APPARENTLY OLDHAM FISCAL COURT APPROVES OF HIGHER WATER RATES

On December 15, 2009 the Oldham County Fiscal Court gave its blessing to the 28 percent increase in the water rate for the residents of Oldham County. No, the court did not set the rate but Judge-Executive Duane Murner nominated both Jay Hall and Robert Durbin for reappointment to serve on the board of the Oldham County Water District. Both of those men were on the board that set the new rate resulting in a 28 percent increase in water rates for all Oldham County customers.


Magistrate Scott Davis commented to the court prior to the vote concerning his disappointment and displeasure with the recent decisions of the Water District Board. He stated that he felt the board should have more carefully considered the opportunity to partner with the Louisville Water Company and lower the amount of its rate increase. Magistrate Davis has also stated his objections to the water district spending millions of dollars to increase capacity to serve developers at the ratepayers (customers) expense. Judge-Executive Murner even had the audacity to say that he did not favor the increase in water rates but that the control of the water rates was not within the jurisdiction of the Fiscal Court. In fact, that is an oversimplification of the matter at hand. While Fiscal Court does not set the water rates, they control who is on the Water District Board.

On Tuesday, all members of the Fiscal Court, including Judge-Executive Murner, were aware that the nominees for the Water District Board were previously part of the board that set the new rates resulting in the 28 percent increase. All members of the court had an opportunity to voice their objection to the huge rate increase. However, only Magistrate Scott Davis voiced his objections over the increase. He stated that since the nominees had been part of the board that increased the water rates by 28 percent he could not vote for them. Obviously the other members of the court did not share his displeasure. Without any comment the entire court voted to approve the nominations with the exception of Magistrate Scott Davis.

It is to be noted that the Water District Board has clearly stated in writing that one of the purposes of increasing the rate is to fund more infrastructure for development. Jay Hall is also a family member of one of the largest volume developers and real estate agents in Oldham County, Steve Hall. Jay’s wife, Deborah, contributed the personal maximum contribution of $1,000 to Paula Gish for her campaign for Judge-Executive on 9/17/2009. Karen Hall, the wife of Steve Hall, also donated $1,000 to Paula Gish for Judge-Executive on 9/17/2009. Are you getting the picture here? Did Jay Hall use his position as a member of the Oldham County Water District Board to expand infrastructure for future development to subsidize his own industry? We’ll let you be the judge of that, but the answer seems pretty clear. When testifying before the Fiscal Court, the Water District Board stated service for people in Oldham County would not be enhanced. Yet everyone in the county will pay dearly in order to construct new infrastructure for future development. I continue to tell people to ask themselves, “What will new development do for me?” I can tell you that it has and continues to cost you dearly.

In May the residents of Oldham County will have the opportunity to let their elected magistrate know how they feel about the cavalier attitude that the magistrates frequently show about the financial welfare of their constituents. Hopefully, they take the opportunity to do so.

IS HARRISON TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING

Recently I have come into possession of a letter sent out by J. Albert Harrison seeking campaign contributions and support for his campaign to become the Property Valuation Administrator (PVA) of Oldham County. This letter raises several interesting questions.

First, Mr. Harrison states that he feels privileged to serve Oldham County in a “manner” similar to his military service. He does not elaborate on that
statement. While Mr. Harrison is certainly deserving of the appreciation of all citizens for his defense of this country in a time of war, his military service is not connected or similar to what the position of the PVA would require.

Second, Mr. Harrison states that he successfully took the required exam for the office of PVA and therefore is now fully qualified as a candidate. While he may be qualified under the color of law, that by no means proves that he is a qualified candidate by way of experience. As I have stated in the past, the qualifications of any candidate for any office are very subjective. That decision is best left up to the voters.

Without question the most interesting part of Mr. Harrison’s letter is that he has chosen to limit contributions by way of personal checks to a maximum of $100. He goes on to state that cash contributions are limited by statute to $50 per person. Harrison states that there are definite reasons for the limits. His first reason is: “First is my belief in allowing many supporters, not just a chosen few, to make contributions at a level that is not a financial burden.” This statement is incredulous. If he had no limitation on the size of donations that would not prevent anyone from supporting him. Harrison’s second reason is: “Second, with these limits I am not required to list donors' names and occupations.” Is he saying that he is too lazy too list the names? Is he saying that he wants to conceal the identity of his supporters? Is he trying to hide something? Frankly, I don’t know the answer but I certainly would like to know why he is choosing to be less than forthright with the identity of his supporters. There is an old adage that says, “The appearance of impropriety is sometimes worse than the impropriety itself.” I certainly hope that is true in this situation.

Harrison states that his reporting to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance entails only the total amount given and the aggregate number of contributors. He states that this method is a provision within the election regulations to encourage grass-roots giving. I certainly take issue with his statements. You don't need to limit contributions in order to encourage grass-roots support.

It can easily be argued that a candidate for election does not want to openly accept contributions in excess of $100 in order for the candidate to conceal the true identity of the donors to his campaign. This allows a candidate to accept contributions of any amount, for example, $5000, and claim that the donation was given by 50 individual donors. Certainly this is illegal but is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Further, when a candidate does not publicize his contributors, he obscures the identity of any special interest group that may be supporting him.

In the past I have raised questions about the development industry in Oldham County and the attempt of that industry to control the politics within the County. A review of the past history of contributions from the development industry certainly reflects that the industry has been more than generous to candidates who support its positions on many issues. It is no secret that Mr. Harrison had been closely tied to developers and has been a supporter of the developers. I certainly hope that he is not using his contribution limitations to obscure support from any special interest group. This is a situation that certainly needs to be monitored. If Mr. Harrison were to try to conceal the identity of his supporters from the voters, it would certainly negate any glitter that he is deserving of for his military service.

Finally, Mr. Harrison states, “…I will operate the PVA office within all legal elements of the law to include recognizing and avoiding any aspects of nepotism”. He is clearly taking a shot at the current PVA, Ron Winters, due to the fact that Mr. Winters employs his wife, Barbara. Mr. Winters was cleared of this charge. Further, Barbara Winters took the qualifying exam for the PVA position at the same time that Mr. Harrison took the exam and she also passed it. It goes without saying that if Mr. Harrison considers himself qualified by virtue of having passed the PVA exam, Ms. Winters is also qualified. Besides, she has much more experience than he does but he is the one asking voters to put him in the PVA position. So, what is his beef?

One last comment, Mr. Harrison states that he can be contacted by using the contact information on his letterhead. I doubt that he can be contacted using the email address on the letterhead as it has two dots between “att and net.” I know that is being picky but I believe that Mr. Harrison fired the first shot by using the term “nepotism.”

MAGISTRATE DAVID VOEGELE ENTERS RACE FOR COUNTY JUDGE

Magistrate David Voegele has entered the race for County Judge. Thus, he becomes the second candidate to officially file for the race. Stan Clark had filed papers indicating that he was going to run but has never officially filed for the office and I do not believe that he will.

The county is fortunate that Voegele has entered the race. No position should be uncontested. Voegele enters the race with a lot less financial backing. However, I have found Voegele to be a very energetic person with a lot of novel ideas and a person who is not afraid to push for his ideas. Unfortunately I have not heard of any novel ideas from Paula Gish. It is as though she has never had an original thought. That equates to another four years of the “tax and spend” policies of the failed Murner administration. Without the heavy financing of the developers there would be no race, Voegele would win hands down. With the development money Gish starts with a slight edge. If Voegele can engage Gish in a dialogue,that edge will quickly fade. I suspect that she will use the old “duck and cover” method of running. She will not say anything – just use the developers’ money to get her name in front of the people.

I have heard many people speak very unfavorably of Paula Gish. Those people now have a choice. If nobody else enters the race, it will interesting to see if those anti-Gish people will get behind David Voegele.

OFFICER TOM DOUGLAS TO RESUME DUTIES AS OLDHAM POLICE OFFICER

I received information that Officer Tom Douglas will resume his duties as an Oldham County Police Officer on November 30, 2009.

Douglas had been scheduled to plead to additional charges levied against him today. However, all charges have been dismissed. I am sure that he is happy to have his job and will be happy to return to work. He knows that he has made mistakes and has willingly admitted those mistakes. I am also sure that he has learned valuable lessons from those errors.

I believe that the Chief of the Oldham County Police Department made the right decision in deciding to dismiss the charges. Perhaps everyone can now move on and pursue their work. That would benefit all of the residents of Oldham County. Hopefully this proves to be a good day for Oldham County

DUANE: HALLOWEEN IS OVER – IT’S TIME TO STOP THE WITCH HUNT

The time has come, long ago, to replace the top management of the Oldham County Police Department. The dissension is high and the morale low within the department. In sports there is a saying that goes something like “It is easier to replace the coach than to replace the entire team.”

Unfortunately, these problems go even deeper. Anyone that knows anything about the way that the county is managed knows that Chief Mike Griffin does nothing without the blessing of Judge-Executive Duane Murner. Thus, Murner is clearly part of the problem. Once again, Murner is demonstrating his disregard for the law as is Police Chief Mike Griffin. Murner is no stranger to disregarding authority and the law. He openly stated that he would defy the Supreme Court. After being ordered by an Oldham County Circuit Judge to release certain information to Magistrate Scott Davis, he refused to do so until the eleventh hour at which time he knew that he would be held in contempt of court.

