Saturday, March 20, 2010

SCOTT BLACK IS BACK ONLINE

After an eight month hiatus Oldham County resident Scott Black has fired up his blog once again. Scott presents his material in a "down home" fashion. You will find his articles to be interesting.

You can find Scott's site here.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

MORE ON OPEN RECORDS AND ANONYMOUS DONOR

The issue of the “anonymous donor” to Oldham County came up once again at he March 2, 2010 meeting of the Oldham County Fiscal Court. Once again Duane Murner demonstrated that he does not understand the law. Or, perhaps he wants to mislead the people of Oldham County. Does he really believe that the people of Oldham County are stupid and ignorant? The people of Oldham County should be appalled that he tries to mislead them.

Murner once again stated that he was willing to accept the “consequences” of refusing to obey a court order in the case of George Rawlings. He said that he was saved from that fate when George Rawlings decided to publicly identify himself as the anonymous donor to Oldham County.

The time has come to clarify the issue of the identity of the anonymous donor to Oldham County. Although George Rawlings has stated that he was the donor and he DID sign the check that was received by the county, the fact is that he was NOT the donor. The donor was the Rawlings Foundation. The Rawlings Foundation is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt foundation.(Click here for Foundation information) There has never been any evidence produced that George Rawlings did, or did not, contribute any money to that foundation. The by-laws of the foundation allow it to collect money from many sources, including employees. Before Judge Murner nominates George Rawlings for sainthood he needs to be sure who should be given such status. To view a copy of the actual check written by the foundation click here.

Now the grand finale, in Fiscal Court on March 16, 2010 Murner stated that George Rawlings and the Rawlings are indistinguishable. Can you believe that? I doubt that the Internal Revenue Service would view the two as indistinguishable and I doubt that anyone else would either. Murner was caught misleading the public and thought that he had to say something.

More on open records, Magistrate Scott Davis recently wanted to see some public records in the possession of county government. Instead of allowing him to view the records (he is a publicly elected official), Murner required him to file an Open Records Request any ordinary citizen would be required to do. In open fiscal court Magistrate Scott Davis questioned Murner as to the time that he was taking to produce the documents. Murner responded by stating the following: "The requirements for a request for open records is that you acknowledge receipt of the request for open records within three days …”

For the record, the following is a quote from the Kentucky Open Records law: “Under most circumstances, agencies must make public records available within three days.” What is difficult to understand about this? Further, in a decision of the Kentucky Attorney General dated January 9, 2008 (AG 09-ORD-004) the Attorney stated, “Although KRS 61.872(5) permits an agency to extend the three day deadline for response if the requested records are "in active use, in storage or not otherwise available," the statute does not permit an agency to extend the deadline while it secures the services of an attorney.” In another opinion (AG 96-ORD-168) the Attorney General stated, “We also find that any open records policy which impedes access to nonexempt public records by more than three working days violates provisions of the Act.” These quotes clearly state that it is the intent of the Open Records Act that the material must be available in three days in most situations.

Murner would like the public to believe that the law only requires that he acknowledge receipt of the request within three days. For a person with a Harvard degree he apparently does not read well. I can assure him that though most of the people in Oldham received their degrees from a college or university other than Harvard, or may not have a college education, they are smart enough to understand the language presented here. Thankfully, this county has less than a year left to endure his misleading statements.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

WHO CONTROLS OLDHAM COUNTY AND WHY

Developers are the driving force behind Oldham County. For that reason it is easy to see that any political race in the county centers around the issue of development even though many people do not see it. There are many other issues but they are all related to development.

As everyone knows “special interest” groups have a huge impact on the politics of any political race. In Jefferson County there are many such groups. Some of those are medical groups, sports interests, those with a special interest in education, UPS, Ford, General Electric, the development industry, including realtors, and many more. They tend to keep each other in “check” to a certain extent. However, there are really only two special interest groups in Oldham County. One of those is interested in education and the other is the group that is interested in promoting development in the county. To some extent the development group is also focused on the education in Oldham County as a good educational system helps sell their homes. But the county really does not have a special interest group to keep the development industry in check.

Since the educational system has evolved to the point that there are not any huge issues with it, the developers have taken center stage and have become the most driving force in the county. Without question the developers control Oldham County. The most visible developer in the county is Bob Jones and he is the driving force behind politics and development in Oldham County. A review of the last race for County Judge/Executive as well as the present race for the same position gives clear evidence of that. Most Republicans just can’t see the forest for the trees.

Why is it so important to developers to have control of the office of County Judge/Executive and as many magistrates as possible? The answer is quite simple. In order for development to flourish certain systems must be in place. There must be good schools, adequate sewers, a good water supply in areas prime for development and good roads.

