As many of you have probably noticed, there have not been any new articles on the site lately. The reason for that is that I have had my right shoulder replaced. I seem to be doing fine.
I anticipate that I will again be putting new articles up on the sight in the near future.
Thanks for your patience. I notice that the traffic is not as high as before but it is better than I expected.
Dewey R. Wotring
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
SCOTT DAVIS' STATEMENTS CONFIRMED BY STEVE MASIELLO
Many people have been following the stories regarding Magistrate Scott Davis’ problems with his company, DerbyDeals.com. There have been several stories in the press within the last three days so I will not belabor the issue any more here.
The purpose of this story is to take you back to a news report on FOX 41 TV News in which Larry Wilder, one of the attorneys representing University of Louisville assistant basketball coach Steve Masiello asserted that Masiello had never met Magistrate Scott Davis, did not know him, had not conducted any business with him. Remember, this is the same Larry Wilder who dumped the trash from his neighbor’s trash can and then crawled into the can and went to sleep where he was found the following morning.
Now, according to an affidavit filed by Officer Sean Kennedy of the Jeffersonville, IN police department, Masiello has admitted that he had met with Davis on several occasions and that he had taken money from Davis for the purpose of providing Kentucky Derby tickets to him. Actually Masiello essentially verified everything that Magistrate Scott Davis alleged in a lawsuit that he filed against Masiello.
In order for people to make their own comparisons of what Davis alleged in his lawsuit and what Masiello has admitted to, I have posted both the lawsuit and the affidavit of the police officer on this web site. You can view the lawsuit by clicking here and you can view the affidavit by clicking here.
If nothing else, this should expose Attorney Larry Wilder for making statements that are less than candid. Is Wilder going to continue to deny that his client knew Davis or is he going to say that his client was less than truthful with him?
The purpose of this story is to take you back to a news report on FOX 41 TV News in which Larry Wilder, one of the attorneys representing University of Louisville assistant basketball coach Steve Masiello asserted that Masiello had never met Magistrate Scott Davis, did not know him, had not conducted any business with him. Remember, this is the same Larry Wilder who dumped the trash from his neighbor’s trash can and then crawled into the can and went to sleep where he was found the following morning.
Now, according to an affidavit filed by Officer Sean Kennedy of the Jeffersonville, IN police department, Masiello has admitted that he had met with Davis on several occasions and that he had taken money from Davis for the purpose of providing Kentucky Derby tickets to him. Actually Masiello essentially verified everything that Magistrate Scott Davis alleged in a lawsuit that he filed against Masiello.
In order for people to make their own comparisons of what Davis alleged in his lawsuit and what Masiello has admitted to, I have posted both the lawsuit and the affidavit of the police officer on this web site. You can view the lawsuit by clicking here and you can view the affidavit by clicking here.
If nothing else, this should expose Attorney Larry Wilder for making statements that are less than candid. Is Wilder going to continue to deny that his client knew Davis or is he going to say that his client was less than truthful with him?
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
GISH APPOINTED TO POSITION OF DEPUTY COUNTY JUDGE EXECUTIVE
Judge Duane Murner appointed Paula Gish to the position of Deputy County Judge/Executive on May 24, 2010. She had held the position prior to being defeated in her bid for the Republican nomination for County Judge/Executive. Gish was serving in the position at the time the Office of Special Counsel determined that she was in violation of the Hatch Act. She resigned the position on May 14, 2010.
Murner announced her appointment to the Fiscal Court on June 1, 2010. At the time of his announcement Murner stated that state law allowed him to appoint her without the approval of the Fiscal Court. He also stated that the Fiscal Court was supposed to set her salary. However, the Court did not do that at the June 1st. meeting. Therefore, in my opinion, any salary that she receives will be illegal and she may be required to repay the money to the county should someone take the issue to court.
It is obvious that Murner deliberately skirted the issue. I suspect that he was afraid that there might be a lengthy discussion over the amount of money that she should be paid. Frankly, I do not believe that Gish should receive the same salary that she was receiving prior to her resignation. After all, when her initial salary was set her position description stated that she supervised ten other supervisors. However, Murner subsequently told the Office of Special Counsel that she only supervised three people. If one of those people was the payroll clerk, the Kentucky state auditor had determined that she was not qualified to supervise that position. In view of these issues one would believe that her salary should have been drastically reduced. Perhaps Murner did not want to risk additional embarrassment on top of having recently having his hand picked candidate lose the nomination to be his successor.
