On April 21, 2009 Judge Duane Murner nominated Ellen Van Nagell for a position on the Board of Tax Appeals. The Board consists of three members; one nominated by the Fiscal court, one by the Judge Executive and one by the Mayor of LaGrange. There are two vacancies on the Board at the present time – one is to be filled by the Mayor and the other is to be filled by Fiscal Court. The third member of the Board, Rusty Davis, was placed on the Board by Judge Murner.
Despite the fact that the Fiscal Court was supposed to fill the vacancy Judge Murner took it upon himself to nominate a person to the position. Moreover, he nominated a person with extremely close ties to developer Bob Jones who in the past year appealed the assessment of most of his vacant lots to that Board. He is expected to do the same thing this year. Jones is also a close friend and political supporter of Judge Murner.
According to the Property Valuation Administrator (PVA), Judge Murner at the time of the nomination of Van Nagell, advised the Fiscal Court that the PVA had recommended her for the position. The office of the PVA subsequently advised Judge Murner that he had misinformed the Court, as that office did NOT recommend her. The office of the PVA has also advised all of the members of the Court that her appointment would present a conflict of interest due to her ties with developer Bob Jones.
Subsequent to the PVA speaking out, Judge Murner sent a letter to all members of the Court advising them that he was going to pull the nomination of Van Nagell. He gave three reasons for pulling the nomination. The first reason was that if Bob Jones decided to appeal his assessments again this year and Van Nagell chose to refrain from voting, then that would leave only two members of the Appeals Board to vote which could result in a tie vote. His second reason was that he did not want Van Nagell to get caught in a cross-fire having to do with attacks on Bob Jones or his friendship with Jones. The third reason was that the appointment really belonged to the Fiscal Court instead of him.
Judge Murner was aware of all of these facts before he nominated Van Nagell. He obviously tried to slip her onto the Board. Nothing has changed since he nominated her. Murner continues to want to be in TOTAL control of everything in the county. This time he was taken to task for his actions by the PVA. Congratulations are in order for the PVA. More public officials need to stand up to Judge Murner, including members of the Fiscal Court.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
VOEGELE VILIFIES SOMEONE;PERHAPS HIMSELF
After watching the Fiscal Court meeting of April 7, 2009, I am convinced that Magistrate David Voegele doesn’t have a grasp of the issues behind the lawsuits filed by Magistrate Scott Davis. Perhaps he doesn’t want to understand, perhaps he is in denial, or perhaps he doesn’t have the ability to understand. Whatever the reason it does not bode well for the residents of Oldham County.
In his remarks to the court on Tuesday, Voegele seemed upset because Magistrate Davis voted to accept the anonymous donation and then sued to learn the name of the donor. He seemed to insinuate that there was a conflict in the two actions. Magistrate Davis didn’t sue Judge Murner or the court for accepting the donation; he sued Judge Murner because he refused to release the name of the donor. Voegele doesn’t seem to grasp the difference. As a matter of fact, Magistrate Davis voted to accept a second donation from the same donor, however he has not sued Judge Murner for that. What is Voegele’s problem?
Further, Voegele seems to believe that Davis should have come to the full court and given them an opportunity to reconsider the donation. There are two things wrong with that thought. First, Davis was not opposed to accepting the donation and did not see a need to reconsider his position. Second, if any magistrate, including Voegele, wanted to bring the matter before the court, he/she could have. Moreover, Voegele was aware that Magistrate Davis had filed an open records request with Judge Murner and he was aware that Murner had denied the request. If he wanted to save the court the money, he should have tried to persuade Murner to release the name to Magistrate Davis. That would have ended everything and there would not have been a court case. Voegele was probably hoping that Magistrate Davis would lose the lawsuit and be embarrassed. I seriously doubt that Voegele had a decent understanding of the law or the Supreme Court decision that was pertinent to the lawsuit.
In my opinion, Voegele believes that Magistrate Davis will possibly be one of his opponents in the race for County Judge and he is jealous that Davis was found by a court of law to be correct and received a lot of positive publicity. So now he is trying to garner just as much publicity. It is as simple as that and I believe that every other member of the court knows what Voegele is doing.
