WILL OLDHAM COUNTY HAVE ANOTHER FISCAL COURT THAT DISRESPECTS THE LAW

The Murner-led Fiscal Court is over for all intent and practical purposes. The court held its last meeting on December 21, 2010. Each Magistrate took the opportunity to express his/her gratitude for having been elected by their constituents. There was an unusual appearance of harmony among the Magistrates - probably more than since their first meeting four years ago.

Personally, I am very glad to see the end of the Murner-lead Fiscal Court. Judge Murner demonstrated a total disregard for the law - especially where open government was concerned. Many people were glad to see him reined in by a court of law over his illegal acts of secrecy. Murner has constantly bragged about achieving a balanced budget and ending his term with a major surplus. I never heard him say that he balanced that budget by raising taxes, which he significantly increased on Oldham County families. He always claimed that the balanced budget was due to cuts in personnel and other cuts in the budget; an example of misleading the public that was the trademark of the Murner administration. However, in the end the escalation of taxes and fees proved to be fatal to Murner’s hope of having his hand-picked successor be elected as County Judge/Executive. Still further, the escalation of taxes and fees also served to cause several Magistrates to fail in their endeavor to be re-elected. Some of them may not realize this or want to accept it, but any non-biased person can easily see it. That is what blind loyalty can do for you.

Now the obvious question is: will the incoming Magistrates be as blind as some of those whom they are replacing? They will get their first test at the first meeting on January 3, 2011. At that first meeting, the new County Judge/Executive, David Voegele, will present to the court/new Magistrates the names of several people that he will be hiring for their approval.

Of the names of the people Judge Voegele will present will be John Black, his brother-in-law. Judge Voegele has selected Black to be his deputy. The fact is that Voegele does not need the approval of the Fiscal Court for the position of Deputy County Judge/Executive. However, Voegele has stated that he would present Black to the court along with the names of his other new-hires. By doing this Voegele will be asking the Magistrates to violate the county administrative code - or at least condone his questionable selection. That is simply being insensitive to the members of the court. Seems like another County Judge we’ve seen over the past four years doesn’t it?

The present Oldham County code of ethics is part of the county administrative code. Section 4.3 (Nepotism) of the code states: “Members of any County government officer’s or employee’s immediate family are ineligible for employment by the Fiscal Court.”

The selection of John Black by David Voegele is clearly nepotism and should not be tolerated. Moreover, by Voegele asking the court to approve or condone the selection of Black he is showing disrespect for them and asking them to do something that that they may be criticized for doing by their constituents. He is also taking advantage of the fact that some of the members are new to the court and may not feel comfortable opposing him in the very first meeting. Although this may be a good tactical move by Voegele, it is unethical. The people of Oldham County will get a very good sense of the direction that this court will follow for the next four years. David Voegele can be assured that the people will not forget what he is doing.

Judge Voegele may say that he is selecting Black because he is very qualified by virtue of the fact that he was the County Judge before. That argument has several holes in it. First, the people of Oldham County no longer wanted Democrat John Black as County Judge as he was defeated in his bid for a third term by Mary Ellen Kinser. Second, surely Voegele had someone else in mind to be his deputy should John Black have been elected to the Kentucky State Senate seat that he sought, though he was soundly defeated by Republican Ernie Harris. Then there is the fact that the “end does not justify the means”, especially when the “means” result in a violation of the law; a law that John Black instituted when he was the County Judge. How ironic is that now? When John Black sought the change in the administrative code did he believe that the change should only be applicable to others and not him? In other words, do as I say, not as I do.

David Voegele still has time to correct his mistake but does he have the desire to do what is right or will it be full speed ahead, the law be dammed?

WILL POLITICS AND BAD HABITS EVER CHANGE IN OLDHAM COUNTY

Does every elected County Judge-Executive believe that he has to help an old friend, relative, supporter, or someone who needs to enhance their state retirement benefits? First, Duane Murner hired Bill Tucker shortly after being elected County Judge-Executive and Tucker remains on the county payroll to this day. Tucker has been on social security for years and should have opted to allow a younger person who was in need of a job to be employed. However, he received a substantial increase in pay from his previous magisterial salary, after he was removed from office by the voters. Thus, his retirement will be increased significantly. Likewise, Judge Murner hired former magistrate Paula Gish to be his Deputy Judge-Executive and gave her a huge increase in salary. Again, her retirement will increase significantly due to this increase in pay. What is worse is that one of her duties has been to supervise the county payroll clerk and the state auditor said in an annual report that she was not qualified to do that. The payroll clerk was recently fired by County Judge Murner but Gish remains on the job making over $70K per year.

Well, David Voegele also has decided to help an old friend and relative increase his retirement. He decided to hire his brother-in-law, John Black, to be his deputy at a salary of over $55K per year. John Black has been driving a school bus in order to enhance his retirement. It is a great promotion when you go from school bus driver to Deputy County Judge. I once heard Voegele remark that it would be a great promotion for a person to go from janitor to county treasurer. He also remarked that it would make a great title for a story. I guess that he forgot that, or believes that it does not apply to him. I’m sorry David, but you can’t have it both ways.

David Voegele promised change throughout his campaign this past spring. As a matter of fact, he told me that he would make a lot of changes if the people would just give him a chance. He knows, or at least he should know, that many people voted for him because they felt that he was the lesser of two evils. Voegele has gotten his chance but so far I have not seen the change. Hiring his brother-in-law is not a change in practice from the past administration. To make matters worse, John Black is a staunch democrat who has been defeated in his last two attempts to achieve elective office. He was just recently soundly defeated by Ernie Harris in a bid for the Kentucky State Senate. Black ran on a democratic agenda which supported expanded gambling in Kentucky. Did that not tell David Voegele that the people of Oldham County have rejected John Black?

While we are on the issue of change, there are two more items that need to be addressed. Voegele railed against the huge debt that the county has amassed and the huge increase in the insurance premium tax rate. The first two items of business Voegele should have on his agenda are the reduction of the insurance premium tax by fifty percent and the retirement of some of the county debt. The county has a huge surplus at the present time (over $8 million) and can afford to accomplish both of these feats. If Voegele does not do this quickly, the county should not expect him to do anything that he promised. As a matter of fact, the people had better be on the defensive.

Since the primary election, Voegele has went against several of his campaign messages and disappointed many in the public. He voted to once again increase sewer rates by 25% and to add additional debt to the Fiscal Court budget through accepting debt taken on by the sewer district to finance their ongoing abysmal operations. The court voted to approve the measure by one vote, meaning Voegele’s vote in the opposite direction would have prevented the increase from becoming a reality.

Voegele also needs to make some personnel changes in his administration as soon as he takes office. He was also opposed by nearly all of the county government employees working in Judge-Executive Duane Murner’s office in addition to most of the department heads in county government. In fact, many of them worked extensively to support the candidacy of Paula Gish in the primary election. This includes employees making financial contributions to Gish, displaying yard signs, wearing campaign clothing at events, and openly supporting Gish whenever possible. He still has time to make those changes before he takes office, however it is questionable whether he has the stomach to make the tough decisions needed in this area.

I still believe that Voegele was the better choice for County Judge but my belief is fading fast.

HOW A LAME DUCK FISCAL COURT CONFRONTS ISSUES

The November 16, 2010 meeting of the Oldham County fiscal court proved to be interesting. The court had several people in attendance from the Briar Hill and Spring Hill subdivisions.

Recently the Oldham Circuit Court ruled that there was not a valid approved subdivision plan for the Brentwood subdivision. This was the result of a lawsuit filed by residents of the Briar Hill and Spring Hill subdivisions. However, in spite of the decision of the Circuit Court there has been a road approved by the Oldham County Panning and Development Commission. According to residents who appeared at the fiscal court meeting, work on the subdivision continues even though there is no approved subdivision plan. Residents voiced concern for the safety of residents, especially children, due to excessive speed of drivers who use the new road as a means of bypassing Crestwood.

The residents had previously asked the court to close the road and have all work on the subdivision stopped. Judge Murner said that fiscal court has no jurisdiction in the matter since the court was not a defendant in the lawsuit. I doubt that this issue will go away.

