- 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.
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 12, 2010
Cooper City....Tax Champs
An Open letter from Ed Wooley
"YOUR BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IS COMING FROM YOUR COOPER CITY GOVERNMENT"
Yes, Cooper City is leading the tax hikes on your county tax notice! The Commission is proposing larger hits than the scandal-ridden school district and Broward County commission.
Proof? Like most of you, Broward County’s appraiser reduced my residence’s market value by 14% and State law increased my assessed values by 2.7%. That is typical. Here are the hard dollar numbers ranked by dollar increase for my home.
TAXES and FEES _____Tax Year_____________ Difference
______________2009____ 2010______$______%
Cooper City___ $1,206.87__$1,328.59__ $121.72_ 10.1
County Comm _$1,194.29__ $1,299.63__ $105.34_ 8.8
School district _$1,832.63__ $1,937.90__$105.27__5.7
Total _______$4,827.93___$5,214.26__$386.83_ 8.0
(small Items Not shown)
The biggest % increase in Cooper City’s taxes/fees is the Fire Assessment Fee—18.8%.
So, the big winners in the tax race seem to be our mayor and those commissioners and staff who are supporting such large increases. Remember, the cost of living index for property tax purposes is only 2.7%. Why is our city raising taxes by an additional 7.4%? Do you feel it is justified in these difficult economic times?
Think about the hurt to retirees on fixed incomes, to those living on social security, to the under and unemployed and to the residents living on modest incomes. For many, the impact can be the cost of two weeks of groceries or months of prescriptions. In these hard economic times, it is simply immoral to treat a large percentage of our neighbors this way. Particularly when it is not necessary to achieve a responsible city budget.
I urge you to let the Commission know quickly what you think about them being the tax champions. Contact info: mayor, commissioners and city manager
(954) 434-4300
Mayor: Mayor_eisinger@coopercityfl.org. Generally votes for $ tax increases
Mr. Curran: Commissioner_Curran@coopercityfl.org. Same as the Mayor
Mr. deJesus: Commissioner_dejesus@coopercityfl.org.
Has opposed some increases. Often open-minded. Fire fee sponsor
Ms. Mallozzi: Commissioner_Mallozzi@coopercityfl.org.
Opposed millage rate increase. Generally votes to raise city revenues. A leader in pushing for red light cameras.
Mr. Sims: Commissioner_Sims@coopercityfl.org.
Generally opposes tax and fee increases. Often the only one.
Mr. Loucks: Bloucks@coopercityfl,org. Proposes tax/fee increases in the budget.
City manager, He has no vote.
Respectfully, Ed Wooley Phone (954)433-1039 ed.wooley@comcast.net
"YOUR BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IS COMING FROM YOUR COOPER CITY GOVERNMENT"
Yes, Cooper City is leading the tax hikes on your county tax notice! The Commission is proposing larger hits than the scandal-ridden school district and Broward County commission.
Proof? Like most of you, Broward County’s appraiser reduced my residence’s market value by 14% and State law increased my assessed values by 2.7%. That is typical. Here are the hard dollar numbers ranked by dollar increase for my home.
TAXES and FEES _____Tax Year_____________ Difference
______________2009____ 2010______$______%
Cooper City___ $1,206.87__$1,328.59__ $121.72_ 10.1
County Comm _$1,194.29__ $1,299.63__ $105.34_ 8.8
School district _$1,832.63__ $1,937.90__$105.27__5.7
Total _______$4,827.93___$5,214.26__$386.83_ 8.0
(small Items Not shown)
The biggest % increase in Cooper City’s taxes/fees is the Fire Assessment Fee—18.8%.
So, the big winners in the tax race seem to be our mayor and those commissioners and staff who are supporting such large increases. Remember, the cost of living index for property tax purposes is only 2.7%. Why is our city raising taxes by an additional 7.4%? Do you feel it is justified in these difficult economic times?
Think about the hurt to retirees on fixed incomes, to those living on social security, to the under and unemployed and to the residents living on modest incomes. For many, the impact can be the cost of two weeks of groceries or months of prescriptions. In these hard economic times, it is simply immoral to treat a large percentage of our neighbors this way. Particularly when it is not necessary to achieve a responsible city budget.
I urge you to let the Commission know quickly what you think about them being the tax champions. Contact info: mayor, commissioners and city manager
(954) 434-4300
Mayor: Mayor_eisinger@coopercityfl.org. Generally votes for $ tax increases
Mr. Curran: Commissioner_Curran@coopercityfl.org. Same as the Mayor
Mr. deJesus: Commissioner_dejesus@coopercityfl.org.
Has opposed some increases. Often open-minded. Fire fee sponsor
Ms. Mallozzi: Commissioner_Mallozzi@coopercityfl.org.
Opposed millage rate increase. Generally votes to raise city revenues. A leader in pushing for red light cameras.
Mr. Sims: Commissioner_Sims@coopercityfl.org.
Generally opposes tax and fee increases. Often the only one.
Mr. Loucks: Bloucks@coopercityfl,org. Proposes tax/fee increases in the budget.
City manager, He has no vote.
Respectfully, Ed Wooley Phone (954)433-1039 ed.wooley@comcast.net
Sunday, June 6, 2010
An Answer to the CAFR Question:
An Answer to the CAFR Question:
Do I really care what the CAFR says?
(Appearently the recent Cooper City Commission meeting on the CAFR has caused some to ask the question. One of our readers sent the following to me in an email. After a couple of email exchanges the sender agreed to allow me to print what you see. He is a resident of a city in Northern Florida.)
In answer to your question (insert your name here), yeah we should care but apparently very few of us even know about these things and most people won't believe you when you try to tell them. About a year or so ago I learned about these things and set myself to find out if it were true if it took the rest of my life.
The first item I learned about was the US treasury's book keeping system. That budget they are always so upset about is the biggest money scam in the history of book keeping. If a private business kept its books like the US government keeps theirs it wouldn't last out a year.
Here is the business way to keep a set of books.
At the end of every year along about tax time a smart business man will work up what is known as a trial balance. Here all the company's assets are listed in one column and its liabilities in another. The liabilities are subtracted from the assets and the difference is what the company is worth at that particular time. Now he takes a look at last year's budget and if there happens to be a surplus it is carried forward to the current year. He already knows what his budget was for the year before so he subtracts the surplus from that. This tells him how much it cost him to run his business for the year just ended. Then he adds up his total sales for the year just ended, subtracts his overhead from the total sales and the difference is profit, the amount he must pay taxes on to keep the IRS off his back. Now he checks his sales receipts over the past three to five years adds up those figures, divides them by the number of years and comes up with a pretty good idea of what his sales will be during the coming year. Now he takes the projected sales figure subtracts last year's budget, the surpluses have been carried forward already, and comes up with a pretty good idea of what his budget should be for the coming year.
Now here is the government's way of keeping books.