At the present time, it appears that Chief Griffin disregarded the law when he made the decision not to hire Officer Bruce Gentry, who was an applicant from the Shelbyville Police Department. Gentry alleged that the county discriminated against him due to his military service obligations. If that allegation is found to be true Murner and Griffin jointly made a poor decision. In my opinion Murner simply has no regard for the law. He reminds me of a “mad dictator”. If you cross his path, he will try to crush you. The people in Oldham County should be concerned. What is worse is that he wants the people to elect Paula Gish to succeed him. That would allow Murner to be more covert while continuing to control the office of County Judge-Executive and using her as a pawn. Quite frankly, Oldham County cannot afford or handle any additional leadership by this man.

On October 28, 2009 the Oldham County Police Merit Board found that Oldham County Police Chief Mike Griffin had not interpreted the administrative rules of the Oldham County Police Department correctly when he terminated Officer Tom Douglas. Therefore, the Board ordered that Officer Douglas be reinstated and given full back pay. He was also given a suspension. As of this date Officer Douglas has not been reinstated although he is being paid. Did the Chief and the County Judge not understand the order of the Merit Board? They understood but they don’t want to follow legal orders. If they thought that the Board erred, then they should have appealed the decision but they have not done so.

Now the County is trying to charge Officer Douglas with two additional violations and suspend him again. Keep in mind that Officer Douglas has not worked since May of 2009. Thus, the violations happened prior to the Merit Board hearing. As a matter of fact, the additional violations were mentioned at the hearing but were not pursued by the county attorney. Although I do not have the transcription in front of me, I believe that the Merit Board sustained a motion by the attorney for Officer Douglas to dismiss these new charges. Again, the County could have appealed that if it did not agree with the decision. However, that would have taken the matter out of their control and they do not have a good track record when they do not have total control.

In my article of October 28, 2000 I stated that I would not want to be in Officer Douglas’s position. I said that because I knew that Chief Griffin and Lt. Col. Billy Way would have him under a microscope. However, I did not believe that they would go so far as to try to keep him from going back to work. This has all of the earmarks of a witch hunt.

The actions of the management of the Oldham County Police Department reflect those of a sadistic bully that can’t lose and move on. The people of Oldham County are going to suffer. They may not know it but the quality of policing will go downhill. The people of Oldham County need to step forward to support the police department. We are nearing the 2010 election cycle. Those people seeking public office should make their feelings known on this matter. It is a great opportunity for them to demonstrate the ability to lead. However, I doubt that many will step up to the plate.

I have heard that the officers of the Oldham County Police Department have been told not to talk to the magistrates – and to me. This is scary! In fact, the top management of the Police Department does not want Magistrates speaking with or inquiring about information from anyone below them in their department. Are Chief Griffin and Lt. Col Way trying to implement communism? When police officers are forced to work in a “police state” the public can expect that to trickle down to them. It is an accepted fact that children who have been abused are more likely to abuse their children. Oldham County, you had better wake up!

Lest I should forget, let us not forget that Judge-Executive Duane Murner also recently fired Mitch Nobles, the county’s code enforcement officer. Further, when Murner called the Nobles into his office to fire him, after Nobles returned from a vacation, the police were there to escort him from Murner’s office. Was Murner afraid of Nobles? I have not heard anyone speak badly of Nobles nor his performance. From the information that I have received, that firing was not justified either and it did not follow the procedures outlined in the employee handbook for discipline. Murner is quick to fire the people who can not fight back, but reluctant to take any action against his Chief of Police. I don’t believe that Murner desires to remove his Chief of Police even though it is apparent that the police department is not functioning as well as it should be functioning and conditions appear to be worsening.

Let us recap some of Murner’s personnel actions. Shortly after taking office he removed ten low-level employees. He alleged that he was saving the county money. However, his personnel decisions since then have reflected that he has no problem wasting county funds when approving decisions. The best example of monetary waste is the refusal to hire Bruce Gentry, a Shelbyville police officer who had applied for and was hired for a position with the Oldham County Police Department. Gentry alleged in Federal Court documents that his offer of employment was retracted because he had a military commitment. If that proves to be true it will cost the county more money than it will ever save by dismissing the ten low-level employees. Did Murner and Griffin make this decision based upon the fact that they didn’t want to be burdened with having to work around the scheduling requirements of our military?

Then there was the code enforcement officer and now Officer Tom Douglas. It is time that the managers in Oldham County learn that it is their job to manage people, not to fire them. The hiring process for police officers is quite expensive, as is the dismissal process. Of course when you are wasting taxpayer money it doesn’t seem to matter – at least not to some department managers in Oldham County.

EXCLUSIVE: OLDHAM COUNTY POLICE MERIT BOARD REINSTATES FIRED POLICE OFFICER

The Oldham County Police Merit Board voted unanimously today to overturn the termination decision of Oldham County Police Chief Michael Griffin and reinstated Officer Tom Douglas to his position of Patrolman with the department. Griffin had fired Douglas for failure to arrest a driver who is alleged to have been driving under the influence of alcohol. This hearing lasted for approximately 15 hours over a two day period ending with deliberations and a vote by the board. County Judge-Executive Murner sat with the board for the entire length of the hearings, however he did not cast a vote when the time came.
Officer Douglas has over eleven years of police experience with the majority of it as an officer with the Oldham County Police (OCPD). The OCPD has three levels of violations in their administrative code. They are referred to as levels A, B, and C with A being the most severe level. If an officer is guilty of more than one offense within a twenty-four month period, the level of a violation may be elevated to the next level. In the case of Officer Douglas, he had been charged with insubordination for using inappropriate language when speaking to a superior officer. According to testimony given by Officer Douglas, his Sergeant had called him on his day off and ordered him to report in full dress uniform the following day (which was another of Douglas’ scheduled days off) in order to attend the funeral of the sister of a fellow officer. Douglas told his Sergeant that he was going to attend the funeral but that he was going with another officer and that he was not coming to the station in order to carpool with other officers to the funeral. He further stated that he did not want to tie up his entire off-duty day. He testified that the Sergeant then swore at him and that he became upset and swore at the Sergeant. For this he was charged with insubordination. The department did not offer any testimony that was contrary to Douglas’ testimony.

Subsequently, Douglas also responded to a domestic violence situation. After the completion of his investigation in the case, he admitted to having further contact with the victim on one occasion which was stated to be a class “C” violation of the OCPD code. Douglas admitted that he had contacted the victim and did not dispute the allegations. The OCPD had alleged that he had also contacted another victim of domestic violence. However, that person would not confirm the allegations and no evidence was proffered to substantiate the department’s claim.

The third and final violation involved the failure of Officer Douglas to arrest a driver for “Driving Under the Influence (DUI).” Officer Douglas was responding to an accident on KY Highway 22 in an area known as “Bridge Hill”. The hill has become infamous due to the number of accidents that have occurred in the area due to its slope and extreme curvature. As a matter of fact, the state highway department has recently put a special coating on the highway surface in an attempt to reduce the number of accidents.

Officer Douglas stated that when he responded to the request for an officer at the accident scene, he was advised by the dispatcher that alcohol may be involved. Douglas testified that upon arriving at the scene he gave the driver a Portable Breathalyzer Test (PBT) and that the results reflected a 0.14. The level limit of 0.08 is the threshold for charging a driver with driving under the influence of alcohol. However, a key point in the testimony was that the PBT is not admissible in court and therefore, is not sufficient probable cause, standing alone, to arrest a person for DUI. Douglas testified that it had been raining and that due to the prevailing conditions he decided that his primary duty should be to control the traffic and try to prevent anyone from being injured. He stated further that after observing the driver for approximately twenty-five minutes while he was walking around and after observing that the driver’s eyes were not glassy, that he could not detect the odor of alcohol on the driver, and that the driver was very stable on his feet, he concluded that there was not sufficient probable cause to arrest the driver for DUI. Additionally, the driver asked Douglas to get a wrecker to tow his car due to the condition of it (It was later determined to be a total loss). Douglas obtained a wrecker for the driver. In the meantime, someone came to get the driver and the driver left the scene with person. It was stated during testimony that the driver believed he was having problems with one of the wheel bearings on his vehicle prior to the wreck.

Because Douglas used his discretion to not arrest the driver, the department management alleged that he was guilty of inefficiency. This was alleged to have been a class “C” violation. The department then elevated the charge to a class “A” violation since it was Douglas’ third violation within a twenty-four month period. One of the penalties for a class “A” violation is termination of employment, although a suspension could have been given instead of termination. Additionally, Douglas had only received written reprimands for his prior two offenses and had never received any suspensions, which are required by OCPD guidelines for increased disciplinary actions. Following Douglas’ termination, OCPD Lt. Col. Billy Way contacted the Kentucky State Police (KSP) to request a criminal investigation into Official Misconduct by Officer Douglas, after Douglas had requested a hearing before the Merit Board. An investigation and report by the KSP was presented to a District Court Judge who refused to move forward with prosecution based upon a lack of evidence and probable cause in the action’s taken by Douglas in relation to his non-arrest of the vehicle driver.

Another key point in the testimony was the revelation that former OCPD Sergeant Congelton admitted during a deposition that he had also not arrested someone he stopped for DUI, even though they failed Field Sobriety Tests in his presence during the stop. He went on to admit that his decision was based in part on the fact that the passenger in the vehicle worked for the commonwealth’s attorney’s office. Sgt. Congelton was not disciplined in any way for his actions by Chief Michael Griffin nor any of his staff. However, Griffin chose to fire Officer Douglas for his decision to not arrest the driver of the vehicle involved in the single car accident, even though his determination at the scene was that the driver was not under the influence.