As for the illegal meeting there seems to be a couple of magistrates who believe that they have “egg on their face” and are now trying to defend their ignorance by attacking Magistrate Scott Davis. They seem to want to hammer away at the fact that he remained in the meeting and did not raise any objections to the content of the meeting. Obviously, had he left the meeting, the charges would never have been brought in a court of law because there would not have been any evidence to convict. Not one other magistrate had the fortitude to come forth and offer testimony for either side to my knowledge. Considering the fact that there have been several “executive” sessions of the Fiscal Court, every magistrate should take it upon himself to know the laws regarding those meetings. However, it took a freshman magistrate to have the fortitude to bring the matter to the attention of the public. Once again, court action could have been avoided had Judge Murner admitted his mistake and made the content of the meeting known to the public. Further, any magistrate could have brought the matter before the court and encouraged Judge Murner to make the information public but none chose to do so.
Magistrate Rash tried to trivialize the conviction by comparing it to a “jaywalking” violation. That type of thought process is typical for him. Anyone watching him in Fiscal Court knows what I mean. No explanation is needed. In my opinion he is an embarrassment to his constituents and the other residents of the county. Therefore, I do not believe that anyone was surprised by his statement nor was anyone impressed. After seeing the way he pushed to get the court to give a fee increase to Industrial Disposal for garbage collection I expect that he would have rather given Magistrate Davis’ legal fees to them. Thankfully, other members of the court saw through his actions and prevented the increase in fees.
Magistrate Greenwell’s statement regarding the illegal meeting left me with the impression that he did not believe that any of the other magistrates had the knowledge to figure out that the meeting was illegal. I hope that is not the message that he intended to confer to the court. If that were the situation, we would all really be in trouble.
Voegele again inserted his “foot into his mouth” by stating that speaker Karen Baughman was distorting the facts when she spoke to the court. Could he not see that she was quoting directly from the court decision. Further, if he had actually read the decision, he would have known that she was not distorting the facts. The decision is a matter of public record. Could Voegele be afraid that someone will bring up the fact that he sat through an illegal meeting during the next elections? I can understand his concern.
I am sure that Judge Murner did not want this matter brought before the court again. I can understand this being that there was really no need to bring it up. However, Voegele has now rekindled the fire. I do not understand why he brought the matter up. Surely he did not believe that the court could refuse to pay the attorney fees. After all, there is a court order requiring the Fiscal Court to pay the fees. Once again, his lack of understanding shines right through.
Finally, Voegele seemed to become angry when Magistrate Davis referred to him as “Mr. Voegele” instead of “Magistrate Voegele.” I have frequently reminded the court that you must earn respect. Perhaps he was not listening. That tells me that he is a very vain person. He probably has a plate on his car that tells everyone that he is a magistrate. There is nothing wrong with having pride, but you don’t need to be pompous. Voegele needs to understand that as a county magistrate he is the lowest level of elected county officials that exist. People outside of Kentucky have no clue what a county magistrate is. So my advice is, “stay in the county where you can continue to think that you are someone important.” That is not meant to demean the position of magistrate; only to remind those people holding that office to be realistic.
In his remarks to the court on Tuesday, Voegele seemed upset because Magistrate Davis voted to accept the anonymous donation and then sued to learn the name of the donor. He seemed to insinuate that there was a conflict in the two actions. Magistrate Davis didn’t sue Judge Murner or the court for accepting the donation; he sued Judge Murner because he refused to release the name of the donor. Voegele doesn’t seem to grasp the difference. As a matter of fact, Magistrate Davis voted to accept a second donation from the same donor, however he has not sued Judge Murner for that. What is Voegele’s problem?