As for the sewer district, the members of the district are appointed by the County Judge and approved by the fiscal court. In the present state of the fiscal court that means that the nominee of the Judge/Executive will be approved as the only two magistrates to oppose many of the Judge’s nominees have been Scott Davis and David Voegele. At the present time the sewer district has severe financial problems. An annual audit is required for the sewer district and one has not been competed for 2009 as of this date. Despite this, at the urging of Judge Murner, the Fiscal Court recently voted to assume responsibility for the outstanding bonds of the sewer district. That will allow the district to have a better credit rating thereby allowing the district to borrow more money to expand the sewers that would be beneficial to the developers. Remember that the developers need sewers in order to build homes on small lots.

Water is of the utmost importance to developers. The water district, whose members are also appointed by the County Judge, decides where new water lines are to be built. You may have noticed an increase in your water bill recently. That is because the water district recently increased the fees by twenty-eight percent. They openly stated that the additional money was needed to increase water availability for new development. If you are a developer and own land without a water supply, just think how much more valuable the land becomes if water suddenly becomes available at no cost to you. Pretty good deal, especially when the present ratepayers are footing the bill.

Finally, the developers need roads in order that there is sufficient access to their developments. For that they turn to both the county and state. Within the county is found the Planning and Development Commission (PDC). It is to be noted that the former name of this agency was “Planning and Zoning”. I suppose that their desire is to do more development than zoning. In any event, the PDC has a lot of control over the planning of proposed roads. As an example, the PDC recently released a study titled “Road Functional Classification and Proposed Future Roads.” The study is available here. The paper states that there are three classifications of roads in Oldham County. They are interstate, arterial and collector roads. According to the report the county has one interstate, five arterial roads and forty-seven collector roads.

In the Outlook 2020 Comprehensive Plan five roads were proposed for Oldham County. Now, the PDC has decided that an additional six collector roads are needed. All six roads have been determined to be necessary to assist in development of respective areas. Areas for these roads were chosen based on potential for future growth and would provide roadway connectivity within Oldham County. Areas of future growth were identified with parcels greater than 20 acres and not currently in an agricultural protection district or public use. I wonder if they consulted with the landowners who would be affected by these roads before they made their decisions. Two landowners who are very unhappy with the proposed roads have contacted me. They are the partial owners of Holiday Farm. The farm has been in the family for over fifty years. In the highway 42 area these collector roads will have a huge impact on the equine industry and the picturesque farms adjacent to route 42.

As previously stated, the PDC is very influential in deciding where new roads are to be constructed. The members are appointed to that commission in large part by the County Judge/Executive.

As you can see, control over a small number of utility districts and the PDC is vital to the development industry. The easiest way to control them is to influence/control the office of the County Judge/Executive. Considering the importance of that office one can easily see why the developers and other people, whose livelihood is dependent on the success of the development industry, donated thousands of dollars to the last political campaign of Judge Duane Murner and have already donated thousands of dollars to the campaign of Paula Gish.

During the last campaign for County Judge/Executive Duane Murner received over thirty-seven thousand dollars from people whom I consider would be in a position to profit from unfettered development in Oldham County. The document identifying those donors can be viewed here. According to my calculation the campaign of Paula Gish has received over sixteen thousand dollars from people who would stand to profit from unfettered development. That document can be reviewed by clicking here. The source information for both of these documents can be found by going to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance web site and searching that database by name. IT IS EXPECTED that Gish will collect several more thousands of dollars before the campaign is over. These figures do not reflect all of the money that was donated; only money that I believe was given by people who would stand to profit by more development.

What will more development do for you? Perhaps it will give you a longer trip to work, overcrowd your children’s classrooms, result in higher school taxes, higher water bills, higher sewer bills and a reduced quality of life. Do you want to sacrifice that for the sake of the developers?

On September 17, 2009 Paula Gish, currently a candidate for the Republican nomination for County Judge, held a fundraiser. Twenty-two women sponsored the fundraiser. Of those twelve had close ties to Bob Jones. Additionally, over half of the women who sponsored Gish cannot vote for her in the primary election as they are democrats.

In summary, I believe that Bob Jones is the most influential person in Oldham County. Moreover, although a democrat, he is the most influential person in the Republican Party. Considering voter registration it would appear that Oldham County is controlled by Republicans. However, I believe that the Republican Party and the county are controlled by one democrat, Bob Jones, by virtue of the large sums of money donated by him and those people close to him.