Number one there is no trial balance as far as the public is concerned. Any budget surpluses at the end of a fiscal year are not carried forward nor even so much as figured in to the government's assets, at least not in the budget process. Their new year's budget is figured on projected revenues only, that's the taxes we pay. Yep they do have the projected expenditures for the new year and they also have the expected revenues for the new fiscal year. Now they simply subtract the expected expenditures from expected revenues and low and behold the expected expenditures are considerably more than the expected revenues. There is going to be another deficit so what do they do? Uh huh you guessed it, they raise our taxes in some vain attempt to fill the gap but for some unknown reason the gap never does get quite filled and so, at the end of almost every fiscal year since I've been born the published story has been raise taxes. Thus the budget process is nothing more than a political scam a and rip off of the working and small business people.
The CAFR (Their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) is another set of books all together.
It does include a trial balance and when it is received by the politicians and bureaucrats they know exactly how much profit the government and the big banksters made last year. Contrary to what we the people have been told (at least) since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt there has been budget surpluses at all levels of this government. I had to make up to one of the ugliest damn women this world has ever produced to get it but I have a copy of this County's CAFR for 2004. I wanted the current one but this county is four years behind on its CAFRs so I had no choice but to accept what I could get. However, though it doesn't give me the current totals it does tell me that we the people are being ripped off ten ways from Sunday by this government at all levels.
For instance; according to the CAFR I have in my possession the road and bridge department in this county had a surplus of over one million bucks in 2004. All the other departments had varying amounts of money left over that year but the County's budget was desperately overdrawn. If my memory is serving me right, there was a three million dollar budget surplus for this county in 2004. Yet we've had one tax increase since then and would have had more but for the state's Tabor law, all the fees in this county and in the state have been increased twice over that period.
For instance: in 2004 it cost me $24.00 to register my car. In 2009 that fee was $78.00 and the bastards are still yelling budget deficit. Yep the CAFR will tell you the whole truth about this nation's finances, but the budget process won't and that's the one they throw at us every year. Now what do they do with all the excess cash? It is salted away in a special secret fund that we the people will never hear about, in 2004 for instance there was 7 billion bux salted away in this state alone and that was at state level. The Counties, cities and other goverment departments have money also that none of the current incumbents has ever seen. But believe me brothers and sisters they know it is there and they hope it will be available to them when the SHTF.
Do I really care what the CAFR says?
(Appearently the recent Cooper City Commission meeting on the CAFR has caused some to ask the question. One of our readers sent the following to me in an email. After a couple of email exchanges the sender agreed to allow me to print what you see. He is a resident of a city in Northern Florida.)
In answer to your question (insert your name here), yeah we should care but apparently very few of us even know about these things and most people won't believe you when you try to tell them. About a year or so ago I learned about these things and set myself to find out if it were true if it took the rest of my life.
The first item I learned about was the US treasury's book keeping system. That budget they are always so upset about is the biggest money scam in the history of book keeping. If a private business kept its books like the US government keeps theirs it wouldn't last out a year.
Here is the business way to keep a set of books.
At the end of every year along about tax time a smart business man will work up what is known as a trial balance. Here all the company's assets are listed in one column and its liabilities in another. The liabilities are subtracted from the assets and the difference is what the company is worth at that particular time. Now he takes a look at last year's budget and if there happens to be a surplus it is carried forward to the current year. He already knows what his budget was for the year before so he subtracts the surplus from that. This tells him how much it cost him to run his business for the year just ended. Then he adds up his total sales for the year just ended, subtracts his overhead from the total sales and the difference is profit, the amount he must pay taxes on to keep the IRS off his back. Now he checks his sales receipts over the past three to five years adds up those figures, divides them by the number of years and comes up with a pretty good idea of what his sales will be during the coming year. Now he takes the projected sales figure subtracts last year's budget, the surpluses have been carried forward already, and comes up with a pretty good idea of what his budget should be for the coming year.
Now here is the government's way of keeping books.
Number one there is no trial balance as far as the public is concerned. Any budget surpluses at the end of a fiscal year are not carried forward nor even so much as figured in to the government's assets, at least not in the budget process. Their new year's budget is figured on projected revenues only, that's the taxes we pay. Yep they do have the projected expenditures for the new year and they also have the expected revenues for the new fiscal year. Now they simply subtract the expected expenditures from expected revenues and low and behold the expected expenditures are considerably more than the expected revenues. There is going to be another deficit so what do they do? Uh huh you guessed it, they raise our taxes in some vain attempt to fill the gap but for some unknown reason the gap never does get quite filled and so, at the end of almost every fiscal year since I've been born the published story has been raise taxes. Thus the budget process is nothing more than a political scam a and rip off of the working and small business people.
The CAFR (Their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) is another set of books all together.
It does include a trial balance and when it is received by the politicians and bureaucrats they know exactly how much profit the government and the big banksters made last year. Contrary to what we the people have been told (at least) since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt there has been budget surpluses at all levels of this government. I had to make up to one of the ugliest damn women this world has ever produced to get it but I have a copy of this County's CAFR for 2004. I wanted the current one but this county is four years behind on its CAFRs so I had no choice but to accept what I could get. However, though it doesn't give me the current totals it does tell me that we the people are being ripped off ten ways from Sunday by this government at all levels.
For instance; according to the CAFR I have in my possession the road and bridge department in this county had a surplus of over one million bucks in 2004. All the other departments had varying amounts of money left over that year but the County's budget was desperately overdrawn. If my memory is serving me right, there was a three million dollar budget surplus for this county in 2004. Yet we've had one tax increase since then and would have had more but for the state's Tabor law, all the fees in this county and in the state have been increased twice over that period.
For instance: in 2004 it cost me $24.00 to register my car. In 2009 that fee was $78.00 and the bastards are still yelling budget deficit. Yep the CAFR will tell you the whole truth about this nation's finances, but the budget process won't and that's the one they throw at us every year. Now what do they do with all the excess cash? It is salted away in a special secret fund that we the people will never hear about, in 2004 for instance there was 7 billion bux salted away in this state alone and that was at state level. The Counties, cities and other goverment departments have money also that none of the current incumbents has ever seen. But believe me brothers and sisters they know it is there and they hope it will be available to them when the SHTF.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
A Misplaced comment
It appears as though a comment had not been posted last year. We regret that we missed it. It is hereby published for your information at this time....
Anonymous said...
Last nights Commission meeting highlights: Commissioner Sims asked the commission to discuss the city attorney budget already over budget by approximately$72,000.00 and the monthly billing on an average of approximately $27,000.00 with four months of billing remaining. The commission voted 4 to 1 NOT to address the potential overage of $180,000.00 for this year. Then the commission voted 3 to 2 to adjourn the meeting without giving Commissioner Sims the opportunity to speak during the
Commissioner Concerns.
The three that voted NO on both issues were Neal deJesus, James Curran and Debbie Eisinger. The city attorney, David Wolpin is a long time personal friend of Debbie Eisinger and lives on the same block as James Curran. Neither recused themselves or disclosed their relationship until exposed by resident, Diane Sori. If you want to see a real hypocrite watch the ethic commission meeting and see Neal deJesus say he is willing to start the ethic meetings early and stay as long as it takes to get through the agenda.
I'm perplexed as to why he would not give the same courtesy to the commission and citizens of Cooper City. We all have to be more careful when we vote for our public officials and do our part to try and keep them honest! Don't let corruption in a Pastors robe deceive you!!
Anonymous said...
