From: Elliot Kleiman [mailto:elliot@goodguy2005.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:29 AM
To: Rev Bob Sands
Subject: Shame on you.
Bob, Shame on you. A man of the cloth promulgating half truths, innuendo and worse.
I thought you were consecrated to act on a higher plane and to tell the truth.
I had always told people that in spite of your support of John, you were an ethical person. Many people said I was wrong about you.
I guess they were right.
FYI: The statements John made in his email to Kiwanis District and to International and others about my use of the Kiwanis booth at Founder's Day to promote the recall petition is a total fabrication and I can prove it. Of course you probably don't care to hear the truth.
From: Bob Sands [mailto:sandscommunications@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 11:05 AM
To: 'Elliot Kleiman'Subject:
RE: Shame on you.
Elliot,
You surprise me, you really do. My ethics are called into question because I point out hypocrisy and support someone with whom you disagree personally and politically? The “many people” that said you were wrong about me don’t even know me, my reputation or my ministry. I’ve been told that “hanging around” John was bed for my reputation. So is hanging around the likes of Judy Stern and others. I have had better than you or them level criticism at me. Furthermore, I did not say anything that wasn’t true, especially about the “Law and Disorder”. John never told me anything about Kiwanis. The booth was seen in the background of the TV interview and several witnesses observed you asking folks to sign the petition while in front of it. I hope they weren’t correct Elliot. And if it isn’t true, I stand corrected.
One more thing, don’t try and play the “clergy” card on me again. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you certainly doesn’t mean that they are unethical. I will put my record and reputation up against yours or any of the politicians in Broward County any day. You just name the time and place and I’ll show up.
Elliot, you have done a lot of good things in this city. Don’t let them be overshadowed by revenge or sour grapes. I think you are better than that. As for the truth, that’s all I want. If you have it then show it to me. I will be glad to meet with you anytime. Just let me know.
Kind regards,
Bob
Monday, May 12, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Email to the Ex-Commish (Elliot Kleiman)
This is an important message for you from The Cooper City Insider Blog. Below is an e-mail sent to Elliot Kleiman from Rev. Bob Sands. At the request of Rev. Sands we are providing this e-mail for all to review.(originally sent Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:16 AM)
Dear Elliot:
Thus far, I have tried to steer clear of all the political maneuvering in which you and others are participating. But I can no longer be silent while this city continues to be ripped apart. For you to issue a recall of John Sims is the height of hypocrisy. You, yourself told me at the Davie-Cooper City Chamber that you did not think that the picture was "meant to be anti[s]emetic". While the picture was distasteful and reprehensible, it is not a hate crime like that which was perpetrated on Mr. and Mrs. Green. Yet we hear more about the picture than we do the Swastika that was etched in Ms. Green's car. Where is that outrage? I think that needs to be given equal investigation time, don't you?
You are correct that you have the right as a citizen to participate in a recall. I agree. I also agree that all of us have the right to free speech no matter how vile we may think another's is. I will defend the atheist right to free speech because if he looses his rights I can also loose mine. Let's just call this what it is, Elliot. This is nothing more than another group of opportunists that have taken this horrific picture and turned it into a personal and political vendetta because they don't like Commissioner Sims. That's fine, you have that right.
Elliot, I must remind you again (you seem to have forgotten this!) that you were part of Commission that violated public trust. You got caught and didn't like it. You spent my money to go out and eat and drink and you did it repeatedly. Did we call for your removal? At one point, a recall for all five of you was being considered, but we decided to wait until the investigation was over and let the FDLE and the Governor have their say. In the end, there wasn't any further investigation. That is the case with Commissioner Sims. Just as all the evidence, including video and receipts pointed to the guilt of all of the commissioners, so all the evidence is pointing to him, but the investigation has been suspended. Right now, there is a media feeding frenzy but the true investigation is at a stand still. I would urge you to reconsider this. Let the Governor have his say. In the end, the truth will prevail. Or is it that you really don't care about the truth?
Additionally, as a fellow Kiwanian, I was appalled at the apparent use of the Kiwanis booth to front your agenda. I trust that you will issue an apology to our entire Kiwanis district for your lack of judgment. Unlike others who want to be removed from your list, I want you to keep me informed every step of the way. After all, we all want what's best for Cooper City, right?