Further, Voegele seems to believe that Davis should have come to the full court and given them an opportunity to reconsider the donation. There are two things wrong with that thought. First, Davis was not opposed to accepting the donation and did not see a need to reconsider his position. Second, if any magistrate, including Voegele, wanted to bring the matter before the court, he/she could have. Moreover, Voegele was aware that Magistrate Davis had filed an open records request with Judge Murner and he was aware that Murner had denied the request. If he wanted to save the court the money, he should have tried to persuade Murner to release the name to Magistrate Davis. That would have ended everything and there would not have been a court case. Voegele was probably hoping that Magistrate Davis would lose the lawsuit and be embarrassed. I seriously doubt that Voegele had a decent understanding of the law or the Supreme Court decision that was pertinent to the lawsuit.
In my opinion, Voegele believes that Magistrate Davis will possibly be one of his opponents in the race for County Judge and he is jealous that Davis was found by a court of law to be correct and received a lot of positive publicity. So now he is trying to garner just as much publicity. It is as simple as that and I believe that every other member of the court knows what Voegele is doing.
As for the illegal meeting there seems to be a couple of magistrates who believe that they have “egg on their face” and are now trying to defend their ignorance by attacking Magistrate Scott Davis. They seem to want to hammer away at the fact that he remained in the meeting and did not raise any objections to the content of the meeting. Obviously, had he left the meeting, the charges would never have been brought in a court of law because there would not have been any evidence to convict. Not one other magistrate had the fortitude to come forth and offer testimony for either side to my knowledge. Considering the fact that there have been several “executive” sessions of the Fiscal Court, every magistrate should take it upon himself to know the laws regarding those meetings. However, it took a freshman magistrate to have the fortitude to bring the matter to the attention of the public. Once again, court action could have been avoided had Judge Murner admitted his mistake and made the content of the meeting known to the public. Further, any magistrate could have brought the matter before the court and encouraged Judge Murner to make the information public but none chose to do so.
Magistrate Rash tried to trivialize the conviction by comparing it to a “jaywalking” violation. That type of thought process is typical for him. Anyone watching him in Fiscal Court knows what I mean. No explanation is needed. In my opinion he is an embarrassment to his constituents and the other residents of the county. Therefore, I do not believe that anyone was surprised by his statement nor was anyone impressed. After seeing the way he pushed to get the court to give a fee increase to Industrial Disposal for garbage collection I expect that he would have rather given Magistrate Davis’ legal fees to them. Thankfully, other members of the court saw through his actions and prevented the increase in fees.
Magistrate Greenwell’s statement regarding the illegal meeting left me with the impression that he did not believe that any of the other magistrates had the knowledge to figure out that the meeting was illegal. I hope that is not the message that he intended to confer to the court. If that were the situation, we would all really be in trouble.
Voegele again inserted his “foot into his mouth” by stating that speaker Karen Baughman was distorting the facts when she spoke to the court. Could he not see that she was quoting directly from the court decision. Further, if he had actually read the decision, he would have known that she was not distorting the facts. The decision is a matter of public record. Could Voegele be afraid that someone will bring up the fact that he sat through an illegal meeting during the next elections? I can understand his concern.
I am sure that Judge Murner did not want this matter brought before the court again. I can understand this being that there was really no need to bring it up. However, Voegele has now rekindled the fire. I do not understand why he brought the matter up. Surely he did not believe that the court could refuse to pay the attorney fees. After all, there is a court order requiring the Fiscal Court to pay the fees. Once again, his lack of understanding shines right through.
Finally, Voegele seemed to become angry when Magistrate Davis referred to him as “Mr. Voegele” instead of “Magistrate Voegele.” I have frequently reminded the court that you must earn respect. Perhaps he was not listening. That tells me that he is a very vain person. He probably has a plate on his car that tells everyone that he is a magistrate. There is nothing wrong with having pride, but you don’t need to be pompous. Voegele needs to understand that as a county magistrate he is the lowest level of elected county officials that exist. People outside of Kentucky have no clue what a county magistrate is. So my advice is, “stay in the county where you can continue to think that you are someone important.” That is not meant to demean the position of magistrate; only to remind those people holding that office to be realistic.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
PVA WINTERS' POSITION ON APPEALS IS WRONG
Ron Winters, the Oldham County Property Valuation Administrator (PVA ) recently placed an ad in the Oldham Era that I found to be incorrect and totally out of line.