In an unrelated matter Magistrate Bob Deibel made a motion that the court approve a new fifteen year contract with Insight cable company. Insight provides cable service for the majority of the citizens of Oldham County. However, Magistrate David Voegele, the Judge-Elect made a motion to table the issue. Voegele stated that he would like to consult with legal counsel in order that the county might gain further concessions from the cable company. Magistrate Scott Davis seconded the motion and the motion passed by a 7-2 vote. Magistrate Deibel and Judge Murner voted against Voegele’s motion. The current contract with Insight does not expire until August of 2011. Therefore, there should be no danger of the county being without cable service. What struck me as being odd about the vote was that the majority of the magistrates voted opposite of Judge Murner. I do not believe that would have happened a year ago. Perhaps Judge Murner has lost the rigid control that he appeared to have over the court until now. It is possible that some of the magistrates who were defeated now realize that their blind loyalty to Judge Murner contributed to their demise as magistrates.

Finally, Magistrate Steve Church stated that the finance committee had met to discuss the matter of retiring part of the county debt-specifically the part that relates to the community center. He stated that the finance committee decided to not recommend that the debt be retired but rather to allow the incoming court to make that decision. It is believed that Magistrate Rick Rash was the driving force behind retiring part of the county debt. Had the debt been retired it would have amounted to a savings of approximately one thousand dollars per week in interest payments. Magistrates David Voegele, Steve Greenwell and Steve Church make up the finance committee.

OLDHAM COUNTY JUDGE ELECT DAVID VOEGELE ANNOUNCES TWO APPOINTMENTS

Oldham County Judge-Executive Elect David Voegele has released the names of two individuals he intends to recommend to Fiscal Court as part of the new administration in January.

Greg Smith, former Chief of the Louisville Division of Police, will be recommended to Oldham Fiscal Court as the replacement for former Chief Michael Griffin, who retired at the end of August. Voegele said he would like Smith’s title to be Director of Public Safety, rather than chief of police.

“The position will manage all police work but also additional responsibilities I would like to come under the supervision of the director of public safety,” Voegele indicated.

“Greg Smith is an outstanding police administrator, recognized widely in the law enforcement community as a consummate professional. I could not find anyone who did not have the highest respect for him,” Voegele said.

Judge-Executive Elect David Voegele said he interviewed 12 candidates to lead the Oldham County Police Department. “I felt each of the candidates was an excellent police officer, but Greg Smith brought more to the table in terms of being able to move Oldham County forward on a variety of issues.”

Chief Smith was a member of the Louisville Division of Police from 1974 through January 2003, when he joined the staff of Senator Jim Bunning. He will end his work for Senator Bunning when Bunning retires at the end of the year.

Chief Smith began his career path as a patrol officer in the First and Sixth Districts. Promotions through the years included detective, sergeant, lieutenant, assistant chief, deputy chief and chief. He has supervised all aspects of police services, including training, community development, narcotics, sex crimes, homicide and robbery units.

Smith is a graduate of Bellarmine University, and holds a Master’s Degree in Community Development from the University of Louisville. He also teaches law enforcement at Bellarmine. He will take over January first from Acting Chief Billy Way, who has accepted a position in business and will retire at the end of December.

Another appointment planned for the new administration includes a former director of Oldham County Planning and Zoning. Jim Urban, who was part of the administration of former Judge-Executive, John Black, will be recommended as the new director of Planning and Development, replacing Louise Allen who retired earlier this fall. Urban left Oldham County government in 2003.

“Jim’s prior experience in Oldham County, along with his knowledge of the development in the county, his management skills and abilities in economic development and land use planning, will bring a superior level of performance and service in planning and development,” Voegele said. “Our quality of life is not for sale, and I will be holding Planning and Development to the highest standard in maintaining that pledge to our community.”

Since leaving Oldham County in 2003, Mr. Urban worked in the private sector and was director of planning for the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts and has a Master’s Degree from the University of Massachusetts in Land Use Planning and Landscape Design.

OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT ISSUES DECISION OF BRENTWOOD SUBDIVISION

On June 24, 2008 the Oldham Planning and Development Commission (PDC) denied an application made by Oldham Farms Development, LLC for approval of Brentwood Subdivision. Oldham Farms Development, LLC then appealed that decision to the Oldham Circuit Court. An Agreed Order was thereafter entered that dismissed the lawsuit.

As a result of the Agreed Order the PDC held meetings on July 25, 2008 and on September 1, 2008 to discuss the subdivision plan again. The meeting on September 1, 2008 was conducted in a closed session which means that the public was not allowed to view the proceedings. After coming out of the closed session the PDC voted to approve the Brentwood subdivision plans, thereby, overturning the original denial of the plans by that same body. Subsequent to that decision Steve Harold, ET. Al (Other private individuals) filed a lawsuit alleging that the Commission abused its authority by approving the subdivision plans because it feared that it would be sued. Apparently someone had threatened to sue the PDC if they did not approve the subdivision plans. The plaintiffs alleged that it was a violation of law to approve the subdivision plans on the basis that the Commission feared a lawsuit. Judge Conrad found that the approval of the subdivision plans because of fear of litigation does not invalidate the approval.

Personally, I find that the approval of subdivision plans because the PDC feared litigation to be abhorrent even though it might not be illegal. If the Commission were to continue making decisions on that basis, a person would simply just have to threaten the Commission with litigation and the Commission would capitulate. That would result in a totally ineffective Commission. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the fear of litigation did not negate the decision of the Commission.

However, the Circuit Court did find that the Plaintiffs’ (Steve Harold, ET.AL) due process rights were violated when the PDC failed to properly advertise the PDC meeting on July 25, 2008 during which the subdivision plans were discussed prior to the September 1, 2008 decision to approve the subdivision plans. As a result of finding that the meeting was not properly advertised any business conducted at the meeting is null and void. The court then ordered and adjudged that the PDC final approval of the Brentwood Subdivision plans be set aside and the matter remanded for further proceedings before the PDC. The decision of the Circuit Court contains other legal discussions but as stated essentially it is back to the drawing board for the subdivision plans and back to the PDC.

As a result of the decision Michael Tigue, Attorney for the plaintiffs sent an email to all of the Oldham County magistrates, the county Judge/Executive, Courtney Baxter, the County Attorney and Stuart Ulferts, the Attorney for the PDC. The body of that email follows:

Dear Judge Executive Murner and Magistrates:

Attached is a copy of J. Conrad’s decision in the Brentwood subdivision appeal.

J. Conrad has determined that the Planning Commission’s second decision purportedly approving the Brentwood plan is void because it violated my clients’ rights to due process of law.

As you know the only decision that remains of record is the original decision denying the plan which is also not appealable as it was dismissed quite some time ago. Which means, all the work that has been completed on the site as of today has been performed in clear violation of the law.

As such, I have previously requested that orders issue immediately closing all roadways within the property to prevent them from being used by the public as well as stopping all work activity on the site which continues to this day despite J. Conrad’s Order. I have also requested that the developer be directed to take immediate action to physically prevent the roadways from being used by the public. My prior communications were sent to Ms. Beth Stuber, Mr. Brian Davis and their counsel Stuart Ulferts, Esq. At present, the public is using the roadways to cut through my clients neighborhoods often at high rates of speed. When blockades have been put up, people are simply moving them as well which means the developers need to be directed to put up barricades that cannot be moved and to erect signs that warn the public the roadways are not open to ensure their safety.

I also understand the roadways have been dedicated as county public roads. That dedication was awfully short-sighted as it is now apparent that the dedication is invalid as a matter of law well. The simple fact is that public roads are required by statute to be created by record plat. In this instance, they were dedicated pursuant to a plat that was denied. The subsequent approval of that plat has now been thrown out. In short, the dedication of the property’s roadways is void.

This situation is an unmitigated disaster brought on by an arrogant refusal of the development group to comply with, or at least respect the law. Had they simply waited (at a minimum out of respect) for the judicial system to resolve this dispute all of this could have avoided. It is truly unfortunate that this development group has placed Oldham County and my clients in general in this position. Obviously, some very difficult decisions are going to have to be made. Nevertheless, the illegal site development now has to be addressed and my clients expect it to be addressed promptly.

Moreover, the Brentwood Plan is not subject to further review as last proposed. That Plan was denied. That decision is not subject to further review as it was dismissed by prior Court Order. The only option Oldham County has is to direct the developer to resubmit a subdivision plan application for a substantially different proposal provided the requisite period to resubmit has elapsed.

Further, even if the same plan is resubmitted it directly violates the following regulations Sections 5.3A; 5.3.B.3; 5.3.B.4; 5.3.C; 5.3.3(a); 5.3.C.3(c); 7.1.C; 7.2.D.4; 7.2.F. In short, there are no circumstance by which the plan can be approved.

