Thursday night the Oldham County Chamber of Commerce and the Oldham Era sponsored a debate between the candidates for the office of Oldham County Judge. There were more than 150 people in attendance. Although several issues were discussed I did not hear any solutions.
The participants were given the identity of the topics, but not the questions, prior to the debate. Thus, the participants were well prepared for their opening and closing remarks.
When asked what they would do to assist local businesses to receive business from the county government both candidates essentially said the same; that is, that most bids are required to meet legal criteria and that the county usually is required to accept the lowest bid. I saw virtually no difference in their respective responses. Whoever proposed this question surely didn’t believe that one of the candidates would be so stupid as to say he/she would give all of the available work to local business whether the local business was the lowest bidder or not.
The second issue presented to the candidates was the balancing of the budget. Essentially, Gish did not have an answer to the question. She reiterated how the present administration had balanced the budget. In her attempt to describe what they had done she stated that the staff had been reduced by 15%. However, she did not mention all of the increases in taxes and the county’s failure to pay its bills. (The county only paid the interest on some of its debt to save money and spent the money in other non-essential places such as funding the Chamber of Commerce.) The only prospective thing that she said was, that she would ask all of the department heads to try to cut their budgets.
Voegele stated his review of the proposed income for the coming year reflects that the income will remain about the same while expenditures would increase by about 500 thousand dollars due to inflation. His idea was to cut back on some purchases such as police vehicles. Voegele did mention that the current administration had doubled the insurance premium tax to help with balancing the budget.
The issue of Oldham Reserve was the basis of the next question. Voegele said that the interest on the outstanding balance of Oldham Reserve is $14,000 per week. He stated that something has to be done but that failure is not an option. Voegele said that he did not support an occupational tax.
Gish stated that the county has an opportunity to sell the land. However, as far as I know the only prospective buyer is Talmadge Hocker and he won’t purchase it without an interchange on I-71 and that may take a long time to get, if ever. And he will only be purchasing a small portion of the land. The fact is, the Oldham Reserve is a “white elephant” that just doesn’t seem to go away in spite of the efforts of the Murner-Gish administration’s efforts to keep it from being brought up publicly. Gish also stated that failure was not an option. Gish did state that the county has an agreement with Hocker. That is the first time that I had heard that. Coincidentally, I had asked LaGrange Mayor Elsie Carter on Wednesday if the deal with Hocker had been closed and she told me that as far as she knew, it had not been closed.
One troubling thing I gleaned from the debate was that both candidates stated that the failure of the Oldham Reserve was not an option. However, I would say that failure is more than just a mere possibility and nobody seems to be thinking about that. If you don’t think about it, and you don’t plan for it, you will be in big trouble if it does fail. Nobody had a solution.
Since it is going to be taxpayer money that pays for the infrastructure of Oldham Reserve, and the interchange alone will be at least twenty-six million dollars, perhaps the county should consider forming a public corporation made up of Oldham County residents and allow them to buy shares in the corporation. Then the corporation could hire good management for the to promote and sell the land. The corporation would then develop the land under the guidelines that are already in place. The county would get out from under the burden of the debt and the taxpayers who invest in the new corporation would have an opportunity to get some of their tax dollars back.
Gish also stated that she does not support an occupational tax. However, I have heard other people in the Murner-Gish administration say that an occupational tax is absolutely the key to diversifying the tax base in Oldham County and that an occupational tax is necessary for additional industry to make a difference in the tax base. I happen to agree with that. That is why I do not understand why we have gotten the county into such a mess if we are not willing to either place a tax on the businesses or to implement an occupation tax. Please, someone tell me how any industry will help the tax base if you don’t get any additional tax money through the businesses!
Paula Gish touted the fact that The Rawlings Group now has 121 employees who live in Oldham County. She thought that was great. I don’t know if that means that they have hired that many people who reside in the county or if it means that many of their employees have moved to Oldham County. Either way does not matter. There is absolutely no basis for this county to be trying to get additional people to move to the county. Until the recession came about there were already more people coming to the county than the infrastructure could support. Thus, I don’t understand why Gish was so proud of that figure.
