- Bigger % increases on low income families than higher ones?
- Taxing champions --- AGAIN! When people are hurting?
Leads all Broward tax authorities in the tax increases for residents!
- Bad economics--- how are people to increase spending and job
creation locally if the Cooper City government takes more of their
squeezed incomes?
Hard to believe? Yet that is what 4 commission members and some on the staff seem to be supporting.
1. Their tax/fee package will result in those with lower valued homes paying a bigger % increase than those of us with higher valued homes.
A sample of 13 homes shows the following % increases in Cooper City taxes
Market value per Tax Appraiser % Cooper City % increase all other
tax increase Broward govs
$100,000 to $199,999 6.9 (1.8)
$200,000 to $299,999 4.4 (2.1)
$300,000 plus 3.2 (3.1)
So, Cooper City is raising taxes and fees while the others are decreasing them.
Taxing champions AGAIN! AND, hitting the lower income folks hardest.
Taxes include the normal property taxes and the fire assessment “fee”. Re: the
Fire assessment “fee’: to paraphrase Harry Truman.
"If it is on your tax bill, looks like a tax, is collected like a tax and you pay it with the same check, it’s a tax."
This form of taxation is called regressive taxation, where you hit the lower income people by a higher % than those with higher incomes.
I doubt that 5 % of Americans support this or believe it to be just and moral.
2. Bad economic policy. It is a form of Cooper City economic de-stimulus.
We all know the hard times many of our people face. Governments taking more purchasing power out of the hands of consumers will decrease consumer spending and job creation. It will add its bit to our economic problems. You can count on a major fraction of the tax increase resulting in lower local consumer spending, jobs and sales.
Showing posts with label Mayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mayor. Show all posts
Monday, September 5, 2011
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Cooper City Candidates Fall Victim To Political Smear Campaign
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cooper City Candidates Fall Victim To Political Smear Campaign
Candidates say their fiscal conservatism is challenging the political establishment
October 29, 2010, Cooper City, Florida - John Sims and David Nall, two candidates vying for seats on the commission in the small bedroom community of Cooper City, Florida are saying that the mudslinging which is occurring in their bid for the Cooper City commission, rivals that of some of the nationwide races.
“It’s really pathetic that people would stoop to this level,” said David Nall whose opponent is currently the incumbent. “I had no idea that things could sink this low in a municipal race.” If anyone has a gripe, it is Nall. Several months ago the Cooper City Commission voted to have background checks performed on all candidates, an act initiated by Mayor Debby Eisinger. According to Nall, his background check came back indicating that he had been guilty of credit card fraud.
The problem? Nall had no such blemish on his record. Before the city could even review and subsequently redact the false information, several people, including Mayor Debby Eisinger, made a public request for it. Nall says, “Word quickly spread and some people, a few of which were supporters of my opponent, distributed the misinformation.” Within days, City Clerk Susan Poling issued a public apology to Nall which was posted on the City website. Additionally, Commissioner Neal De Jesus also apologized on behalf of the city at the next Commission meeting, but that didn’t prevent the story from making local and national news.
Commissioner John Sims, who is running for reelection has also been in crosshairs of the same political operatives. “I’ve actually been a target since my first election,” said Sims. Sims is referring to the drinking and dining scandal that ultimately was responsible for unseating all but Mayor Debby Eisinger. Sims, a private citizen at the time, helped bring to light the practice of the sitting commissioners in which they would eat and drink on the taxpayers of Cooper City’s dime prior to commission meetings. “Obviously, when you call attention to wrongdoing, people like to take the attention off of themselves by attacking the messenger,” Sims said.
During his first election bid four years ago, people anonymously published a 16 year old complaint filed by Sims’ former wife along with his social security number and distributed it around the city. And according to Sims, they are at it again. “My wife received a robo call in which they were attacking my character once again with this 20 year old information.” Sims also confirmed that other supporters of his had received the same call. “They have also been harassing organizations of which I am a part and also disseminating misinformation online and in print,” said Sims. “They hate what I stand for so much they will stop at nothing,” Sims added.
Both Sims and Nall are fiscal conservatives with extensive business and finance backgrounds. Daniel Barrett, who is running for the District 3 seat recently vacated by Commissioner Neal DeJesus, is also a successful businessman with a similar background to Sims and Nall. According to records, Sims’ opponents are a School Board employee and a businessman who has deep ties to current Mayor Debby Eisinger, whom Sims believes is the “Maestro behind this orchestration of misinformation.” Nall’s opponent is a sitting commissioner who is married to a municipal employee in a neighboring city. While she is very involved in the community, she brings little business experience to the dais, according to Nall. “Both camps are pulling out all the stops.