Regardless, what’s on the ground today is illegal and your assistance in remedying the problems it creates is greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Michael Tigue

I do not know what the final result of all of this litigation will be but I believe that all work should be stopped until a final decision can be reached. However, I have seen Judge Murner be slow to follow the orders of Judge Karen Conrad before and I have heard him say that he would go to jail if he thought that the court was wrong before he would obey an order of the court. I would believe that failure of the county to stop the work on the subdivision would result in more litigation for the county and we already have enough liability in pending court actions. We certainly do not need more.

COULD THIS BE WHY PAULA GISH IS NOT THE COUNTY JUDGE ELECT

Anne Gernstein is obviously not impressed with Paula Gish. Perhaps longer meetings might shed more light on what is going on behind the scenes. And, then again, maybe not.

REVIEW OF COUNTY ATTORNEY AND DISTRICT JUDGE RACES

Who do you vote for in these races? This year that is a very difficult question to answer. First, one must decide what is important to him/her. Is experience the most important factor that you consider? Is integrity more important than experience? What about qualifications or political party? Then there is always the question of the candidate being a conservative, moderate or liberal.

In the race for District Judge you have Jerry Crosby, the incumbent, who has been the District Judge for many years while his opponent, John Shaughnessey, has never been a judge at any level. If experience is the most important factor to the voter, Crosby wins, hands down. However, let me caution voters who simply consider experience. If experience were the only factor considered, the incumbent would almost always win as the incumbent usually has the most experience.

Both candidates for District Judge have stated that they are not allowed to express their political views or how they would vote on hypothetical cases. Thus, it is very difficult to know if the candidate is conservative, moderate or liberal. If you have followed the rulings of Judge Crosby, you may be able to make that determination. However, very few people even know what a District Judge does, much less know how the judge rules.

I have listened to both candidates speak on more than one occasion and the only thing that I am certain of is that Judge Crosby has the most experience. Naturally he has made a point of making sure that the people are aware of his experience. On the other hand, Shaughnessey has served in the military and belonged to several patriotic organizations. Therefore, he champions himself as a patriot. However, he has never inferred that Crosby is not loyal to his country. The voters have a tough decision to make and very little information on which to base the decision.

In the race for County Attorney we have a different situation. We have one candidate, John Carter, who seems to have the most experience since he was a District Judge for about ten years. Many people would believe that as a result of having been a District Judge the experience gained from that position would make him the most qualified. That is not necessarily true. Certainly that experience helps him. However, in that position he only made decisions on cases that came before him. There is a lot that happens to a case before it reaches the District Judge. As a matter of fact many cases never reach the District Judge. The County Attorney can decide to not take the case to trial or an agreement between the aggrieved parties can be reached without going to court. In one his speeches District Judge Crosby made the statement that the County Attorney had more responsibility for enforcement of the law than the District Judge. Thus while experience as a District Judge is important it is not to be confused with experience as a County Attorney. It is also important to mention that the County Attorney has one major function that does not involve going to District or Circuit Court and that is the responsibility for advising the Fiscal Court.

The only candidate who has any experience as a County Attorney is Stuart Ulferts. He was an Assistant County Attorney for a period of four years. Additionally, he has been employed as an attorney for the Planning and Development Commission for almost four years. Thus, Ulferts is the only candidate who has actually made the decisions that a County Attorney is required to make.

The third candidate, Galen Clark, is the only person who has run for the position of County Attorney and he has done that twice. He narrowly lost to long time incumbent, John Fendley, in the 2010 Republican primary race and he also lost the same race in 2006. Although he did not win either race the public has had opportunities to learn a great deal about him and many have already voiced their approval for him. However, Clark is running as a “write-in” candidate and it is very difficult to win as a “write-in” candidate. Moreover, he did not enter the race until very late in the election cycle. He would have been well advised to have entered the race the day after the executive committee of the Oldham county Republican party shunned him when picking a replacement for the late John Fendley on the Republican ticket.

To my knowledge, Clark is the only candidate that has experience practicing law in a state other than Kentucky. While some people have criticized Clark for having practiced in Indiana I find that to be a plus for him. That is experience that the other candidates do not have.

The race for County Attorney has been the most negative race that I have seen in Oldham County for many years. Allegations have been made against John Carter that his judgment should be questioned because of an incident in which he fired shots into a neighbor’s house after having consumed alcohol. However, the neighbor did not file a complaint against Carter and he was not charged with any violations.

Then there have been the people who have said that Galen Clark does not have any experience in Oldham County; that his experience comes from Jefferson County and Indiana. First, that is not true, Clark has had cases in Oldham courts. If it were true, it is simply ludicrous as the law in Jefferson County is much the same as the law in Oldham County. Both counties come under the umbrella of the Kentucky Constitution as well as the Kentucky Revised Statutes. That is simply someone grasping for straws.

Finally, there are those people, mostly John Carter supporters, who want to pick at Stuart Ulferts’ selection for his spouse. Frankly, I don’t care who he selected for a spouse nor do I care who anyone else chooses for his/her spouse. I do not believe that anyone would want people to berate them for their choice of a spouse. That is really throwing dirt. I know many spouses of politicians whom I could rip apart. I won’t go there.

For certain there are some sour grapes in this election. Those sour grapes are certain to remain until the 2014 elections. However, people must make a selection on Tuesday. For the sake of Oldham County I hope they make the right choice.

As you have noticed, I have not endorsed any of these candidates. Frankly, the variables are such in these races that I do not believe that it would be fair for me to advise people to vote for any specific person. It simply depends on what is important to the individual voter.

WHY ERNIE HARRIS WILL EASILY WIN KENTUCKY STATE SENATE RACE ON TUESDAY

Guest Column: By Scott M. Davis

In reviewing one of Oldham County’s most interesting races on the ballot this coming Tuesday, it is easy to see that State Senator Ernie Harris is likely to win a commanding victory over John Black for the Kentucky State Senate seat covering Oldham, Henry, Carroll, Trimble, and eastern Jefferson County. A brief look at the situation surrounding this race gives meaningful insight into how this race is easy to call before the ballot box opens on Tuesday.

First, Democrat John Black has employed many of the same campaign strategies which his brother-in-law, Republican David Voegele, used in his primary campaign for Judge-Executive earlier this year. This includes many large signs with various slogans strategically placed around Oldham County. Black has changed the message on many of his signs throughout the campaign, thus employing the same tactic used by Voegele. Additionally, Black has been seen in many parts of Oldham County campaigning around major intersections waving to people as they drive by.

What is important to remember is while Voegele’s campaign was successful using these tactics, this is a much different race. Ernie Harris is not Paula Gish, in any way, shape, or form. Ernie Harris is a legitimate candidate with a proven track record. Ernie Harris has not beat himself, unlike Gish. What was evident in the County-Judge Executive primary was that many people voted against Paula Gish, rather than for David Voegele. Additionally, the straight Republican ticket voters throughout Oldham County are going to come out in force, especially considering the vast popularity of Dr. Rand Paul in the U.S. Senate Race. Furthermore, the Republican tidal wave brought on by the tea party and the abysmal popularity of Democrats in general at this point will also play a major factor. None of this bolds well for Black come Tuesday evening.

John Black has also focused a significant part of his campaign on supporting expanded gambling at Kentucky’s horse racing tracks. We don’t have to debate the point that this is not a popular position with the majority of Oldham County voters, or voters throughout the commonwealth for that matter as witnessed by recent special elections. What is most interesting is that Black has not received any significant amount of financial support from the racing industry, especially when compared to the amounts of money they have put behind other Democratic State Senate Candidates in other recent elections. Why has Black campaigned on this unpopular issue when he has not received significant backing from the industry? Is he really just not invited to the party?

Ernie Harris on the other hand has typically kept his commitments to the voters of Oldham County and has supported the Republican majority leadership in the State Senate. He has given the voters no significant reason to fire him from the position he has held for several terms. His prominent committee appointments in the State Senate are also beneficial to Oldham County in terms of returning money back to our county for many various needs.

So there you have it, an easy win for Senator Ernie Harris is the call for Tuesday night.

WINTERS FOR PROPERTY VALUATION ADMINISTRATOR

Ron Winters is my choice for PVA. Winters has the experience necessary to do the job. Additionally he has proven to be fair and to perform the duties of the office in accordance with the constitution of Kentucky.

VOTE FOR BOB LESLIE FOR THIRD DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

For me, endorsing Bob Leslie is a very simple task. Leslie has kept his word to his constituents. He has voted as he said he would. The fact that he has stated that he will not vote for any tax increases is very important. Further, I have never found Leslie to be anything other than honest with me or anyone else.