Voegele did add that he favored the creation of “incubator businesses.” That would be the creation small businesses that demonstrate the capability of growing. That would not cost the county huge amounts of money to support. Once again though, without additional taxes those business won’t change the tax base.
The issue of the Oldham County Development Authority (OCEDA) was not brought up. The fact is, it has essentially been a failure. I remember hearing the director of OCEDA admitting that very little had been done in several years to promote growth in Oldham County. He resigned a short time after making that statement.
Gish said that the county should financially support the Chamber of Commerce. Why should taxpayers give sparse tax dollars to an agency that has not brought industry to the county? If you want to help balance the budget, cut the funding to the chamber.
Gish stated that the county needs to expand the tax base but she gave no ideas on how to do that. The fact is, neither candidate had an idea on how to expand the tax base. Remember, industry won’t diversify the tax base unless some tax is placed upon the business or its employees.
Both candidates stated that they would work with other government officials to push forward for the I-71 interchange. However, neither candidate said what he/she would do if the interchange could not be secured. I have a difficult time believing that the federal government will build an interchange that has nothing at the end of it and connects to a two-lane road. However, stranger things have happened.
I was startled to learn that no questions were asked regarding development in the county or open government. Frankly, I believe that the questions were intentionally omitted. There could be no other justification.
I attended the forum in Brownsboro earlier in the month. In that forum the questions came from those in attendance and there were many questions regarding development. Further, I hear from a lot of people throughout Oldham County and I can say with certainty that the issue of development is one of the top three issues on the minds of people, if not the top issue. Anyone sponsoring a debate could not leave out that topic out unless they intended to do so. It is well known that the developers are the driving force behind Paula Gish. Could it be that that group had influence on the debate? I know a lot of people believe that to be the situation.
As for a discussion on an open government, everyone knows that the Murner-Gish administration has been less than forthright when asked for information. Once again, this is a topic that I don’t believe Gish wanted to tackle.
As I recently said before Fiscal Court, I did not believe that the debate would be fair. I continue to believe that the debate was not fair in that two of the most important issues were left out of the debate. I stand by my earlier statements.
David Voegele did voice his displeasure regarding the omission of any questions regarding development. And, he stated that, if elected, he would conduct the government’s business in public.
You may have noticed that I have frequently used the term “Murner-Gish Administration.” The reason is that in her closing remarks, Gish stated that she had been endorsed by the current Judge/Executive, Duane Murner. She has set the stage although most people have known that they are/were both funded in large part by the same contributors.
Friday, April 23, 2010
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY DEBATE
On April 22, 2010 a debate was held between the two Republican candidates for the office of the Oldham County Attorney. The participants were Galen Clark and the incumbent, John Fendley.
Several topics were discussed and each candidate was given an opportunity to give closing remarks. Early in the debate Fendley stated that he had spoken in opposition of the smoking ban and the airport. Clark replied that he did not believe that the County Attorney should leave his seat on the Fiscal Court to speak in the “public comment” portion of the Fiscal Court meetings.
Clark accused Fendley of having given “bad advice” to the County Clerk on the petition that was circulated by the Patriot II group regarding the increase in school taxes. Clark said that advice could cost the school board several million dollars as a lawsuit ensued against the school board. Fendley responded that the issue did not involve Fiscal Court. However, Fendley did not say that giving legal advice to the County Clerk was not a part of his job.
Fendley stated that his most important responsibility to the public was to protect their rights and property. Clark alleged that Fendley too often gave probation to repeat offenders. Fendley did not respond to that allegation.
Fendley stated that his office is one of the top offices in the state in pursuing child support offenders. Clark responded that the state gives Fendley’s office $199,000 each year to prosecute child support cases. This money is in addition to the normal funds that a County Attorney’s office receives
Clark said that if he were elected, he would work with the schools to promote programs to prevent juvenile crime. He claimed that Fendley had not been involved with the schools since 1999. Both candidates support the use of school resource officers, however, Fendley claimed that the resource officers were both an enforcement and a training tool. Clark, on the other hand, claimed that he would rely on his office to give instructions to the students more than he would the resource officers.