They are attacking us at public meetings, passing out literature, harassing local businesses who display our signs and demeaning us through social media outlets. All I can say is they must be nervous,” said Nall. “This election comes down to one thing. If you want more bureaucracy and more government waste then vote for our opponents. But if the citizens of Cooper City want business people who will trim municipal waste and run the city like a business then vote for us,” said Sims. “It really is just that simple,” Nall said. Sims added, “Who would you rather have representing you, the political establishment or business professionals who clearly understand what needs to be done? Let the voters decide.”
John Sims can be reached by going to http://www.keepsims.com, and David Nall can be contacted by going to http://www.davidanall.com
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cooper City Candidates Fall Victim To Political Smear Campaign
Candidates say their fiscal conservatism is challenging the political establishment
October 29, 2010, Cooper City, Florida - John Sims and David Nall, two candidates vying for seats on the commission in the small bedroom community of Cooper City, Florida are saying that the mudslinging which is occurring in their bid for the Cooper City commission, rivals that of some of the nationwide races.
“It’s really pathetic that people would stoop to this level,” said David Nall whose opponent is currently the incumbent. “I had no idea that things could sink this low in a municipal race.” If anyone has a gripe, it is Nall. Several months ago the Cooper City Commission voted to have background checks performed on all candidates, an act initiated by Mayor Debby Eisinger. According to Nall, his background check came back indicating that he had been guilty of credit card fraud.
The problem? Nall had no such blemish on his record. Before the city could even review and subsequently redact the false information, several people, including Mayor Debby Eisinger, made a public request for it. Nall says, “Word quickly spread and some people, a few of which were supporters of my opponent, distributed the misinformation.” Within days, City Clerk Susan Poling issued a public apology to Nall which was posted on the City website. Additionally, Commissioner Neal De Jesus also apologized on behalf of the city at the next Commission meeting, but that didn’t prevent the story from making local and national news.
Commissioner John Sims, who is running for reelection has also been in crosshairs of the same political operatives. “I’ve actually been a target since my first election,” said Sims. Sims is referring to the drinking and dining scandal that ultimately was responsible for unseating all but Mayor Debby Eisinger. Sims, a private citizen at the time, helped bring to light the practice of the sitting commissioners in which they would eat and drink on the taxpayers of Cooper City’s dime prior to commission meetings. “Obviously, when you call attention to wrongdoing, people like to take the attention off of themselves by attacking the messenger,” Sims said.
During his first election bid four years ago, people anonymously published a 16 year old complaint filed by Sims’ former wife along with his social security number and distributed it around the city. And according to Sims, they are at it again. “My wife received a robo call in which they were attacking my character once again with this 20 year old information.” Sims also confirmed that other supporters of his had received the same call. “They have also been harassing organizations of which I am a part and also disseminating misinformation online and in print,” said Sims. “They hate what I stand for so much they will stop at nothing,” Sims added.
Both Sims and Nall are fiscal conservatives with extensive business and finance backgrounds. Daniel Barrett, who is running for the District 3 seat recently vacated by Commissioner Neal DeJesus, is also a successful businessman with a similar background to Sims and Nall. According to records, Sims’ opponents are a School Board employee and a businessman who has deep ties to current Mayor Debby Eisinger, whom Sims believes is the “Maestro behind this orchestration of misinformation.” Nall’s opponent is a sitting commissioner who is married to a municipal employee in a neighboring city. While she is very involved in the community, she brings little business experience to the dais, according to Nall. “Both camps are pulling out all the stops.
They are attacking us at public meetings, passing out literature, harassing local businesses who display our signs and demeaning us through social media outlets. All I can say is they must be nervous,” said Nall. “This election comes down to one thing. If you want more bureaucracy and more government waste then vote for our opponents. But if the citizens of Cooper City want business people who will trim municipal waste and run the city like a business then vote for us,” said Sims. “It really is just that simple,” Nall said. Sims added, “Who would you rather have representing you, the political establishment or business professionals who clearly understand what needs to be done? Let the voters decide.”
John Sims can be reached by going to http://www.keepsims.com, and David Nall can be contacted by going to http://www.davidanall.com
###
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Keep Squirreling It Away, Cooper City
Relief for Tax Payer Residents Who are Hurting in a Recession, or
Keep Squirreling It Away for “City Emergencies”/Questionable Expenditures
Judgment:
The city has well over $20 million in unrestricted surplus funds that it could use to provide tax and fee relief to a community in the depths of a severe recession.
One would think that the staff and city would be tightly controlling expenses and giving relief to the residents.
Yet, the city staff and commission have so far proposed:
1. An increase in the actual $’s most of us will pay for our home taxes---not the tax rate, just the tax dollars out of your wallet.
