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.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)