Last nights Commission meeting highlights: Commissioner Sims asked the commission to discuss the city attorney budget already over budget by approximately$72,000.00 and the monthly billing on an average of approximately $27,000.00 with four months of billing remaining. The commission voted 4 to 1 NOT to address the potential overage of $180,000.00 for this year. Then the commission voted 3 to 2 to adjourn the meeting without giving Commissioner Sims the opportunity to speak during the
Commissioner Concerns.
The three that voted NO on both issues were Neal deJesus, James Curran and Debbie Eisinger. The city attorney, David Wolpin is a long time personal friend of Debbie Eisinger and lives on the same block as James Curran. Neither recused themselves or disclosed their relationship until exposed by resident, Diane Sori. If you want to see a real hypocrite watch the ethic commission meeting and see Neal deJesus say he is willing to start the ethic meetings early and stay as long as it takes to get through the agenda.
I'm perplexed as to why he would not give the same courtesy to the commission and citizens of Cooper City. We all have to be more careful when we vote for our public officials and do our part to try and keep them honest! Don't let corruption in a Pastors robe deceive you!!
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
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
You call that a Commission meeting?
Once again commission meetings in Cooper City are truly something to behold. The adjective "dysfunctional" takes on a definite new meaning. Of course some have said that incompetence, childish, orchestrated, disrespectful,acting stupidly (to borrow a phase) all seem to echo a large degree of criticism of the Commission.
While I could only view it from afar ( The Comcast marginally adequate video) it seems only fair to let one of those who was there comment. To that end the following is extracted from an email received and edited in order not to reveal the sender's identity.
(a portion of the email)
************
Tuesday night's Commission meeting was an absolute circus and a disgrace. It was an embarrassment, it was deliberately confusing, it was uncalled for and it was a deliberate attempt by the commission majority (Eisinger, De Jesus, Curran) to continue to silence residential critics of our Commission, and members of the Commission.
The main motion Sims presented on the agenda was never properly discussed and voted on due to the blatant corrupt politics, bias, inconsistencies and lack of leadership by our Mayor. Comm. Sims was half way through his time of 5 minutes when it was his turn to speak, and Debby Eisinger simply didn't like what he had to say. Yes, he had already been speaking for over 2 minutes, and he was properly recognized and had the floor.
Why can't the paper (Sun-Sentinel Online Edition) report the truth and facts!?
This is our illustrious Mayor's way of continuing to shut anyone up who doesn't agree with her or whoever she doesn't like, always running to her friend ( of 18 years & hired by the gang of three) the city attorney, which (who ED.)makes questionable comments. At least Mr. Sims isn't afraid of her and her embarrassing antics.
Mayor Eisinger is a disgrace to our city! Recall her!
*************
We can only conclude that lessons have not been learned. Ineptness, incompetence, and just plain bad behavior continues to run unbridled under the leadership of a Mayor who still is unable to conduct a meeting when the other commissioners are not the head nodders and who may have an opinion that is not in agreement and thusly speak out representing the view point of their constituency unlike that of recent past commissioners.
While I could only view it from afar ( The Comcast marginally adequate video) it seems only fair to let one of those who was there comment. To that end the following is extracted from an email received and edited in order not to reveal the sender's identity.
(a portion of the email)
************
Tuesday night's Commission meeting was an absolute circus and a disgrace. It was an embarrassment, it was deliberately confusing, it was uncalled for and it was a deliberate attempt by the commission majority (Eisinger, De Jesus, Curran) to continue to silence residential critics of our Commission, and members of the Commission.
The main motion Sims presented on the agenda was never properly discussed and voted on due to the blatant corrupt politics, bias, inconsistencies and lack of leadership by our Mayor. Comm. Sims was half way through his time of 5 minutes when it was his turn to speak, and Debby Eisinger simply didn't like what he had to say. Yes, he had already been speaking for over 2 minutes, and he was properly recognized and had the floor.
Why can't the paper (Sun-Sentinel Online Edition) report the truth and facts!?
This is our illustrious Mayor's way of continuing to shut anyone up who doesn't agree with her or whoever she doesn't like, always running to her friend ( of 18 years & hired by the gang of three) the city attorney, which (who ED.)makes questionable comments. At least Mr. Sims isn't afraid of her and her embarrassing antics.
Mayor Eisinger is a disgrace to our city! Recall her!
*************
We can only conclude that lessons have not been learned. Ineptness, incompetence, and just plain bad behavior continues to run unbridled under the leadership of a Mayor who still is unable to conduct a meeting when the other commissioners are not the head nodders and who may have an opinion that is not in agreement and thusly speak out representing the view point of their constituency unlike that of recent past commissioners.
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.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
What ever happened to the Chabad Lawsuit?
Did the Cooper City ever resolve this issue? Did the judge not say we had to pay?
Were there not legal fees to be paid? Until we get the word let the following be a reminder of that which brought this to be.
(Letter from a reader follows)
Let's see if I have this straight:
1. Some commissioners, the mayor, the city administration and members of the Planning and Zoning Committee had practiced religious discrimination against this small Jewish Chabad for years--all the while proclaiming that they were not. And all the while, they seemed to refuse to reach a settlement with the Rabbi for the harm he and his mission had received at their hands.
2. Finally, a federal judge found that, indeed, they had so unlawfully discriminated and ordered a jury trial for damages. The City continued to refuse to a} apologies for religious discrimination and b} violating the law and the Constitution. The City officials also seemed to continue to refuse or be unable to reach a settlement. All the while, the city continued to run up its legal costs, the costs of its outside lawyer and the legal costs of the Chabad. The only winners up to this point were the lawyers. If the aim of the mayor, some commissioners, some members of the P&Z committee and some of the city administration was to enrich some lawyers, they have succeeded.
3. Now, a federal jury has found the City to be guilty on all four counts--repeat all four counts, which I take it to mean that the City had no legal, ethical or moral basis to its position at all to begin with.
4. The City will now have to pay the Chabad some $325,000, plus an estimated $500,000 in the Rabbi's legal fees plus, of course, it has been paying its own legal fees all along. When it’s all done, we should be looking at something like $1,000,000 in absolutely wasted money on an unethical and illegal piece of nastiness that could have been used to either reduce taxes or provide improved city services. Put another way, the City has "burned" the costs of a full year of improved fire and police service, many improvements for our youth sports programs or any number of positive things for residents.
5. The City will now decide whether to appeal the court's findings. My hope is that the City decides not to appeal, to issue a formal apology to Chabad and to do all that it can to help the Rabbi find a location suitable to his mission in Cooper City ASAP. Any further contest on the part of the City would, in my judgment, only serve to waste more of the people's money and further tarnish our reputation.
6. The Rabbi's attorneys have said that they may also file suit again because of the latest round of city ordinances passed. Whatever the costs of the first fiasco, our costs may well continue to go up. That is a very good reason to finally do the right thing. I have my doubts that some of the powers- that -be will see it this way. After all, it is not their money they have been wasting: it is the hard earned money of thousands of residents. It's free money to the powers-that-be.