The Merit Board actually found that all of the allegations were supported, but that the Department had errantly classified the third violation as a class “A” violation. They found that the third violation should have been classified as a class “B” violation. Thus, the Merit Board found that the appropriate penalty should have been a ten-day suspension instead of termination. The result is that Douglas will receive back pay and be reinstated to his former position, however he will be placed on a new probationary period. It is clear that the Merit Board’s decision was likely an effort to “please everyone.” It is this author’s opinion that Douglas should not have received any punishment for his failure to arrest the driver of the vehicle as no evidence was ever presented to indicate that the driver was intoxicated, that he was driving under the influence of alcohol or that there was sufficient evidence to show probable cause to arrest the driver. The OCPD and County Attorney’s office case against Officer Douglas was weak at best and the termination never should have been carried out against him. Police Chief Michael Griffin clearly did not follow his own department’s policies when it came to discipline of Officer Douglas. Could this be because Griffin’s goal was to fire Officer Douglas? In his sworn testimony, Douglas stated that Griffin told him he wanted to fire him. Chief Griffin denied that allegation and there was no other person present.

There are many underlying effects of the decision by the Merit Board. First, the Board apparently seemed to agree that Douglas should have arrested the driver for DUI even though there was not any admissible evidence whatsoever that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol. As a matter of fact, an independent investigation conducted by the Kentucky State Police found that the driver, after being granted immunity, had admitted to having consumed two 12-ounce beers twenty to thirty minutes before the accident. In essence, the actions of the OCPD and the Merit Board appear to have removed discretion from the officers’ tool chest while performing their duties. Anyone attending this hearing walked away well aware of the key role that discretion plays in officer’s decision-making on a routine basis.

What does this mean for the citizens of Oldham County? Well, don’t be surprised if you are stopped for speeding when only driving slightly over the limit and subsequently given a citation instead of a warning. While patrol officers may not desire to carry out their duties in such manners, reckless decisions such as the one handed down today may force their hands. I really believe that not too many of the citizens want the officers to lose their ability to temper their decisions with discretion. Citizens should not be surprised if they are cited for infractions that they may or may not be guilty of committing simply because the officer may be afraid that he/she will be reprimanded and perhaps eventually dismissed if a citation is not issued or an arrest made. Just consider what kind of policing that could bring about. It makes me shiver! Shame on the Board for establishing this type of precedent. Now, if officers decide not to carry out their duties because they fear they will make an incorrect decision and later be punished, the public could also be in a state of not having adequate police protection. Neither of these results would be good for Oldham County. We have been accustomed to having excellent policing by both the OCPD and the Oldham County Sheriff’s Department. We deserve to continue having the same.

I spent two long days observing the aforementioned hearings and I observed a lot. There will be many more comments forthcoming. One interesting observation was that there was no member of the press present to report on the actions of the Merit Board. That is shameful!

At least Officer Douglas has his job back and in my opinion he deserved to be reinstated. However, now he will certainly be under a microscope by Chief Michael Griffin if he is placed on probation. I would not want to be in his position.

THIN SKINNED MAGISTRATES ARE OUTED

Are the magistrates of the Oldham County Fiscal Court thin-skinned or do they just not want to communicate with their constituents? Perhaps a little bit of both. During the last Fiscal Court meeting on October 6, 2009, the ordinance relating to the refinancing of the sewer district debt was on the agenda. Magistrate Scott Davis had circulated a flyer to about half of the residences in the county. The flyer advised the people that the ordinance, if passed, could result in additional taxes for all property owners in the county. Although that statement was true as well as the remainder of the flyer, the other magistrates, with the exception of Magistrate Bob Leslie and Magistrate Bob Diebel, were quite disturbed by the flyer.

Some of the magistrates alleged that the flyer was misleading and some alleged that it was untrue. However not one magistrate cited an example of fiction in the flyer. One Magistrate, Iva Davis, said that she was not prepared to answer questions on the issue when contacted by her constituents. What is sad about this is that fact that she had received a full copy of the ordinance at the first reading in early October. Perhaps she had not read the ordinance even though she was going to vote on it. The sad thing is that not being informed would not be a first for many of the magistrates.

As for the flyer being misleading, a person would have to make some assumptions to come to that conclusion. The fact of the matter is that the flyer was accurate. At the time the flyer was circulated there was no payment agreement in place. In fact, there was not one in place until the meeting was almost over. An audit of the sewer district finances was still not completed when the ordinance was passed, even though it has been nearly 10 months since one ordered by the Fiscal Court. Passing the ordinance without an audit being completed was very irresponsible – that cannot be denied although I am sure that those voting for the ordinance would deny it.

Clearly, Magistrate Scott Davis’ flyer caught the magistrates off-guard in answering questions regarding the ordinance. Further, it appeared that they did not like receiving so many inquires. They get paid approximately $2000 per month to do their job. Shame on them for being upset!

It was clear to see that Magistrate Voegele also lost his temper. Many of the people in the audience to whom I spoke thought that he was chastising them for being at the meeting and for challenging his performance, which was lousy at best. He went so far as to chastise the audience for not having run for office and then speaking before and challenging the court. He even invited them to vote him out of office. I would not be surprised to see that happen. If Magistrate Voegele believes he has any chance whatsoever at becoming the next Judge-Executive, he needs to get a much better grip on reality in regards to how he is truly viewed by the Oldham County community.

Then there was Magistrate Rick Rash being his usual self. When he took his turn to pontificate, he decided to tell a religious joke – Jewish at that. Talk about opening your mouth and inserting your foot or “opening your mouth and removing all doubt” about your intelligence. Rash clearly demonstrated that he was a professional at both. If I were running against Rash this next term, I would just make a DVD of his performance and circulate one to every household in his district. The fact is, Fiscal Court is not the place to be telling religious jokes, especially in the midst of a serious discussion concerning a $7 million spending decision.

Even Duane Murner had the audacity to say that the flyer was misleading. Perhaps he better than anyone else would know the definition of the word as he is a master at practicing it. The fact is that Murner continues to be upset that his schemes are being publicized and his legacy is being cemented as one of the worst Judges in this county’s history.

In the end, Oldham County CFO Shawn Boyle made an attempt to outdo everyone by coming to the microphone and telling the court just how hard he works. Since the Fiscal Court is not his boss, I don’t know what his purpose was and he probably doesn’t either. At least he didn’t call me a “jackass” this time as he has in the past. However, he did make some convoluted remarks about Magistrate Scott Davis and me. Mr. Boyle needs to learn his place and stick to performing his job. He has convinced himself that he needs to orchestrate a show of standing up for his boss, Judge-Executive Murner. Doesn’t he realize that very few, if any, of the people in this county care to hear his lousy arguments.

Magistrate Scott Davis responded very well to every remark directed toward him. He was obviously better prepared for the questions and remarks of the other magistrates than they were for their own constituents’ questions. Hopefully his efforts will have forced the sewer district to set the rates high enough to keep the other taxpayers from having to foot this bill through either additional taxes or tax money taken from general fund revenues (our taxes).

WILL THE DEMOCRATS BE IN CHARGE OF OLDHAM COUNTY?

Recently I had the opportunity to read a “White Paper” authored by Doug Wampler of Oldham Ahead. Oldham Ahead is an organization whose focus is the preservation of a “rural legacy” for Oldham County. The paper gave an overview of the funding provided to political candidates during the 2006 elections. The funding was provided primarily by people with ties to the development industry. The paper can be viewed at oldhamahead.org.

The paper was a bitter reminder to me that the development industry has taken control of Oldham County. The development industry and those people with close ties to it were the major financial backers of County Judge-Executive Duane Murner. Frankly the developers should have the title of County Judge Executive and Murner should have the title of Deputy Judge. Since Murner’s election it has been clear that nothing has happened that was adverse to the financial status of developers. It is apparent that developers get every possible break on fees, zoning issues and even stormwater.

Just as sad is the fact that some of the Magistrates even received funding from developers. Of course, without the votes of the Magistrates Murner could not have done what he did. When it comes to funding the infrastructure of Oldham County the developers have been given very generous consideration.

Now that the elections of 2010 are upon us we are seeing the same pattern develop again but it appears to be worse. In the upcoming race for County Judge-Executive the developers have already begun to fund Paula Gish. Whether the Magistrates take money from the development and real estate industry remains to be seen.

A review of Paula Gish’s fundraising to this point is disgusting. Gish has scheduled a Women’s Fundraising Reception for September 17, 2009. The invitation for the fundraiser contained the names of twenty-two female sponsors. A review and analysis of that list is quite revealing.

Of the twenty-two women, thirteen have close ties to developer Bob Jones who is a democrat and former state representative. This is a clear indication that developers, especially Bob Jones, will likely have more influence in county government than is healthy for good government should Gish be elected. People simply don’t support candidates to that extent without expecting something in return. To believe that Bob Jones does not expect to have considerable influence on the government would be naïve in my opinion.

Further review of the list of sponsors reveals that fourteen of the twenty-two are Democrats, i.e., the majority of her support is coming from people who cannot even vote for her in the primary election as Gish is a Republican. Well, at least she is running as a Republican. Personally, I believe you are measured by the company that you keep. That would make her a democrat loyal to development. If she were to be elected, would the Democrats be in charge in Oldham County? Is that what the people of Oldham County want?

If Paula Gish wants to be Democrat, she should change her party registration and run as a Democrat. However, there are more registered Republicans in Oldham County than there are Democrats. That would present a problem for her in the general election.

