Duane Murner has been in office just slightly over three years and there has been no shortage of complaints filed against him that was related to personnel actions. And, his won/loss record on the proceedings does not look favorable. Will the county need another lawyer who is dedicated to defending Murner? Perhaps there should be a sign on the courthouse door that reads, “Wanted: Full-Time Attorney Willing to Swim Upstream.” It might also be wise to hire another person for human resources to assist Judge Murner in his personnel decisions.
First, there is the issue of the alleged refusal, of the county, to hire Bruce Gentry for a county police officer position because he has a military obligation. From reading the lawsuit and other information that I have obtained I doubt that the county has a prayer of winning that lawsuit. However, the final disposition of that lawsuit is not likely to come about until Murner is out of office.
The second instance involved the county police department’s attempt to fire Officer Tom Douglas. Fortunately for Douglas the Police Merit Board overturned that decision. That decision surely saved the county from itself as a lawsuit was almost certain. However, the county was still required to repay Douglas for time lost and that amounted to several thousand dollars.
The latest issue is the firing of Mitch Nobles, the county Code Enforcement Officer. Nobles filed a lawsuit against the county and in my opinion will win that lawsuit. In this instance most members of the Fiscal Court can share the blame with Judge Murner as six of them voted to fire Nobles (Magistrates Scott Davis and David Voegele abstained from voting because they claim that they did not have sufficient information upon which to base a fair decision).
Again I ask, when will the magistrates grow some backbone and quit following Murner like blind sheep? There is NO excuse for their actions. Taking a person’s employment from him is not something that should be taken lightly but that seems to be what happened in this instance. The fact is, the public has not held the magistrates accountable for their actions. It is time that they are held responsible.
Then there are the two lawsuits that Magistrate Scott Davis filed against Judge Murner – one for having a secret meeting and the other for the Judge’s failure to release public information. Murner lost both of those lawsuits. I suspect that there are more to come.
After all of these legal problems I would hope that people are very careful when they characterize the Kinser administration as giving outsiders a bad impression of Oldham County. The Murner administration smacks of being very cavalier regarding employee rights and the public’s right to know. This administration reminds me of a “banana republic dictatorship.” The next year cannot go too fast for the public. The sooner that Murner is out of office the better off the public will be. The question then becomes, can the next judge clean up the mess that will obviously be left?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
MORE PEOPLE HAVE FILED TO ENTER POLITICAL RACES
I understand that Mike Logsdon, a Republican, has entered the race for the eighth district magisterial seat. He will be facing incumbent Bob Diebel. Logsdon, who is a local realtor should be a formidable opponent for Diebel. However, his ties to developer Bob Jones may cause some people to be leery of him. Only time will tell if he tries to distance himself from Bob Jones or if he is a supporter of Jones.
Apparently Bob Dye has made it official - he will challenge Rick Rash for the Republican nomination for the seventh district magisterial seat. As I previously said, Rash only defeated Dye by sixteen votes in 2006. At that time Dye carried the Glen Oaks area but Rash carried the Briar Hill and the Spring Hill neighborhoods. However, a lot has happened since the last election. The most notable thing is the lawsuit filed by the people in Spring Hill and Briar Hill over the proposed Brentwood subdivision.
My sources tell me that many people in Briar Hill and Spring Hill are very unhappy with Rick Rash as he has supported development, appointments of pro-development members to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has received political contributions from developers. Rash has also voted YES on every tax and fee increase this term and has been a puppet for Judge-Executive Duane Murner to use as needed in accomplishing his missions.
If my calculations are correcet he has easily lost enough votes in those subdivisions to allow Dye to win the nomination. Rash has been campaigning hard as he knows that he is in trouble. However, it is difficult to cover up your record and to convince people that you will be any different in the future than you have been for the past sixteen years.
I have also heard that there may be an opponent for Julie Barr. Thus, I am anxiously awaiting the filing deadline for people to file for different races. Again, stay tuned!
Apparently Bob Dye has made it official - he will challenge Rick Rash for the Republican nomination for the seventh district magisterial seat. As I previously said, Rash only defeated Dye by sixteen votes in 2006. At that time Dye carried the Glen Oaks area but Rash carried the Briar Hill and the Spring Hill neighborhoods. However, a lot has happened since the last election. The most notable thing is the lawsuit filed by the people in Spring Hill and Briar Hill over the proposed Brentwood subdivision.