7. Mr. Wolpin and Mr. Burke have expressed an opinion that the City's insurance carrier will probably cover the costs of the damage awards {and legal fees?}. I would not rely on that opinion. It seems to me that the City government's practices have gone beyond negligence and into the realm of willfully contributing to the unnecessary harm suffered. Misbehavior. Insurance companies normally do not have to pay a policy holder if the cause of his damage is almost entirely the result of his own misdeeds and negligence: like your house burns down because you stored 1,000 gallons of gasoline next to a gas water heater in your garage and refused to correct the situation even after many people pointed out the danger.
Altogether, this is just a shameful and expensive blot on Cooper City. The powers -that -be should start doing the right thing or we should start drives to oust some of them from office so they can never again treat anyone this way and to waste our money so foolishly.
If I am incorrect in any of the above, please let me know.
Ed Wooley
Were there not legal fees to be paid? Until we get the word let the following be a reminder of that which brought this to be.
(Letter from a reader follows)
Let's see if I have this straight:
1. Some commissioners, the mayor, the city administration and members of the Planning and Zoning Committee had practiced religious discrimination against this small Jewish Chabad for years--all the while proclaiming that they were not. And all the while, they seemed to refuse to reach a settlement with the Rabbi for the harm he and his mission had received at their hands.
2. Finally, a federal judge found that, indeed, they had so unlawfully discriminated and ordered a jury trial for damages. The City continued to refuse to a} apologies for religious discrimination and b} violating the law and the Constitution. The City officials also seemed to continue to refuse or be unable to reach a settlement. All the while, the city continued to run up its legal costs, the costs of its outside lawyer and the legal costs of the Chabad. The only winners up to this point were the lawyers. If the aim of the mayor, some commissioners, some members of the P&Z committee and some of the city administration was to enrich some lawyers, they have succeeded.
3. Now, a federal jury has found the City to be guilty on all four counts--repeat all four counts, which I take it to mean that the City had no legal, ethical or moral basis to its position at all to begin with.
4. The City will now have to pay the Chabad some $325,000, plus an estimated $500,000 in the Rabbi's legal fees plus, of course, it has been paying its own legal fees all along. When it’s all done, we should be looking at something like $1,000,000 in absolutely wasted money on an unethical and illegal piece of nastiness that could have been used to either reduce taxes or provide improved city services. Put another way, the City has "burned" the costs of a full year of improved fire and police service, many improvements for our youth sports programs or any number of positive things for residents.
5. The City will now decide whether to appeal the court's findings. My hope is that the City decides not to appeal, to issue a formal apology to Chabad and to do all that it can to help the Rabbi find a location suitable to his mission in Cooper City ASAP. Any further contest on the part of the City would, in my judgment, only serve to waste more of the people's money and further tarnish our reputation.
6. The Rabbi's attorneys have said that they may also file suit again because of the latest round of city ordinances passed. Whatever the costs of the first fiasco, our costs may well continue to go up. That is a very good reason to finally do the right thing. I have my doubts that some of the powers- that -be will see it this way. After all, it is not their money they have been wasting: it is the hard earned money of thousands of residents. It's free money to the powers-that-be.
7. Mr. Wolpin and Mr. Burke have expressed an opinion that the City's insurance carrier will probably cover the costs of the damage awards {and legal fees?}. I would not rely on that opinion. It seems to me that the City government's practices have gone beyond negligence and into the realm of willfully contributing to the unnecessary harm suffered. Misbehavior. Insurance companies normally do not have to pay a policy holder if the cause of his damage is almost entirely the result of his own misdeeds and negligence: like your house burns down because you stored 1,000 gallons of gasoline next to a gas water heater in your garage and refused to correct the situation even after many people pointed out the danger.
Altogether, this is just a shameful and expensive blot on Cooper City. The powers -that -be should start doing the right thing or we should start drives to oust some of them from office so they can never again treat anyone this way and to waste our money so foolishly.
If I am incorrect in any of the above, please let me know.
Ed Wooley
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
Friday, May 30, 2008
Cooper City Frivolous Recall Abandoned
Posted on the Sun-Sentinel.com/Broward Politics
Cooper City recall effort abandoned
Posted by Anthony Man at 9:55 AM
Residents intent on removing John Sims from office because of anti-Semitic Web postings have dropped the recall effort, saying the city can't afford it.
The residents started the rare recall move against the city commissioner last month to hold him accountable for a now-defunct, controversial blog registered to him that posted anti-Semitic statements about Mayor Debbie Eisinger.
Elliot Kleiman, a recall committee organizer, said Wednesday the group collected more than the needed 1,900 signatures, or 10 percent of the city's registered voters. He said he could not provide the exact number of signatures because he stopped counting when they reached the required amount.
Kleiman said the group hoped to hold the recall in November to coincide with the presidential election, but the process would likely take longer and force Cooper City to conduct two special elections. Doing so would cost the city about $55,000 apiece, according to City Clerk Susan Bernard.
"Based on the economy and all the problems with city budgets, we just determined that it just wasn't worth it," Kleiman said.
In January, the Broward Sheriff's Office started looking for evidence leading to those responsible for anti-Semitic postings about the mayor on a now defunct blog. The Sheriff's Office considered the incident a hate crime. They have not charged Sims or anyone else with a crime and have suspended the investigation until they get more information.
Sims, 49, whose term ends in March 2010, has said he had nothing to do with the Eisinger postings. He said Wednesday he thought the recall petition "was a big joke."
"I wanted to take them to court and show what a frivolous recall it was," Sims said.
-- Staff Writer Elizabeth Baier
THE TRUTH:
Let's get this straight!
There were NO anti-semitic comments on the blog that Lori Green created !
There was NO hate crime committed on the blog that Lori Green created !
There were only ALLEGATIONS of hate and anti-simitism against Comm. Sims !
There was no PROOF of Sims being involved per the BSO Police !
The petition was not legally sufficient to sustain the charges which were so vague and uncertain that Commissioner Sims could have no conception of the particular act or acts which substantially related to the alleged cause(s) of removal from office and would not have been able to eve formulate a response. Therefore, the baseless allegations contained in the Petition for Recall could not constitute malfeasance, misfeasance or neglect of duty. The legal requirements were not met where the statement(s) in the petition were nothing more than conclusions or opinions without any tangible basis of facts. There was absolutely no truth, factual allegations nor justification to any of the false charges levied against Commissioner Sims by the Recall Committee (Yes, that Committee includes EVERYONE who signed it) by an ex-Commissioner who rarely showed up sober for a Commission meeting.
I am glad the majority of voters showed support for Commissioner Sims' dedicated service to the community by not signing the ridiculous petition.
The lie told by the Green's and Esiinger's wasted alot of Elliot Kleiman's time and money...
Posted by: morons | May 30, 2008 11:00 AM
I don't believe the recall committee got the required number of signatures. Shredding the list seems to be the best evidence that they didn't get the signatures. This mean-spirited group of peabrains would have moved forward had they had the signatures. Heck, only 2 weeks ago Eliott was up at the podium at the last commission meeting doing his recall rant. If they had the signatures, they would have moved forward. What a bunch of losers.