It is my understanding that the only other announced candidate, Stan Clark, has decided to withdraw from the race. If someone else does not come forward to run, it is certain that the Democrats will, by default, be in charge in Oldham County. How can anyone deny that? Let us hope that some other Republican opposes Paula Gish in order that Republicans will have a choice in May 2009.

VOEGELE CONTINUES WITH BUCKNER MALL PORK FIASCO

In a recent article found in the Courier-Journal, Magistrate David Voegele once again displayed why his ongoing push for Oldham County to purchase the “Buckner Mall” on KY Highway 146 is likely the most ridiculous idea to come before county government in some time. Voegele made a strong commitment during his campaign for Magistrate to “Clean up Buckner” among other things. His lack of fiscal responsibility continues to shine through every time he discusses his ideas for this fiasco of a project.

Voegele can’t decide whether he wants to make the people of Oldham County believe he wants the Buckner Mall removed for aesthetic or safety reasons. It is clear that Voegele considers the property an eyesore and wants it removed at whatever cost necessary to taxpayers, not to mention the fact that some people would lose their livelihoods in this difficult economy. In the article, Voegele states that if the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet did in fact widen the road for safety reasons during future work, that they would do so on the other side of the road from the Buckner Mall. This is unacceptable to Voegele as he is far more concerned with removing the Buckner Mall at the expense of Oldham County taxpayers rather than let the state redesign the road as their engineers might recommend. Why should Oldham County taxpayers be forced to spend nearly $100,000 for a pork project dreamed up by Magistrate Voegele along a STATE HIGHWAY?

Voegele has supported several tax increases and higher fees during his time on Fiscal Court under the guise that county government must have the additional revenue to survive. Yet he continues to march forward on his mission to waste taxpayer money on another pork project. Will Magistrate Voegele ever get it?
Voegele’s campaign slogan was “Is it 2007 yet?” Many people now seem to be asking “Is it 2011 yet?” in regards to getting new leadership in this county. Let’s hope the future leaders of Oldham County can manage with more common sense and fiscal responsibility.

LAGRANGE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES SIGN

On Monday night, August 3, 2009, the LaGrange City Council voted to allow the controversial sign at the LaGrange City Hall to remain with modification to the lighting. The vote was 6 to 1. The only member of the Council to vote against the sign was Joe Davenport. Davenport stated that he was a good friend of Beaumont, whose name is on the sign, but that he believed that the sign was not in conformance with the guidelines of the Historical Commission.

Tom Williams represented the Historical Commission and Blake Haselton represented the Park Board. Williams stated that the sign did not meet the guidelines of the Historical Commission. Thus, he stated that the Council should deny the appeal. Haselton quoted part of the guidelines which state, “ It is the intent of this document to be a guide to
help in the completion of a project in a manner that is compatible with the historic nature of LaGrange.” Haselton’s quote appeared to make a positive impression on some members of the Council.

While Haselton’s quote was accurate, the fact is that the sign design was never presented to the Commission for approval. Therefore, the Commission never had the opportunity to use the guidelines as a guide. However, the Council has spoken and absent the Commission appealing the decision to the Circuit Court the sign will remain.

RACE FOR STATE SENATOR TO REPRESENT 26TH DISTRICT HAS POTENTIAL TO BE CONTENTIOUS

As we all know by now, the Democrats at the state level and leaders from the horse industry lobby are after Senator Ernie Harris because he voted against the video slots legislation. Some of them have been very forthright about that, including the Democratic leadership in Frankfort. What may surprise some people is the fact that some well known and active Republicans in Oldham County seem poised to help the Democrats achieve their goal. Apparently, the Republicans have a short memory regarding what Senator Harris has done for the county. Surely, this one issue could not be that important to them. There has also been talk regarding opposition from the alcohol industry to Harris’ re-election based upon his vote for higher alcohol taxes.

I suspect that there will be one or two Republicans run against Senator Harris in the primary election, perhaps with the idea of softening him up for a Democrat to run against him in the general election. Who might be his opponents?

I have heard that former state representative Jim Zimmerman, a Republican, has had contact with the governor’s office regarding his availability as a candidate. I have also heard that John Black, the former Mayor of LaGrange and former Oldham County Judge-Executive has been considering a change in his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican (following the path of his brother-in-law David Voegele). If that were to happen, I could see him as a potential challenger. Then, I would expect that State Representative Rick Rand (D) might vie for the Democratic nomination to oppose the Republican nominee in the general election. Rand held the seat before losing it to Harris.

In any event, I expect some local and county officials as well as some other influential Republicans and Democrats to support opponents of Senator Harris. While I have not always agreed with Senator Harris, I have not heard any name mentioned that I would support instead of him. I have often felt that Senator Harris allowed some people in Oldham County to have an undue amount of influence with him. I predict that some of those same people will now work to unseat him.
This will be one of several hotly contested races in Oldham County in 2010.

IS THERE ANOTHER FRENCH VISION IN OLDHAM’S FUTURE

I have learned that Judge Executive Duane Murner has recently returned from his trip to France. I hope that he did not go there to get a vision for his protégé, Paula Gish. The last time that he had a vision while in France prior to his election as Judge-Executive, the people of Oldham County paid dearly for it in the form of higher taxes and fees. The people cannot afford another of Murner’s clouded visions.

As you probably remember when Murner was running for Judge-Executive he visited France and later recalled that he had a vision while there. The vision allegedly revealed to him what Oldham County should be and led to his formation of the miserable failure known as the Vision Council. If you remember, Murner used the “Vision Council” as a way to sell the people of Oldham County on his plans for higher taxes and fees. Murner is not running for Judge-Executive at the present time, but has come out in support of his deputy, Paula Gish. That may be our best hope yet for seeing her defeated. Is it possible for a Harvard graduate to interpret his vision for a person not in possession of a four-year degree nor any relevant executive experience? Then there is our other ace in the hole, that being, can Gish convince the electorate to vote for someone lacking in leadership experience outside of a PTA position where she would have been directing volunteers?

I do not believe that the people of Oldham County need to push the panic button yet. Even though Gish has already begun to raise funds for her campaign, she is not the only candidate. County Treasurer Stan Clark has announced that he is also running and I feel certain that there will be at least one or more additional candidates to soon enter the race.

WILL OLDHAM COUNTY BE THE NEXT HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY

I recently read stories in the newspaper about political corruption in Hoboken, New Jersey and the surrounding area. The story that most piqued my interest was the one regarding Mayor Peter Cammarano of Hoboken. Cammarano is alleged to have accepted bribes from an undercover federal agent who was posing as a real estate developer. Allegedly, Cammarano needed cash to support his campaign for Mayor in a runoff election.

When I review the list of donors in the last race for County Judge-Executive and some of Magisterial districts, I cannot help but wonder if some of them were buying influence. Moreover, many of them were also tied directly to the development and real estate industries. Still further, it appears that the development industry has been given more than due consideration by the current Murner administration. One only needs to review many of Murner’s pro-development appointees to boards and commissions which have carried out his mission of repaying developers for their support.

As we enter another round of elections for county offices I cannot help but wonder if the developers will once again pour an extraordinary amount of money into the campaigns of those they believe will be obedient to them. I have already heard that people associated with development do intend to raise large amounts of cash for certain candidates, particularly Paula Gish. Let us hope that Oldham County does not continue down the path blazed by Judge-Executive Murner of becoming another Hoboken, New Jersey.

GISH MEANS FOUR MORE YEARS OF UNCONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT

Apparently Paula Gish will be supported by the many of the same people who supported Duane Murner for Judge-Executive, that being those heavily involved in the building and real estate industry in Oldham County. Simply put, this would mean four more years of higher taxes, higher fees, and poor management of county government. After all, Murner has been her mentor. If the people want the same failed leadership that Murner has provided, then they should vote for Gish. She will undoubtedly follow Murner's ideals of asking Oldham County residents to subsidize the building and real estate industries with higher taxes and fees. Just look at the storm water fee and sewer rates to start with.

If Gish were to be elected, that would obviously mean that the developers would continue to control the county. That translates to even higher sewer rates and mandatory sewer connections for existing residents in order that the sewer district could provide more sewer connections for the developers at as low of a cost as possible. Why else is the sewer district over $10 million in debt - uncontrolled development and subsidizing developers at the direction of Murner and Gish during their numerous years on the Oldham County Fiscal Court. People need to ask themselves one question, what will more housing development do for me? Isn't there clearly already a glut of housing available in Oldham County now? Won't more development just continue to erode property values?

Simply put, Gish will have to defend Murner’s record of higher taxes, larger fees, deficit spending by Planning and Zoning, his won/loss record in the courts, and his determination to leave the Oldham Reserve debacle for the next administration. She will have to do this while trying to convince people that her lack of education is offset by four years in the appointed position of Deputy County Judge. That will be a difficult task to accomplish. Judge Murner has proven time and time again that he thinks the majority of people in Oldham County are ignorant and cannot see what he is up to.

Finally, Gish will have to show that she won’t wilt under the pressure of a tough campaign. As far as I know she has never been in a stressful position where the focus is on her – certainly not at a county-wide level. Without question she is going to face a very tough and challenging race, likely from at least two other strong candidates - both with much stronger resumes and accomplishments. However, it is not very difficult to have a stronger resume than Gish - one year of part-time secretarial work repeated twenty-five times.

MURNER NOT A GOOD SPORT

After losing the battle to keep the name of the anonymous donor from becoming public Judge Murner still refused to obey the order of the court and hand over the name of the donor. Moreover, he continued to refuse to state the correct name of the donor. This all points to the fact that Murner is a sore loser. As a matter of fact, it must eat his stomach out to lose, especially to a young person like Magistrate Scott Davis.