2. An increase in the fire assessment fee that every resident property owner will pay
3. A further 4% increase in your water fees on top of the 20.5% they have imposed since the Spring of 2008. That is a total increase of 25% in less than 2 years
4. A new expense of $3.2 million in FY 2010 to be spent on replacing water meters.
The staff proposes to borrow the money. With interest, we are talking a total cost of between $4.5 and $4.75 million.
A. One of the “benefits” of the new meters is that they will capture about 8% more of the water flow to homes that the existing meters miss. The immediate downside to residents, thanks to the new meters, is that we will show an 8% increase in water usage and will pay about 8% more for water. So, for 2010 you will pay about 12.3% more than today and a total increase of about 35% more than in early ‘08.
Comment:
Some on the commission and staff seem to believe that the city government should not touch its accumulated, very ample and excessive surpluses to provide residents with such “non-essential” things as tax and water fee relief. They seem to say that those surpluses are only to be used in “emergencies”---like hurricanes.
They certainly are not talking about making residents’ economic emergencies a priority--in a recession.
What they don’t say is that the city uses those surpluses all the time for non-emergency and favored projects. More about that in another article.
Facts about hurricane “emergencies”.
The city had to deal with hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 ( Wilma, October 2005 ). There was some wind damage in 2003/004 and considerable damage with Wilma. The city government took care of recovery, repairs and replacements of city property, trees, roads, etc. The city used some of its surplus funds, while applying for and receiving assistance---including FEMA.
Here is what the city reported to the State of Florida as its surpluses during and after those years.
2003 to 2007
Year /Surplus /Cumulative Surplus
2003 /$3,875,000 /$3,875,000
Fairly normal year. City budgets a
breakeven, but makes a surplus.
2004 /$5,052,000 /$8,927,000
Another surplus year for City
2005 /$6,469,000 /$15,396,000
City surplus increases after 2003/
2004 storm seasons. Wilma hits just
after the start of City’s FY 2006
2006 /$4,701,000 /$20,097,000
City makes a very good surplus even
while paying for Wilma.
2007 /$12,862,000 /$32,959,000
City makes a huge surplus as it
receives most FEMA recovery money.
Interpretation:
1. We have had tropical storms and hurricanes. The city has, in no way, suffered any financial “emergency” because of hurricanes. When we had a major one, the City’s surpluses actually increased.
2. Some staff and some commissioners will need to get another excuse to justify keeping tax and water fee relief from the residents in a recession, while prioritizing the surpluses for their other projects. Some good, some mediocre and some just downright silly and “pork”.
3. The city staff and commission can well afford to provide the residents:
A. a 4% reduction in the property tax rate in 2010.
B. a 4% roll-back in the current water rates and forego the planned 4% increase for 10/1/09
C. a removal of the increase in the fire assessment fee
D. a postponement of the water meter project
Best regards,
Ed Wooley
Keep Squirreling It Away for “City Emergencies”/Questionable Expenditures
Judgment:
The city has well over $20 million in unrestricted surplus funds that it could use to provide tax and fee relief to a community in the depths of a severe recession.
One would think that the staff and city would be tightly controlling expenses and giving relief to the residents.
Yet, the city staff and commission have so far proposed:
1. An increase in the actual $’s most of us will pay for our home taxes---not the tax rate, just the tax dollars out of your wallet.
2. An increase in the fire assessment fee that every resident property owner will pay
3. A further 4% increase in your water fees on top of the 20.5% they have imposed since the Spring of 2008. That is a total increase of 25% in less than 2 years
4. A new expense of $3.2 million in FY 2010 to be spent on replacing water meters.
The staff proposes to borrow the money. With interest, we are talking a total cost of between $4.5 and $4.75 million.
A. One of the “benefits” of the new meters is that they will capture about 8% more of the water flow to homes that the existing meters miss. The immediate downside to residents, thanks to the new meters, is that we will show an 8% increase in water usage and will pay about 8% more for water. So, for 2010 you will pay about 12.3% more than today and a total increase of about 35% more than in early ‘08.
Comment:
Some on the commission and staff seem to believe that the city government should not touch its accumulated, very ample and excessive surpluses to provide residents with such “non-essential” things as tax and water fee relief. They seem to say that those surpluses are only to be used in “emergencies”---like hurricanes.
They certainly are not talking about making residents’ economic emergencies a priority--in a recession.
What they don’t say is that the city uses those surpluses all the time for non-emergency and favored projects. More about that in another article.
Facts about hurricane “emergencies”.
