Kevin Eldridge sounds and appears more like a candidate for County Judge every day. I have predicted that he will run and that Duane Murner will support him. Murner has been grooming him for the job for a long time. He helped him stay on the Planning & Zoning Commission, appointed him to lead his Vision Council, and has now appointed him to lead the Storm Water District. I thought that he was a complete failure as the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Vision Council is just a bad memory to most people. The Vision Council never seemed to accomplish anything other than trying to tell people, and justify the fact, that Murner was going to want a lot of additional taxes.
However, Eldridge’s new position as chairman of the Storm Water District may be the position that brings him the most heat. After reading the article in the Oldham Era last week it was apparent that Murner and Eldridge were taking some heat over the recent bills people received from the Storm Water District. In fact, Eldridge seemed to be trying to deflect some of the heat to the politicians. He was obviously blaming everyone except himself. It is true that he did not force the county to form a Storm Water district and he did not vote for the fee. However, he accepted the position as director which indicates that he supports the program. Further, while Eldridge is telling everyone that they should complain to their elected officials, including the local officials, we must all remember that he wanted the fee to be much higher than the final figure that was set.
Eldridge begins his article by telling everyone what a great guy he is by making sure that they know his position is as a volunteer. He continues by trying to make it look as though he did such a great job by keeping the rate lower than Jefferson County. What he doesn’t tell people is that most counties in Kentucky don’t have a Storm Water district. He also doesn’t tell the people that, according to an email that he sent to Judge Murner, just over 13 percent of the people in the county should be covered by the Storm Water District. Wonder why all of the other people have to pay the bill also?
If the Storm Water fee is such a bad thing, then why is he a part of it and why did he want the fee to be higher. Why is he trying to deflect the criticism to the magistrates? Can he not take the heat? Is he afraid that the unpopularity of the Storm Water fee is going to hurt his image and his chances of becoming the next County Judge? He is really beginning to sound like a politician. He is trying to place the blame for the Storm Water fee on everyone else while trying to convince them that he is trying to be their savior. Just remember, he wanted the fee to be much higher and he was willing to include the entire county even though he did not believe that the entire county was required to be a part of the Storm Water District.
I would suspect that Judge Murner will be indebted to Mr. Eldridge for “falling on the sword” for him and taking some of the heat for the Storm Water Fee. I would also expect that Eldridge will expect Judge Murner’s total support should he decide to seek the office of County Judge, even if other people close to Murner are disappointed at not receiving his support. Anyone can see that Eldridge is likely to follow the same path as Murner in campaigning for County Judge, should he enter the race. That path includes gathering as much funding as possible from developers, real estate agents, and those involved in the construction industry. We clearly see where Murner’s allegiances fall and if Eldridge were elected County Judge, it is likely that little or no change would be coming to Oldham County. Can the people of this county afford a second term of Duane Murner or his groomed replacement?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
MAGISTRATE CHURCH WANTS RESPECT FOR THE FISCAL COURT
During the “public comment” portion the of the Fiscal Court meeting on Tuesday, March 18, 2009 Magistrate Steve Church took the opportunity to address the court from the podium. He stated that he had heard one person say that they would not allow their nine year old child to watch the court meetings on television due to the disrespect shown to members of the court. He stated that he thought that people making public comments should show more respect for the members of the court.
I wonder if the parent was also concerned with the frequent misstatements that are heard from members of the court. I specifically remember Magistrate Church demonstrating obvious frustration with criticism of the court, some of which, he thought was directed at him. He stated that he didn’t ask to be a magistrate. He also indicated that he thought the people should be glad to have him. I have been told by one person that Magistrate Church asked that person to intervene with Governor Fletcher to help him receive the appointment to the position when Paula Gish resigned. Further, Church paid the filing fee and signed up to run for the position to fill the unexpired term of Gish. I believe he even asked people for their votes. The only thing that Magistrate Church has done to indicate that he doesn’t want the job is to be absent. I have attended most of the court meetings and according to my calculations he has been absent more than all of the other members combined. But I still believe that he wanted the position.
If the members of the court want respect, they must earn it. Respect does not drop out of the sky. Perhaps Magistrate Church needs to learn to accept criticism. On the other hand, if the heat is more than he can bear, he can always quit the job that he didn’t want.
Now if Church was trying to defend Judge Murner, shame on him. I would hope that he would not condone the recent statements of the Judge regarding his willingness to go to jail rather than obey the law. If Church is condoning that, he is the only person that I have talked to who feels that way. The people to whom I have spoken felt as I do. That being, that the statements embarrassed them. However, I believe Church participated in the illegal meeting led by Judge Murner and never complained. Perhaps he does agree with the conduct of the Judge.