Regards,
Bob Sands
BIO:
Rev. Bob Sands is the Senior Pastor of Community Bible Church in Dania Beach, Florida. He is a Certified Grief Recovery Specialist, Certified Professional Consultant and the Chaplain for the Florida Funeral Directors Association. He is a frequent speaker at various churches and other venues around the U.S.
BIO:Former Commissioner Elliot Kleiman served one term on Cooper City Commission during which he became involved in a "Dining and Drinking scandal", AKA "Law and Disorder". Drinking just before commission meetings and staunchly refused to acknowledge any wrong doing denying any responsibility and refusing to repay taxpayers, to which the voters responded by not reelected him.
If you wish any further information please visit http://www.coopercityinsider.blogspot.com/
Thank You
Dear Elliot:
Thus far, I have tried to steer clear of all the political maneuvering in which you and others are participating. But I can no longer be silent while this city continues to be ripped apart. For you to issue a recall of John Sims is the height of hypocrisy. You, yourself told me at the Davie-Cooper City Chamber that you did not think that the picture was "meant to be anti[s]emetic". While the picture was distasteful and reprehensible, it is not a hate crime like that which was perpetrated on Mr. and Mrs. Green. Yet we hear more about the picture than we do the Swastika that was etched in Ms. Green's car. Where is that outrage? I think that needs to be given equal investigation time, don't you?
You are correct that you have the right as a citizen to participate in a recall. I agree. I also agree that all of us have the right to free speech no matter how vile we may think another's is. I will defend the atheist right to free speech because if he looses his rights I can also loose mine. Let's just call this what it is, Elliot. This is nothing more than another group of opportunists that have taken this horrific picture and turned it into a personal and political vendetta because they don't like Commissioner Sims. That's fine, you have that right.
Elliot, I must remind you again (you seem to have forgotten this!) that you were part of Commission that violated public trust. You got caught and didn't like it. You spent my money to go out and eat and drink and you did it repeatedly. Did we call for your removal? At one point, a recall for all five of you was being considered, but we decided to wait until the investigation was over and let the FDLE and the Governor have their say. In the end, there wasn't any further investigation. That is the case with Commissioner Sims. Just as all the evidence, including video and receipts pointed to the guilt of all of the commissioners, so all the evidence is pointing to him, but the investigation has been suspended. Right now, there is a media feeding frenzy but the true investigation is at a stand still. I would urge you to reconsider this. Let the Governor have his say. In the end, the truth will prevail. Or is it that you really don't care about the truth?
Additionally, as a fellow Kiwanian, I was appalled at the apparent use of the Kiwanis booth to front your agenda. I trust that you will issue an apology to our entire Kiwanis district for your lack of judgment. Unlike others who want to be removed from your list, I want you to keep me informed every step of the way. After all, we all want what's best for Cooper City, right?
Regards,
Bob Sands
BIO:
Rev. Bob Sands is the Senior Pastor of Community Bible Church in Dania Beach, Florida. He is a Certified Grief Recovery Specialist, Certified Professional Consultant and the Chaplain for the Florida Funeral Directors Association. He is a frequent speaker at various churches and other venues around the U.S.
BIO:Former Commissioner Elliot Kleiman served one term on Cooper City Commission during which he became involved in a "Dining and Drinking scandal", AKA "Law and Disorder". Drinking just before commission meetings and staunchly refused to acknowledge any wrong doing denying any responsibility and refusing to repay taxpayers, to which the voters responded by not reelected him.
If you wish any further information please visit http://www.coopercityinsider.blogspot.com/
Thank You
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Everywhere but Cooper City
With the impending Workshop we present the Following:
Just food for Thought
The courts of the state of Florida on construing the law have read into the concept of an open meeting the right to be heard. In Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, supra at 699, the Florida Supreme Court stated:
"The right of the public to be present and to be heard during all phases of enactments by boards and commissions is a source of strength in our country. . . . "Regardless of their good intentions, these specified boards and commission, through devious ways, should not be allowed to deprive the public of this inalienable right to be present and to be heard at all deliberations wherein decisions affecting the public are being made."
(e.s.)And even more expansively, in Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So.2d 473, 475 (Fla. 1974), the Supreme Court expostulated:
"Every meeting of any board, commission, agency or authority of a municipality should be a marketplace of ideas, so that the governmental agency may have sufficient input from the citizens who are going to be affected by the subsequent action of the municipality. The ordinary taxpayer can no longer be led blindly down the path of government, for the news media, by constantly reporting community affairs, has made the taxpayer aware of governmental problems. Government, more so now that ever before, should be responsive to the wishes of the public. These wishes could never be known in nonpublic meetings, and the governmental agencies would be deprived of the benefit of suggestions and ideas which may be advanced by the knowledgeable public."