Judge Murner told the Louisville Courier-Journal that he did not give up the name of the donor because county officials wanted approval from the Judge to give Davis a copy of the check. To me that is an outright lie. The Judge ordered Murner - not "county officials"- to give up the information on February 6, 2009. Murner just couldn't stand the thought of losing-he is a sore loser in the world of sports. Kids are taught to not be sore losers. Was Judge Murner ever a kid or is he still one that has not learned that lesson?

It took the filing of a "Motion for Contempt" for Judge Murner to get the message that Magistrate Scott Davis was serious. Murner has now lost. Perhaps the "kids" will start helping him get over this thing of being a sore loser.

As for there being no difference in George Rawlings being the donor or the Rawlings Foundation being the donor, that just just doesn't wash. Anybody who pays taxes to the government and discusses those taxes with their accountant knows better. A reading of the Rawlings Foundation Articles of Incorporation reflects that the foundation was allegedly set up to help build christian churches, and to help prevent cruelty to children and animals. Their articles make no mention of helping cities and counties. But that is another story for another time.

In the response County Attorney John Fendley submitted to the court he stated that "It is obvious that (Davis) is more interested in publicity of this dispute with Judge Murner than with communicating the identity of the donor". How absurd can Fendley be? As a lawyer, Fendley was well aware of what the order of the court said and he knew that to satisfy the order and put the entire issue to bed, all that he had to do was have his client comply with that order in February. If Fendley didn't give the proper advice to Murner, then shame on John Fendley. It seems like Judge Murner has gotten a lot of bad legal advice in the past year. Just remember the discrimination lawsuit that has been filed against the county by Bruce Gentry. When the county is forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle that case, let's see if they accuse him of just seeking publicity or accept responsibility for poor legal advice and poor decision making.

JUDGE DUANE MURNER'S JUDGMENT CONTINUES TO BE QUESTIONABLE

In a recent Louisville Courier-Journal article Judge Murner was quoted as saying that Paula Gish is without question the most qualified person in Oldham County for the office of County Judge. Admittedly, the qualifications for any political office are usually very abstract other than the statutory requirements to hold the office such as age, place of birth, and place of residence. With that in mind Murner's comment means very little.

A close look at Paula Gish's background is revealing. When she first ran for magistrate an article in the Oldham Era stated that she had worked part-time as a secretary for twenty-five years. Thus, she had one year of part-time secretarial experience twenty-five times. You just don't gain executive management experience as a secretary. She had a secretarial degree from Sullivan College - more non-executive training. She also supposedly attended Georgetown College. I don't know if that was for classes or someones graduation. I am not putting Mrs. Gish down for being a secretary (My wife was a secretary for a few years). But the fact is, secretarial experience does not prepare a person for an executive position.

I attended many fiscal court meetings when Gish was a magistrate and I cannot remember any positive input by her although she was always very cordial to everyone. As Deputy Judge-Executive she led the Vision Council which essentially produced nothing and she reports to the fiscal court each month on stimulus money. It will be interesting to hear her describe what she has accomplished.

When Murner was running for office he constantly reminded the people that he had a degree from Harvard and that he had many years of executive experience. Why is it that he no longer places any importance on those qualities? The fact is that he only cares about how well the person will continue his ill advised actions such as raising fees and taxes while continuing to coddle the developers.

If there is not a better qualified candidate than Paula Gish for the office of County Judge in Oldham
County, then this county will need for President Obama to have several stimulus packages. It doesn't matter what the people see as the qualifications necessary for the office.

Yes, Judge Murner's rating of Ms. Gish is just another example of poor judgment. I believe that the people of Oldham County will demonstrate much better judgement.

WHAT PRICE WILL LAGRANGE PAY FOR SILENCE

At the July 6, 2009 LaGrange City Council meeting, the hot topic was the "quiet zones" in the city. At the present time the CSX trains that pass through the city do not blow their whistles However, all of that could change on June3, 2010 unless the city meets certain requirements set forth by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). There are as many as thirty-five trains that go through the city each day.

At issue at the present time is the zone that is in the area between Walnut Street and Second Street. This issue has been in progress since 2003 and many people thought that it had already been resolved. However, according to Councilwoman Melanie Woosley, the issue is anything but resolved. Sinced being assigned to chair the committee charged with making recommendations to the other Council members about the issue, Councilwoman Woosley has met with representatives of the FRA.

Woosley reported that the FRA stated that in order to keep the "quiet zone", which is now in jeopardy, the city has two choices. The first involves placing medians on First Street, both on the north and south side of the tracks, to prevent vehicles from attempting to go around the crossing gates when they are down. Additionally, the city must close Second Street at the tracks. The second option would also require the medians but instead of closing Second Street the city would have to pay to have crossing gates installed and make Second Street one way. The problem with the second option is that the gates would have to be installed by June 3, 2010 and CSX has said that it will take eighteen months to install the crossing gates which would put the city beyond the June 3, 2009 deadline. The FRA has recommended that the city install the medians on First Street and close Second Street.

On Monday night the Council unanimously passed a resolution requiring that the medians be installed and that Second Street be closed by November 1, 2009. However, there is a lot of concern among some members and many of the people in attendance about the impact that closing Second Street will have on traffic in a city that already has severe traffic problems.

Mayor Carter continues to believe that there may be a possibility of getting the crossing gates installed on Second Street before the June 2010 deadline.

There was some discussion about why the crossing gates had not already been installed and Tom Cox, a local realtor with an office in LaGrange, placed the blame on Mayor Carter. The Mayor denied that she was to blame and stated that the city had been in compliance but due to the manner that some traffic accidents had been reported the city had gone out of compliance. The finger pointing soon ended as everyone agreed that the important issue now is the salvation of the quiet zone at any cost.

The next deadline on the issue will be November 1, 2009 when Second Street is slated to be closed. However, according to the City Attorney, Graham Whatley, the closing must be done by ordinance rather than by resolution. The purpose of passing the resolution now instead of an ordinace was the fact that a resolution was needed to demonstrate to the FRA that the City was doing something. An ordinance would have required two readings which precluded the immediate passage of an ordinance.

COUNTY JUDGE MURNER MISLEADS PUBLIC ONCE AGAIN

On June 26, 2009 County Judge Duane Murner finally released the name of the “anonymous” donor of $100,000 given to the Oldham County Fiscal Court in February 2008. Not surprising, the donor was not George Rawlings as Murner led everyone to believe shortly before the end of last year when he announced that Rawlings was the donor. The fact of the matter is the donor was the Rawlings Foundation. Some people will say what is the difference?

There could be a lot of differences. Consider the fact that the foundation also gave $100,000 to the City of LaGrange, who in turn gave $50,000 of it to the Oldham LaGrange Development Authority (OLDA) whose main purpose is to develop the Oldham Reserve property. Oldham Reserve is the location of the Rawlings Group company and building that is controlled by George Rawlings. Did Rawlings make a tax deductible contribution to a foundation bearing his name with the intention that the foundation would channel the money to a group that would benefit his company? Are you getting the picture?

For some reason, Murner did not want to divulge the true name of the donor. Apparently, he thought that he could just say that it was George Rawlings and everyone would drop the issue. However, thanks to Magistrate Scott Davis, the correct named was finally divulged by Murner. The Oldham Circuit Court had ordered Murner to furnish Davis with the name some four months ago. However, Murner defied the court order and never released the documents identifying the donor. After Murner’s continued defiance, Davis filed a motion in Oldham Circuit Court to have Murner held in contempt. The motion was scheduled for a hearing on Friday, June 26th at 1:00 PM. Finally, rather than appear in court and face the consequences, Murner released the name to Davis’ attorney. The documents clearly reflect that the donor was The Rawlings Foundation, not George Rawlings personally. This is just another example in a long line of misleading statements and actions by County Judge Murner. His is cementing his legacy of being one of the least trusted and respected elected officials in the history of Oldham County.

THE RICK RASH RALLY

I attended the Rick Rash Rally (RRR) last night even though I was not one of those invited. I don't know how many people Rash expected. Since he had 300 hot dogs he must have been prepared to feed at least 200 people. Well, Magistrate Rash will have plenty of food to last him a long time. He won't even have to depend on a free lunch from someone with whom the county does business.

I counted about sixty people. On the surface would seem like a decent turnout for a "town hall" meeting as Rash billed it. However, after counting the people who were invited, the represesntatives of local government, people from the Veolia company which runs the sewer district, people from Industrial Disposal and all of the representatives of the Sheriff's department, I doubt that there were twenty people there. That is being generous.

I only heard three diferent people ask questions and one of those does not live in Rash's district. Thus, I would not call the RRR a success. Rash did show that he could get elected officials out to appear with him. In my opinion that was his reason for inviting them. Rash is always trying to impress other people and he is willing to use others for that purpose.

During the entire rally I could not help but feel sorry for Rash. There he stood, a grown man with his political career on the line, and he has to depend on other people to keep him in office. Make no mistake, the office of magistrate, even though it is on the bottom of the totem pole in county politics, is very important to Rash. He once told me that politics was his "life". Think about that, a man at his stage in life struggling to hold on to the office of magistrate.

I will give Rash one thing, he is no quitter. He can't afford to be since the position means so much to him. Thus, we can expect to see more RRRs.

IS RASH SNUBBING PAULA GISH?