COULD IT BE THAT GERNSTEIN AND BARR ARE NO LONGER FRIENDS

It is apparent that Anne Gernstein seemed to be stressed at the time of the Lincoln Dinner in 2010. If she were not stressed, she was just plain angry with Julie Barr and the office of Congressman Geoff Davis.

Anne has really laid one on Julie Barr with this comment. With the election coming next Tuesday Gernstein and Barr will be working together to count the absentee ballots and performing other duties that members of the Oldham County Election Board perform on election day. (Both Gernstein and Barr are members of the board) There is bound to be some tension.

At least they won't have to pretend that they love each other. Their cards have been put on the table for everyone to see.

Once again people, this is the chairperson of your Republican party. If this is what you want, it is your choice. I just want everyone to know. I don't want someone to say he/she was not aware of the situation.

HOW TO VOTE FOR COUNTY JUDGE

<> <>
Anne Gernstein didn't see all of the county political races as being an easy decision. However, you gotta do what ya gotta do. Did she think that she was going to cast her vote at the office of the County Clerk? Is that why she thought that she had to hold her nose?

ANNE GERNSTEIN ON ANIMALS IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE-AGAIN

I was asked by someone why I had taken this sound bite off the web site. Frankly, I don't know how it was removed but here it is again.

ANNE GERNSTEIN TIRES OF GEOFF DAVIS' OFFICE

<> <>

Apparently the 2010 Oldham County republican Lincoln dinner was  popular this past spring as the office of Congressman Geoff Davis almost did not get all of the seats that the office wanted.  Perhaps Anne Gernstein's patience was wearing thin but it is obvious that she was tiring of their last minute reservations.
 
Later we will learn that Julie Barr, Oldham County Clerk, almost missed the dinner also.

LAGRANGE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR EACH WIN PART OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

On December 4, 2008 LaGrange Mayor Elsie Carter brought claims against the LaGrange City Council in Oldham Circuit Court. Mayor Carter alleged that the Council had acted contrary to law by approving Graham Whatley as the City Attorney for LaGrange and subsequently rescinding that approval. She further alleged that the Council violated the law by reducing the property tax rate during the tax year which created a budget deficit.

Regarding the appointment of Graham Whatley as City Attorney, the Council contended that his appointment was conditional and that prior to all of the conditions being met the Council decided to rescind the appointment.

In June 2009 the Oldham Circuit Court found in favor of Mayor Carter on both issues. The City Council appealed that decision. On October 15, 2010 the Court of Appeals for the Commonwealth of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Oldham Circuit regarding the changing of the tax rate. In the decision, the court found that the reduction of the tax rate was in violation of statutory authority.

On the other hand, regarding the appointment of Graham Whatley as the City Attorney and the subsequent action to rescind the appointment, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Oldham Circuit Court. In essence, the Court of Appeals found that the Council had the authority to rescind the appointment at any time up to the point that all of the conditions of the appointment had been met.
City Councilman Jason Taylor stated “It is now time for Graham Whatley to step aside, as he has never been a valid city attorney. It is unfortunate that Mayor Carter has caused taxpayer money to be spent on this unnecessary and meritless lawsuit. I suggest that Graham Whatley reimburse to the city every dime that he has been paid to him by Mayor Carter, and that such funds be given back to the taxpayers.” He also stated that he thought that the Council should not pay any more money to Graham Whatley for services after the date of the decision, October 15, 2010.

Mayor Elsie Carter stated that she had not discussed the decision with her attorney but that there was a good possibility that she would appeal the decision.

ANNE GERNSTEIN EVALUATES RICK RASH

I certainly hope that Rick Rash has broad shoulders. Anne Gernstein seems to be on them all of the time.

WATCHDOG ENDORSES ERNIE HARRIS FOR STATE SENATOR

This is my first endorsement for the general election for 2010. Actually the endorsement is easy.

Senator Ernie Harris has served Senate district 26 well for seventeen years. I have not agreed with all of his votes but overall he has followed the will of his constituents. In essence, he has done what he has said he would so.

On the other hand, John Black, while serving as Judge/Executive of Oldham County, did not always follow the will of the residents. Many times it is difficult to know what the will of the people is. However, when Dynegy was coming to Oldham County it was abundantly clear that the people did not want it. Whether it has been good for Oldham County or not is not at issue. The people did not want it and John Black paid the political price for neglecting the will of the people.

Further, John Black’s campaign seems to be based on a single issue and that is doing what he considers to be best for the horse industry. Indeed, many of his supporters are from the route 42 corridor. I agree that the horse industry should normally be supported but in this case that simply translates to supporting gambling. Oldham County is about more than gambling and the horse industry.

Other than the horse industry Black’s biggest contributor is developer Bob Jones who contributed $500 to his campaign. If you have followed this blog, you know that I certainly do not consider that a plus for him.

It appears to me that John Black’s support base is narrow while Harris seems to be supported by a broad cross section of people from within the 26th senatorial district.

Several months ago I said on this site that I did not see anyone on the horizon that I thought would be better than Ernie Harris. I have not changed my mind.

WHEN COMMENTING ON SHERIFF SPARROW'S POSITION ON THE COUNTY JUDGE PRIMARY RACE GERNSTEIN HAS HER OWN OPINION

FINANCIAL REPORTS OF COUNTY ATTORNEY CANDIDATES

The 32 day pre-election campaign reports are due so I thought that this would be a good time to review the finances of the three candidates who are running for County Attorney. Actually the review is simple. Due to the timing of Galen Clark’s filing for the office he had not taken in any contributions and has not spent any monies as his report reflects. Stuart Ulferts has no report on file-at least the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance web site states that there is no report on file. Due to the signs that I have seen it appears that he has spent some money.

Now the report of John Carter gives rise to some interesting observations and possibilities. His report reflects that he has received $27,849 and has spent $23,051.05. Thus, he has a balance of $4,797.95.

If you remember, the Fendley family did not want Galen Clark to be the County Attorney because he had not practiced law in Oldham County. Well, of Carter’s total receipts he has contributed $23,000 to his own campaign. Thus, other contributors have only contributed $4,849 to him. Other than himself, Carter has had thirty contributors. Of those nineteen are attorneys. Of the nineteen attorneys only one has an office in Oldham County. The others have offices in Louisville with one exception and that is Martin Johnstone. He is on the Supreme Court. Carter’s biggest donor is none other than Barbara Fendley. Thus, the majority of Carter’s support comes from outside Oldham County.

Barbara Fendley made a phone call to Anne Gernstein shortly after her husband’s demise. Do you think that her husband’s replacement as the Republican nominee for the November election might have been discussed? Again, the Fendleys thought that Galen Clark should not be the Republican nominee because he did not practice in Oldham County. Considering Carters supporters, it appears that if he is elected, there will be a lot of Louisville influence in Oldham County. Further, John Carter served as a District Judge in Jefferson County-not in Oldham County.

Personally, I don’t believe that it matters that Clark did not practice in Oldham County. What matters is his qualifications and whether he has the same values as most of the people in Oldham County have.

STATE OF THE OLDHAM COUNTY GOP

By: Oldham County Magistrate Scott Davis

As many of the regular readers of the blog can attest to, there is a serious problem with the leadership of the Oldham County GOP, specifically with the Chairperson Anne Gernstein. I have been active in the political scene of Oldham County for nearly five years now and during that time I have rarely experienced a time when Anne Gernstein was not dividing the party, rather than uniting and moving it forward. To speak frankly, in my opinion saying that Anne Gernstein’s leadership has been abysmal would be an understatement. Nonexistent would be a much more accurate description.

I have spoken to countless people around Oldham County and the consensus is very clear that Anne Gernstein is destroying the Oldham County GOP. Her actions as Chairperson are hardly what one would usually expect from a party leader. To begin with, saying that Anne Gernstein “speaks like a sailor” would be a slap in the face to sailors, as the lewd language and disgraceful way in which she has spoken about nearly every elected Republican official in Oldham County is unacceptable. Anne Gernstein thrives on gossiping and belittling Republicans throughout Oldham County. Furthermore, in my opinion, she also seems to have a serious problem with other women being in positions of power, based upon her obvious disdain for women such as Mary Ellen Kinser, Paula Gish, and Julie Barr.