Additionally, Clark said that he would set up a web site to educate the students and that he would like to get students educated about crime. On the other hand, Fendley said that students were educated by their peers who had come in contact with the law. My comment to that would be, who would you rather have teaching your child which course in life to follow, a professional person or a student who had gained his/her experience only through contact with the law?
In his closing remarks Fendley said the County needs a person with experience instead of someone who sits in an ivory tower and criticizes other people.
Clark said he would not be running for the office if he thought the current administration was doing a good job.
While Clark certainly has some good ideas and a different approach to punishing people who commit crimes he has an uphill battle in his attempt to unseat Fendley. Fendley has been in office for a long time and knows a lot of people. He made a point of letting people know that his family had resided in the county for several generations. I hear several candidates try to take advantage of the fact that their family has been in the county for decades. Considering how the demographics of Oldham County have changed over the past thirty years I am not sure whether that is a positive or negative asset.
.
Several topics were discussed and each candidate was given an opportunity to give closing remarks. Early in the debate Fendley stated that he had spoken in opposition of the smoking ban and the airport. Clark replied that he did not believe that the County Attorney should leave his seat on the Fiscal Court to speak in the “public comment” portion of the Fiscal Court meetings.
Clark accused Fendley of having given “bad advice” to the County Clerk on the petition that was circulated by the Patriot II group regarding the increase in school taxes. Clark said that advice could cost the school board several million dollars as a lawsuit ensued against the school board. Fendley responded that the issue did not involve Fiscal Court. However, Fendley did not say that giving legal advice to the County Clerk was not a part of his job.
Fendley stated that his most important responsibility to the public was to protect their rights and property. Clark alleged that Fendley too often gave probation to repeat offenders. Fendley did not respond to that allegation.
Fendley stated that his office is one of the top offices in the state in pursuing child support offenders. Clark responded that the state gives Fendley’s office $199,000 each year to prosecute child support cases. This money is in addition to the normal funds that a County Attorney’s office receives
Clark said that if he were elected, he would work with the schools to promote programs to prevent juvenile crime. He claimed that Fendley had not been involved with the schools since 1999. Both candidates support the use of school resource officers, however, Fendley claimed that the resource officers were both an enforcement and a training tool. Clark, on the other hand, claimed that he would rely on his office to give instructions to the students more than he would the resource officers.
Additionally, Clark said that he would set up a web site to educate the students and that he would like to get students educated about crime. On the other hand, Fendley said that students were educated by their peers who had come in contact with the law. My comment to that would be, who would you rather have teaching your child which course in life to follow, a professional person or a student who had gained his/her experience only through contact with the law?
In his closing remarks Fendley said the County needs a person with experience instead of someone who sits in an ivory tower and criticizes other people.
Clark said he would not be running for the office if he thought the current administration was doing a good job.
While Clark certainly has some good ideas and a different approach to punishing people who commit crimes he has an uphill battle in his attempt to unseat Fendley. Fendley has been in office for a long time and knows a lot of people. He made a point of letting people know that his family had resided in the county for several generations. I hear several candidates try to take advantage of the fact that their family has been in the county for decades. Considering how the demographics of Oldham County have changed over the past thirty years I am not sure whether that is a positive or negative asset.
.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
STUDY REVIEW COMMITTEE FORWARDS ROAD CLASSIFICATION TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
On Wednesday night the Study Review Committee (SRC) held a public meeting in order to listen to comments from the public about the Oldham County Road Functional Classifications. The SRC was formed by the Oldham County Planning and Development Commission. The chairman of the committees is Kevin Jeffries.
Several people were in attendance and most of them were from the US 42 corridor. First and foremost on their minds were the planned “collector” roads that were designated as a result of the SRC work. None of the people from that area spoke in favor of the planned roads.