My sources tell me that many people in Briar Hill and Spring Hill are very unhappy with Rick Rash as he has supported development, appointments of pro-development members to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has received political contributions from developers. Rash has also voted YES on every tax and fee increase this term and has been a puppet for Judge-Executive Duane Murner to use as needed in accomplishing his missions.
If my calculations are correcet he has easily lost enough votes in those subdivisions to allow Dye to win the nomination. Rash has been campaigning hard as he knows that he is in trouble. However, it is difficult to cover up your record and to convince people that you will be any different in the future than you have been for the past sixteen years.
I have also heard that there may be an opponent for Julie Barr. Thus, I am anxiously awaiting the filing deadline for people to file for different races. Again, stay tuned!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
MAGISTRATE SCOTT DAVIS FILES TO RETAIN HIS POSITION ON THE OLDHAM COUNTY FISCAL COURT
On Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Magistrate Scott Davis filed to seek the Republican nomination for the sixth district magisterial seat of the Oldham County Fiscal Court. Already in the race is Kevin Eldridge who also seeks the Republican nomination and Rick Garlock who is seeking the Democratic nomination.
The race promises to be one of the most interesting races in the county. Magistrate Scott Davis has an extremely good following among his constituents while Kevin Eldridge will probably be backed by the developers and the current County Judge who has also been heavily funded by the developers.
The election will determine if the sixth district seat will remain the "people's seat" or whether it can be bought by money. Eldridge has been Judge Murner's "waterboy" throughout his administration. First, he led the Vision Council for the purpose of preparing the public for higher taxes and fees. Then Murner hand picked him to lead the stormwater district in order to set the ill concieved stormwater district into motion. Even Eldridge now has admitted that the stormwater district is not necessary. Frankly, I do not know what Eldridge can offer the voters other than more taxes and higher fees. Prior to the Vision Council Eldridge served on the Planning and Zoning Commission that he also chaired. While there, in my opinion, he was more than generous to developers. On one occasion I watched him refuse to allow people from outside the county to testify against a developer who was also from outside the county but was seeking approval for a development in Oldham County. The developer had presented evidence that was derived from ouside the county. Is that a double standard or what? I had never witnessed such an injustice in an administrative hearing.
Other than Magistrate Bob Leslie's district I believe that every other magistrate is likely to have competition. I understand that Bob Dye picked up "filing papers" to run for the seat currently held by Rick Rash. In the 2006 primary Rash only edged out Dye by sixteen votes. That means that Rash could not afford to lose an additional nine votes. Further, I am pretty certain that there will be another candidate for the office.
Frankly, I believe that the competition is good. The public needs a choice. This may be the time for magistrates to accept responsibility for all of the tax and fee increases that they have voted for.
Certainly the time has come for more updates on this site. I expect the campaign to be very active in many of the races - not just the races for magistrate. Stay tuned!
The race promises to be one of the most interesting races in the county. Magistrate Scott Davis has an extremely good following among his constituents while Kevin Eldridge will probably be backed by the developers and the current County Judge who has also been heavily funded by the developers.
The election will determine if the sixth district seat will remain the "people's seat" or whether it can be bought by money. Eldridge has been Judge Murner's "waterboy" throughout his administration. First, he led the Vision Council for the purpose of preparing the public for higher taxes and fees. Then Murner hand picked him to lead the stormwater district in order to set the ill concieved stormwater district into motion. Even Eldridge now has admitted that the stormwater district is not necessary. Frankly, I do not know what Eldridge can offer the voters other than more taxes and higher fees. Prior to the Vision Council Eldridge served on the Planning and Zoning Commission that he also chaired. While there, in my opinion, he was more than generous to developers. On one occasion I watched him refuse to allow people from outside the county to testify against a developer who was also from outside the county but was seeking approval for a development in Oldham County. The developer had presented evidence that was derived from ouside the county. Is that a double standard or what? I had never witnessed such an injustice in an administrative hearing.
Other than Magistrate Bob Leslie's district I believe that every other magistrate is likely to have competition. I understand that Bob Dye picked up "filing papers" to run for the seat currently held by Rick Rash. In the 2006 primary Rash only edged out Dye by sixteen votes. That means that Rash could not afford to lose an additional nine votes. Further, I am pretty certain that there will be another candidate for the office.