The city had to deal with hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 ( Wilma, October 2005 ). There was some wind damage in 2003/004 and considerable damage with Wilma. The city government took care of recovery, repairs and replacements of city property, trees, roads, etc. The city used some of its surplus funds, while applying for and receiving assistance---including FEMA.
Here is what the city reported to the State of Florida as its surpluses during and after those years.
2003 to 2007
Year /Surplus /Cumulative Surplus
2003 /$3,875,000 /$3,875,000
Fairly normal year. City budgets a
breakeven, but makes a surplus.
2004 /$5,052,000 /$8,927,000
Another surplus year for City
2005 /$6,469,000 /$15,396,000
City surplus increases after 2003/
2004 storm seasons. Wilma hits just
after the start of City’s FY 2006
2006 /$4,701,000 /$20,097,000
City makes a very good surplus even
while paying for Wilma.
2007 /$12,862,000 /$32,959,000
City makes a huge surplus as it
receives most FEMA recovery money.
Interpretation:
1. We have had tropical storms and hurricanes. The city has, in no way, suffered any financial “emergency” because of hurricanes. When we had a major one, the City’s surpluses actually increased.
2. Some staff and some commissioners will need to get another excuse to justify keeping tax and water fee relief from the residents in a recession, while prioritizing the surpluses for their other projects. Some good, some mediocre and some just downright silly and “pork”.
3. The city staff and commission can well afford to provide the residents:
A. a 4% reduction in the property tax rate in 2010.
B. a 4% roll-back in the current water rates and forego the planned 4% increase for 10/1/09
C. a removal of the increase in the fire assessment fee
D. a postponement of the water meter project
Best regards,
Ed Wooley
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Cooper City and the $$’s
Below is a letter that was forwarded to us. It has been sent to many and especially the City Commissioners.
We are confident that many others would like to hear from someone who definitely has an opinion of what really is going on at the city. We have reviewed it and feel it should be shared with everyone.
To all:
I am glad that the special workshop has been called. For several years we have been misled, in my judgment, as to the City's financial standing and health by dubious reporting of unrestricted reserves, what could and could not be transferred from one fund to another at the commission's discretion, what was and was not required by law and regulation and what was and was not within the guidelines of generally accepted accounting principals. As a result, the commission never seemed to know with certainty what its available recourses were and/or how big an opportunity or problem it faced.
Some progress has been made. At last the commission seems to understand that it can transfer money between W&S (Water and Sewer) and the general fund ( and vice-versa ) as in its judgement seems necessary and prudent. Hopefully, it now understands that there are not 2,3 or 4 sacrosanct reserve funds. There is only 1 unrestricted reserve fund, portions of which it can "earmark" for convenience sake as being "thought of" as for one thing or another. Otherwise city funds can only be restricted by contract terms, the law and /or state and county regulations. Neither the staff nor the commission can "restrict" funds without a legally sufficient reason.
However, we still seem to have some in the staff and/or commission who wish to manipulate the picture for some purposes or another by calling things "restricted" that are not according to law, regulation or the opinion of the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting Programs or just good common sense.
For instance, in the 2007 CAFR (Cumulative Annual Financial Report) the city manager had to say that the city staff wanted to call some $7.7 million in future interest requirements as requiring that amount of cash and investments should be called "restricted" and not counted in unrestricted reserves. The GOFOA said that the staff and city should not do that. But, the staff did it anyway. The city manager said that doing it the way the GOFOA said was proper would have shown unrestricted reserves as $23.2 million for FY2007 vs. the $15.5 million the staff wished us to see.----- about a $7.2 million difference.
This approximate difference is still with us today in the material distributed on 6/11/09. By my calculations from that material the city had at least $25,171,780 in unrestricted reserves (surplus) on 9/30/08. The staff's number would be in the range of $18 million or some $7 million in difference. Most of that difference comes from projected interest payments that will come due over a number of future years for W&S bonds and notes. The staff wishes to say that this money needs to be "restricted".
This is just plain silly. First, the Water and Sewer is running at about a $1,500,000 surplus on an annual basis. This is far more than enough to cover its current principal and interest bills. It is also analogous to saying that a person who takes out a $200,000 mortgage at 6% for 30 years should be required to set aside and not touch an amount equal to all the interest that he will pay over the life of the mortgage--say, $350,000 to $400,000 ----as a "reserve" or "restricted". It makes no more sense for a city government to do so than it would for a homeowner.
The commission needs to straighten out the staff on this and very quickly. We have major financial matters to handle. We do not need to be dealing with misleading numbers. The staff did a mediocre job of providing an outlook for FY 2009. With 2/3 of the year done, they could have easily projected year end 9/30/09. They did not.