It appears that Winters is trying to discourage people from appealing their property assessments. What is worse is that he has already made up his mind regarding any appeals that might be made. In essence he has said that people are wasting their time should they decide to appeal their assessments.
First, Winters states that the value of homes in
Winters states that comparable sales do not include foreclosures and short sales. I have read the
Last year developers successfully received 25% reductions in their appeals before the appeals board by claiming that everyone was aware that the prices of homes and lots had fallen. To my knowledge that decision has not been overturned. Considering that, I believe that everyone should appeal their assessments. I know that means a lot of work for the office of the
Hopefully Winters will reconsider his unreasonable and prejudicial position. If he doesn’t, people will be forced to appeal his decisions. That would be inconsiderate on the part of any elected official. That would also likely have repercussions for Winters when he runs for reelection.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
TWO NEW ORDINANCES AND TWO NEW FEES
Two new ordinances were passed at the Fiscal Court meeting held on March 17, 2009. One is known as the “Alarm Ordinance” and the other one is known as the “Peddler’s Ordinance.”
The alarm ordinance essentially provides for a fine for false alarms received by the Oldham County Police Department. Each person would be allowed two false alarms each year before being subject to the fine. Although supporters of the ordinance claimed that the police department was receiving so many false alarms that it was affecting its ability to perform other duties, no statistics were provided to support this allegation. The finance committee was asked if it had the statistics.
What was more surprising about the ordinance was that it provided for an annual registration fee of twenty dollars for registering alarms with the Oldham County Police Department. The fee only applies to those alarms that alert the police department. This is just another way for the county to raise money. It seems that every time the Fiscal Court meets there is some new fee or tax. Magistrates Scott Davis, David Voegele and Steve Church voted against the alarm ordinance. The remaining magistrates and the judge voted for the ordinance.
Then there was the peddler ordinance. The alleged purpose of this ordinance was to keep peddlers from scaring people and to keep unwanted solicitors away from people’s homes. It does neither. It only requires peddlers to obtain a permit in order to peddle their wares. It does not stop them from coming to your house. There will be a background check done on each applicant. However, after reading the ordinance, it does not appear to me that any real grounds for denial of the permit are contained in it. And then there is another fee. The permit, which will cost one hundred dollars, will be valid for a maximum of six months. As originally written, the permit would have prevented salespersons from calling on businesses. Thanks to Magistrate David Voegele that provision was removed from the ordinance.
The peddler ordinance does give police a basis for questioning salespersons and to know who is selling things in the neighborhoods. However, I don’t believe that we needed an ordinance for them to do that.
Magistrates Scott Davis, Bob Leslie and Rick Rash voted against the peddler ordinance while the remaining magistrates and the judge voted for the ordinance.
The alarm ordinance essentially provides for a fine for false alarms received by the Oldham County Police Department. Each person would be allowed two false alarms each year before being subject to the fine. Although supporters of the ordinance claimed that the police department was receiving so many false alarms that it was affecting its ability to perform other duties, no statistics were provided to support this allegation. The finance committee was asked if it had the statistics.
What was more surprising about the ordinance was that it provided for an annual registration fee of twenty dollars for registering alarms with the Oldham County Police Department. The fee only applies to those alarms that alert the police department. This is just another way for the county to raise money. It seems that every time the Fiscal Court meets there is some new fee or tax. Magistrates Scott Davis, David Voegele and Steve Church voted against the alarm ordinance. The remaining magistrates and the judge voted for the ordinance.
Then there was the peddler ordinance. The alleged purpose of this ordinance was to keep peddlers from scaring people and to keep unwanted solicitors away from people’s homes. It does neither. It only requires peddlers to obtain a permit in order to peddle their wares. It does not stop them from coming to your house. There will be a background check done on each applicant. However, after reading the ordinance, it does not appear to me that any real grounds for denial of the permit are contained in it. And then there is another fee. The permit, which will cost one hundred dollars, will be valid for a maximum of six months. As originally written, the permit would have prevented salespersons from calling on businesses. Thanks to Magistrate David Voegele that provision was removed from the ordinance.