As many Republicans who are seeking office for the first time have found out over the years, Anne Gernstein is known for “blacklisting” anyone who decides to run for office that doesn’t “approach her throne” and ask for permission and her stamp of approval to seek the office. This happened to me and at least four other first-time Republican candidates for office in the last five years. Even sadder is that fact that others who have spoken with her prior to filing for elective office were typically discouraged and told of the many reasons “why they could never win”.

Anne Gernstein is also known for choosing sides in local primary elections here in Oldham County. What kind of a party leader engages in such practices? She openly worked for and supported Duane Murner in his candidacy for Judge-Executive, even though there were other candidates, including a sitting Republican Judge-Executive. Another issue that I have discussed with several people is that fact that Anne Gernstein operates the Republican headquarters from a leased space in LaGrange with a sign over the office encouraging people to vote for Duane Murner as Judge-Executive. This sign has been in place for approximately five years now. Anne has told me personally that Howard Ferrell, the owner of the building, put the sign up. However, if she were so opposed to its placement, why hasn’t she moved to a new location over the last five years?

Another interesting topic is how Anne Gernstein appropriates the funding received by the local GOP through donations and attendance at the annual Lincoln dinner. To the best of my knowledge, a large percentage of this money goes directly to her, solely at her discretion for various “expenses”. I have yet to see one dime of money spent to support local Republicans running in contested races. Many other counties spend donated funds to back Republicans in contested races, why not Anne Gernstein and our local GOP? Even more disappointing is that Anne has worked far more for candidates OUTSIDE of Oldham County, such as Marcus Carey and Mike Sodrel, than local Republicans. She also chose to support Tray Grayson in the U.S. Senate Primary earlier this year and in my opinion has done very little to support Rand Paul in his race against Jack Conway. This is quite simply unacceptable.

The final straw with many local Republicans concerning Anne Gernstein was her abysmal handling of the nomination process to replace the deceased County Attorney John Fendley. While she had more than sufficient time to interview candidates, she chose not to do so. Instead, she spent her time soliciting John Carter to submit his name as a candidate. There were other candidates who also submitted their names for consideration, including Galen Clark who lost the May primary by less than 200 votes to John Fendley. Anne Gernstein’s disdain for Mr. Clark is so prevalent that she never considered him for the nomination, as evidenced by the sound byte recently heard on this site. She even went as far as to mock County Judge-Executive Duane Murner because in her words, he wanted Courtney Baxter nominated. Anne Gernstein could care less what the Republicans of Oldham County want, as evidenced by her complete slap in their face for not giving Galen Clark fair consideration for the nomination. Mr. Clark is a man who has run for the office twice previously, unlike Mr. Carter who has never run for the position previously. Now, Anne is working feverishly to help Mr. Carter get elected in an effort to save what little face she might have left. If you look at her car, the only Republican candidate in the county who she will display magnetic signs for is John Carter, even though there are several other contested local races. Way to go Anne in supporting all local candidates!

It is clear that Anne Gernstein has likely alienated herself with nearly every office within Oldham County by her badmouthing of elected Republicans who run them. This includes the County Clerk, Sheriff, Judge-Executive, and the Fiscal Court Magistrates. Additionally, she has lied in some of her statements about various officials, including Magistrate Rick Rash. As for others, the vicious rumors which Anne Gernstein spreads around the county have been damaging and are totally unnecessary.

I have been informed that several of the larger annual donors to the local GOP are withdrawing their support until Anne Gernstein steps aside or is removed. I applaud each of them for this. There is no way in my opinion for her to ever regain any shred of respect necessary to effectively operate in her position. It is time that she does the right thing for once and step aside. She has devastated the local party unity enough already.

BAXTER NEEDS TO STOP THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Daniel Fendley, Assistant Oldham County Attorney under Courtney Baxter, has now filed new evidence with the Oldham Circuit Court in the case of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY vs JASON PARRISH. For another article on this matter visit examiner.com .

The purpose of this article is not to belabor the point of whether Stuart Ulferts is guilty of misconduct or not but to point out a conflict of interest that obviously exists in the County Attorney office. Daniel Fendley is the son of the late County Attorney, John Fendley. Since Fendley's death it has become obvious that the Fendleys do not want any of John Fendley's former opponent's to have the office of County Attorney. To me it appears that they believe that they should be the people to determine who who holds that office.

Remarks made by one of the Fendley children at their father's funeral indicated that the people in power should not allow his primary opponent have the office. Now the Fendley family appears to be attempting to keep the other person who was in the May primary, Stuart Ulferts, from having the position. Why don't they just allow the public to make that determination? I liked John Fendley and respected him for his willingness to be forthright even though I frequently disagreed with him. Somehow I just don't believe that he would have condoned what has happened. Can't everyone just let him rest in peace?

Ulferts may be guilty of misconduct and if he is, he should be punished for that. However, given the history of this political race Daniel Fendley's involvement in any filings regarding Ulferts is clearly a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to continue.

This latest action by Fendley simply adds another chapter to a political race that has become a joke. Further, for Fendley to use the court system to attack Ulferts when he has more than a legal interest in the case, serves only for the public to lose confidence in the judicial system.

One other interesting piece of information is brought forth from the motion filed by Daniel Fendley. In the Motion he states that Stuart Ulferts signed a contract on August 28,2006 to become a civil attorney for the county and that a mere seven days later he, Daniel Fendley, signed a contract to go to work for his father in the County Attorney's office as an assistant County Attorney. I believe that Ulferts had been working in the County Attorney's office prior to accepting employment with the county-specifically with the Planning and Development Commission. Is it possible that Ulferts was dismissed from his position in the County Attorney's office by John Fendley in order that he could replace him with his son, Daniel Fendley? Certainly is something worth thinking about.

By the way, I attended the forum last Thursday for those seeking political office. I could not help but notice that Daniel Fendley was seated with John Carter, Stuart Ulfert's opponent for the office of County Attorney. The seating was not assigned. Thus, attendees could sit at any place of their choice.

I am sure that this race will produce more newsworthy items before November 2, 2010.

ANNE GERNSTEIN REBUKES DUANE MURNER

Anne Gernstein apparently was very unhappy that County Judge/Executive Duane Murner did not consult with her regarding his selection to fill the interim County Attorney position. Thus, she chose to be spiteful and not consult with him on the selection of a person to replace John Fendley on the November ballot.

The problem is that with both Gernstein and Murner wanting their way, the people of Oldham County became the loser in the selection process. This is especially true for Galen Clark who had nearly won the May 2010 Republican primary. As a result of all of the posturing by Gernstein and Murner, Clark apparently did not receive proper consideration. From comments made by Gernstein and aired on this blog, it is obvious that she was not going to consider Clark. It is now obvious that Murner did not consider Clark for the interim position either. Both already had someone in mind for their respective selection. Gernstein and the executive committee of the GOP had the time to conduct interviews but did not do so.

Had interviews been conducted the information regarding John Carter’s shooting incident may have come to light and could have been considered. Also, I do not believe that Murner conducted any interviews of prospective candidates for the interim position of County Attorney.

Keep in mind that when Murner appointed Courtney Baxter to the interim County Attorney position he stated that he was appointing her to keep politics out of the selection, thereby insinuating that she would not be seeking the position on the November ballot. It is now apparent that he was less than candid with those remarks. His term cannot end too soon. I am sure that if he were confronted with this, he would give his usual “deer in the headlights” look as though he didn’t know what you were talking about. The people have become accustomed to that look.

There was nothing illegal done by Duane Murner or Anne Gernstein but their actions reflect deceitful behavior and should not be tolerated. Once again, Anne Gernstein should step aside as chairperson of the Oldham County Republican Party. She has alienated so many people that she cannot be an effective leader.

IS GERNSTEIN SUGGESTING THAT WE NEED A COUNTY DRESS CODE

Not being Catholic I have never paid much attention to people in offices who all appear to be dressing in unison.  As a matter of fact, having been in the military and in the United States Border Patrol I became accustomed to seeing people dressed alike.  However, some people must not like to see people dressed alike - especially in a business setting.  My only concern would be if I were an employee of the office.  If I were being told to wear a uniform, I would expect my employer to purchase my clothing for me.  After all, the clothing probably would not be something that I would wear otherwise.  Also, some people like to wear a particular style of clothing that is becoming to them and most uniforms do not flattler a person.

That said, I have not noticed that the work product of the County Clerk's office has been affected by the uniform dress code that is apparently in existence.  I have heard that some of the employees are not thrilled by having to wear clothing that is similar to all of the other employees.

Now as to the physical aspects of the employees, I would not dare go there.  I learned a long time ago that the best thing to say about a woman is that she looks nice.  I will leave it at that.