All you get by digging is that the general fund has a $600,000 plus surplus through 5/31/09 and the proprietary funds are running at about a $1,500,000 surplus rate (about 16% of revenues). The staff also shows projections through 2013, with dubious assumptions showing that we will eat up more than the general fund surplus by 2013. Unfortunately, they provide no such 5 year projection for the enterprise funds. So we are only given half a picture here. So, we do not have a projection for the city for all its responsibilities. The commission needs to insist that it be given a projection for all of its activities, including the pension funds, ASAP. This "piecemeal" just has to stop.
My own bottom line is that the city has more than enough funds to take care of its core, critical jobs and responsibilities such as police, fire and a new fire station and essential, repeat essential, W&S and road/sidewalk maintenance projects for the next 2 or three years without raising taxes.
The first thing it needs to do is to put the $4,000,000 that was lost (due to stock market investments) by the general employees pension fund into the fund to make it whole and keep our word and commitments to our employees. But, it does not have enough money to waste on needless building and special interest projects, such as a new city hall, needless code rewrites and various other giveaway programs.
Best regards,
Ed Wooley
We are confident that many others would like to hear from someone who definitely has an opinion of what really is going on at the city. We have reviewed it and feel it should be shared with everyone.
To all:
I am glad that the special workshop has been called. For several years we have been misled, in my judgment, as to the City's financial standing and health by dubious reporting of unrestricted reserves, what could and could not be transferred from one fund to another at the commission's discretion, what was and was not required by law and regulation and what was and was not within the guidelines of generally accepted accounting principals. As a result, the commission never seemed to know with certainty what its available recourses were and/or how big an opportunity or problem it faced.
Some progress has been made. At last the commission seems to understand that it can transfer money between W&S (Water and Sewer) and the general fund ( and vice-versa ) as in its judgement seems necessary and prudent. Hopefully, it now understands that there are not 2,3 or 4 sacrosanct reserve funds. There is only 1 unrestricted reserve fund, portions of which it can "earmark" for convenience sake as being "thought of" as for one thing or another. Otherwise city funds can only be restricted by contract terms, the law and /or state and county regulations. Neither the staff nor the commission can "restrict" funds without a legally sufficient reason.
However, we still seem to have some in the staff and/or commission who wish to manipulate the picture for some purposes or another by calling things "restricted" that are not according to law, regulation or the opinion of the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting Programs or just good common sense.
For instance, in the 2007 CAFR (Cumulative Annual Financial Report) the city manager had to say that the city staff wanted to call some $7.7 million in future interest requirements as requiring that amount of cash and investments should be called "restricted" and not counted in unrestricted reserves. The GOFOA said that the staff and city should not do that. But, the staff did it anyway. The city manager said that doing it the way the GOFOA said was proper would have shown unrestricted reserves as $23.2 million for FY2007 vs. the $15.5 million the staff wished us to see.----- about a $7.2 million difference.
This approximate difference is still with us today in the material distributed on 6/11/09. By my calculations from that material the city had at least $25,171,780 in unrestricted reserves (surplus) on 9/30/08. The staff's number would be in the range of $18 million or some $7 million in difference. Most of that difference comes from projected interest payments that will come due over a number of future years for W&S bonds and notes. The staff wishes to say that this money needs to be "restricted".
This is just plain silly. First, the Water and Sewer is running at about a $1,500,000 surplus on an annual basis. This is far more than enough to cover its current principal and interest bills. It is also analogous to saying that a person who takes out a $200,000 mortgage at 6% for 30 years should be required to set aside and not touch an amount equal to all the interest that he will pay over the life of the mortgage--say, $350,000 to $400,000 ----as a "reserve" or "restricted". It makes no more sense for a city government to do so than it would for a homeowner.
The commission needs to straighten out the staff on this and very quickly. We have major financial matters to handle. We do not need to be dealing with misleading numbers. The staff did a mediocre job of providing an outlook for FY 2009. With 2/3 of the year done, they could have easily projected year end 9/30/09. They did not.
All you get by digging is that the general fund has a $600,000 plus surplus through 5/31/09 and the proprietary funds are running at about a $1,500,000 surplus rate (about 16% of revenues). The staff also shows projections through 2013, with dubious assumptions showing that we will eat up more than the general fund surplus by 2013. Unfortunately, they provide no such 5 year projection for the enterprise funds. So we are only given half a picture here. So, we do not have a projection for the city for all its responsibilities. The commission needs to insist that it be given a projection for all of its activities, including the pension funds, ASAP. This "piecemeal" just has to stop.
My own bottom line is that the city has more than enough funds to take care of its core, critical jobs and responsibilities such as police, fire and a new fire station and essential, repeat essential, W&S and road/sidewalk maintenance projects for the next 2 or three years without raising taxes.