Also, Elliot told me they didn't have even half of the signatures required as of last Saturday. There is no way in HE!! that they got over 1,000 signatures on Memorial Day weekend. You are a liar Recall Elliot. He told me that he did not have the signatures. Sounds like Judy Stern/Debby Eisinger spin to me to save face. Elliot also told me that more than half of the people said they didn't care about his stupid recall and the other half called him a sore loser (and a senile old drunk). Even people on the recall committee told me that they didn't get all of the signatures.
If they did, prove it, don't shread them. You can't tell me they shredded all of the signatures...for what? I can assure you that if you did indeed get enought sigs, that you all would have pressed forward. Since when did Elliot care about spending money? You are all a bunch of liars. The recall was a big lie. The blog posting accusing Sims was not a hate crime, nor was it anti-semitism and was all a big lie.
What improper things has SIms done, please tell us in detail, because it certainly wasn't spelled out in the fake petition. They were nothing but false allegations with no facts whatsoever. BSO did NOT find that he owned the blog. They said, and I quote "The blog was REGISTERED to Sims". How about I 'register' a blog under Elliot, yours or Debby's name and start bashing Christians? What would happen then when the tables are turned? Sims will indeed prove he was not involved and win his lawsuit. You people are all ignorant and the scum sentinel is biased...
Thank God Sims is in office.
Posted by: Elliotsux | May 30, 2008 11:04 AM
Thank You, Lori Green, Debbie Eisinger, Greg Ross, Elliot Kleiman and many others including those who signed the petition. You have done more to embrass Cooper City than anything
John Sims allegely did. Your lies, half truths and malicious political attacks have not done anything more than to make Cooper City the laughing stock of Broward County.
If you had real cause to recall the effort would have successed with the support of the decent citizens of Cooper City not the loud mouth hatemongers.
Posted by: I hate CC | May 30, 2008 11:07 AM
This whole thing, and their statement makes absolutely no sense to me. IF Sims were even involved and if he or anyone else had committed a crime, the Governor would have removed him or there would be charges filed. Cooper City would STILL have to PAY for a special election. IF Sims did anything wrong, which he DID NOT, then why go through all of this effort to embarrass the city and not follow through with all of the threats and attacks? Mr. Kleiman! You are a hypocrite and a liar...
To Commissioner Sims, if you read this, MAZEL TOV!
Posted by: gosims | May 30, 2008 11:09 AM
For another view of this despicable attempt to circumvent the legal if not the right way to deal with this please view http://coopercityinsider.blogspot.com .
Posted by: CC Insider | May 30, 2008 11:11 AM
It failed because it was based upon a false premise. The lie told by the supporters had traction in Embassy Lakes Cabal only. The majority of residents in the rest of Cooper City relied upon the law enforcement people
to determine if a crime had been committed not a group of religious fantanics whipped into a mob by the lies and half truths feed to them by the likes of Debby Eisinger, Lori Green and 'Former' Commissioner Kleiman, who was voted out by the electorate due to his indiscretions (drinking on the job) which were readily visible on video tape. The resident with good common sense smelled the foul oder of deceit on this one. Particularly when he told a candidate for city commission recently that this was 'payback' for Sims allegedly being involved in the law and disorder scandal, which he was not...
Posted by: No way | May 30, 2008 11:14 AM
They did NOT get hardly any signatures! This is Bull S***! Elliot Klieman is a LIAR! They did this simply as payback to Sims for the Law & Disorder drinking debacle...and he wasn't even involved!
Former ousted Commissioner Kleiman told many people that this was 'payback' on many occassions. Too bad our Mayor Debby Eisinger got involved and was on the recall committee.
In regards to the Recall effort by The Recall Committee, Elliot Kleiman, Lori Green and Mayor Debby Eisinger,
The actions of the Recall Committee should be very troubling to everyone in Broward county. I don't agree with the tactics that were used against Sims by the Recall Committee, Elliot Kleiman, Lori Green, Greg Ross and Debby Eisinger among many others.
The recall effort was nothing short of frivolous and it was
deceitful just to get signatures. This was just one of many tactics designed to continue to discredit Sims through character assassination because the recall committee doesn't like what he has to say, nor do they like free speech outside of the commission chamber's walls, much less inside, and we all must admonish these political and morally reprehensible tactics. Yes, Judy Stern!
It was alright for the Mayor to allow ‘free speech’ and personal attacks against her opposition up until election time, and then afterwards it was again permitted by her cronies.
Sims was falsely accused of Anti-Semitism by the Mayor and Elliot Kleiman. He was slandered and defamed by them. They created this conspiracy. I hope Sims will seek justice and unfortunately, the citizens of Cooper City will have to pay dearly for that.
If reports in this piece of sh*it paper are to be believed, then we must all admonish those who created this debacle which has been nothing short of disgraceful.
This in and of itself is concerning. Although no crime was committed by Sims or by the actual perpetrators of the so-called 'hate blog' of which Sims was falsely accused of creating, one of the basic tenants of American law is that you have the right to know who your accuser is, and that you are indeed innocent until proven guilty.
These are all true statements. I know, I was part of the inside group that promoted the recall...
Posted by: No Recall | May 30, 2008 11:15 AM
Now that it is over, they should re-group and hang on a good drunk (at the taxpayers expense of course) and go back to work or whatever it is that they do!
Posted by: Chang | May 30, 2008 11:16 AM
Recall the Recall.
It has ended. Not to be left hanging the perps have one last message (read lie) to attempt to feed us. The recall is being withdrawn. Yes, that is what we are being asked to believe.
First, let’s really look at some of the facts of the petition withdrawal. We are being asked to view this petition process as one of benevolence. The process is being halted as it would cost Cooper City $110,000 to continue. The figure head leader of the effort had been the former commissioner Kleiman who had stated when he withdrew his support just a few weeks ago, that it appeared to him that the basis of the petition was in fact very weak and probably not founded on any real facts, only allegation or suggested supposition.
This is after a resident of Cooper City, the Rev. Bob Sands took Mr. Kleimen to task on the concept of hypocrisy.
We have it on very good authority that he then received a blistering phone call from the originator of the petition action, the infamous if not notorious Lori Green, campaign manager for Mayor Debby Eisinger and companion while both were seen walking of the streets of Embassy Lakes knocking on doors to obtain signatures as the petition drive lost its steam.
With that in my mind we are being asked to believe that it is the cost that is the primary consideration for the withdrawal.(Cooper City has at least $22 million in liquid assets. Based upon the last 5 commission meetings, the Mayor has a dummy on either side, ready, willing and quite able to approve any expenditure that she may desire.)
Secondly, the time frame of this process was well known to all who can read (including the lawyers leading the pack) and some of the time line discussion by the backroom manager Lori Green is really just a subterfuge.
It is simply verbal condiments added to the meal of a failed petition needed to feed the hunger mob at Embassy Lakes that so passionately drank the ‘Kool Aid’ of lies, half truths, slanderous and malicious attacks upon a Commissioner who did not follow in line as the previous group (Roper and Valenti, want another beer, brother) did in order to satisfy a political agenda of the power hunger and control freak Mayor of Cooper City, Debbie Eisinger.