(e.s.)The Court in Gradison at 475 went on to state:
"The taxpayer deserves an opportunity to express his views and have them considered in the decision-making process." See also, Krause v. Reno, 366 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), describing this public participation as the "citizen input factor" and stating that this public input was an important aspect of open meetings. And see, AGO 73-170, noting that the purpose of notice of a meeting subject to s. 286.011 is "to apprise individuals or the public generally of the pendency of matters which may affect their . . . rights, and afford them the opportunity to appear and present their views."
(e.s.) Thus, the right of the public to participate in open meetings, to present their views and to have some input into the decision-making process has been recognized by the courts of this state and by this office.
This informal advisory opinion was prepared by the Division of Opinions in an effort to be of assistance to you; it should not be considered a formal opinion of the Attorney General.Division of Opinions
Craig Willis Assistant Attorney General
Just food for Thought
The courts of the state of Florida on construing the law have read into the concept of an open meeting the right to be heard. In Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, supra at 699, the Florida Supreme Court stated:
"The right of the public to be present and to be heard during all phases of enactments by boards and commissions is a source of strength in our country. . . . "Regardless of their good intentions, these specified boards and commission, through devious ways, should not be allowed to deprive the public of this inalienable right to be present and to be heard at all deliberations wherein decisions affecting the public are being made."
(e.s.)And even more expansively, in Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So.2d 473, 475 (Fla. 1974), the Supreme Court expostulated:
"Every meeting of any board, commission, agency or authority of a municipality should be a marketplace of ideas, so that the governmental agency may have sufficient input from the citizens who are going to be affected by the subsequent action of the municipality. The ordinary taxpayer can no longer be led blindly down the path of government, for the news media, by constantly reporting community affairs, has made the taxpayer aware of governmental problems. Government, more so now that ever before, should be responsive to the wishes of the public. These wishes could never be known in nonpublic meetings, and the governmental agencies would be deprived of the benefit of suggestions and ideas which may be advanced by the knowledgeable public."
(e.s.)The Court in Gradison at 475 went on to state:
"The taxpayer deserves an opportunity to express his views and have them considered in the decision-making process." See also, Krause v. Reno, 366 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), describing this public participation as the "citizen input factor" and stating that this public input was an important aspect of open meetings. And see, AGO 73-170, noting that the purpose of notice of a meeting subject to s. 286.011 is "to apprise individuals or the public generally of the pendency of matters which may affect their . . . rights, and afford them the opportunity to appear and present their views."
(e.s.) Thus, the right of the public to participate in open meetings, to present their views and to have some input into the decision-making process has been recognized by the courts of this state and by this office.
This informal advisory opinion was prepared by the Division of Opinions in an effort to be of assistance to you; it should not be considered a formal opinion of the Attorney General.Division of Opinions
Craig Willis Assistant Attorney General
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Public Input
Successful Public Participation
Public participation will not succeed if it is not genuine—that is, if decisionmakers are using it as a way to sell a predetermined plan or solution and do not truly care about stakeholder concerns. Public participation is not a one-time event such as a public hearing.
Public participation processes fail miserably when they have been carried out as a one-way communication or are done behind closed doors or in an environment that promotes defensiveness, distrust, self-protection, or power-brokering. The most common pitfalls associated with public participation are processes that are too little, too late, or too negative or unsafe to be constructive to anyone, either the participants or the decisionmakers.
Successful public participation takes adequate time, resources, and flexibility. Public participation is constructive when all partaking listen to each other, make positive contributions, gain a deeper knowledge of the issue(s), and develop trust and respect for each other, even when there is disagreement.
As public participation continues to be initiated and carried out successfully, three things will likely occur: (1) more informed decisions will be made; (2) the skills to work cooperatively will be enhanced, thereby increasing civic capacity; and (3) the willingness of people to engage in public participation will increase because they found it to be a rewarding and safe experience.
Public participation will not succeed if it is not genuine—that is, if decisionmakers are using it as a way to sell a predetermined plan or solution and do not truly care about stakeholder concerns. Public participation is not a one-time event such as a public hearing.
Public participation processes fail miserably when they have been carried out as a one-way communication or are done behind closed doors or in an environment that promotes defensiveness, distrust, self-protection, or power-brokering. The most common pitfalls associated with public participation are processes that are too little, too late, or too negative or unsafe to be constructive to anyone, either the participants or the decisionmakers.