Some of the residents thought that once a line was drawn on a map indicating that road was planned for an area the value of their property could be affected negatively. Some thought that some of the roads presented safety and environmental issues. And, Bill Landes, a horse farmer, voiced his fear that the planned roads would damage an already fragile equine industry.
Members of the committee said that the planned roads were necessary in order to plan for future development. The committee also stated that just because an area was designated as a location for a road in the future, a road would not be built unless the area was developed. The committee added that if the people did not sell their land there would not be any developments and therefore no roads.
One has to question the need to plan for collector roads in the area of US 42 when a huge increase in traffic on US 42 would definitely create safety issues unless improvements were made to the highway. There was testimony last night that there are not any long-range plans in place to significantly improve US42.
Despite the assurances from the SRC that the fact that the roads were planned did not mean that they would ever be built the people in attendance were definitely doubtful. That is a clear indication that the public does not trust the government. A recent national poll indicated that over 75% of the people do not trust their government. We are now seeing that at a local level.
One positive thing that I noticed at the meeting was the way Chairman Kevin Jeffries conducted the meeting. He was thoughtful and treated the people with respect. Each person wanting to speak was allowed four minutes. Even though the time for people to speak was over and the committee was in the discussion phase of the meeting Jeffries did allow a couple of comments from the public. While that may not have been following the normal procedure it was the right thing to do and the meeting never was out of control. For that Jeffries is to be commended. However, I would recommend that the people be afforded an opportunity to speak again after hearing the discussion of the committee as new issues are often raised in that phase of the meeting.
The SRC removed the line from the map for the North Buckeye Lane/Shiloh Lane collector road. However, the language describing the road was left in the text of the plan. Thus, the removal of the line from the map is nothing more than an attempt to placate a few people. The proposed collector road connecting a new I-71 interchange with US 42 was removed as it conflicts with the Brownsboro Conservation Plan. However, I must admit that the language used to remove that was not clear to me. Hopefully this will be more clearly stated in the future.
At the conclusion of the meeting the committee voted to forward their recommended plan, with minor changes, to the full Planning and Development Commission. The commission will have a public hearing on the plan on May 25, 2010 at 9am.
Several people were in attendance and most of them were from the US 42 corridor. First and foremost on their minds were the planned “collector” roads that were designated as a result of the SRC work. None of the people from that area spoke in favor of the planned roads.
Some of the residents thought that once a line was drawn on a map indicating that road was planned for an area the value of their property could be affected negatively. Some thought that some of the roads presented safety and environmental issues. And, Bill Landes, a horse farmer, voiced his fear that the planned roads would damage an already fragile equine industry.
Members of the committee said that the planned roads were necessary in order to plan for future development. The committee also stated that just because an area was designated as a location for a road in the future, a road would not be built unless the area was developed. The committee added that if the people did not sell their land there would not be any developments and therefore no roads.
One has to question the need to plan for collector roads in the area of US 42 when a huge increase in traffic on US 42 would definitely create safety issues unless improvements were made to the highway. There was testimony last night that there are not any long-range plans in place to significantly improve US42.
Despite the assurances from the SRC that the fact that the roads were planned did not mean that they would ever be built the people in attendance were definitely doubtful. That is a clear indication that the public does not trust the government. A recent national poll indicated that over 75% of the people do not trust their government. We are now seeing that at a local level.
One positive thing that I noticed at the meeting was the way Chairman Kevin Jeffries conducted the meeting. He was thoughtful and treated the people with respect. Each person wanting to speak was allowed four minutes. Even though the time for people to speak was over and the committee was in the discussion phase of the meeting Jeffries did allow a couple of comments from the public. While that may not have been following the normal procedure it was the right thing to do and the meeting never was out of control. For that Jeffries is to be commended. However, I would recommend that the people be afforded an opportunity to speak again after hearing the discussion of the committee as new issues are often raised in that phase of the meeting.