Frankly, I believe that the competition is good. The public needs a choice. This may be the time for magistrates to accept responsibility for all of the tax and fee increases that they have voted for.
Certainly the time has come for more updates on this site. I expect the campaign to be very active in many of the races - not just the races for magistrate. Stay tuned!
Saturday, December 19, 2009
APPARENTLY OLDHAM FISCAL COURT APPROVES OF HIGHER WATER RATES
On December 15, 2009 the Oldham County Fiscal Court gave its blessing to the 28 percent increase in the water rate for the residents of Oldham County. No, the court did not set the rate but Judge-Executive Duane Murner nominated both Jay Hall and Robert Durbin for reappointment to serve on the board of the Oldham County Water District. Both of those men were on the board that set the new rate resulting in a 28 percent increase in water rates for all Oldham County customers.
Magistrate Scott Davis commented to the court prior to the vote concerning his disappointment and displeasure with the recent decisions of the Water District Board. He stated that he felt the board should have more carefully considered the opportunity to partner with the Louisville Water Company and lower the amount of its rate increase. Magistrate Davis has also stated his objections to the water district spending millions of dollars to increase capacity to serve developers at the ratepayers (customers) expense. Judge-Executive Murner even had the audacity to say that he did not favor the increase in water rates but that the control of the water rates was not within the jurisdiction of the Fiscal Court. In fact, that is an oversimplification of the matter at hand. While Fiscal Court does not set the water rates, they control who is on the Water District Board.
On Tuesday, all members of the Fiscal Court, including Judge-Executive Murner, were aware that the nominees for the Water District Board were previously part of the board that set the new rates resulting in the 28 percent increase. All members of the court had an opportunity to voice their objection to the huge rate increase. However, only Magistrate Scott Davis voiced his objections over the increase. He stated that since the nominees had been part of the board that increased the water rates by 28 percent he could not vote for them. Obviously the other members of the court did not share his displeasure. Without any comment the entire court voted to approve the nominations with the exception of Magistrate Scott Davis.
It is to be noted that the Water District Board has clearly stated in writing that one of the purposes of increasing the rate is to fund more infrastructure for development. Jay Hall is also a family member of one of the largest volume developers and real estate agents in Oldham County, Steve Hall. Jay’s wife, Deborah, contributed the personal maximum contribution of $1,000 to Paula Gish for her campaign for Judge-Executive on 9/17/2009. Karen Hall, the wife of Steve Hall, also donated $1,000 to Paula Gish for Judge-Executive on 9/17/2009. Are you getting the picture here? Did Jay Hall use his position as a member of the Oldham County Water District Board to expand infrastructure for future development to subsidize his own industry? We’ll let you be the judge of that, but the answer seems pretty clear. When testifying before the Fiscal Court, the Water District Board stated service for people in Oldham County would not be enhanced. Yet everyone in the county will pay dearly in order to construct new infrastructure for future development. I continue to tell people to ask themselves, “What will new development do for me?” I can tell you that it has and continues to cost you dearly.
In May the residents of Oldham County will have the opportunity to let their elected magistrate know how they feel about the cavalier attitude that the magistrates frequently show about the financial welfare of their constituents. Hopefully, they take the opportunity to do so.
Magistrate Scott Davis commented to the court prior to the vote concerning his disappointment and displeasure with the recent decisions of the Water District Board. He stated that he felt the board should have more carefully considered the opportunity to partner with the Louisville Water Company and lower the amount of its rate increase. Magistrate Davis has also stated his objections to the water district spending millions of dollars to increase capacity to serve developers at the ratepayers (customers) expense. Judge-Executive Murner even had the audacity to say that he did not favor the increase in water rates but that the control of the water rates was not within the jurisdiction of the Fiscal Court. In fact, that is an oversimplification of the matter at hand. While Fiscal Court does not set the water rates, they control who is on the Water District Board.
On Tuesday, all members of the Fiscal Court, including Judge-Executive Murner, were aware that the nominees for the Water District Board were previously part of the board that set the new rates resulting in the 28 percent increase. All members of the court had an opportunity to voice their objection to the huge rate increase. However, only Magistrate Scott Davis voiced his objections over the increase. He stated that since the nominees had been part of the board that increased the water rates by 28 percent he could not vote for them. Obviously the other members of the court did not share his displeasure. Without any comment the entire court voted to approve the nominations with the exception of Magistrate Scott Davis.