Last, but by no means least, the truth that was being told by a few staunch supporters and ‘Thanks’ to a perceptive and thoughtful segment of the population of Cooper City who were able to see through the vitriolic rhetoric of the boisterous if not obnoxious Greg Ross, well known ambulance chaser of the more seedy Broward streets, the hypocritical commentary of (dismissed by the voters and discarded by the Mayor) commissioner Elliot Kleiman, and the tragically flawed arguments of the well meaning group of Embassy Lakes residents who had been sucked into the mob mentality without looking.
They had accepted on faith,(ponder the pun) the allegations as truth based upon a false propositions of bigotry and anti-Semitism, propagated and perpetuated by the real source of this disgusting misuse and betrayal of Judaism, Lori Green.
We, the nonjudgemental and concerned citizens, hope the lesson here is ‘Look and think before you accuse‘.
P.S. It is particularly note worthy that many unsolicited comments were made by the residents of this embattled city that we live in a country in which the process is 'one is innocent until proven guilty'.
Kudos to the residents of Cooper City whose common sense and decency
brought this horrendous nightmare to end.
Posted by: recall the recall | May 30, 2008 11:18 AM
Bravo for John Sims. Seemed like a witch hunt to me.
Posted by: No witches | May 30, 2008 11:19 AM
What do you expect from a senile old drunk (Kleiman) who never showed up at a commission meeting sober? And that Lori Green...They are the real Jew hatemongers!
Don't even get me started about Debby Eisinger and Judy Stern!!!!!! ARRGGHHHH!!!!
Posted by: no more | May 30, 2008 11:21 AM
I denounce Elliot Kleiman and his use of the Kiwanis name to promote the fake Recall Petition at Founder's Day at the Kiwanis Booth. I saw it on Channel 7 (WSVN) news and was appalled that the Kiwanis would sponsor such hate, libel, slander and defamation of a sitting outstanding Commissioner. Demand that Elliot be removed from his office and copy the TV news stations and newspapers.
Posted by: No Kiwanis | May 30, 2008 11:22 AM
Quote by a Recall Volunteer on Topix - "I saw the pages of signatures. They had not been approved by the elections dept, that I will give you all. Someone involved,told me in an election year, this effort would not be a priority to verify each signature which would take longer."
This is absolutely not true. The Clerk has merely a ministerial duty to either reject or accept the petition. If the petition was sufficient in regards to the number of signatures, the Supervisor of Elelctions MUST continue with the effort.
I read the Petition and as a matter of law that the grounds stated in the recall petition were insufficient to invoke the recall election. That is not for the Clerk to decide.
The reasons for recall whether true or false do not affect the proceeding. Their truth or sufficiency is not for determination by the Clerk.
The grounds for the action was contemplated to be something stronger than a belief or an idea; and the ones set out in the petition amounts to no more than either one of these.
The recall petition in no way apprised the Commissioner of the charges he would be expected to respond to were the recall election held, nor would any elector participating in such an election know what issues were intended to be drawn.
The recall petition constituted nothing more than the statement of a conclusion or opinion without any tangible basis in fact. No one reading it could tell what was in the recall committee's minds or, for that matter, whether they were of one mind or each had a different reason for setting the recall effort in motion.
The grounds in the petition did not sufficiently set forth a violation of some duty to the electorate which could be sufficiently identified for the electorate to determine the truth of falsity of the charges; nor did the grounds apprise the Commissioner of the charges he would be expected to meet were the recall election held. It constituted nothing more than a statement of conclusion or opinion.
The ground stated in the petition drastically failed to form a foundation for a recall.
Let us assume that the motive of each signer was of the loftiest character; we still have only an opinion. Let us suppose any issue where the sentiment of the community has been sharply divided, one segment feeling sincerely that a certain course would be "to the best interests of the citizens," the other feeling as strongly that an opposite course would be.
As soon as the Commissioner became allied with one group and exerted himself in their behalf, the opposing group could, doubtless conscientiously, swear that the official had engaged in activities inimical to the best interests of the citizens simply because they entertained the belief that the wrong group had been chosen or elected.
Sims has a property right in the office to which the people had elected him and he could not be forced into a recall election to determine whether he should be ousted, but a few months after entering his term, in the absence of a substantial compliance with the law prescribing the procedure for such drastic actions.
Because the petition failed utterly to form a foundation for the recall, the petition would have been enjoined by a court of law.
The Supreme Court has pointed out on several occasions that an officeholder has a property right in his office and that this right may not be unlawfully taken away or illegally infringed upon.
The law states that the petition under consideration absolutely imposes upon the city clerk or some other appropriate officer the duty of ascertaining whether the recall petition has been signed by the requisite number of qualified voters, no more and no less. Upon the certificate of such officer that a sufficient petition has been filed, the duty of the municipal council to call a special election is purely ministerial.
Clearly the City and the Supervisor of Elections cannot pass upon the sufficiency of charges contained in a recall petition. The Clerk and Supervisor has an interest and indeed a legal responsibility to see that a recall committee follows the proper procedures when a public official is so challenged and sought to be removed from office and that responsibility is strictly a ministerial one without any room for decision-making on their part.
There should be a real foundation for such a harsh test as a recall election, that the charge against an official sought to be recalled is related to the performance of his or her duties of his office, and that the grounds of the action should be something stronger than a belief or an idea.
The grounds as stated in the petition constituted nothing more than the statement of a conclusion or opinion without any tangible basis in fact.
Posted by: Recall Attorney | May 30, 2008 11:25 AM
So the lynching party is over, it's about time saner minds prevailed! Now the residents should question their Mayor, about the insider deal her and her hubby did with the Montera fiasco. That smells of a REAL CRIME!
Posted by: West Hollywood Dissident | May 30, 2008 11:33 AM
We will see how stupid Debby Eisinger, Elliot Kleiman, Greg Ross and Lori Green are when they are hauled off to jail for civil conspiracy. Commissioner Sims WILL prove the blog was not his in court. Just watch & wait. He will be a rich man at Cooper City taxpayer's expense when this is all over...
Posted by: Go Sims | May 30, 2008 11:35 AM
Cooper City recall effort abandoned
Posted by Anthony Man at 9:55 AM
Residents intent on removing John Sims from office because of anti-Semitic Web postings have dropped the recall effort, saying the city can't afford it.
The residents started the rare recall move against the city commissioner last month to hold him accountable for a now-defunct, controversial blog registered to him that posted anti-Semitic statements about Mayor Debbie Eisinger.
Elliot Kleiman, a recall committee organizer, said Wednesday the group collected more than the needed 1,900 signatures, or 10 percent of the city's registered voters. He said he could not provide the exact number of signatures because he stopped counting when they reached the required amount.
Kleiman said the group hoped to hold the recall in November to coincide with the presidential election, but the process would likely take longer and force Cooper City to conduct two special elections. Doing so would cost the city about $55,000 apiece, according to City Clerk Susan Bernard.
"Based on the economy and all the problems with city budgets, we just determined that it just wasn't worth it," Kleiman said.
In January, the Broward Sheriff's Office started looking for evidence leading to those responsible for anti-Semitic postings about the mayor on a now defunct blog. The Sheriff's Office considered the incident a hate crime. They have not charged Sims or anyone else with a crime and have suspended the investigation until they get more information.
Sims, 49, whose term ends in March 2010, has said he had nothing to do with the Eisinger postings. He said Wednesday he thought the recall petition "was a big joke."