Rick Rash is having his first political rally and he has invited several politicians. However, missing from his list of officials is Deputy County Judge Paula Gish. I feel certain that was not an oversight - it was intentional. Yes, she is not an elected official but neither is Stan Clark.

However, Clark and Gish have one thing in common. They are both announced candidates for the office of County Judge. If Judge Murner appears at the function some will assume that he is supporting both Rash and Clark, exactly the perception that Rash hopes people will have.

Rash surely knows that he needs all of the support that he can get, including one of his past contributors, Industrial Disposal. The fact that Rash is so brazen to invite them, even after supporting their fee increases on numerous occasions, reflects his gall.

Frankly, I am surprised that any politician seeking office would support Rash if they review his record on fee and tax increases. Oh well, as has often been said, politics makes for strange bedfellows.

I am sure that Paula Gish will understand why she was not invited when Thursday night comes and she is at home.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID OSBORNE AND GAMBLING

Republican politicians similar to Representative David Osborne account for the reason that the Republican Party lost overall in the 2008 elections and likewise, the reason that the party is in disarray at the present time. They have quit representing the majority of the people.

Representative Osborne voted for expanded gambling this past week. I suspect that it had more to do with his ties to the horse industry and big money than to his belief about gambling. While I have not followed every vote of David Osborne, the votes that I have watched closely certainly don’t appear to be those of a conservative republican.

On the issue of expanded gambling the people are fortunate that the senate republicans are likely to kill it. The lottery was supposed to cure the ills of education and now the horse industry and the democrats want to cure the same illness again. Oh, I forgot, David Osborne wants to cure that illness too. And again, they want to do it with gambling. It seems that every time someone wants to pass an unpopular tax the education issue is used to justify the tax. Frankly, that tactic is getting old. The politicians have cried wolf too many times. By the way, when they claim that all of this money is going to be raised, just whom do they believe is going to pay the money? The money will still be coming from the people and primarily the people of Kentucky. It is disgraceful that Kentuckians would be forced to admit that they couldn’t run a state without an industry that is known for being corrupt.

As for saving the horse industry, perhaps the management of the industry should be questioned. Why shouldn’t they shoulder that blame? While the horse industry has brought a lot of attention to Kentucky it is not a “sacred cow”. As for education, the entire method of funding education in Kentucky needs to be reviewed. Don’t count on David Osborne to be a leader in that area though. That is a tough issue.

TIDBITS FROM OLDHAM COUNTY

Many issues of interest are taking place in Oldham County. Included are the race for County Judge, the race for PVA, the identity of the Oldham Observer, the apparent change of heart by the Oldham County Chief of Police toward veterans and the politicizing of the Fiscal Court meetings by Rick Rash with his advertisement in court of his political rally.

First, consider the race for Judge. There are two announced candidates and I believe that there will be at least two more. Although Judge Murner claims that he will support Paula Gish, he has not ruled out running for the office again. Now if I were Paula Gish, I would feel as though I were on the proverbial banana peeling. She can’t seriously believe that Murner will willingly allow the judgeship to fall into the hands of David Voegele or Scott Davis should either enter the race and become contenders. Neither Davis nor Voegele would be acceptable to Murner. Further, Murner has not been successful in his term. Sure, he claims to have balanced the budget but everyone knows that he did it with tax increases and not good management practices. Further, he has failed to adequately identify the people who were responsible for the sewer district debacle and the Oldham Reserve situation gets worse every day. In essence, he has been a failure.

Then there is the PVA race. On one hand there is the incumbent Ron Winters who was supported by the developers the last time that he ran. However, after he rebuked them in their attempt to have their assessments reduced it appears that they have a new candidate in the person of Albert Harrison. However, he has never demonstrated that he could handle a tough race. Winters has had tough races and been successful. Also, he recently was found to have acted lawfully when he hired his wife as his Chief Deputy. I will predict now that Winters will win that race going away.

While I have only visited the Oldham Observer web site three times, those visits left me with the impression that the owner of the site was not interested in issues, only attacking people. Even at that he was not very accurate but it was difficult for people to attack him because he was afraid to allow people to know who he was. However, I have been informed that he has now been identified and that his identity has been placed on his site. I would expect that he would now try to be more accurate for fear of being sued. Perhaps he may not even place any more material on his site. What a loss! Of course that is a “tongue in cheek” remark.

Then there is Chief Mike Griffin of the Oldham County Police Department (OCPD) who has been alleged to have discriminated against Bruce Gentry, an applicant for a position with the OCPD, and has been sued by Gentry. He is alleged to have discriminated against him because he had a military commitment. During his appearance before Fiscal Court on Tuesday Griffin appeared to have nothing but praise about the military experience of the latest recruit for the department. If he did discriminate against Gentry, he must have had a sudden change of heart about the military. When a decision in the Gentry case is reached we may know the answer to that question. There was a settlement hearing held in the Gentry case earlier in June. However, I have not heard of any settlement.

Of course some things never change. Rick Rash will take any opportunity to pound his chest. During each of the last two Fiscal Court meetings he has advertised his Town Hall (Political Rally). This certainly detracts from the dignity of the court but dignity has not been Rick Rash’s strong suit. I really believe that Rick Rash will have at least one opponent and I believe that Rick Rash will be defeated. I then expect him to try to get the new judge to give him a job so that he can increase his retirement. One could honestly ask if Rash is a magistrate because he wants to serve the people or if he is there primarily to increase his retirement and other benefits. The voters will decide that.

ANOTHER POSSIBLE FOE FOR RICK RASH

The race for County Judge of Oldham County could definitely have some interesting twists during the course of the campaign season. The first could very well involve Magistrate Rick Rash.

It is apparent that Magistrate Rash is going to support Stan Clark who is the most recent person to enter the race. Rash is likely to be very active in the campaign. However, Magistrate Rash barely won re-election in 2006 and any serious candidate will pose a major threat to him. Bob Dye, who nearly beat Magistrate Rash in 2006, is one likely candidate.

However, when Judge Duane Murner, who is supporting Paula Gish, decides to begin playing dirty, he might find a candidate to run against Rash as payback for his support of Clark. After all, he did push and provide funding to Bill Tucker to run as a write-in candidate against Magistrate Scott Davis in the general election of 2006, after Davis defeated Tucker in the primary. Presumably, he saw Magistrate Davis as an independent thinker and therefore a problem for him, even though Davis was a member of Murner’s republican party.

A strong candidate put up against Rash would mean that he would have to spend much more time on his own campaign; therefore, preventing him from working for Stan Clark as much as he would like to do.

There is no question that Murner will continue supporting Paula Gish in the beginning of this campaign cycle and will do anything to get her elected. This includes railroading Rick Rash if needed. After all, Murner no longer needs Rash. He has gotten what he wanted out of Rash, i.e., votes for higher taxes, support for a failed airport, votes for higher fees, and a line of defense for several other issues. If Rash is not going to support Paula Gish, then Murner will now likely see him as the enemy. That in turn could cause Murner to show some more of his true personality, being his way at any cost.

STAN CLARK DECLARES FOR 2010 OLDHAM COUNTY JUDGE RACE

The race for Oldham County Judge-Executive in 2010 just became more interesting on Tuesday with the announcement by Oldham County Fiscal Court Treasurer Stan Clark that he will be a candidate for the office. There is good reason to believe that he can be a formidable candidate.

Deputy Judge-Executive Paula Gish had earlier announced that she is a candidate for the office. In an earlier article on this site, I predicted that both Gish and Clark would be candidates for the position. Both of these candidates are Republicans. I continue to believe that there will other candidates come forward for the position. Any time that there are more than two candidates for a particular office, it usually aids the incumbent. In this instance there apparently will be no incumbent, as it appears that Judge-Executive Murner will support Paula Gish – at least for now. I would not be surprised to see another candidate emerge whom Murner would then support, especially if Gish slips far behind in the race.

Both of the present candidates work in the county Fiscal Court building. Their offices are situated within a only few feet of each other. That is certain to lead to tense moments within the next 12 months.

Continue to watch this site for updates on the race as it unfolds.

MAGISTRATE RASH ANNOUNCES FIRST POLITICAL RALLY OF 2010 POLITICAL RACES

Magistrate Rick Rash has announced the first political rally for the 2010 local elections. It is scheduled to take place at the Briar Hill Park on June 25th. While Rash referred to it as a “Town Hall” meeting, it is crystal clear after listening to him that it is nothing more than a political rally.

As far as I know Rash has not had a Town Hall meeting since he has been a magistrate and definitely not over the prior three years. The only magistrate that I am aware of who has had a Town Hall meeting is Magistrate Scott Davis. He has held held several of them over the first three years of his term.

Rash is well aware that his political future is in grave danger. After all, he won his last primary election by less than twenty votes as a multi-term incumbent. Additionally, he certainly appears to have lost more ground during this current term. This likely translates into defeat for him. I am sure that Rash hopes to make voters forget all of the tax and fee increases he has supported. I don’t believe that the people will forget, especially when they are reminded during the campaign process.

It is interesting to note that Industrial Disposal, one of his former campaign contributors, will be present signing up people to participate in recycling. I wonder if they are going to pay for the hot dogs that Rash plans to serve at the rally? Rash also supported two rate increases for Industrial Disposal and worked to see a third rate increase adopted. What a way to take care of your constituents.

Rash stated that he has invited several other politicians and that there will be balloon lifts available for those attending. If all of this doesn’t amount to a political rally, then I have never seen one. There is certainly nothing wrong with Rash having a political rally, but he should just be honest and call it that. He doesn’t need to bother calling it something it clearly isn’t under the guise of a service for his constituents. But then again, Rash has always been adept at putting a spin on things.