Successful public participation takes adequate time, resources, and flexibility. Public participation is constructive when all partaking listen to each other, make positive contributions, gain a deeper knowledge of the issue(s), and develop trust and respect for each other, even when there is disagreement.
As public participation continues to be initiated and carried out successfully, three things will likely occur: (1) more informed decisions will be made; (2) the skills to work cooperatively will be enhanced, thereby increasing civic capacity; and (3) the willingness of people to engage in public participation will increase because they found it to be a rewarding and safe experience.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Truth is coming out
Copied from the New Times/Bob Norman May 1, 2008
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-05-01/news/muddy-politics/full
Muddy Politics
A sure-fire technique to rile a city: Accuse people of anti-Semitism
By Bob Norman Published: May 1, 2008
Eisinger knows how to scare up some votes.
It's been reported in both the Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald unquestioningly as "anti-Semitic." The Broward Sheriff's Office agrees and has gone as far as using subpoena power to investigate what it says may be a hate crime.
What is it? A Hitler mustache and the words "Nazi bitch."
The offending material appeared on a political blog in Cooper City during the height of the election season in January. A post on the blog pictured Mayor Debbie Eisinger with a square of scribble on her upper lip and the epithet included.
This, of course, isn't anti-Semitic on its face (so to speak). Think about it: Whoever posted it was comparing Eisinger – who is known as a power-hungry politician in Cooper City – to the most reviled dictator of all time and certainly not in a favorable light. If anything, it's anti-Nazi.
Bloggers compare George W. Bush to Hitler quite a lot, and, while some might call it distasteful and wrong, I've never heard it called anti-Semitic. And I've certainly never heard of any instance where it was investigated as a potential crime.
Except in Broward County, where deputies took the extreme measure of sending subpoenas out to Google and AT&T to uncover the owner of the blog, which was called "Save Cooper City" and is now defunct. The blog's owner, according to deputies, is Commissioner John Sims, who is now the subject of a recall petition organized by the mayor and her political backers.
Their cry: "Anti-Semitism!" My cry: "Anti-Americanism!"
The pro-mayoral forces are led by former commissioner Elliot Kleiman and Eisinger's campaign manager, Lori Green. Also lurking in the background is big-time Broward lobbyist Judy Stern, a paid political consultant to Eisinger who is blamed, rightly or wrongly, for some of the more extreme tactics employed by Eisinger and Co.
And together they are trying to overturn a democratic election based on a spurious argument that Sims hates Jews. It's an emotional heart-tugger of an accusation that is sure to get pens to wagging on petition forms.
If you ever met Kleiman and Green, you would notice immediately that they seem to be perfectly nice and reasonable people. But the blood sport of politics has obviously gotten under their skins.
They are holding meetings to encourage people to hound Sims at City Hall until he gives up and resigns, and they are distributing all kinds of personal information about the commissioner in an attempt to disgrace him further.
"To save him the embarrassment of being recalled, he can resign," Kleiman told a group of citizens at a recall meeting last Tuesday. "And I think we should remind him of that at commission meetings."
This coming from a buttoned-down and bespectacled former professor whose main issue, prior to losing his election in March, was lowering the speed limit in Cooper City neighborhoods.
All indications are that he's become obsessed with destroying John Sims. And though Sims is certainly no saint and has likely brought a lot of this upon himself, no one deserves the underhanded beating he's being given.
In addition to leading the recall drive, Kleiman has a personal website (http://www.elliot.cc/) that is all about Sims, all the time. Ironically, it's the only place in town where you can see the original post that compares the mayor to Hitler.
The recall group is also handing out information about a domestic battery charge filed against Sims back in 1991, when he was going through a tough divorce and was accused by his ex-wife of pushing her and trying to pull the wedding ring off her finger.
Involved in that case was a psychological evaluation that basically found Sims has some psychological problems, including a penchant toward narcissism and an inability to deal with stress but that he didn't seem violent by nature.
The court documents, by the way, are actually recycled news. Kleiman's son, Scott, himself a former commissioner, trotted them out during Sims' campaign last year, and it didn't keep the candidate from winning.
"I wasn't even aware my son was going to present that to the commission, believe it or not," says Elliot Kleiman of his son's rather low political tactic. "And I didn't want to distribute the stuff about his past. But [the recall committee] elected to do so."