RASH MAKES ANOTHER LIST

Magistrate Rick Rash has achieved another high level position in the Oldham County GOP. From listening to the recent sound bites and knowing what lies ahead I suspect taht he will have many contenders for his exalted position. As a matter of fact I suspect that I am challenging Rash for the number one spot. From what I have heard I suspect that Gernstein has also made the top of other people's lists

OC SHERIFF'S OFFICE RESPONDS TO JOHN CARTER REMARKS TO COURIER JOURNAL

In a memorandum addressed to County Judge Duane Murner on September 23, 2010, Chief Oldham County Deputy Sheriff Bob Noble makes it clear that he does not agree with the remarks made by County Attorney candidate John Carter. The "watchdog" obtained the memorandum via a request filed under the Kentucky Open Records law. The memorandum details the shooting incident of May 10, 2009 that was reported earlier on this site. An earlier memorandum addressed the incident but did not go into detail about the incident. In that memorandum Deputy Sheriff John Schulte simply stated that Carter had been target shooting in his back yard and fired several rounds that struck his neighbor's home but was not charged in the incident because Carter and the neighbor agreed that Carter would pay for the damages.

In the September 22, 2010 edition of the Louisvile Courier Journal Carter said that the incident was brought up for political reasons and that his opponent, Democrat Stuart Ulferts, had used his role as an attorney working for the county to get the Sheriff's office to write a synopsis of the incident.In Chief Deputy Bob Noble's memorandum he states that Carter's remarks regarding the initiation of the first synopsis are a "complete misrepresentation of the facts surrrounding the report." Noble further stated that sometime in August (2010) the sheriff's office began receiving inquiries regarding the incident, including one from Stuart Ulferts. However, he stated that when Ulferts was first told that there was no report made of the incident because the issue had been settled, Ulferts made no further inquiry "nor did he ask for or in any way attempt to influence the Oldham Sheriff's Office to generate a report." Noble stated that he believed that the incident was going to become an issue.Thus,he instructed Deputy Schulte to submit a "brief" synopsis of the incident. Noble stated that Mr. Carter's campaign received the first copy of the report. Noble stated that had Mr. Carter chosen to respond to law enforcement honestly and in a civil manner, this would not have been an issue and as the perpetrator, he is solely responsible for any issues arising therefrom.

Carter claimed to the Courier Journal that he had not been drinking when he was shooting. Carter also stated to me that he had not been drinking even though a bottle of wine was present along with a pistol. The presence of the pistol and the wine were referenced in the memorandum prepared by Dupty Schulte. However, Shulte did not elaborate of Mr. Carter's reaction to the arrival of police on the scene. Schulte also did not the issue of Carter's sobriety.

Contrary to what Carter told me and the Courier Journal, the memorandum of Chief Deputy Noble states that when Deputy Schulte initially made contact with Carter after the shooting incident Carter lied by stating that he knew nothing about shots being fired. Noble further stated that, according to Deputy Schulte, Carter also appeared to be intoxicated. Also, according to the Noble memo, when Deputy Schulte went toward the pistol Carter attempted to physically block him. Due to a gun and alcohol being involved and the belligerence displayed by Mr. Carter he was handcuffed for safety reasons.

This latest memorandum certainly puts a different light on the issue. Guns and alcohol certainly do not mix. As I stated in a previous article I gave Mr. Carter an opportunity to respond to the first article. He declined to do so and said that the incident happened. However, this latest information certainly begs for an answer from Mr. Carter as his response to the inquiry made by the Sheriff's office cries for an explanation as well as does the involvement of the alcohol. Again, I offer Mr. Carter the opportunity to provide me with a response and I will post that response on this site.

I have posted Mr. Noble's memorandum, in its entirety, on this site for readers to review. You may view the memo by clicking here.

I am sure that Oldham countians have not heard the last of this issue. This is a very serious matter considering the office that Mr. Carter is seeking. As a matter of fact, I have been hearing from good sources that Galen Clark is giving strong consideration to entering the November 2, 2010 election as a "write-in" candidate for the Office of County Attorney.

Write-in candidates typically have a difficult time of winning in general elections due to the people who vote a straight party ticket. However, this seems to be the year of maverick voters who are not happy with business as usual. At the very least his candidacy would likely affect the outcome of the election. It could even influence the races for other offices if people decided to go away from the straight party vote in order to write in Galen Clark's name. Once they stray from the straight party vote they might decide to vote for other people who are not in their party.

GERNSTEIN ON INCEST AT COUNTY GOVERNMENT OFFICE

According to Anne Gernstein a couple of the girls who work in the office of the County Judge were very close to the Paula Gish campaign. It makes one wonder if they could possibly be loyal to David Voegele were he to keep them in his administration.
Gernstein did not mention the ladies by name but if you have kept up with the employment and contracts of the Murner administration, it is not difficult to determine their identity

GERNSTEIN DEFINES OLDHAM COUNTY CHAIN OF COMMAND

Anne Gernstein, the GOP chairperson, has confirmed what many people have known for years: that the most powerful democrat in Oldham County, Bob Jones,runs the county even though the county is Republican by registration. The voters did vote for a change in the 2010 primary. Hopefully, David Voegele will produce that change. The question is, does Voegele have the fortitude to make the necessary changes? Another article will be forthcoming on that issue.

LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR JOHN CARTER

Recently I was provided a memorandun by written by an Oldham County Sheriff's deputy regarding an incident that involved John Carter who is the Republican candidate for County Attorney. I posted that memorandum on this site for the public to view. At that time Carter avised me that he had been furnished a letter from the neighbor involved in the incident. He told me that the letter indicated that the neighbor was going to support his candidacy. I advised him that if he would forward the letter to me, I would post it on this site.

Carter has furnished the letter to me and I have posted it here for everyone to view. Apparently the letter was originally directed to Andre Udhe, a reporter for the Louisville Courier Journal newspaper.

NEW INFORMATION ABOUT OLDHAMCOUNTY ATTORNEY CANDIDATE JOHN CARTER

I have recently been provided a copy of a memorandum written by an Oldham County Deputy Sheriff in which he details an incident that he responded to. It is to be noted that the deputy prepared this memorandum fifteen months after the incident happened and it apparently is the only record of the incident. The subject of the incident was John Carter who is the Republican candidate for Oldham County Attorney.

In the memrandum the deputy states that John Carter was shooting at a trarget in his back yard and in doing so fired several rounds of ammunition that struck a neighbor's home. Carter and the neighbor came to an agreement whereby Carter would pay for the damages. Thus, no charges were filed against Carter. The deputy also stated that a bottle of wine was found with a gun in Carter's back yard.

This evening I had an opportunity to speak to John Carter about this incident and I asked him if it were true. He responded that he would respond as George Washington did when asked if he had chopped down a cherry tree. Carter stated,"I cannot tell a lie; it is true". He went on to say that he was not consuming alcohol at the time of the incident but he did not offer an explanation for the presence of the wine.

I offered Carter an opportunity to provide me with a written response which I said I would post on this site. He responded that he didn't feel that he could say anything else. He did state that he would provide a letter to me from his neighbor in which the neighbor states that she will support his candidacy for County Attorney. I told him that I would publish the letter when I receive it. Meanwhile, as I told Mr. Carter, I have posted the deputy's memorandum on this site. You can read the memorandum in its entirety by clicking here. You can then be your own judge regarding the incident.

MAGISTRATE RICK RASH TO BE BARRED FROM GOP HEADQUARTERS

What did Rick Rash do to get barred from the GOP headquarters? Perhaps the future will tell us something. I really thought that the GOP headquarters was/is an office open to the public but apparently the chairperson does what she wants. I don't know if he was ever refused entry to the headquarters or not but I thought that I had seen some of his campaign material at the office.

The other question that comes to mind is, did the position taken by the chairperson hurt Rash's quest to be reelected? He did lose by a small margin to another Republican.

Still a lot more coming.

ANNE GERNSTEIN: IN HER OWN WORDS ON GALEN CLARK

You must adjust the volume on this bar to hear the audio. Sorry for the inconvenience.

TIME FOR A CHANGE IN OLDHAM COUNTY GOP LEADERSHIP

Several weeks ago the Oldham County Republican Party had to select a nominee to replace former County Attorney John Fendley on the November 2010 ballot. John Fendley had defeated fellow Republican candidate Galen Clark by 199 votes in the May primary but subsequently was killed in a farm accident.