The SRC removed the line from the map for the North Buckeye Lane/Shiloh Lane collector road. However, the language describing the road was left in the text of the plan. Thus, the removal of the line from the map is nothing more than an attempt to placate a few people. The proposed collector road connecting a new I-71 interchange with US 42 was removed as it conflicts with the Brownsboro Conservation Plan. However, I must admit that the language used to remove that was not clear to me. Hopefully this will be more clearly stated in the future.
At the conclusion of the meeting the committee voted to forward their recommended plan, with minor changes, to the full Planning and Development Commission. The commission will have a public hearing on the plan on May 25, 2010 at 9am.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
WHERE IS THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR GISH
I recently checked the web site for the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance to see how much money Paula Gish had received during the most recent reporting period. The report covered the time period from January 1, 2010 through April 16, 2010. Considering that she had received almost $58,000 prior to the beginning of this reporting period one would have expected much more money to be forthcoming. However, during this latest reporting period she claims to have only received $1481.70.
There has been a lot of discussion in the public about the amount of money that she has received and the sources of that money. Many people believe that it is obscene. Could it be that her contributors have been told to wait until after this reporting period to make their contributions to avoid the contributions showing up on this report? Frankly, I suspect that is the situation. There is another report due fifteen days prior to the election. I expect to see the contributions take a significant rise during that time period. When all of the reports are filed, and some of them are due after the primary election, I suspect that there will be a lot more money coming from those people connected to the development industry.
Watch for many more “mailers” from her as well as heavy newspaper and television advertisement. All of that costs money. You certainly will not hear Gish say that she will not take any more money from those with ties to the development industry as those people are her bread and butter.
Hopefully someone will compare her expenditures and receipts. If she follows in the footsteps of her mentor, she will have many more receipts and expenditures. And, losing is just not an option for the people who need her in office.
There has been a lot of discussion in the public about the amount of money that she has received and the sources of that money. Many people believe that it is obscene. Could it be that her contributors have been told to wait until after this reporting period to make their contributions to avoid the contributions showing up on this report? Frankly, I suspect that is the situation. There is another report due fifteen days prior to the election. I expect to see the contributions take a significant rise during that time period. When all of the reports are filed, and some of them are due after the primary election, I suspect that there will be a lot more money coming from those people connected to the development industry.
Watch for many more “mailers” from her as well as heavy newspaper and television advertisement. All of that costs money. You certainly will not hear Gish say that she will not take any more money from those with ties to the development industry as those people are her bread and butter.
Hopefully someone will compare her expenditures and receipts. If she follows in the footsteps of her mentor, she will have many more receipts and expenditures. And, losing is just not an option for the people who need her in office.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
MAGISTRATE DAVIS HOLDS SUCCESSFUL MEET AND GREET WITH CONSTITUENTS
On April 19th Magistrate Scott Davis gave his constituents an opportunity to meet him and question him on any issue. While doing that the constituents also had an opportunity to enjoy some good food. The event was held at the John Black Community Center in Buckner.
Davis had to consider the event a success as every person (couple) that was in attendance seemed to pick up a yard sign on the way out the door. One lady forgot to pick up a yard sign as she left. However, I was in the parking lot after the meeting was over and she returned and wanted to know where she could pick up a sign. She followed me to my house and I gave her the sign that I had in my yard. The lady told me that Davis had impressed her by taking all questions and allowing everyone the opportunity to voice their opinion without being interrupted. One man in attendance told that although he always voted he had never attended any political event before last night. It was refreshing to see that some people are taking an interest in their government who normally do not do so.
Many of the issues that are facing the county were discussed. Among those was the consolidation of the police departments in the county. As one might expect there was support for keeping them separate and there was support for consolidating them and people gave various reasons to support their position. I can guarantee one thing and that is, if the issue is ever taken up by the fiscal court, it will get a lot of input from the public.
Once again Magistrate Scott Davis proved that he gets better attendance at his meetings than the County government gets from county-wide meetings.