The first thing it needs to do is to put the $4,000,000 that was lost (due to stock market investments) by the general employees pension fund into the fund to make it whole and keep our word and commitments to our employees. But, it does not have enough money to waste on needless building and special interest projects, such as a new city hall, needless code rewrites and various other giveaway programs.
Best regards,
Ed Wooley
Monday, June 1, 2009
Hello, Cooper City Mayor are you listening?
Open Government in a Democracy
by Jordan Loar
Exercising a policy of open government is fundamental to a successful democratic government and its society. It is the antithesis of government officials planning and executing secret transactions behind locked doors in a smoke filled room. An open government supports the basic democratic principle that the government’s authority rests with the society it governs. Toward safeguarding that power, citizens must have open access to information relating to government activities.
Judge Damon Keith of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals points out that, “Democracies die behind close doors.” The role of an open government in a democracy is to provide transparency, accountability, and openness. These principles are not simply hypothetical ideas. Each one can be functionally applied through suitable legislature, policies, and organizational frameworks at all levels of government.
Transparency means that dependable, pertinent, and timely information about government’s business is publicly available. To accomplish this, an open government’s role is to enact laws and policies that afford rights of access to information. It strives to grant a relatively easy path for citizens in obtaining information collected, distributed, and preserved by the government. Achieving this transparency is a complex process that often necessitates the careful balancing of opposing interests. An open government continually searches for the best way to allow judicious public admittance to information while at the same time protecting national security and individual privacy. Toward this end, government officials must actively apply government legislation like the Freedom of Information Act and its nine exemptions. Placing emphasis on the fullest responsibility of disclosure in concert with encompassing, balancing, and protecting all interests.
Accountability means that it is possible to identify and hold government officials responsible for their actions. This trait of an open government helps ensure that government officials do not operate behind closed curtains while managing the government as their own exclusive club. James Madison, “The Father of Our Constitution”, forewarned, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or, perhaps both.” Without this check, government officials are more prone to make decisions contrary to the public interest, misuse their authority, and engage in fraudulent activities.
Openness means that government officials must pay attention to citizens’ proposals when devising and implementing public policies. Their responsibility regarding this is to establish government policies instructing how citizens should be consulted during policy making. Moreover, it is just as important to stipulate how policy makers are to account for public input when reaching decisions. Open forums and town hall meeting are two examples that lend themselves to citizens’ voices being heard and recognized.
The role of an accessible government is to promote democracy and good government. Essentially, it is the soul of democracy. Implementing transparency, accountability, and openness into the government’s administration secures the trust and confidence of the public towards the government that serves them. It ensures that its citizens’ rights are respected and protected while simultaneously reducing the potential for unwarranted secrecy and corruption.
by Jordan Loar
Exercising a policy of open government is fundamental to a successful democratic government and its society. It is the antithesis of government officials planning and executing secret transactions behind locked doors in a smoke filled room. An open government supports the basic democratic principle that the government’s authority rests with the society it governs. Toward safeguarding that power, citizens must have open access to information relating to government activities.
Judge Damon Keith of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals points out that, “Democracies die behind close doors.” The role of an open government in a democracy is to provide transparency, accountability, and openness. These principles are not simply hypothetical ideas. Each one can be functionally applied through suitable legislature, policies, and organizational frameworks at all levels of government.
Transparency means that dependable, pertinent, and timely information about government’s business is publicly available. To accomplish this, an open government’s role is to enact laws and policies that afford rights of access to information. It strives to grant a relatively easy path for citizens in obtaining information collected, distributed, and preserved by the government. Achieving this transparency is a complex process that often necessitates the careful balancing of opposing interests. An open government continually searches for the best way to allow judicious public admittance to information while at the same time protecting national security and individual privacy. Toward this end, government officials must actively apply government legislation like the Freedom of Information Act and its nine exemptions. Placing emphasis on the fullest responsibility of disclosure in concert with encompassing, balancing, and protecting all interests.
Accountability means that it is possible to identify and hold government officials responsible for their actions. This trait of an open government helps ensure that government officials do not operate behind closed curtains while managing the government as their own exclusive club. James Madison, “The Father of Our Constitution”, forewarned, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or, perhaps both.” Without this check, government officials are more prone to make decisions contrary to the public interest, misuse their authority, and engage in fraudulent activities.
Openness means that government officials must pay attention to citizens’ proposals when devising and implementing public policies. Their responsibility regarding this is to establish government policies instructing how citizens should be consulted during policy making. Moreover, it is just as important to stipulate how policy makers are to account for public input when reaching decisions. Open forums and town hall meeting are two examples that lend themselves to citizens’ voices being heard and recognized.