"I wanted to take them to court and show what a frivolous recall it was," Sims said.
-- Staff Writer Elizabeth Baier
THE TRUTH:
Let's get this straight!
There were NO anti-semitic comments on the blog that Lori Green created !
There was NO hate crime committed on the blog that Lori Green created !
There were only ALLEGATIONS of hate and anti-simitism against Comm. Sims !
There was no PROOF of Sims being involved per the BSO Police !
The petition was not legally sufficient to sustain the charges which were so vague and uncertain that Commissioner Sims could have no conception of the particular act or acts which substantially related to the alleged cause(s) of removal from office and would not have been able to eve formulate a response. Therefore, the baseless allegations contained in the Petition for Recall could not constitute malfeasance, misfeasance or neglect of duty. The legal requirements were not met where the statement(s) in the petition were nothing more than conclusions or opinions without any tangible basis of facts. There was absolutely no truth, factual allegations nor justification to any of the false charges levied against Commissioner Sims by the Recall Committee (Yes, that Committee includes EVERYONE who signed it) by an ex-Commissioner who rarely showed up sober for a Commission meeting.
I am glad the majority of voters showed support for Commissioner Sims' dedicated service to the community by not signing the ridiculous petition.
The lie told by the Green's and Esiinger's wasted alot of Elliot Kleiman's time and money...
Posted by: morons | May 30, 2008 11:00 AM
I don't believe the recall committee got the required number of signatures. Shredding the list seems to be the best evidence that they didn't get the signatures. This mean-spirited group of peabrains would have moved forward had they had the signatures. Heck, only 2 weeks ago Eliott was up at the podium at the last commission meeting doing his recall rant. If they had the signatures, they would have moved forward. What a bunch of losers.
Also, Elliot told me they didn't have even half of the signatures required as of last Saturday. There is no way in HE!! that they got over 1,000 signatures on Memorial Day weekend. You are a liar Recall Elliot. He told me that he did not have the signatures. Sounds like Judy Stern/Debby Eisinger spin to me to save face. Elliot also told me that more than half of the people said they didn't care about his stupid recall and the other half called him a sore loser (and a senile old drunk). Even people on the recall committee told me that they didn't get all of the signatures.
If they did, prove it, don't shread them. You can't tell me they shredded all of the signatures...for what? I can assure you that if you did indeed get enought sigs, that you all would have pressed forward. Since when did Elliot care about spending money? You are all a bunch of liars. The recall was a big lie. The blog posting accusing Sims was not a hate crime, nor was it anti-semitism and was all a big lie.
What improper things has SIms done, please tell us in detail, because it certainly wasn't spelled out in the fake petition. They were nothing but false allegations with no facts whatsoever. BSO did NOT find that he owned the blog. They said, and I quote "The blog was REGISTERED to Sims". How about I 'register' a blog under Elliot, yours or Debby's name and start bashing Christians? What would happen then when the tables are turned? Sims will indeed prove he was not involved and win his lawsuit. You people are all ignorant and the scum sentinel is biased...
Thank God Sims is in office.
Posted by: Elliotsux | May 30, 2008 11:04 AM
Thank You, Lori Green, Debbie Eisinger, Greg Ross, Elliot Kleiman and many others including those who signed the petition. You have done more to embrass Cooper City than anything
John Sims allegely did. Your lies, half truths and malicious political attacks have not done anything more than to make Cooper City the laughing stock of Broward County.
If you had real cause to recall the effort would have successed with the support of the decent citizens of Cooper City not the loud mouth hatemongers.
Posted by: I hate CC | May 30, 2008 11:07 AM
This whole thing, and their statement makes absolutely no sense to me. IF Sims were even involved and if he or anyone else had committed a crime, the Governor would have removed him or there would be charges filed. Cooper City would STILL have to PAY for a special election. IF Sims did anything wrong, which he DID NOT, then why go through all of this effort to embarrass the city and not follow through with all of the threats and attacks? Mr. Kleiman! You are a hypocrite and a liar...
To Commissioner Sims, if you read this, MAZEL TOV!
Posted by: gosims | May 30, 2008 11:09 AM
For another view of this despicable attempt to circumvent the legal if not the right way to deal with this please view http://coopercityinsider.blogspot.com .
Posted by: CC Insider | May 30, 2008 11:11 AM
It failed because it was based upon a false premise. The lie told by the supporters had traction in Embassy Lakes Cabal only. The majority of residents in the rest of Cooper City relied upon the law enforcement people
to determine if a crime had been committed not a group of religious fantanics whipped into a mob by the lies and half truths feed to them by the likes of Debby Eisinger, Lori Green and 'Former' Commissioner Kleiman, who was voted out by the electorate due to his indiscretions (drinking on the job) which were readily visible on video tape. The resident with good common sense smelled the foul oder of deceit on this one. Particularly when he told a candidate for city commission recently that this was 'payback' for Sims allegedly being involved in the law and disorder scandal, which he was not...
Posted by: No way | May 30, 2008 11:14 AM
They did NOT get hardly any signatures! This is Bull S***! Elliot Klieman is a LIAR! They did this simply as payback to Sims for the Law & Disorder drinking debacle...and he wasn't even involved!
Former ousted Commissioner Kleiman told many people that this was 'payback' on many occassions. Too bad our Mayor Debby Eisinger got involved and was on the recall committee.
In regards to the Recall effort by The Recall Committee, Elliot Kleiman, Lori Green and Mayor Debby Eisinger,
The actions of the Recall Committee should be very troubling to everyone in Broward county. I don't agree with the tactics that were used against Sims by the Recall Committee, Elliot Kleiman, Lori Green, Greg Ross and Debby Eisinger among many others.
The recall effort was nothing short of frivolous and it was
deceitful just to get signatures. This was just one of many tactics designed to continue to discredit Sims through character assassination because the recall committee doesn't like what he has to say, nor do they like free speech outside of the commission chamber's walls, much less inside, and we all must admonish these political and morally reprehensible tactics. Yes, Judy Stern!
It was alright for the Mayor to allow ‘free speech’ and personal attacks against her opposition up until election time, and then afterwards it was again permitted by her cronies.
Sims was falsely accused of Anti-Semitism by the Mayor and Elliot Kleiman. He was slandered and defamed by them. They created this conspiracy. I hope Sims will seek justice and unfortunately, the citizens of Cooper City will have to pay dearly for that.
If reports in this piece of sh*it paper are to be believed, then we must all admonish those who created this debacle which has been nothing short of disgraceful.
This in and of itself is concerning. Although no crime was committed by Sims or by the actual perpetrators of the so-called 'hate blog' of which Sims was falsely accused of creating, one of the basic tenants of American law is that you have the right to know who your accuser is, and that you are indeed innocent until proven guilty.
These are all true statements. I know, I was part of the inside group that promoted the recall...
Posted by: No Recall | May 30, 2008 11:15 AM
Now that it is over, they should re-group and hang on a good drunk (at the taxpayers expense of course) and go back to work or whatever it is that they do!
Posted by: Chang | May 30, 2008 11:16 AM
Recall the Recall.