Davis had to consider the event a success as every person (couple) that was in attendance seemed to pick up a yard sign on the way out the door. One lady forgot to pick up a yard sign as she left. However, I was in the parking lot after the meeting was over and she returned and wanted to know where she could pick up a sign. She followed me to my house and I gave her the sign that I had in my yard. The lady told me that Davis had impressed her by taking all questions and allowing everyone the opportunity to voice their opinion without being interrupted. One man in attendance told that although he always voted he had never attended any political event before last night. It was refreshing to see that some people are taking an interest in their government who normally do not do so.
Many of the issues that are facing the county were discussed. Among those was the consolidation of the police departments in the county. As one might expect there was support for keeping them separate and there was support for consolidating them and people gave various reasons to support their position. I can guarantee one thing and that is, if the issue is ever taken up by the fiscal court, it will get a lot of input from the public.
Once again Magistrate Scott Davis proved that he gets better attendance at his meetings than the County government gets from county-wide meetings.
Monday, April 19, 2010
ASK THE CANDIDATES WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE
I have been to three forms in Oldham County to listen to various candidates for political office and have spoken with several other candidates about the issues in Oldham County. Development is always one of those issues that is discussed and the only thing that is discussed is, do we want development, how do we control development and what kind of development do we want? The missing question is, who is going to pay for the infrastructure to support development? With the exception of one candidate the candidates are not even bringing up the subject of who pays for the infrastructure.
Everybody assumes we will have development and it is beginning to look like everybody assumes that the ordinary taxpayer will continue to have the burden placed upon him to pay for the infrastructure that supports development. The question for the average person is, what will development to do for you? Will 100 new homes make you any more money, will 100 new homes improve your educational system, will 100 new homes give you better fire protection or police protection? If your answer to all of these questions is no, then why would you want more development? Let's think about some other things that more development will do for you. It will most definitely make each trip that you take to the city of Lagrange, to a local school, and to work a longer, more time-consuming trip.
However, it seems as though almost every politician is willing to accept more development. They excuse it by saying that they will manage it. Why do they not discuss who will pay for it? Because they are afraid of stepping on the toes of the developers. As long as that attitude continues you will have unmanaged development in this county and you will pay for it-not the developers.
Quite frankly, I have been very disappointed in all the candidates so far. What is worse is that I don't see any desire for them to change. Magistrate Scott Davis, throughout his term in office has suggested that fees be increased for builders in older to take some of the burden from the taxpayers. Of course the administration would not hear of this and none of the other magistrates joined with him.
The next time that you speak to one of your representatives be sure to ask them if you are going to have to continue to pay for the infrastructure to support developers.
If I can keep from getting sick at my stomach, I am going to write an article about the taxpayer money that is going to be spent on Oldham Reserve in order to improve the property so that a developer will take it off our hands. Just a little peek, the exit is expected to cost the taxpayers 26 million dollars. Wouldn’t you like to purchase a couple of hundreds acres and then have the taxpayers spend that much money just to improve it for you?
Everybody assumes we will have development and it is beginning to look like everybody assumes that the ordinary taxpayer will continue to have the burden placed upon him to pay for the infrastructure that supports development. The question for the average person is, what will development to do for you? Will 100 new homes make you any more money, will 100 new homes improve your educational system, will 100 new homes give you better fire protection or police protection? If your answer to all of these questions is no, then why would you want more development? Let's think about some other things that more development will do for you. It will most definitely make each trip that you take to the city of Lagrange, to a local school, and to work a longer, more time-consuming trip.
However, it seems as though almost every politician is willing to accept more development. They excuse it by saying that they will manage it. Why do they not discuss who will pay for it? Because they are afraid of stepping on the toes of the developers. As long as that attitude continues you will have unmanaged development in this county and you will pay for it-not the developers.
Quite frankly, I have been very disappointed in all the candidates so far. What is worse is that I don't see any desire for them to change. Magistrate Scott Davis, throughout his term in office has suggested that fees be increased for builders in older to take some of the burden from the taxpayers. Of course the administration would not hear of this and none of the other magistrates joined with him.