The role of an accessible government is to promote democracy and good government. Essentially, it is the soul of democracy. Implementing transparency, accountability, and openness into the government’s administration secures the trust and confidence of the public towards the government that serves them. It ensures that its citizens’ rights are respected and protected while simultaneously reducing the potential for unwarranted secrecy and corruption.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Attention: Cooper City Taxpayers
South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Want to stop the county and city tax trains?
Learn how they work and start early
December 17, 2008
It's getting to the point where almost everyone, sooner or later, lobbies local governments. Everyone joins a long parade of people who troop before our city councils with their hands out. Most everyone only has a "want," which they swear is a "need." Special interest groups constantly press for more, more, more taxes.
So, municipal officials experience only incessant upward pressure to raise taxes, from people who feel they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's sweat.
The result? Many local governments show no backbone and tend to cave in to the pressure. It's easy to understand why: Rarely do residents come before the various councils to protest the overall tax burden.
But there's a way citizens can stop higher taxes. It starts with understanding how governments build up an unstoppable head of steam for their tax trains.
Local governments fire up their tax locomotives very early each year, usually in January. Staffs meet and start drafting budgets, calling for requests and hiring wish lists from all departments. This is done quietly, often without the input of elected officials.
By spring, the tax train has picked up speed. Preliminary plans and budgets are set, usually including raises and other benefits for the staff. The bureaucrats make sure they are taken care of financially in the blossoming budget process.
By summer, the tax train is a juggernaut. At some point, the staff starts briefing the electeds on budget needs. The staff makes sure the electeds understand how "dire" the consequences will be if the recommendations are not followed. Most of this planning takes place well before public input is sought.
Your only chance to reduce your city's taxes is to organize and get vocal. Put a group together and develop a strategic tax rebellion plan that must begin very early, before government staffs begin their earliest meetings. For advice on organizing, contact www.volusiataxreform.com or www.CutPropertyTaxesNow.com.
Insist on meeting early with the chief administrator of your city, and set up a regular schedule of meetings. Ask to be put on mailing lists. Be prepared to make specific recommendations.
Few local groups publicly criticize the overall level of taxes in the county. You can step forward. If so, your work must start Jan. 1.
John R. Smith is chairman of Palm Beach County's BizPac and owner of a financial services company.
Copyright © 2008, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Want to stop the county and city tax trains?
Learn how they work and start early
December 17, 2008
It's getting to the point where almost everyone, sooner or later, lobbies local governments. Everyone joins a long parade of people who troop before our city councils with their hands out. Most everyone only has a "want," which they swear is a "need." Special interest groups constantly press for more, more, more taxes.
So, municipal officials experience only incessant upward pressure to raise taxes, from people who feel they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's sweat.
The result? Many local governments show no backbone and tend to cave in to the pressure. It's easy to understand why: Rarely do residents come before the various councils to protest the overall tax burden.
But there's a way citizens can stop higher taxes. It starts with understanding how governments build up an unstoppable head of steam for their tax trains.
Local governments fire up their tax locomotives very early each year, usually in January. Staffs meet and start drafting budgets, calling for requests and hiring wish lists from all departments. This is done quietly, often without the input of elected officials.
By spring, the tax train has picked up speed. Preliminary plans and budgets are set, usually including raises and other benefits for the staff. The bureaucrats make sure they are taken care of financially in the blossoming budget process.
By summer, the tax train is a juggernaut. At some point, the staff starts briefing the electeds on budget needs. The staff makes sure the electeds understand how "dire" the consequences will be if the recommendations are not followed. Most of this planning takes place well before public input is sought.
Your only chance to reduce your city's taxes is to organize and get vocal. Put a group together and develop a strategic tax rebellion plan that must begin very early, before government staffs begin their earliest meetings. For advice on organizing, contact www.volusiataxreform.com or www.CutPropertyTaxesNow.com.
Insist on meeting early with the chief administrator of your city, and set up a regular schedule of meetings. Ask to be put on mailing lists. Be prepared to make specific recommendations.
Few local groups publicly criticize the overall level of taxes in the county. You can step forward. If so, your work must start Jan. 1.
John R. Smith is chairman of Palm Beach County's BizPac and owner of a financial services company.
Copyright © 2008, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Is the Fourth Estate Missing in Cooper City?
Having received several emails regarding the following Letter to the Editor originally published by the Davie and Cooper City Gazette we thought others might find it of interest. [ ED.]
Where’s the press and free speech?
While Cooper City’s dictatorial administration is flaunting their power by trashing the public’s right to speak against them, where’s the press?