Alas, the 2010 political races are on!

HARRISON TIPTOES INTO PVA RACE

Apparently Albert Harrison wants to be the Property Valuation Administrator (PVA) for Oldham County. At least that is what his ad in the May 21,2009 edition of the Oldham Era indicated. That ad was very informative while also raising some questions.

First, Harrison stated that he has known for about a year that he wanted to be the PVA. Hmmm, that is about the same time that the current PVA started refusing to give in to the demands of developers regarding their property assessments. Could it be that Harrison decided to run because he agreed with the developers? After all he has done a lot of work for the developers and has frequently defended them. Will they be his primary supporter?

That brings up the next question. Who paid for the political ad in the Era? Campaign finance laws require that ads carry information that identifies the person/organization that paid for the ad. This particular ad did not have that information. Harrison has run for political office before; therefore, he should know the legal requirements.

Other information that was obviously missing from the ad was the party ticket on which Harrison intends to run. Although the ad contains prominent colors of both the democrat and republican parties it does not indicate which ticket Harrison is running on. He could also intend to run as an independent. Harrison ran for County Judge in 2006 as a democrat but my information tells me that he has switched to the Republican Party as many other current office holders have done.

One last thought. Research that I have conducted reflects that a person wishing to run for the office of PVA must first pass a test and present the certificate at the time he or she files for the office. My research has also told me that Harrison has not yet passed the test. Thus it is quite possible that Harrison has the cart before the horse here.

As to who will support Harrison, well a visit to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance gives a glimpse into that. A review of their records reflects that when he ran for County Judge he received much of his support from developers and other people involved in the real estate business. He even received one donation from his opponent, Duane Murner. Of course Murner received many of his contributions from the developers and others closely tied to the real estate business. One could easily get the impression that there is a neat little group here much akin to a “Little Boys Club.” As a matter of fact a person has to be blind if he/she cannot connect the dots, i.e., many of these people have the same interests.

The race for PVA could be interesting or it is possible that Harrison will run a lackluster race as he did for County Judge. In that case he does not have a prayer. Of course he must pass the test before anything can happen. Stay tuned!

WRITER'S HIDDEN IDENTITY REFLECTS COWARDICE

I was referred to the Oldham Observer web site today by a friend who wanted me to read a particular article about someone whom I do not know, J.D. Sparks. While there I read a couple of more articles. However, I could not read for more than a couple of minutes as I was quickly becoming ill and there was no doctor in the vicinity.

Whoever runs the Oldham Observer is a COWARD, pure and simple. He hides behind a veil of secrecy while taking cheap shots at many other people. He has admitted that he is afraid to make his identity public. It is for that reason that you do not find a link on this web site to his site. I have no use for people who speak ill of other people while being afraid to give the other people an opportunity to criticize them. He would probably respond to this statement by saying that people can comment on his site. However, it is difficult to criticize a ghost who is afraid to open himself to criticism.

The column regarding Sparks was more of an attack on the Republican party than it was a critique of any event.. The party has no control over the people who choose to become Republicans just as the Democrats have no control over who joins their party. By the way, the editor, and I use that term loosely, has said that he is a democrat. I wonder if he has ever been in Fiscal Court or at any other government function in Oldham County.

Enough space has been used for the unfriendly ghost.

LAGRANGE CITY COUNCIL FACES TOUGH DECISION ON CITY HALL SIGN

The LaGrange City Council convened on May 4, 2009 for its regularly scheduled monthly meeting. While many people refer to the meetings as a circus I see many positive things in the meetings. The Council seems to conduct more of its business at the meetings as opposed to the county Fiscal Court seemingly conducting a lot of business behind the scenes. I prefer the open style of the Council as it gives the public a clearer view of the government and is easier to understand.

City Attorney Graham Whatley revealed that the County Stormwater District alleges that the city owes $3000 in stormwater fees for the golf course while the city claims that it does not pay taxes on city property. The city will continue to refuse to pay the tax/fee.

Councilwoman Jean Knight wanted the Mayor to add a “New Business” section to the agenda which the mayor refused to do. She did state that in the future she will send the agenda to the council members prior to the meetings and they can request that particular items can be added to the agenda as long as they provide information to other members of the council and the Mayor regarding the issue. The Mayor stated that she wants to avoid items being placed on the agenda during the meetings because the council does not have sufficient information to discuss the issues.

When the Mayor refused to allow the “New Business” added to the agenda there was an attempt by Jean Knight and Jason Taylor to adjourn the meeting but that seemed to be defrayed by Councilman Tom Goldsmith. This was done in the form of a “Motion to Adjourn” and a “second to the motion. However, there was no vote on the motion.

The major issue of the evening was the new sign that was recently installed in front of City Hall by the LaGrange parks department. The sign replaced the original sign and was slightly larger. Blake Hazelton made a presentation in behalf of the parks department. Hazelton claimed that the sign met the requirements of the relevant ordinance. However, Gary Williams made an outstanding presentation in behalf of the Historical Society. He showed that the parks department failed to get approval of the sign, that the parks department failed to obtain the proper permit for the sign, and that the sign did not meet the requirements of the relevant ordinances. Above all, his presentation was even handed and well presented. The Historical Commission is lucky to have him.

The City Council is really caught in the middle of this issue and will likely receive bad publicity, no matter how they decide the issue. If they vote to allow the sign to remain, then other people will want to be given the same treatment and that would defeat the purpose of the Historical Commission. If the council requires the sign to be removed, it will be accused of wasting $11,000 of taxpayer money.

Frankly, the fact that cost of the sign was 11,000 seems like a crime to me. Some things never change – there must be enough money spent in projects to take care of everyone. Probably the best solution in this instance would be for the parks department to modify the sign enough to bring it within compliance with the relevant ordinances. That will likely cost some more money but it would be the only fair thing to do. The parks department certainly should not receive preferential treatment over average citizens. The council, at the urging of Councilman Tom Goldsmith, decided to hold a public hearing on the issue at the next regularly scheduled council meeting which will be on April 6, 2009.

MURNER STUMBLES WITH NOMINATION OF VAN NAGELL TO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

On April 21, 2009 Judge Duane Murner nominated Ellen Van Nagell for a position on the Board of Tax Appeals. The Board consists of three members; one nominated by the Fiscal court, one by the Judge Executive and one by the Mayor of LaGrange. There are two vacancies on the Board at the present time – one is to be filled by the Mayor and the other is to be filled by Fiscal Court. The third member of the Board, Rusty Davis, was placed on the Board by Judge Murner.

Despite the fact that the Fiscal Court was supposed to fill the vacancy Judge Murner took it upon himself to nominate a person to the position. Moreover, he nominated a person with extremely close ties to developer Bob Jones who in the past year appealed the assessment of most of his vacant lots to that Board. He is expected to do the same thing this year. Jones is also a close friend and political supporter of Judge Murner.

According to the Property Valuation Administrator (PVA), Judge Murner at the time of the nomination of Van Nagell, advised the Fiscal Court that the PVA had recommended her for the position. The office of the PVA subsequently advised Judge Murner that he had misinformed the Court, as that office did NOT recommend her. The office of the PVA has also advised all of the members of the Court that her appointment would present a conflict of interest due to her ties with developer Bob Jones.

Subsequent to the PVA speaking out, Judge Murner sent a letter to all members of the Court advising them that he was going to pull the nomination of Van Nagell. He gave three reasons for pulling the nomination. The first reason was that if Bob Jones decided to appeal his assessments again this year and Van Nagell chose to refrain from voting, then that would leave only two members of the Appeals Board to vote which could result in a tie vote. His second reason was that he did not want Van Nagell to get caught in a cross-fire having to do with attacks on Bob Jones or his friendship with Jones. The third reason was that the appointment really belonged to the Fiscal Court instead of him.

Judge Murner was aware of all of these facts before he nominated Van Nagell. He obviously tried to slip her onto the Board. Nothing has changed since he nominated her. Murner continues to want to be in TOTAL control of everything in the county. This time he was taken to task for his actions by the PVA. Congratulations are in order for the PVA. More public officials need to stand up to Judge Murner, including members of the Fiscal Court.

VOEGELE VILIFIES SOMEONE;PERHAPS HIMSELF

After watching the Fiscal Court meeting of April 7, 2009, I am convinced that Magistrate David Voegele doesn’t have a grasp of the issues behind the lawsuits filed by Magistrate Scott Davis. Perhaps he doesn’t want to understand, perhaps he is in denial, or perhaps he doesn’t have the ability to understand. Whatever the reason it does not bode well for the residents of Oldham County.

In his remarks to the court on Tuesday, Voegele seemed upset because Magistrate Davis voted to accept the anonymous donation and then sued to learn the name of the donor. He seemed to insinuate that there was a conflict in the two actions. Magistrate Davis didn’t sue Judge Murner or the court for accepting the donation; he sued Judge Murner because he refused to release the name of the donor. Voegele doesn’t seem to grasp the difference. As a matter of fact, Magistrate Davis voted to accept a second donation from the same donor, however he has not sued Judge Murner for that. What is Voegele’s problem?