The chairperson of the Republican Party, Anne Gernstein, stated that the process for the selection would be similar to a corporate hire in the private sector. Thus, she advised that anyone interested in filling the position should submit a resume to her and each person would be considered by the executive committee of the party. Additionally, Gernstein personally asked John Carter to submit a resume. To my knowledge she did not ask anyone else to submit a resume. She did this despite the fact that he had never run for the position of County Attorney previously while Galen Clark had sought the nomination of the party on two previous occasions. In a sound bite that is on this site you can hear Gernstein state that she could never vote for Galen Clark. It is obvious to me that she had already determined who she wanted to be the person to replace John Fendley. She also stated to me that she had received a call from the widow of Fendley regarding the position. I believe that Anne Gernstein supplanted the will of the Republican voters of Oldham County and decided that she was better qualified to decide who should be the next Republican nominee for county attorney. That simply is not her job.

Meanwhile, Oldham County Judge Duane Murner had selected Courtney Baxter to complete the unexpired term of Fendley. At the time Murner announced the selection before the fiscal court he stated that he had selected Baxter in order to keep politics out of the process to replace Fendley on the ballot. Thus, people were led to believe that Baxter would not be a candidate for the position on the November ballot. However, Baxter did submit her resume to the GOP for consideration for the position. It is known that Gernstein was upset that Murner had not contacted her regarding his selection to complete Fendley’s unexpired term. On the other side of the coin, according to Gernstein, Murner was upset with her for not contacting him regarding the selection of the person to fill the position on the November ballot. This was evidenced by Murner’s obvious disdain for the selection process. He expressed his displeasure to the local media and stated that he would have nothing more to do with the Oldham County GOP. I doubt that he would have been happy with any process that did not lead to the selection of Courtney Baxter to fill the position on the November ballot, but that is just my opinion.

The fact is that the executive committee did not take the time to interview any of the candidates. Gernstein has stated that there was not enough time to conduct interviews of all of the candidates. There were four applicants for the position. I cannot believe that four hours could not have been given for the purpose of interviewing the applicants. If you aren’t interested in giving that much time to do a task, then don’t accept the challenge. Personally, I believe that Gernstein already had her mind made up and that she did not believe an interview with each applicant was necessary to fulfill her mission.

In Gernstein’s role as the chairperson of the GOP she is supposed to remain neutral in primary elections. There have been instances in the past when she did not do that. She has been partial to certain candidates. She was particularly partial to Duane Murner when he was running for County Judge in 2006. Now he is not happy with her methodology. My, how the worm turns! This site will show in the coming days and weeks that Gernstein used her position and the office of chairperson to vilify many of the candidates in Oldham County. This has brought about divisiveness with in the party. The county does not appear to be united at the present time. There is no doubt that Anne Gernstein has helped many people within the Oldham County republican party but the time has come for her to be replaced if the party is to become unified and continue to be successful. I believe that the people of Oldham County have lost trust in her judgment.

I believe that the Republican Party would have easily captured the position of County Attorney had John Fendley lived or had the selection process for his replacement been conducted more fairly. However, at the present time I do not believe that the election is a “slam dunk” for the Republicans. Other races might also be affected. Moreover, I suspect that funding for the Republican Party will decrease drastically if Gernstein remains as the chairperson. If that were to happen the party could become dysfunctional and serve no positive purpose. The Democrats in the county must be waiting anxiously to see what the outcome of this crisis is.

OC BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVES TAX INCREASE

On Thursday evening, August 26, 2010 the Oldham County Board of Education, as expected, voted to raise the property tax by 2 cents per hundred dollars valuation which amounts to a 2.99% increase in the property tax. Oldham County already had one of the highest property tax rates in the state.

The Board increased the tax rate despite having eight million dollars ($8,000,000) in the contingency fund. I expect that the board is in much better financial condition than the average family in Oldham County. But then the average family cannot just take money whenever it wants to do so.

Voting for the tax increase was Kevin Woosley, Joyce Fletcher, Larry Dodson, and Jennifer Jones. Opposing the tax increase was Walt Schumm. I find the votes of two of these members to be very interesting. Kevin Woosley’s wife, Melanie Woosley, is a member of the LaGrange City Council and recently opposed the budget presented to the council by LaGrange Mayor Elsie Carter. Melanie Woosley was in favor of a more conservative budget and in the past has voted to reduce taxes. Why then, would her husband want to raise the taxes of everyone in the county? My question is, does Melanie Woosley just want to give the Mayor grief or is Kevin Woosley afraid to stand up to the superintendent of the Oldham County school district, Paul Upchurch? I have been around the Woosleys at several city council meetings and have listened to both of them address the city council. I always believed that they spoke with virtually one voice.

Then we have Larry Dodson who at the time he ran for office stated to me that he was opposed to tax increases. He has even chastised the county fiscal court for raising fees and increasing the insurance premium tax. Don’t misunderstand me, I was opposed to all fee and tax increases but it just doesn’t seem right that Dodson was so critical of the fiscal court but did not seem to have a problem with raising the property tax rate for the schools.

It is not hard to understand why the members of the school board are not responsive to the public. There are two members up for reelection this year and both are unopposed. Frankly, the job pays next to nothing and carries a lot of responsibility. You would think though, that a county that prides itself in its education would be able to field some opposition to every incumbent. The real problem is that the people are happy as long as someone keeps telling them that they have the greatest school system in the state.

I have attended many school board meetings and it has always been obvious to me that the superintendent runs everything. That was also apparent at this meeting as the superintendent made the recommendation for the tax rate. I realize that a board hires someone to run the school system but the board is ultimately responsible for the actions of the superintendent.

Another interesting thing happened at the board meeting on Thursday evening. Each person who wanted to address the board was given five minutes to speak. I was one of the people who signed up to speak. Knowing that the building fund money cannot be commingled with the administrative money I asked the board if they could cut the building fund tax rate to reduce the impact of the tax increase for the general fund. I did not receive an answer to my question. As everyone knows the board has been buying a lot of property for future schools even though the schools are not overcrowded at this time and enrollment is not increasing. One might say that the board has been spending money like a drunken sailor except that a drunken sailor spends his own money – not yours and mine. Reducing one rate while raising the other would appear to be a sensible solution to their alleged problem. You can bet that the board will never reduce a tax rate though.

However, excuse me for digressing. Shortly after I began to speak I stated that I was bothered by the fact that a board member wanted to have his tax liability reduced but wanted to increase mine. Superintendent Upchurch decided at that point that I was criticizing a board member and that was not allowed. Therefore, he told me to stop speaking. Another example of who was running the show as Upchurch was giving the orders even though it was a Board of Education meeting. I quickly took notice that the chairwoman of the board, Joyce Flethcer, was not in charge. Not wanting to create a disturbance and distract from the other speakers I sat down. However, I can assure Mr. Upchurch that he will never stop me from speaking at another board meeting. I will totally ignore anything that he has to say. If he is not happy with that, we can discuss it in federal court. His presence is not necessary to have a board meeting.

In summary, I was not surprised that the board passed the tax increase. I had spoken with Larry Dodson earlier in the week about the proposed tax increase and he told me that the money was needed to hire more teachers and to give the staff a raise. That was reiterated by Upchurch at the meeting. Moreover, Dodson stated to me that Jefferson County had raised their rate by 29% as though that justified Oldham County raising its rate. The fact is that Jefferson County did not raise their rate by 29% but rather by a similar amount to Oldham County. This is not the first time that Mr. Dodson has appeared to confused about the facts.

It is worth mentioning that nobody that spoke was in favor of the tax increase. John Black spoke but he did not take a position on the issue. He was simply trying to ride the fence and to convince someone to vote for him. I might add that I stayed around for a few minutes after the meeting and listened to some of the crowd talk to each other. Judging from their comments, Black did not win any votes. Sorry John but that is the way I saw it.

MAGISTRATE CHURCH TO CONTINUE TO SERVE ON THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE

I was advised today that Magistrate Steve Church will continue to serve on the Human Resources committee of the Oldham County Fiscal Court. It had been inferred at the last meeting on July 20, 2010 that he would be replaced by Magistrate Bob Leslie. Apparently Leslie will also remain on the committee and there will now be four members on the committee instead of three.

It is believed that Judge Duane Murner will clarify this issue at the next meeting of the fiscal court.