At our last commission meeting, reporters covered the search for a new city manager, missing an issue that is the hallmark of the American pres: exposing when government is stealing people’s right to free speech. All ignored this constitutional violation.
Recently, the present commission unceremoniously threw out the long term city manager and city attorney, replacing the attorney with a friend and neighbor. They then decided on new rules of speech, assuring that only good things be said about them. The new city attorney, backed up the mayor’s undemocratic position, perhaps because he and his law firm both gave the maximum contribution to the mayor’s last campaign, then suddenly receiving this new job.
The dictatorial abuse of power, and the destruction of the public’s right to free speech is being ignored. I, and a former commissioner were denied our right to speak in full because the mayor decided arbitrarily that she didn’t like what we had to say. Where was the press, whose constitutional responsibility for their freedom of press is to help assure the freedom of the public to speak against abuse of power. Without this freedom there can be no democracy.
Our Founding Fathers gave the press greater protection so they would be the voice for those whom government is trying to silence. Our Constitution doesn’t say political speech must be favorable to those in power, in fact, it was developed to challenge those who are misusing their positions.
The press is supposed to exist to help stop such abuses, not to look the other way, either because you endorsed the wrongdoers, are afraid of their politics or because you support their future run for higher office. You need to be our voice now.
Diane Sori
Cooper City
Where’s the press and free speech?
While Cooper City’s dictatorial administration is flaunting their power by trashing the public’s right to speak against them, where’s the press?
At our last commission meeting, reporters covered the search for a new city manager, missing an issue that is the hallmark of the American pres: exposing when government is stealing people’s right to free speech. All ignored this constitutional violation.
Recently, the present commission unceremoniously threw out the long term city manager and city attorney, replacing the attorney with a friend and neighbor. They then decided on new rules of speech, assuring that only good things be said about them. The new city attorney, backed up the mayor’s undemocratic position, perhaps because he and his law firm both gave the maximum contribution to the mayor’s last campaign, then suddenly receiving this new job.
The dictatorial abuse of power, and the destruction of the public’s right to free speech is being ignored. I, and a former commissioner were denied our right to speak in full because the mayor decided arbitrarily that she didn’t like what we had to say. Where was the press, whose constitutional responsibility for their freedom of press is to help assure the freedom of the public to speak against abuse of power. Without this freedom there can be no democracy.
Our Founding Fathers gave the press greater protection so they would be the voice for those whom government is trying to silence. Our Constitution doesn’t say political speech must be favorable to those in power, in fact, it was developed to challenge those who are misusing their positions.
The press is supposed to exist to help stop such abuses, not to look the other way, either because you endorsed the wrongdoers, are afraid of their politics or because you support their future run for higher office. You need to be our voice now.
Diane Sori
Cooper City
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Just a Empty Lot in Cooper City
To Cooper City Commissioners:
Questions:
What 'valid municipal purpose' would the purchase of this land at the taxpayer's expense serve? If the purchase is not for a 'private' post office, then what is it for?
To allow only a few 'anti-postal dissident's' to get their mail forwarded to a 'new' zip code, which the USPS says is unwarranted?
Shouldn’t $4M should be used for more Police & Fire, and to uphold the city's obligations for tax reductions since the money was in actuality a 'surplus' ?
Answers:
No public purpose exists for which public taxpayer funds should be expended to purchase this (or any) USPS property in the context of the city's business.
In the case of municipalities like ours, our State Constitution provides that their powers are limited strictly to those subjects which have, as their object, a valid municipal purpose.
In addition, while municipalities are granted broad home rule powers by the State Constitution, their powers are restricted in the area of matters preempted to the state by general law.
Comment:
It is the taxpayers money and should be spent on something that will benefit all taxpayers not just a few selected ones south of Stirling Rd.
Questions:
What 'valid municipal purpose' would the purchase of this land at the taxpayer's expense serve? If the purchase is not for a 'private' post office, then what is it for?
To allow only a few 'anti-postal dissident's' to get their mail forwarded to a 'new' zip code, which the USPS says is unwarranted?
Shouldn’t $4M should be used for more Police & Fire, and to uphold the city's obligations for tax reductions since the money was in actuality a 'surplus' ?
Answers:
No public purpose exists for which public taxpayer funds should be expended to purchase this (or any) USPS property in the context of the city's business.
In the case of municipalities like ours, our State Constitution provides that their powers are limited strictly to those subjects which have, as their object, a valid municipal purpose.
In addition, while municipalities are granted broad home rule powers by the State Constitution, their powers are restricted in the area of matters preempted to the state by general law.
Comment:
It is the taxpayers money and should be spent on something that will benefit all taxpayers not just a few selected ones south of Stirling Rd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)