The peddler ordinance does give police a basis for questioning salespersons and to know who is selling things in the neighborhoods. However, I don’t believe that we needed an ordinance for them to do that.
Magistrates Scott Davis, Bob Leslie and Rick Rash voted against the peddler ordinance while the remaining magistrates and the judge voted for the ordinance.
MAGISTRATE VOEGELE WANTS DEAL WITH SCHOOL BOARD RECONSIDERED
Magistrate David Voegele wants the Oldham County School Board to consider relinquishing all or part of the two hundred thousand dollar payment that the Fiscal Court gives to it each year as a result of an agreement reached with it several years ago.
As many of you may recall the Dynegy Company, located on Commerce Parkway wanted to build a plant to generate electricity. The county agreed to lease the property to Dynegy for twenty years which meant that Dynegy would not have to pay any property taxes. At the end of the twenty years the property would be turned over to Dynegy and they would pay regular property taxes. As part of the deal Dynegy agreed to pay the county several hundred thousand dollars each year. The school board felt that the agreement would preclude it from collecting property taxes for the twenty year period. Therefore, the county agreed to pay 200 thousand dollars annually to the school board.
Voegele’s assertion now is that since the school board seems to be “flush” with money, at least in the building fund, and times are “tough” for the county, the Board of Education should consider relinquishing all or part of the money each year. County Attorney John Fendley stated that Fiscal Court had a contract with the school board and that we were bound by that contract. However, the court passed a resolution calling for the finance committee to attempt to reach a new agreement with the Board of Education.
I agree with Voegele’s contention although I don’t know that the county is financially strapped for money. Therefore the county may not be able to make a good argument for their position. As for honoring the contract, I do not remember a contract being entered into. Several years ago I read the minutes of the Fiscal Court meeting during which the resolution was passed to give the money to the schools. I do not remember any contract being mentioned. However, that has been a few years ago and it is possible that a contract does exist. Certainly some simple record checking would resolve that question.
Voegele also argued that the Board of Education did not put up any money in the effort to have Dynegy come to the county but was receiving some of the profits. It is certainly true that had Dynegy not come to the county, the schools would not have received any of the money that it has received. Further, the Board of Education did not suffer from any of the political fallout that was the result of the Dynegy agreement. Simply put, the Board of Education was the beneficiary of a deal that did not cost them anything.
As many of you may recall the Dynegy Company, located on Commerce Parkway wanted to build a plant to generate electricity. The county agreed to lease the property to Dynegy for twenty years which meant that Dynegy would not have to pay any property taxes. At the end of the twenty years the property would be turned over to Dynegy and they would pay regular property taxes. As part of the deal Dynegy agreed to pay the county several hundred thousand dollars each year. The school board felt that the agreement would preclude it from collecting property taxes for the twenty year period. Therefore, the county agreed to pay 200 thousand dollars annually to the school board.
Voegele’s assertion now is that since the school board seems to be “flush” with money, at least in the building fund, and times are “tough” for the county, the Board of Education should consider relinquishing all or part of the money each year. County Attorney John Fendley stated that Fiscal Court had a contract with the school board and that we were bound by that contract. However, the court passed a resolution calling for the finance committee to attempt to reach a new agreement with the Board of Education.
I agree with Voegele’s contention although I don’t know that the county is financially strapped for money. Therefore the county may not be able to make a good argument for their position. As for honoring the contract, I do not remember a contract being entered into. Several years ago I read the minutes of the Fiscal Court meeting during which the resolution was passed to give the money to the schools. I do not remember any contract being mentioned. However, that has been a few years ago and it is possible that a contract does exist. Certainly some simple record checking would resolve that question.
Voegele also argued that the Board of Education did not put up any money in the effort to have Dynegy come to the county but was receiving some of the profits. It is certainly true that had Dynegy not come to the county, the schools would not have received any of the money that it has received. Further, the Board of Education did not suffer from any of the political fallout that was the result of the Dynegy agreement. Simply put, the Board of Education was the beneficiary of a deal that did not cost them anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)