It is to be noted that the Water District Board has clearly stated in writing that one of the purposes of increasing the rate is to fund more infrastructure for development. Jay Hall is also a family member of one of the largest volume developers and real estate agents in Oldham County, Steve Hall. Jay’s wife, Deborah, contributed the personal maximum contribution of $1,000 to Paula Gish for her campaign for Judge-Executive on 9/17/2009. Karen Hall, the wife of Steve Hall, also donated $1,000 to Paula Gish for Judge-Executive on 9/17/2009. Are you getting the picture here? Did Jay Hall use his position as a member of the Oldham County Water District Board to expand infrastructure for future development to subsidize his own industry? We’ll let you be the judge of that, but the answer seems pretty clear. When testifying before the Fiscal Court, the Water District Board stated service for people in Oldham County would not be enhanced. Yet everyone in the county will pay dearly in order to construct new infrastructure for future development. I continue to tell people to ask themselves, “What will new development do for me?” I can tell you that it has and continues to cost you dearly.
In May the residents of Oldham County will have the opportunity to let their elected magistrate know how they feel about the cavalier attitude that the magistrates frequently show about the financial welfare of their constituents. Hopefully, they take the opportunity to do so.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
IS HARRISON TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING
Recently I have come into possession of a letter sent out by J. Albert Harrison seeking campaign contributions and support for his campaign to become the Property Valuation Administrator (PVA) of Oldham County. This letter raises several interesting questions.
First, Mr. Harrison states that he feels privileged to serve Oldham County in a “manner” similar to his military service. He does not elaborate on that
statement. While Mr. Harrison is certainly deserving of the appreciation of all citizens for his defense of this country in a time of war, his military service is not connected or similar to what the position of the PVA would require.
Second, Mr. Harrison states that he successfully took the required exam for the office of PVA and therefore is now fully qualified as a candidate. While he may be qualified under the color of law, that by no means proves that he is a qualified candidate by way of experience. As I have stated in the past, the qualifications of any candidate for any office are very subjective. That decision is best left up to the voters.
Without question the most interesting part of Mr. Harrison’s letter is that he has chosen to limit contributions by way of personal checks to a maximum of $100. He goes on to state that cash contributions are limited by statute to $50 per person. Harrison states that there are definite reasons for the limits. His first reason is: “First is my belief in allowing many supporters, not just a chosen few, to make contributions at a level that is not a financial burden.” This statement is incredulous. If he had no limitation on the size of donations that would not prevent anyone from supporting him. Harrison’s second reason is: “Second, with these limits I am not required to list donors' names and occupations.” Is he saying that he is too lazy too list the names? Is he saying that he wants to conceal the identity of his supporters? Is he trying to hide something? Frankly, I don’t know the answer but I certainly would like to know why he is choosing to be less than forthright with the identity of his supporters. There is an old adage that says, “The appearance of impropriety is sometimes worse than the impropriety itself.” I certainly hope that is true in this situation.
Harrison states that his reporting to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance entails only the total amount given and the aggregate number of contributors. He states that this method is a provision within the election regulations to encourage grass-roots giving. I certainly take issue with his statements. You don't need to limit contributions in order to encourage grass-roots support.
It can easily be argued that a candidate for election does not want to openly accept contributions in excess of $100 in order for the candidate to conceal the true identity of the donors to his campaign. This allows a candidate to accept contributions of any amount, for example, $5000, and claim that the donation was given by 50 individual donors. Certainly this is illegal but is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Further, when a candidate does not publicize his contributors, he obscures the identity of any special interest group that may be supporting him.
In the past I have raised questions about the development industry in Oldham County and the attempt of that industry to control the politics within the County. A review of the past history of contributions from the development industry certainly reflects that the industry has been more than generous to candidates who support its positions on many issues. It is no secret that Mr. Harrison had been closely tied to developers and has been a supporter of the developers. I certainly hope that he is not using his contribution limitations to obscure support from any special interest group. This is a situation that certainly needs to be monitored. If Mr. Harrison were to try to conceal the identity of his supporters from the voters, it would certainly negate any glitter that he is deserving of for his military service.