I wonder if the parent was also concerned with the frequent misstatements that are heard from members of the court. I specifically remember Magistrate Church demonstrating obvious frustration with criticism of the court, some of which, he thought was directed at him. He stated that he didn’t ask to be a magistrate. He also indicated that he thought the people should be glad to have him. I have been told by one person that Magistrate Church asked that person to intervene with Governor Fletcher to help him receive the appointment to the position when Paula Gish resigned. Further, Church paid the filing fee and signed up to run for the position to fill the unexpired term of Gish. I believe he even asked people for their votes. The only thing that Magistrate Church has done to indicate that he doesn’t want the job is to be absent. I have attended most of the court meetings and according to my calculations he has been absent more than all of the other members combined. But I still believe that he wanted the position.
If the members of the court want respect, they must earn it. Respect does not drop out of the sky. Perhaps Magistrate Church needs to learn to accept criticism. On the other hand, if the heat is more than he can bear, he can always quit the job that he didn’t want.
Now if Church was trying to defend Judge Murner, shame on him. I would hope that he would not condone the recent statements of the Judge regarding his willingness to go to jail rather than obey the law. If Church is condoning that, he is the only person that I have talked to who feels that way. The people to whom I have spoken felt as I do. That being, that the statements embarrassed them. However, I believe Church participated in the illegal meeting led by Judge Murner and never complained. Perhaps he does agree with the conduct of the Judge.
Monday, March 9, 2009
SENATOR HARRIS AND REPRESENTATIVE OSBORNE WANT YOUR MONEY
Senator Ernie Harris claims to be the taxpayer’s friend. At least that is what his web site says. However, he recently voted to increase the tax on alcohol and will probably be voting to maintain the current tax rate on gasoline. State representative David Osborne has already voted to maintain the tax rate on gasoline. Both of these politicians claim to be republicans.
The gasoline tax in question is supposed to fluctuate with the wholesale price of gasoline. However, when the wholesale price began to decline the state decided to change the law in order to keep the tax rate at the same level that it would have been had it was designed to do. This action once again enforces the widely held belief that once the government places a tax on something it never wants to give it up.
Perhaps the residents of Oldham County would be better off if our representatives stayed home instead of going to Frankfort. It is difficult to look around the county and see any fruits of their labor but it is easy to see that they want to help the state take our money. Recently it appears that Senator Harris casts his votes to please Senate President David Williams, who supports maintaining the same tax rate, instead of trying to please his constituents. Representative Osborne just wants the state to keep every penny of your money that it can get.
Considering the fact that everybody seems to want “change”, perhaps it is time to consider changing our representatives in Frankfort. After all, they should be representing the people not the local and state politicians.
Another issue to consider is, do we want David Williams representing our state in the United States Senate instead of Jim Bunning? Personally, I don’t.
The gasoline tax in question is supposed to fluctuate with the wholesale price of gasoline. However, when the wholesale price began to decline the state decided to change the law in order to keep the tax rate at the same level that it would have been had it was designed to do. This action once again enforces the widely held belief that once the government places a tax on something it never wants to give it up.
Perhaps the residents of Oldham County would be better off if our representatives stayed home instead of going to Frankfort. It is difficult to look around the county and see any fruits of their labor but it is easy to see that they want to help the state take our money. Recently it appears that Senator Harris casts his votes to please Senate President David Williams, who supports maintaining the same tax rate, instead of trying to please his constituents. Representative Osborne just wants the state to keep every penny of your money that it can get.
Considering the fact that everybody seems to want “change”, perhaps it is time to consider changing our representatives in Frankfort. After all, they should be representing the people not the local and state politicians.
Another issue to consider is, do we want David Williams representing our state in the United States Senate instead of Jim Bunning? Personally, I don’t.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
OLDHAM FISCAL COURT REFUSES TO PASS INCREASE IN FEE REQUESTED BY INDUSTRIAL DISPOSAL
On March 3, 2009 the Oldham County Fiscal Court took a courageous stance and a common sense approach to the question of the proposed garbage fee. They decided by a seven to two vote to send the proposed fee increase back to the Utilities committee for further negotiation. The problem is that the two members of fiscal court who voted against sending the issue back make up the majority of that committee. Hopefully they will understand that they received a “mandate” from the other members of the court to renegotiate the fee downward.