Murner’s deliberate side stepping of the salary issue was a deliberate slap in the face of the members of Fiscal Court. Is anyone surprised?
Murner announced her appointment to the Fiscal Court on June 1, 2010. At the time of his announcement Murner stated that state law allowed him to appoint her without the approval of the Fiscal Court. He also stated that the Fiscal Court was supposed to set her salary. However, the Court did not do that at the June 1st. meeting. Therefore, in my opinion, any salary that she receives will be illegal and she may be required to repay the money to the county should someone take the issue to court.
It is obvious that Murner deliberately skirted the issue. I suspect that he was afraid that there might be a lengthy discussion over the amount of money that she should be paid. Frankly, I do not believe that Gish should receive the same salary that she was receiving prior to her resignation. After all, when her initial salary was set her position description stated that she supervised ten other supervisors. However, Murner subsequently told the Office of Special Counsel that she only supervised three people. If one of those people was the payroll clerk, the Kentucky state auditor had determined that she was not qualified to supervise that position. In view of these issues one would believe that her salary should have been drastically reduced. Perhaps Murner did not want to risk additional embarrassment on top of having recently having his hand picked candidate lose the nomination to be his successor.
Murner’s deliberate side stepping of the salary issue was a deliberate slap in the face of the members of Fiscal Court. Is anyone surprised?
SEWER RATES SOAR
At the June 1, 2010 meeting of the Oldham County Fiscal Court the Court approved a 22.9% increase in sewer rates for all customers of the Oldham County Sewer District (OCSD). The sewer district indicated that the ratepayers could expect additional raises in the next three years to bring the total increase to approximately 45%.
These rate increases will allow the OCSD to obtain 2.5 million dollars in loans. Those loans will allow the district to make changes that will allow two new subdivisions, Buckner Crossings and Quail Creek, to immediately connect to sewers and thereby begin construction. The district stated that they needed the additional customers in order to have additional income to repay their loan.
Now the irony of that claim is that the district stated yesterday that the bad economy has caused many homes to go in foreclosure, which in turns reduces the income of the district. If the economy is that bad, what made the sewer district believe that the new subdivisions will be able to sell their homes in the near future? This question was raised by Magistrate Iva Davis, and actually the representative of the sewer district agreed with her but still stated that they would receive additional income. I believe that this was done to help future development as much as any other reason. Once again, they win.
Consideration is being given to consolidating the OCSD with the recently formed Stormwater District. That will be a bad move. The Fiscal Court should just eliminate both districts and take over the management of both. Everyone seems to agree that the OCSD has had poor management in the past, however, the Fiscal Court seems to want to stay with the same concept.
My prediction is that eventually all of the residents of the county will be asked to repay the loans of the OCSD event though only about 25% of the households in the county are customers of the OCSD. The OCSD must have additional money to provide the infrastructure for future development and the developers will continue to refuse to pay for the infrastructure even though they benefit from it the most.
These rate increases will allow the OCSD to obtain 2.5 million dollars in loans. Those loans will allow the district to make changes that will allow two new subdivisions, Buckner Crossings and Quail Creek, to immediately connect to sewers and thereby begin construction. The district stated that they needed the additional customers in order to have additional income to repay their loan.
Now the irony of that claim is that the district stated yesterday that the bad economy has caused many homes to go in foreclosure, which in turns reduces the income of the district. If the economy is that bad, what made the sewer district believe that the new subdivisions will be able to sell their homes in the near future? This question was raised by Magistrate Iva Davis, and actually the representative of the sewer district agreed with her but still stated that they would receive additional income. I believe that this was done to help future development as much as any other reason. Once again, they win.
Consideration is being given to consolidating the OCSD with the recently formed Stormwater District. That will be a bad move. The Fiscal Court should just eliminate both districts and take over the management of both. Everyone seems to agree that the OCSD has had poor management in the past, however, the Fiscal Court seems to want to stay with the same concept.
My prediction is that eventually all of the residents of the county will be asked to repay the loans of the OCSD event though only about 25% of the households in the county are customers of the OCSD. The OCSD must have additional money to provide the infrastructure for future development and the developers will continue to refuse to pay for the infrastructure even though they benefit from it the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)