Further, Voegele seems to believe that Davis should have come to the full court and given them an opportunity to reconsider the donation. There are two things wrong with that thought. First, Davis was not opposed to accepting the donation and did not see a need to reconsider his position. Second, if any magistrate, including Voegele, wanted to bring the matter before the court, he/she could have. Moreover, Voegele was aware that Magistrate Davis had filed an open records request with Judge Murner and he was aware that Murner had denied the request. If he wanted to save the court the money, he should have tried to persuade Murner to release the name to Magistrate Davis. That would have ended everything and there would not have been a court case. Voegele was probably hoping that Magistrate Davis would lose the lawsuit and be embarrassed. I seriously doubt that Voegele had a decent understanding of the law or the Supreme Court decision that was pertinent to the lawsuit.

In my opinion, Voegele believes that Magistrate Davis will possibly be one of his opponents in the race for County Judge and he is jealous that Davis was found by a court of law to be correct and received a lot of positive publicity. So now he is trying to garner just as much publicity. It is as simple as that and I believe that every other member of the court knows what Voegele is doing.

As for the illegal meeting there seems to be a couple of magistrates who believe that they have “egg on their face” and are now trying to defend their ignorance by attacking Magistrate Scott Davis. They seem to want to hammer away at the fact that he remained in the meeting and did not raise any objections to the content of the meeting. Obviously, had he left the meeting, the charges would never have been brought in a court of law because there would not have been any evidence to convict. Not one other magistrate had the fortitude to come forth and offer testimony for either side to my knowledge. Considering the fact that there have been several “executive” sessions of the Fiscal Court, every magistrate should take it upon himself to know the laws regarding those meetings. However, it took a freshman magistrate to have the fortitude to bring the matter to the attention of the public. Once again, court action could have been avoided had Judge Murner admitted his mistake and made the content of the meeting known to the public. Further, any magistrate could have brought the matter before the court and encouraged Judge Murner to make the information public but none chose to do so.

Magistrate Rash tried to trivialize the conviction by comparing it to a “jaywalking” violation. That type of thought process is typical for him. Anyone watching him in Fiscal Court knows what I mean. No explanation is needed. In my opinion he is an embarrassment to his constituents and the other residents of the county. Therefore, I do not believe that anyone was surprised by his statement nor was anyone impressed. After seeing the way he pushed to get the court to give a fee increase to Industrial Disposal for garbage collection I expect that he would have rather given Magistrate Davis’ legal fees to them. Thankfully, other members of the court saw through his actions and prevented the increase in fees.

Magistrate Greenwell’s statement regarding the illegal meeting left me with the impression that he did not believe that any of the other magistrates had the knowledge to figure out that the meeting was illegal. I hope that is not the message that he intended to confer to the court. If that were the situation, we would all really be in trouble.

Voegele again inserted his “foot into his mouth” by stating that speaker Karen Baughman was distorting the facts when she spoke to the court. Could he not see that she was quoting directly from the court decision. Further, if he had actually read the decision, he would have known that she was not distorting the facts. The decision is a matter of public record. Could Voegele be afraid that someone will bring up the fact that he sat through an illegal meeting during the next elections? I can understand his concern.

I am sure that Judge Murner did not want this matter brought before the court again. I can understand this being that there was really no need to bring it up. However, Voegele has now rekindled the fire. I do not understand why he brought the matter up. Surely he did not believe that the court could refuse to pay the attorney fees. After all, there is a court order requiring the Fiscal Court to pay the fees. Once again, his lack of understanding shines right through.

Finally, Voegele seemed to become angry when Magistrate Davis referred to him as “Mr. Voegele” instead of “Magistrate Voegele.” I have frequently reminded the court that you must earn respect. Perhaps he was not listening. That tells me that he is a very vain person. He probably has a plate on his car that tells everyone that he is a magistrate. There is nothing wrong with having pride, but you don’t need to be pompous. Voegele needs to understand that as a county magistrate he is the lowest level of elected county officials that exist. People outside of Kentucky have no clue what a county magistrate is. So my advice is, “stay in the county where you can continue to think that you are someone important.” That is not meant to demean the position of magistrate; only to remind those people holding that office to be realistic.

PVA WINTERS' POSITION ON APPEALS IS WRONG

Ron Winters, the Oldham County Property Valuation Administrator (PVA) recently placed an ad in the Oldham Era that I found to be incorrect and totally out of line.

It appears that Winters is trying to discourage people from appealing their property assessments. What is worse is that he has already made up his mind regarding any appeals that might be made. In essence he has said that people are wasting their time should they decide to appeal their assessments.

First, Winters states that the value of homes in Florida and a couple of other states has decreased by as much as 20%. I am sitting here in Florida as I write this and I can tell you that the values have easily decreased by 40%. Further, Winters uses a newspaper article from the Oldham Era to justify his position but wants to limit what the taxpayer can use for evidence. I believe that higher authority would see it differently. As a member of the Kentucky Attorney General’s office recently said to me, “Local officials often do not understand the limits of their authority.”

Winters states that comparable sales do not include foreclosures and short sales. I have read the Kentucky constitution that Winters frequently referred to when he was defending his decisions of the developers’ appeals last year and I don’t recall those terms being used. Section 172 states that property should be assessed at the price that it would bring at a voluntary sale. If houses around your home are being sold at foreclosure sales, it will certainly affect the price you will receive for your home should you decide to sell it. That is simple common sense. The effect of “short sales” and "foreclosure sales” on surrounding housing is clearly visible in Florida.

Last year developers successfully received 25% reductions in their appeals before the appeals board by claiming that everyone was aware that the prices of homes and lots had fallen. To my knowledge that decision has not been overturned. Considering that, I believe that everyone should appeal their assessments. I know that means a lot of work for the office of the PVA but that comes with the position.

Hopefully Winters will reconsider his unreasonable and prejudicial position. If he doesn’t, people will be forced to appeal his decisions. That would be inconsiderate on the part of any elected official. That would also likely have repercussions for Winters when he runs for reelection.

TWO NEW ORDINANCES AND TWO NEW FEES

Two new ordinances were passed at the Fiscal Court meeting held on March 17, 2009. One is known as the “Alarm Ordinance” and the other one is known as the “Peddler’s Ordinance.”

The alarm ordinance essentially provides for a fine for false alarms received by the Oldham County Police Department. Each person would be allowed two false alarms each year before being subject to the fine. Although supporters of the ordinance claimed that the police department was receiving so many false alarms that it was affecting its ability to perform other duties, no statistics were provided to support this allegation. The finance committee was asked if it had the statistics.

What was more surprising about the ordinance was that it provided for an annual registration fee of twenty dollars for registering alarms with the Oldham County Police Department. The fee only applies to those alarms that alert the police department. This is just another way for the county to raise money. It seems that every time the Fiscal Court meets there is some new fee or tax. Magistrates Scott Davis, David Voegele and Steve Church voted against the alarm ordinance. The remaining magistrates and the judge voted for the ordinance.

Then there was the peddler ordinance. The alleged purpose of this ordinance was to keep peddlers from scaring people and to keep unwanted solicitors away from people’s homes. It does neither. It only requires peddlers to obtain a permit in order to peddle their wares. It does not stop them from coming to your house. There will be a background check done on each applicant. However, after reading the ordinance, it does not appear to me that any real grounds for denial of the permit are contained in it. And then there is another fee. The permit, which will cost one hundred dollars, will be valid for a maximum of six months. As originally written, the permit would have prevented salespersons from calling on businesses. Thanks to Magistrate David Voegele that provision was removed from the ordinance.

The peddler ordinance does give police a basis for questioning salespersons and to know who is selling things in the neighborhoods. However, I don’t believe that we needed an ordinance for them to do that.

Magistrates Scott Davis, Bob Leslie and Rick Rash voted against the peddler ordinance while the remaining magistrates and the judge voted for the ordinance.

MAGISTRATE VOEGELE WANTS DEAL WITH SCHOOL BOARD RECONSIDERED

Magistrate David Voegele wants the Oldham County School Board to consider relinquishing all or part of the two hundred thousand dollar payment that the Fiscal Court gives to it each year as a result of an agreement reached with it several years ago.

As many of you may recall the Dynegy Company, located on Commerce Parkway wanted to build a plant to generate electricity. The county agreed to lease the property to Dynegy for twenty years which meant that Dynegy would not have to pay any property taxes. At the end of the twenty years the property would be turned over to Dynegy and they would pay regular property taxes. As part of the deal Dynegy agreed to pay the county several hundred thousand dollars each year. The school board felt that the agreement would preclude it from collecting property taxes for the twenty year period. Therefore, the county agreed to pay 200 thousand dollars annually to the school board.

Voegele’s assertion now is that since the school board seems to be “flush” with money, at least in the building fund, and times are “tough” for the county, the Board of Education should consider relinquishing all or part of the money each year. County Attorney John Fendley stated that Fiscal Court had a contract with the school board and that we were bound by that contract. However, the court passed a resolution calling for the finance committee to attempt to reach a new agreement with the Board of Education.

I agree with Voegele’s contention although I don’t know that the county is financially strapped for money. Therefore the county may not be able to make a good argument for their position. As for honoring the contract, I do not remember a contract being entered into. Several years ago I read the minutes of the Fiscal Court meeting during which the resolution was passed to give the money to the schools. I do not remember any contract being mentioned. However, that has been a few years ago and it is possible that a contract does exist. Certainly some simple record checking would resolve that question.

Voegele also argued that the Board of Education did not put up any money in the effort to have Dynegy come to the county but was receiving some of the profits. It is certainly true that had Dynegy not come to the county, the schools would not have received any of the money that it has received. Further, the Board of Education did not suffer from any of the political fallout that was the result of the Dynegy agreement. Simply put, the Board of Education was the beneficiary of a deal that did not cost them anything.