

By:  Dewey R. Wotring

 

Shawn Boyle is the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for Oldham County. As such, one of his duties is to brief the Magistrates during the Fiscal Court meeting when they consider the property tax rate. The Court is required to set this rate each year.

 

On September 2, 2008, the Fiscal Court was in session, and the setting of the propery tax rate was one of the items on the agenda.  This is also referred to as the "ad valorem tax." Boyle appeared for the purpose of providing an overview of appropriate tax rates. Boyle made reference to two tax rates - 9.0 and 9.2. One would have thought that these were the only two rates available for the court's consideration. Boyle advised the court that the 9.2 rate was the maximum rate which could be set by the court without the rate being subject to a recall petition by the public.

 

Boyle advised the members of the court that the county would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next few years if they chose the lower rate of 9.0, as opposed to the maximum non-recallable rate of 9.2.

 

However, Boyle was remiss in not telling the entire story about tax rates.  Boyle should have disclosed the "compensating rate" to the court.  That rate is set by the state to the county and this year that rate happens to be 8.9.  The compensating rate is the foundation for any rate set by the county, and is the rate that will bring the same amount of money into the county coffers as the county received last year, plus any taxes on "new construction."  Thus, had the fiscal court considered and voted for the 8.9 rate, the county would still have received more money in property taxes than it received last year.

 

Further, when asked by Magistrate Iva Davis if new construction was included when the compensating rate was calculated, he replied that it was.  Judge Murner subsequently corrected that statement.

 

At no time during his presentation, did Boyle state the rate which was needed to result in a balanced budget.  I suspect that the 9.0 rate will result in a surplus.  If that is the situation, then the rate should have been lowered.  One should not forget that the insurance premium tax has been doubled, and the 911 tax substantially increased.  Further, there will be new stormwater fees forthcoming in the near future and probably higher sewer rates for many. The court voted for the 9.0 rate.  Two magistrates, Scott Davis and Bob Leslie, voted against the new rate.

 

If Boyle is going to counsel the court, he should certainly provide facts and he should provide all of them.