The next time that you speak to one of your representatives be sure to ask them if you are going to have to continue to pay for the infrastructure to support developers.
If I can keep from getting sick at my stomach, I am going to write an article about the taxpayer money that is going to be spent on Oldham Reserve in order to improve the property so that a developer will take it off our hands. Just a little peek, the exit is expected to cost the taxpayers 26 million dollars. Wouldn’t you like to purchase a couple of hundreds acres and then have the taxpayers spend that much money just to improve it for you?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
BROWNSBORO FORUM
The Brownsboro Conservation Group hosted a forum at Fox Hollow for the candidates for Oldham County Judge/Executive, Property Valuation Administrator, County Attorney and three magisterial districts. The attendance for the event was outstanding as there was standing room only. I believe that the response was better than expected by the host. It was certainly better than I expected.
The host was gracious enough to allow me to tape the entire program. I have yet to review the tape but I made some interesting observations while there.
Nobody accused Paula Gish of taking money from developers in return for favors; however, she must have a guilty conscious as she remarked that she was offended that anyone would think that she would accept contributions from anyone for the promise of a favor. She has good reason to have a guilty conscious unless she believes that the people of Oldham County are all naïve or stupid.
After all, a huge amount of Gish’s contributions have come from “special interest” groups. Everyone knows that the contributors expect something in return. Does she really believe that the public does not see through that?
Then there was Rick Rash being his usual obnoxious self. Rash just seemed to want to find fault with most of the questions that were asked of him as though the person who formed the question was an idiot and that it was his duty to inform everyone. Mr. Rash just can’t seem to keep from being condescending to people. He also made several statements about achievements that the county has made since he has been a magistrate. On the other hand, he didn’t tell the people how he had voted for every tax increase – including the doubling of the insurance premium tax.
At least Bob Deibel did not try to show the people in attendance that he was smarter than they were. As usual, he was very polite. However, he did say that he had done everything that Rash did, implicating that he was entitled to the same accolades. Yes, he voted for all of those tax increases also.
The forum made one thing clear. Gish is, and has been, in lockstep with the Murner administration. She made that perfectly clear. However, I believe that a review of her campaign contributions had already erased any doubt that people had about that.
The host was gracious enough to allow me to tape the entire program. I have yet to review the tape but I made some interesting observations while there.
Nobody accused Paula Gish of taking money from developers in return for favors; however, she must have a guilty conscious as she remarked that she was offended that anyone would think that she would accept contributions from anyone for the promise of a favor. She has good reason to have a guilty conscious unless she believes that the people of Oldham County are all naïve or stupid.
After all, a huge amount of Gish’s contributions have come from “special interest” groups. Everyone knows that the contributors expect something in return. Does she really believe that the public does not see through that?
Then there was Rick Rash being his usual obnoxious self. Rash just seemed to want to find fault with most of the questions that were asked of him as though the person who formed the question was an idiot and that it was his duty to inform everyone. Mr. Rash just can’t seem to keep from being condescending to people. He also made several statements about achievements that the county has made since he has been a magistrate. On the other hand, he didn’t tell the people how he had voted for every tax increase – including the doubling of the insurance premium tax.
At least Bob Deibel did not try to show the people in attendance that he was smarter than they were. As usual, he was very polite. However, he did say that he had done everything that Rash did, implicating that he was entitled to the same accolades. Yes, he voted for all of those tax increases also.
The forum made one thing clear. Gish is, and has been, in lockstep with the Murner administration. She made that perfectly clear. However, I believe that a review of her campaign contributions had already erased any doubt that people had about that.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
WHAT MAKES A CANDIDATE THE MOST QUALIFIED
Duane Murner claims that Paula Gish is the most qualified person in the county to be the County Judge/Executive. One cannot help but wonder on what basis he makes that finding.