The animosity between Sims and the members of the recall committee goes back to a CBS-4 report in 2006 that included undercover footage of Kleiman, Eisinger, and other Cooper City officials drinking prior to commission meetings. It was a sizable scandal that shamed Eisinger and may have led voters to oust Kleiman during the last election. Kleiman blames Sims as the source for the story, but both Sims and the reporter on the piece, Mike Kirsch, deny that.
Ed Wooley, a retired freight executive with an MBA from Harvard who lost his bid for election, says the real reason for the recall is simple: Eisinger wants to get rid of Sims so she can have the necessary four votes to decide who will be named city manager (longtime city manager Chris Farrell recently retired).
"I don't believe this is really about anti-Semitism at all — it's all a red herring," says Wooley, who has been active in Cooper City politics for the past decade. "And they've roped some people into believing it."
The mayor's campaign manager, Green, says it's about the reference to Hitler.
"This is above and beyond criticism, this is referencing an atrocity in international history under the Hitler regime," she says. "This is on the same level as a noose or a cross burning."
Green, who like Kleiman is Jewish, says the blog posting doesn't constitute a hate crime — yet. "Right now there is no legislation against Internet bullying or hate," she says. "But I absolutely think there should be."
Obviously the blog posting isn't a crime; it's free speech if ever there was such a thing. So why did the BSO investigate it? Well, that's where this case gets very interesting.
After the blog posting appeared on January 12, Green and the rest of the Eisinger camp were up in arms. Green says she didn't speak with deputies about it but that someone from the campaign might have. Bottom line: There was nothing that could be done about the Hitler mustache. Six days after the blog posting, a car owned by Green was vandalized in her driveway in the upscale and gated Embassy Lakes neighborhood. Apparently someone had scratched a swastika into it with a rock.
No one can ever remember such a thing ever happening in Embassy Lakes before. Green complained to deputies and told them about the "Nazi bitch" blog posting and gave them the Web address. She also told deputies that she and Eisinger had "political enemies" who might be responsible.
That's when Cooper City investigators turned to BSO's sex crimes unit, which is adept at obtaining IP addresses, and subpoenaed the information from Google and AT&T. It's similar to a political case in Deerfield Beach where another blog (Deerfield Beach Insider) was exposed by deputies after comments were posted that were critical of the city and deemed to be threatening. No arrest was made in that case, thankfully, and no arrest has been made in this one either.
The swastika also remains a mystery. Some, including Sims and Wooley, say it was either a kids' prank or that someone from Eisinger's camp did it to get sympathy votes for the election. Green emphatically denies that it was a campaign ploy, and there is certainly no evidence that it was one.
Sims, for his part, says he had nothing to do with the swastika or the blog, even though BSO claims it was started on his computer. He says he has lawyers working on a lawsuit that he intends to file against Eisinger and other members of her camp.
"Judy Stern and Debbie Eisinger are masters at this kind of thing," he says, adding that he thinks it's all payback for the CBS-4 piece. "I look at the people they are tied to in this campaign against me and it scares the hell out of me. The target on my back just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
"I'm going after these people. It's pretty serious what they have done here. We're talking about civil conspiracy, defamation, you name it, it's happened."
His last word on the subject: "I'm not going anywhere."
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-05-01/news/muddy-politics/full
Muddy Politics
A sure-fire technique to rile a city: Accuse people of anti-Semitism
By Bob Norman Published: May 1, 2008
Eisinger knows how to scare up some votes.
It's been reported in both the Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald unquestioningly as "anti-Semitic." The Broward Sheriff's Office agrees and has gone as far as using subpoena power to investigate what it says may be a hate crime.
What is it? A Hitler mustache and the words "Nazi bitch."
The offending material appeared on a political blog in Cooper City during the height of the election season in January. A post on the blog pictured Mayor Debbie Eisinger with a square of scribble on her upper lip and the epithet included.
This, of course, isn't anti-Semitic on its face (so to speak). Think about it: Whoever posted it was comparing Eisinger – who is known as a power-hungry politician in Cooper City – to the most reviled dictator of all time and certainly not in a favorable light. If anything, it's anti-Nazi.
Bloggers compare George W. Bush to Hitler quite a lot, and, while some might call it distasteful and wrong, I've never heard it called anti-Semitic. And I've certainly never heard of any instance where it was investigated as a potential crime.