Finally, Mr. Harrison states, “…I will operate the PVA office within all legal elements of the law to include recognizing and avoiding any aspects of nepotism”. He is clearly taking a shot at the current PVA, Ron Winters, due to the fact that Mr. Winters employs his wife, Barbara. Mr. Winters was cleared of this charge. Further, Barbara Winters took the qualifying exam for the PVA position at the same time that Mr. Harrison took the exam and she also passed it. It goes without saying that if Mr. Harrison considers himself qualified by virtue of having passed the PVA exam, Ms. Winters is also qualified. Besides, she has much more experience than he does but he is the one asking voters to put him in the PVA position. So, what is his beef?
One last comment, Mr. Harrison states that he can be contacted by using the contact information on his letterhead. I doubt that he can be contacted using the email address on the letterhead as it has two dots between “att and net.” I know that is being picky but I believe that Mr. Harrison fired the first shot by using the term “nepotism.”
First, Mr. Harrison states that he feels privileged to serve Oldham County in a “manner” similar to his military service. He does not elaborate on that
statement. While Mr. Harrison is certainly deserving of the appreciation of all citizens for his defense of this country in a time of war, his military service is not connected or similar to what the position of the PVA would require.
Second, Mr. Harrison states that he successfully took the required exam for the office of PVA and therefore is now fully qualified as a candidate. While he may be qualified under the color of law, that by no means proves that he is a qualified candidate by way of experience. As I have stated in the past, the qualifications of any candidate for any office are very subjective. That decision is best left up to the voters.
Without question the most interesting part of Mr. Harrison’s letter is that he has chosen to limit contributions by way of personal checks to a maximum of $100. He goes on to state that cash contributions are limited by statute to $50 per person. Harrison states that there are definite reasons for the limits. His first reason is: “First is my belief in allowing many supporters, not just a chosen few, to make contributions at a level that is not a financial burden.” This statement is incredulous. If he had no limitation on the size of donations that would not prevent anyone from supporting him. Harrison’s second reason is: “Second, with these limits I am not required to list donors' names and occupations.” Is he saying that he is too lazy too list the names? Is he saying that he wants to conceal the identity of his supporters? Is he trying to hide something? Frankly, I don’t know the answer but I certainly would like to know why he is choosing to be less than forthright with the identity of his supporters. There is an old adage that says, “The appearance of impropriety is sometimes worse than the impropriety itself.” I certainly hope that is true in this situation.
Harrison states that his reporting to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance entails only the total amount given and the aggregate number of contributors. He states that this method is a provision within the election regulations to encourage grass-roots giving. I certainly take issue with his statements. You don't need to limit contributions in order to encourage grass-roots support.
It can easily be argued that a candidate for election does not want to openly accept contributions in excess of $100 in order for the candidate to conceal the true identity of the donors to his campaign. This allows a candidate to accept contributions of any amount, for example, $5000, and claim that the donation was given by 50 individual donors. Certainly this is illegal but is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Further, when a candidate does not publicize his contributors, he obscures the identity of any special interest group that may be supporting him.
In the past I have raised questions about the development industry in Oldham County and the attempt of that industry to control the politics within the County. A review of the past history of contributions from the development industry certainly reflects that the industry has been more than generous to candidates who support its positions on many issues. It is no secret that Mr. Harrison had been closely tied to developers and has been a supporter of the developers. I certainly hope that he is not using his contribution limitations to obscure support from any special interest group. This is a situation that certainly needs to be monitored. If Mr. Harrison were to try to conceal the identity of his supporters from the voters, it would certainly negate any glitter that he is deserving of for his military service.
Finally, Mr. Harrison states, “…I will operate the PVA office within all legal elements of the law to include recognizing and avoiding any aspects of nepotism”. He is clearly taking a shot at the current PVA, Ron Winters, due to the fact that Mr. Winters employs his wife, Barbara. Mr. Winters was cleared of this charge. Further, Barbara Winters took the qualifying exam for the PVA position at the same time that Mr. Harrison took the exam and she also passed it. It goes without saying that if Mr. Harrison considers himself qualified by virtue of having passed the PVA exam, Ms. Winters is also qualified. Besides, she has much more experience than he does but he is the one asking voters to put him in the PVA position. So, what is his beef?
One last comment, Mr. Harrison states that he can be contacted by using the contact information on his letterhead. I doubt that he can be contacted using the email address on the letterhead as it has two dots between “att and net.” I know that is being picky but I believe that Mr. Harrison fired the first shot by using the term “nepotism.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)