Certainly Gish is not as well educated as many people in Oldham County. She has an Associate’s Degree. Lest we forget Judge Murner really touted his Harvard degree when he was running for County Judge/Executive. Certainly she does not have an outstanding work history. She has stated that she was a part-time secretary for twenty-five years before becoming the County Deputy Judge/Executive. She has some experience as a member of PTAs. Although that is a worthwhile organization, the experience ones gains in that organization at the local level hardly qualifies one to be a County Judge/Executive. And, Gish was a magistrate for several years. I am sure that she cast votes on many matters before the court during that time but I cannot remember any significant issue that she championed. Further, casting votes does not make a person the most qualified candidate for any office.
It appears that the best experience that Gish would have to offer would be her experience as the Deputy County Judge/Executive. Thus, allow me to take a look at her work in that area. During the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2008 the Payroll Officer for the Oldham County Fiscal Court reported to the Deputy County Judge/Executive who was Gish. In an audit performed by the Kentucky State Auditor the auditor stated that there were “material weaknesses” in the internal control over the payroll. The auditor stated that the “payroll officer does not report to an individual knowledgeable of the payroll system and process.” In other words, Paula Gish was not knowledgeable of the payroll system and process. But, wait a minute, this is the most qualified person in the county. Well, maybe she just became the most qualified person in the last eighteen months.
As a result of the findings the auditor recommended that the payroll officer should report to the Chief Financial Officer. However, in his reply to the audit, Judge Murner stated that the payroll officer would continue reporting to the Deputy Judge/Executive (Gish).
In my opinion, Paula Gish would be violating the terms of the Hatch Act if she were supervising the control and use of federal funds. Murner claims that she is not violating the Hatch Act. Therefore, she must not be supervising those funds. If she were not qualified to oversee the payroll officer for the county, the taxpayers should be happy that she is not overseeing federal funds.
Anyway, all residents of the county can take comfort in the fact that they have the most qualified candidate in Paula Gish, that is, according to Judge Murner.
The audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 can be found at oldhamcounty.net. The material referenced in this article can be found beginning with page five of the report.
Certainly Gish is not as well educated as many people in Oldham County. She has an Associate’s Degree. Lest we forget Judge Murner really touted his Harvard degree when he was running for County Judge/Executive. Certainly she does not have an outstanding work history. She has stated that she was a part-time secretary for twenty-five years before becoming the County Deputy Judge/Executive. She has some experience as a member of PTAs. Although that is a worthwhile organization, the experience ones gains in that organization at the local level hardly qualifies one to be a County Judge/Executive. And, Gish was a magistrate for several years. I am sure that she cast votes on many matters before the court during that time but I cannot remember any significant issue that she championed. Further, casting votes does not make a person the most qualified candidate for any office.
It appears that the best experience that Gish would have to offer would be her experience as the Deputy County Judge/Executive. Thus, allow me to take a look at her work in that area. During the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2008 the Payroll Officer for the Oldham County Fiscal Court reported to the Deputy County Judge/Executive who was Gish. In an audit performed by the Kentucky State Auditor the auditor stated that there were “material weaknesses” in the internal control over the payroll. The auditor stated that the “payroll officer does not report to an individual knowledgeable of the payroll system and process.” In other words, Paula Gish was not knowledgeable of the payroll system and process. But, wait a minute, this is the most qualified person in the county. Well, maybe she just became the most qualified person in the last eighteen months.
As a result of the findings the auditor recommended that the payroll officer should report to the Chief Financial Officer. However, in his reply to the audit, Judge Murner stated that the payroll officer would continue reporting to the Deputy Judge/Executive (Gish).
In my opinion, Paula Gish would be violating the terms of the Hatch Act if she were supervising the control and use of federal funds. Murner claims that she is not violating the Hatch Act. Therefore, she must not be supervising those funds. If she were not qualified to oversee the payroll officer for the county, the taxpayers should be happy that she is not overseeing federal funds.
Anyway, all residents of the county can take comfort in the fact that they have the most qualified candidate in Paula Gish, that is, according to Judge Murner.
The audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 can be found at oldhamcounty.net. The material referenced in this article can be found beginning with page five of the report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)