Except in Broward County, where deputies took the extreme measure of sending subpoenas out to Google and AT&T to uncover the owner of the blog, which was called "Save Cooper City" and is now defunct. The blog's owner, according to deputies, is Commissioner John Sims, who is now the subject of a recall petition organized by the mayor and her political backers.
Their cry: "Anti-Semitism!" My cry: "Anti-Americanism!"
The pro-mayoral forces are led by former commissioner Elliot Kleiman and Eisinger's campaign manager, Lori Green. Also lurking in the background is big-time Broward lobbyist Judy Stern, a paid political consultant to Eisinger who is blamed, rightly or wrongly, for some of the more extreme tactics employed by Eisinger and Co.
And together they are trying to overturn a democratic election based on a spurious argument that Sims hates Jews. It's an emotional heart-tugger of an accusation that is sure to get pens to wagging on petition forms.
If you ever met Kleiman and Green, you would notice immediately that they seem to be perfectly nice and reasonable people. But the blood sport of politics has obviously gotten under their skins.
They are holding meetings to encourage people to hound Sims at City Hall until he gives up and resigns, and they are distributing all kinds of personal information about the commissioner in an attempt to disgrace him further.
"To save him the embarrassment of being recalled, he can resign," Kleiman told a group of citizens at a recall meeting last Tuesday. "And I think we should remind him of that at commission meetings."
This coming from a buttoned-down and bespectacled former professor whose main issue, prior to losing his election in March, was lowering the speed limit in Cooper City neighborhoods.
All indications are that he's become obsessed with destroying John Sims. And though Sims is certainly no saint and has likely brought a lot of this upon himself, no one deserves the underhanded beating he's being given.
In addition to leading the recall drive, Kleiman has a personal website (http://www.elliot.cc/) that is all about Sims, all the time. Ironically, it's the only place in town where you can see the original post that compares the mayor to Hitler.
The recall group is also handing out information about a domestic battery charge filed against Sims back in 1991, when he was going through a tough divorce and was accused by his ex-wife of pushing her and trying to pull the wedding ring off her finger.
Involved in that case was a psychological evaluation that basically found Sims has some psychological problems, including a penchant toward narcissism and an inability to deal with stress but that he didn't seem violent by nature.
The court documents, by the way, are actually recycled news. Kleiman's son, Scott, himself a former commissioner, trotted them out during Sims' campaign last year, and it didn't keep the candidate from winning.
"I wasn't even aware my son was going to present that to the commission, believe it or not," says Elliot Kleiman of his son's rather low political tactic. "And I didn't want to distribute the stuff about his past. But [the recall committee] elected to do so."
The animosity between Sims and the members of the recall committee goes back to a CBS-4 report in 2006 that included undercover footage of Kleiman, Eisinger, and other Cooper City officials drinking prior to commission meetings. It was a sizable scandal that shamed Eisinger and may have led voters to oust Kleiman during the last election. Kleiman blames Sims as the source for the story, but both Sims and the reporter on the piece, Mike Kirsch, deny that.
Ed Wooley, a retired freight executive with an MBA from Harvard who lost his bid for election, says the real reason for the recall is simple: Eisinger wants to get rid of Sims so she can have the necessary four votes to decide who will be named city manager (longtime city manager Chris Farrell recently retired).
"I don't believe this is really about anti-Semitism at all — it's all a red herring," says Wooley, who has been active in Cooper City politics for the past decade. "And they've roped some people into believing it."
The mayor's campaign manager, Green, says it's about the reference to Hitler.
"This is above and beyond criticism, this is referencing an atrocity in international history under the Hitler regime," she says. "This is on the same level as a noose or a cross burning."
Green, who like Kleiman is Jewish, says the blog posting doesn't constitute a hate crime — yet. "Right now there is no legislation against Internet bullying or hate," she says. "But I absolutely think there should be."
Obviously the blog posting isn't a crime; it's free speech if ever there was such a thing. So why did the BSO investigate it? Well, that's where this case gets very interesting.
After the blog posting appeared on January 12, Green and the rest of the Eisinger camp were up in arms. Green says she didn't speak with deputies about it but that someone from the campaign might have. Bottom line: There was nothing that could be done about the Hitler mustache. Six days after the blog posting, a car owned by Green was vandalized in her driveway in the upscale and gated Embassy Lakes neighborhood. Apparently someone had scratched a swastika into it with a rock.
No one can ever remember such a thing ever happening in Embassy Lakes before. Green complained to deputies and told them about the "Nazi bitch" blog posting and gave them the Web address. She also told deputies that she and Eisinger had "political enemies" who might be responsible.
