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!
Friday, May 22, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, May 3, 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)