Originally the county signed a five-year contract with Industrial Disposal (ID) to collect the garbage in Oldham County. The contract contained language that allowed ID a fee increase in year four and year five of the contract. No other increases in the fees were provided for. However, at the urging of Magistrate Rick Rash, a recipient of campaign funds from ID, on two different occasions the fiscal court granted fee increases to ID which amounted to a total of six percent. The reason for requesting those increases was to offset the spike in the price of diesel fuel. Both times the increases were granted notwithstanding that the contract did not require them. The court was simply being sensitive to the requests of ID.
This being the fifth year of the contract, a fee increase was provided for and the increase was to be based on the CPI. However, since the cost of diesel fuel has been substantially reduced it was the feeling of the majority of fiscal court that ID should consider giving up their fee increase. This would offset the prior fee increases granted to offset the price increase for fuel.
The two magistrates who voted to give ID the fee increase without further negotiation were Bob Diebel and Rick Rash. Rash appeared to be very distraught when the court voted to send the issue back to the utilities committee for further negotiation. For whatever reason Magistrate Rash always seems to be “carrying the water” for ID. It will be interesting to see his position when the time comes for the county to let the trash contract out for bids. The current contract expires on January 31, 2010.
Frankly, I was extremely pleased to see some meaningful discussion on an issue by members of the court. It seemed as though six magistrates and the judge were looking out for the best interests of the people. I commend them for that.
The county may have to give ID the fee increase in the end but ID will know that the court is aware that ID was not willing to be considerate of their customers. In fairness to ID it did appear that they were willing to continue negotiating the contract.
Originally the county signed a five-year contract with Industrial Disposal (ID) to collect the garbage in Oldham County. The contract contained language that allowed ID a fee increase in year four and year five of the contract. No other increases in the fees were provided for. However, at the urging of Magistrate Rick Rash, a recipient of campaign funds from ID, on two different occasions the fiscal court granted fee increases to ID which amounted to a total of six percent. The reason for requesting those increases was to offset the spike in the price of diesel fuel. Both times the increases were granted notwithstanding that the contract did not require them. The court was simply being sensitive to the requests of ID.
This being the fifth year of the contract, a fee increase was provided for and the increase was to be based on the CPI. However, since the cost of diesel fuel has been substantially reduced it was the feeling of the majority of fiscal court that ID should consider giving up their fee increase. This would offset the prior fee increases granted to offset the price increase for fuel.
The two magistrates who voted to give ID the fee increase without further negotiation were Bob Diebel and Rick Rash. Rash appeared to be very distraught when the court voted to send the issue back to the utilities committee for further negotiation. For whatever reason Magistrate Rash always seems to be “carrying the water” for ID. It will be interesting to see his position when the time comes for the county to let the trash contract out for bids. The current contract expires on January 31, 2010.
Frankly, I was extremely pleased to see some meaningful discussion on an issue by members of the court. It seemed as though six magistrates and the judge were looking out for the best interests of the people. I commend them for that.
The county may have to give ID the fee increase in the end but ID will know that the court is aware that ID was not willing to be considerate of their customers. In fairness to ID it did appear that they were willing to continue negotiating the contract.
Friday, February 27, 2009
DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT AGAINST OLDHAM COUNTY CONTINUES
The discrimination lawsuit filed by Shelbyville, KY police officer Bruce Gentry against the Oldham County Police Department is moving along. On February 16, 2009 Robert T. Watson, counsel for Oldham County filed a response for the county to the complaint filed by Gentry.
Essentially the response denies the allegations made by the plaintiff, Gentry. The response asks that the complaint be dismissed; that the county receive a trial by jury; that the county be awarded costs expended, including a reasonable attorney fee; and, any and all other relief to which it may appear appropriately entitled.
The issue that I quickly took note of was that both sides have asked for a jury trial. This is a plus for the public in my opinion. A jury trial should result in most facets of the case being explored by both sides. Therefore, the public should be afforded the opportunity to learn the entire story. The watchdog will continue to monitor this suit and keep you updated.
Essentially the response denies the allegations made by the plaintiff, Gentry. The response asks that the complaint be dismissed; that the county receive a trial by jury; that the county be awarded costs expended, including a reasonable attorney fee; and, any and all other relief to which it may appear appropriately entitled.
The issue that I quickly took note of was that both sides have asked for a jury trial. This is a plus for the public in my opinion. A jury trial should result in most facets of the case being explored by both sides. Therefore, the public should be afforded the opportunity to learn the entire story. The watchdog will continue to monitor this suit and keep you updated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)