MANY REPUBLICANS ANGRY OVER GOP SELECTION PROCESS FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY NOMINEE

Recently the Oldham County GOP selected a nominee to replace John Fendley on the November 2010 ballot as the GOP candidate for Oldham County Attorney. I have received many calls from people questioning the process. Many people assumed that Galen Clark would be selected as the nominee since he had run for the nomination on two occasions and narrowly lost to incumbent John Fendley in the May 2010 primary. However, this was not the case. Attorney John Carter was selected by the GOP Executive Committee to be the nominee. To my knowledge none of the candidates were interviewed by the committee. The chairperson said that time did not permit that. I do not agree with that as there were only four candidates. I guess there is no need to interview if your mind is already made up.

First, let me make it clear that there are no rules that would dictate that Galen Clark should have been selected as the nominee. However, he did run for the nomination and barely lost to John Fendley. It is a fact that certain members of the Fendley family did not want Galen Clark to be the replacement on the GOP ticket for John Fendley. One might believe that the Republican Party owed something to John Fendley. The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party did not owe John Fendley anything. John Fendley was a Democrat until just before the 2006 elections. I personally heard John Fendley state to the Republican Party at a party meeting that he only switched to the Republican Party in order to be elected. At least he was honest. However, he was not a long-time Republican – he was an opportunist.

For the record, I supported Galen Clark in the May 2010 primary. However, after he lost, and the last time that I spoke with John Fendley, I told him that I would be supporting him in the November election and I told him that he was welcome to put a sign in my yard. I regret that I will not be able to do that because John Fendley earned the nomination. However, his family did not earn the nomination. Therefore, I thought that the nomination should have gone to Galen Clark.

Frankly, I believe that the Republican Party Executive Committee treated Galen Clark unfairly. If there was something in Galen Clark’s past that should have kept him from receiving the nomination, the information should have been made public. Further, Clark should have been given the opportunity to present his side of the story. Instead of Clark being given that opportunity the party sought John Carter to apply for the nomination. It is my understanding that there were four candidates, including Clark and Carter. One of the other candidates was Courtney Baxter whom current County Judge Executive Duane Murner had chosen to serve the remainder of the unexpired term of Fendley. That selection is a whole different story. Supposedly, Murner selected her instead of Clark or Stuart Ulferts, the democratic nominee, in order to keep politics out of the selection. It appears that he was trying to give Baxter a political advantage.

As stated before, the executive committee was not bound to select Clark, however to not select him was a slap in the face of almost fifty percent of the Republican voters who voted in the primary election in May. In essence, a nine member executive committee overruled half of the Republican voters of Oldham County. That showed a total lack of gratitude. Many Republicans in Oldham County have a right to be angry and, if what I am hearing is indicative of their anger, they are very angry.

If anyone on the executive committee knew something about Galen Clark that was so bad that he should not serve as County Attorney, and did not share it with the public before the primary election, that person would have been doing a disservice to all of the people in Oldham County, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

Politically speaking, the Republican Party had an opportunity to secure the office for many years to come due to Clark’s age. Instead the committee chose a candidate who will soon be sixty-six years old and unlikely to want to serve many years. Or could it have been that they wanted a candidate who would only serve only one term? That would give John Fendley’s son, Daniel, an opportunity to move to Oldham County and be qualified to run in 2014 without having to face an incumbent. With the way this selection was made anything is possible.

MAGISTRATE CHURCH BECOMES SELECTIVE WITH HIS PARTICIPATION ON FISCAL COURT

In the fiscal court meeting on July 20, 2010 it was announced that Magistrate Steve Church had asked to be removed from the human resources committee since he would not be serving after December 2010. Magistrate Church was replaced with Magistrate Bob Leslie who will be an able replacement.

At the time that the announcement was made I thought that it was odd as elected officials, although defeated in either a primary or general election, usually continue to serve out their term in office and vote on issues that are brought before them. As far as I know Church did not resign from all of the committees on which he serves. Why did he just choose to resign from one committee? Later in the meeting County Judge Duane Murner nominated a replacement to the planning and zoning commission. Considering Magistrate Church’s position on being on the human resources committee, I thought that he might opt to not vote on anything that was going to have any effect after January 2011. As the commissioners are nominated for a four-year term, I thought perhaps Magistrate Church might opt to not vote on the nominee. However, Magistrate Church did vote to approve the nomination.

The question now is, will Magistrate Church abstain from voting on issues or matters that will continue to affect the county after he is out of office? It appears that he will just be selective with his participation on fiscal court.

If Magistrate Church considered his term completed or over when he was defeated in the May primary, why didn't he just resign at that time and save the taxpayers the cost of his salary? Frankly, I thought that he might either resign or miss a lot of meetings. After all, he did appear to feel that he was doing the residents of Oldham County a favor by serving.

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED TO FILL VACANT COUNTY ATTORNEY POSITION

Due to the recent untimely and unfortunate death of John Fendley, the position of Oldham County Attorney has become vacant, thereby making it necessary to fill the vacancy. Therefore, I thought this might be an appropriate time for discussion on the eligibility requirements for the person selected to fill the vacancy.

In the situation at hand, two separate selections must be made. First, someone must be selected to finish the unexpired term of John Fendley. The term expires at the end of 2010. This selection is made by the County Judge-Executive Duane Murner. Then, someone must be selected to replace John Fendley on the November ballot as the Republican nominee. This selection is made by the executive committee of the Oldham County Republican Party and must be made by 4:00 PM July 13, 2010.

Now what are the qualifications to be the County Attorney? §100 of the Kentucky constitution states as follows:

No person shall be eligible to the offices mentioned in Sections 97 and 99 who is not at the time of his election twenty-four years of age (except Clerks of County and Circuit Courts, who shall be twenty-one years of age), a citizen of Kentucky, and who has not resided in the State two years, and one year next preceding his election in the county and district in which he is a candidate. No person shall be eligible to the office of Commonwealth's Attorney unless he shall have been a licensed practicing lawyer four years. No person shall be eligible to the office of County Attorney unless he shall have been a licensed practicing lawyer two years. No person shall be eligible to the office of Clerk unless he shall have procured from a Judge of the Court of Appeals, or a Judge of a Circuit Court, a certificate that he has been examined by the Clerk of his Court under his supervision, and that he is qualified for the office for which he is a candidate (Emphasis added)

The language in the constitution is pretty clear cut and leaves little room for doubt. However, it does use the term “election” which might make some people believe that the qualifications might be different for someone appointed, rather than elected, to the position.

The question that arises is, do these same qualifications apply to a person appointed to the position of County Attorney? Common sense would say that the qualifications would be the same. After all, can you imagine having a County Attorney who was not of legal age or one who was not an attorney? Thus, if one of the requirements is necessary, it would follow that all of the requirements must be satisfied by the appointee. I was unable to find anything in the Kentucky constitution, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, or the Kentucky Administrative Regulations that addressed the qualifications of an appointee. However, I did find an opinion of the Kentucky Attorney General, OAG 67-223, that states that A person appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of County Attorney must possess the qualifications at time of appointment.

Obviously the name of Galen Clark has been mentioned as the possible appointee to the position as he has sought the position on two prior occasions and narrowly lost to Fendley in the May 18, 2010 primary. Assuming that he is qualified for the position pursuant to the constitution, which I believe that he is, I will focus on other segments of Kentucky law.

§ 118.345 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes states as follows:
• No candidate who has been defeated for the nomination for any office in a primary election shall have his name placed on voting machines in the succeeding regular election as a candidate for the same office for the nomination to which he was a candidate in the primary election, except that if a vacancy occurs in the party nomination for which he was a candidate in the primary election his name may be placed on voting machines for the regular election as a candidate of that party if he has been duly made such party nominee after the vacancy occurs as provided in KRS 118.105 (Emphasis added)

§ KRS 118.105 (3) states:
• If a vacancy occurs in the nomination of an unopposed candidate or in a nomination made by the primary before the certification of candidates for the regular election made under KRS 118.215, because of death, disqualification to hold the office sought, or severe disabling condition which arose after the nomination, the governing authority of the party may provide for filling the vacancy, but only following certification to the governing authority, by the Secretary of State, that a vacancy exists for a reason specified in this subsection. When such a nomination has been made, the certificate of nomination shall be signed by the chairman and secretary of the governing authority of the party making it, and shall be filed in the same manner as certificates of nomination at a primary election. (Emphasis added)

In view of this, I believe that Galen Clark would be eligible to be the nominee of the Republican Party on the November ballot notwithstanding his defeat in the May primary.

Now, if you are wondering who the next County Attorney will be, just think of the attorneys that you know who reside in Oldham County, who meet all of the requirements, and would be interested in serving in such a position.