That's when Cooper City investigators turned to BSO's sex crimes unit, which is adept at obtaining IP addresses, and subpoenaed the information from Google and AT&T. It's similar to a political case in Deerfield Beach where another blog (Deerfield Beach Insider) was exposed by deputies after comments were posted that were critical of the city and deemed to be threatening. No arrest was made in that case, thankfully, and no arrest has been made in this one either.
The swastika also remains a mystery. Some, including Sims and Wooley, say it was either a kids' prank or that someone from Eisinger's camp did it to get sympathy votes for the election. Green emphatically denies that it was a campaign ploy, and there is certainly no evidence that it was one.
Sims, for his part, says he had nothing to do with the swastika or the blog, even though BSO claims it was started on his computer. He says he has lawyers working on a lawsuit that he intends to file against Eisinger and other members of her camp.
"Judy Stern and Debbie Eisinger are masters at this kind of thing," he says, adding that he thinks it's all payback for the CBS-4 piece. "I look at the people they are tied to in this campaign against me and it scares the hell out of me. The target on my back just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
"I'm going after these people. It's pretty serious what they have done here. We're talking about civil conspiracy, defamation, you name it, it's happened."
His last word on the subject: "I'm not going anywhere."
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Anti-Simsitism Hits Cooper City
Copied from the New Times/ Bob Norman's Blog
Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM
The Sun-Sentinel's Elizabeth Baier reports this morning on the scheme to recall
Cooper City Commissioner John Sims and I think it stinks.
Most recall efforts are bunk. Unless they are truly based on crimes of corruption (that perhaps a certain state attorney might have ignored), I don't want to hear about them. Why? Because the people voted and a few politically motivated players with a clipboard and propaganda campaign shouldn't be allowed to undo democracy. The effort to recall Steve Gonot in Deerfield Beach, for instance, was a sham and a disgrace.
And so it is with this recall campaign in Cooper City. The grounds for recalling Sims are generally pathetic (failing to be prepared for meetings? you have to be kidding), but throwing in the charge of anti-Semitism should get the ol' kick-the-bastard-out-juices going, eh? And what is that based on? A blog that was registered to Sims that apparently depicted Cooper City Mayor Debbie Eisinger with an Adolph Hitler mustache.
First of all, that isn't anti-Semitic on its face. It is, however, American free speech. I don't think the alleged anti-Semitic comments that appeared on the blog have been published, so I'll withhold judgment on them until I see them.
It was a BSO subpoena that proved the blog was owned by Sims, who says somebody else put up the offensive stuff. BSO is saying that the blog postings constitute a hate crime, according to Baier. What utter nonsense. The fact that it's vile doesn't mean it's a crime. BSO threw the Bill of Rights out the window on this one, just as it did in Deerfield Beach when it subpoenaed Google to reveal the owner of another political blog (under the guise that it was part of a sex crimes investigation, no less). They are tying it into an incident where Mayor Debbie Eisinger's campaign manager's car was apparently vandalized with a Swastika. Now that looks like a hate crime -- but there's no evidence tying Sims to it. Why would a man running for commission (and with enough popular support to win) do such a thing? It makes no sense.
Look, the voters can decide what they think about John Sims. They don't need former commissioner Elliot Kleiman to tell them what to do. Voters already decided what to do with Kleiman -- they kicked him out of office. Now he wants to return through a back door. This isn't about anti-Semitism -- it's about anti-Simsitism. It's a move by the Eisinger-led old guard to regain power and put the dissident Sims out to the curb.
Let's hope the residents of Cooper City don't fall for it.
Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM
The Sun-Sentinel's Elizabeth Baier reports this morning on the scheme to recall
Cooper City Commissioner John Sims and I think it stinks.
Most recall efforts are bunk. Unless they are truly based on crimes of corruption (that perhaps a certain state attorney might have ignored), I don't want to hear about them. Why? Because the people voted and a few politically motivated players with a clipboard and propaganda campaign shouldn't be allowed to undo democracy. The effort to recall Steve Gonot in Deerfield Beach, for instance, was a sham and a disgrace.
And so it is with this recall campaign in Cooper City. The grounds for recalling Sims are generally pathetic (failing to be prepared for meetings? you have to be kidding), but throwing in the charge of anti-Semitism should get the ol' kick-the-bastard-out-juices going, eh? And what is that based on? A blog that was registered to Sims that apparently depicted Cooper City Mayor Debbie Eisinger with an Adolph Hitler mustache.