Republicans need to wake up and take back control of their party. Also, the residents of Oldham County need to take back their county. This county needs new leadership. Hopefully the people will do their “spring cleaning” on May 18, 2010.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

FORMER JUDGE KINSER UPDATES OLDHAM FISCAL COURT

Former Oldham County Judge/Executive, Mary Ellen Kinser, appeared before Fiscal Court on March 2nd, 2010 to give the court an update on the Kim Likens lawsuit. Kinser stated that the case began in 2003 when Likens alleged that Kinser fired her due to medical problems.

Kinser stated that she and the Oldham County fiscal court had prevailed at the Circuit Court level, the appellate court level, and finally at the Kentucky Supreme Court level. Likens had asked the Kentucky State Supreme Court for a rehearing which the court initially granted. However, the Supreme Court subsequently reversed its decision and denied the motion to reopen the case.

Apparently the decision on the lawsuit is now final unless Likens were to once again successfully petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing. This is another example of how slow the wheels of justice can turn.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

WHAT ELSE COULD ELDRIDGE SAY

As everyone who follows this site already knows, Kevin Eldridge, director of the Storm water district, was recently named the defendant in a lawsuit filed by Magistrate Scott Davis. Davis alleged that he filed an open records request for certain materials, to include all proposals, made by the Veolia Water Company to the Oldham County Storm water district for assuming the responsibilities of the district. Davis alleges that Eldridge, in his role as director of the storm water district, failed to turn over all requested materials. Eldridge is now trying to obscure the real issue of a violation of law.

In an article found in the neighborhood section of the Louisville Courier-Journal dated March 3rd, 2010, Eldridge stated that he was never specifically asked to turn over a “bound copy" of proposals. What is the difference between “bound” proposals and any other kind of proposals? When a person asked for all proposals obviously the person wanted all proposals, including bound proposals.

According to the same article Eldridge now wants to blame politics for the lawsuit. What else could he say? It appears that he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Could he say that Magistrate Davis was lying? Obviously not, the lawsuit spoke for itself as did the open records request made by Magistrate Davis.

Eldridge even went so far as to say that the courts could get much more done if they didn't have to bother with politics and posturing. Is he trying to say that when he violates the law he should go unpunished? Is he trying to say that if he is punished for violating the law, that it is politics? Someone please help Mr. Eldridge. If he believes that he is above the law, he needs help.

Eldridge now states that the requested material is now in the hands of attorney Stuart Ulferts. Why has Mr. Eldridge not simply turned the material over to Magistrate Davis? Could it be that Mr. Eldridge is hiding behind Ulferts and using him as a buffer?

Please Mr. Eldridge, quit using the term “politics” to cover your fallacy. Is that going to be your response every time that you don’t like something that is said in the upcoming political race? Or perhaps we should not call it a political race because you consider “politics” to be an exaggerated four-letter word?

IS GISH IN VIOLATION OF THE HATCH ACT:YOU READ: YOU DECIDE

At the Oldham County Fiscal Court meeting conducted on March 2nd, 2010 I brought up the issue of the Hatch Act. The reason for doing so is that there are two Oldham County employees who are running for partisan office. Oldham County Deputy Judge/Executive Paula Gish is seeking the Republican nomination for Oldham County judge . Meanwhile, Stuart Ulferts is seeking the Democratic nomination for County Attorney.

The report that I furnished to the Oldham County Fiscal Court was prepared by the personnel department of Delaware County NY. To view that report click here. I have obtained the position description pertaining to Gish. You may view that description by clicking here. You can view the alleged position description of Stewart Ulferts by clicking here. I use the term “alleged” because what I received is the poorest excuse for a position description that I have ever seen. I believe that any reader looking at that description will agree if he/she has any experience with position descriptions. I have made this material available for my readers in order that each individual can reach an independent conclusin regarding this matter.

Without going into detail I will simply state that Oldham County has received many federal grants and a lot of federal funds. A review of Gish's position description reflects that she supervises 10 other supervisors in the County. I am only aware of 10 supervisors in the County; therefore, it follows that Gish has supervisory authority for everything that goes on in the County. Further, Gish acts in behalf of Judge/Executive Murner in his absence. Obviously I am not the final authority on this issue. However, it appears to me that Gish is in violation of the Hatch Act.

At yesterday's court meeting Judge Murner indicated that he had asked the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for an opinion on the matter. Statements that he made during the meeting left me with the impression that if he is not happy with the decision of the OSC, he intends to litigate the issue. As has been indicated in the past by Murner's actions if he is not happy with the opinion of a non-judicial entity, he will not abide by the decision. Therefore, it is very likely that a final decision on this issue will not be forthcoming immediately. For the record, let me state that I have also asked the OSC for an opinion on the issue.

If the OSC finds that Gish is in violation of the Hatch Act, Gish should either resign from her position as Deputy County Judge/Executive or she should withdraw from the race for the Republican nomination for County Judge/Executive.