First of all, that isn't anti-Semitic on its face. It is, however, American free speech. I don't think the alleged anti-Semitic comments that appeared on the blog have been published, so I'll withhold judgment on them until I see them.
It was a BSO subpoena that proved the blog was owned by Sims, who says somebody else put up the offensive stuff. BSO is saying that the blog postings constitute a hate crime, according to Baier. What utter nonsense. The fact that it's vile doesn't mean it's a crime. BSO threw the Bill of Rights out the window on this one, just as it did in Deerfield Beach when it subpoenaed Google to reveal the owner of another political blog (under the guise that it was part of a sex crimes investigation, no less). They are tying it into an incident where Mayor Debbie Eisinger's campaign manager's car was apparently vandalized with a Swastika. Now that looks like a hate crime -- but there's no evidence tying Sims to it. Why would a man running for commission (and with enough popular support to win) do such a thing? It makes no sense.
Look, the voters can decide what they think about John Sims. They don't need former commissioner Elliot Kleiman to tell them what to do. Voters already decided what to do with Kleiman -- they kicked him out of office. Now he wants to return through a back door. This isn't about anti-Semitism -- it's about anti-Simsitism. It's a move by the Eisinger-led old guard to regain power and put the dissident Sims out to the curb.
Let's hope the residents of Cooper City don't fall for it.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Sour Smell of Secrecy
A Palm Beach Post Editorial
Another misguided bill in Tallahassee seeks a major exemption from Florida's exemplary open-government laws.
Current law correctly lets elected officials meet privately to discuss tort litigation, such as a personal-injury claim, filed against a government. The proposed change would let local politicians and their attorneys meet in private to discuss lawsuits that haven't even been filed, an idea that would invite abuse.
Senate Bill 1510, sponsored by Minority Leader Steve Geller, D-Cooper City, would allow private meetings as soon as someone provided notification of an intent to file a tort claim. Now, a transcript of any closed-door litigation meeting becomes public once the litigation is concluded. Under Sen. Geller's proposal, what would happen if litigation is never filed? There's no trigger for releasing the record of closed-door meetings to discuss potential litigation.
"The bill really stinks in that there's no opportunity for public oversight," said Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation. "As currently drafted, the bill violates the standard, and we would first ask for a veto" by Gov. Crist, who last month praised the state's public-access rules, which collectively are known as the Sunshine Law. "If he failed to veto, which I sort of doubt, then we would certainly consider a constitutional challenge in court."
Not surprisingly, given Mayor Lois Frankel's efforts to control information, West Palm Beach supports the proposed exemption. But she's hardly alone. The Florida League of Cities also favors the exemption, which would give public officials new excuses to conduct the public's business in secret. This bill never should get out of the Legislature. If it does, surely the governor who says repeatedly that the people are the boss wouldn't make it harder for the bosses to know what their employees are doing.
Another misguided bill in Tallahassee seeks a major exemption from Florida's exemplary open-government laws.
Current law correctly lets elected officials meet privately to discuss tort litigation, such as a personal-injury claim, filed against a government. The proposed change would let local politicians and their attorneys meet in private to discuss lawsuits that haven't even been filed, an idea that would invite abuse.
Senate Bill 1510, sponsored by Minority Leader Steve Geller, D-Cooper City, would allow private meetings as soon as someone provided notification of an intent to file a tort claim. Now, a transcript of any closed-door litigation meeting becomes public once the litigation is concluded. Under Sen. Geller's proposal, what would happen if litigation is never filed? There's no trigger for releasing the record of closed-door meetings to discuss potential litigation.
"The bill really stinks in that there's no opportunity for public oversight," said Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation. "As currently drafted, the bill violates the standard, and we would first ask for a veto" by Gov. Crist, who last month praised the state's public-access rules, which collectively are known as the Sunshine Law. "If he failed to veto, which I sort of doubt, then we would certainly consider a constitutional challenge in court."
Not surprisingly, given Mayor Lois Frankel's efforts to control information, West Palm Beach supports the proposed exemption. But she's hardly alone. The Florida League of Cities also favors the exemption, which would give public officials new excuses to conduct the public's business in secret. This bill never should get out of the Legislature. If it does, surely the governor who says repeatedly that the people are the boss wouldn't make it harder for the bosses to know what their employees are doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)