It has ended. Not to be left hanging the perps have one last message (read lie) to attempt to feed us. The recall is being withdrawn. Yes, that is what we are being asked to believe.
First, let’s really look at some of the facts of the petition withdrawal. We are being asked to view this petition process as one of benevolence. The process is being halted as it would cost Cooper City $110,000 to continue. The figure head leader of the effort had been the former commissioner Kleiman who had stated when he withdrew his support just a few weeks ago, that it appeared to him that the basis of the petition was in fact very weak and probably not founded on any real facts, only allegation or suggested supposition.
This is after a resident of Cooper City, the Rev. Bob Sands took Mr. Kleimen to task on the concept of hypocrisy.
We have it on very good authority that he then received a blistering phone call from the originator of the petition action, the infamous if not notorious Lori Green, campaign manager for Mayor Debby Eisinger and companion while both were seen walking of the streets of Embassy Lakes knocking on doors to obtain signatures as the petition drive lost its steam.
With that in my mind we are being asked to believe that it is the cost that is the primary consideration for the withdrawal.(Cooper City has at least $22 million in liquid assets. Based upon the last 5 commission meetings, the Mayor has a dummy on either side, ready, willing and quite able to approve any expenditure that she may desire.)
Secondly, the time frame of this process was well known to all who can read (including the lawyers leading the pack) and some of the time line discussion by the backroom manager Lori Green is really just a subterfuge.
It is simply verbal condiments added to the meal of a failed petition needed to feed the hunger mob at Embassy Lakes that so passionately drank the ‘Kool Aid’ of lies, half truths, slanderous and malicious attacks upon a Commissioner who did not follow in line as the previous group (Roper and Valenti, want another beer, brother) did in order to satisfy a political agenda of the power hunger and control freak Mayor of Cooper City, Debbie Eisinger.
Last, but by no means least, the truth that was being told by a few staunch supporters and ‘Thanks’ to a perceptive and thoughtful segment of the population of Cooper City who were able to see through the vitriolic rhetoric of the boisterous if not obnoxious Greg Ross, well known ambulance chaser of the more seedy Broward streets, the hypocritical commentary of (dismissed by the voters and discarded by the Mayor) commissioner Elliot Kleiman, and the tragically flawed arguments of the well meaning group of Embassy Lakes residents who had been sucked into the mob mentality without looking.
They had accepted on faith,(ponder the pun) the allegations as truth based upon a false propositions of bigotry and anti-Semitism, propagated and perpetuated by the real source of this disgusting misuse and betrayal of Judaism, Lori Green.
We, the nonjudgemental and concerned citizens, hope the lesson here is ‘Look and think before you accuse‘.
P.S. It is particularly note worthy that many unsolicited comments were made by the residents of this embattled city that we live in a country in which the process is 'one is innocent until proven guilty'.
Kudos to the residents of Cooper City whose common sense and decency
brought this horrendous nightmare to end.
Posted by: recall the recall | May 30, 2008 11:18 AM
Bravo for John Sims. Seemed like a witch hunt to me.
Posted by: No witches | May 30, 2008 11:19 AM
What do you expect from a senile old drunk (Kleiman) who never showed up at a commission meeting sober? And that Lori Green...They are the real Jew hatemongers!
Don't even get me started about Debby Eisinger and Judy Stern!!!!!! ARRGGHHHH!!!!
Posted by: no more | May 30, 2008 11:21 AM
I denounce Elliot Kleiman and his use of the Kiwanis name to promote the fake Recall Petition at Founder's Day at the Kiwanis Booth. I saw it on Channel 7 (WSVN) news and was appalled that the Kiwanis would sponsor such hate, libel, slander and defamation of a sitting outstanding Commissioner. Demand that Elliot be removed from his office and copy the TV news stations and newspapers.
Posted by: No Kiwanis | May 30, 2008 11:22 AM
Quote by a Recall Volunteer on Topix - "I saw the pages of signatures. They had not been approved by the elections dept, that I will give you all. Someone involved,told me in an election year, this effort would not be a priority to verify each signature which would take longer."
This is absolutely not true. The Clerk has merely a ministerial duty to either reject or accept the petition. If the petition was sufficient in regards to the number of signatures, the Supervisor of Elelctions MUST continue with the effort.
I read the Petition and as a matter of law that the grounds stated in the recall petition were insufficient to invoke the recall election. That is not for the Clerk to decide.
The reasons for recall whether true or false do not affect the proceeding. Their truth or sufficiency is not for determination by the Clerk.
The grounds for the action was contemplated to be something stronger than a belief or an idea; and the ones set out in the petition amounts to no more than either one of these.
The recall petition in no way apprised the Commissioner of the charges he would be expected to respond to were the recall election held, nor would any elector participating in such an election know what issues were intended to be drawn.
The recall petition constituted nothing more than the statement of a conclusion or opinion without any tangible basis in fact. No one reading it could tell what was in the recall committee's minds or, for that matter, whether they were of one mind or each had a different reason for setting the recall effort in motion.
The grounds in the petition did not sufficiently set forth a violation of some duty to the electorate which could be sufficiently identified for the electorate to determine the truth of falsity of the charges; nor did the grounds apprise the Commissioner of the charges he would be expected to meet were the recall election held. It constituted nothing more than a statement of conclusion or opinion.
The ground stated in the petition drastically failed to form a foundation for a recall.
Let us assume that the motive of each signer was of the loftiest character; we still have only an opinion. Let us suppose any issue where the sentiment of the community has been sharply divided, one segment feeling sincerely that a certain course would be "to the best interests of the citizens," the other feeling as strongly that an opposite course would be.
As soon as the Commissioner became allied with one group and exerted himself in their behalf, the opposing group could, doubtless conscientiously, swear that the official had engaged in activities inimical to the best interests of the citizens simply because they entertained the belief that the wrong group had been chosen or elected.
Sims has a property right in the office to which the people had elected him and he could not be forced into a recall election to determine whether he should be ousted, but a few months after entering his term, in the absence of a substantial compliance with the law prescribing the procedure for such drastic actions.
Because the petition failed utterly to form a foundation for the recall, the petition would have been enjoined by a court of law.
The Supreme Court has pointed out on several occasions that an officeholder has a property right in his office and that this right may not be unlawfully taken away or illegally infringed upon.
The law states that the petition under consideration absolutely imposes upon the city clerk or some other appropriate officer the duty of ascertaining whether the recall petition has been signed by the requisite number of qualified voters, no more and no less. Upon the certificate of such officer that a sufficient petition has been filed, the duty of the municipal council to call a special election is purely ministerial.
Clearly the City and the Supervisor of Elections cannot pass upon the sufficiency of charges contained in a recall petition. The Clerk and Supervisor has an interest and indeed a legal responsibility to see that a recall committee follows the proper procedures when a public official is so challenged and sought to be removed from office and that responsibility is strictly a ministerial one without any room for decision-making on their part.
There should be a real foundation for such a harsh test as a recall election, that the charge against an official sought to be recalled is related to the performance of his or her duties of his office, and that the grounds of the action should be something stronger than a belief or an idea.
The grounds as stated in the petition constituted nothing more than the statement of a conclusion or opinion without any tangible basis in fact.
Posted by: Recall Attorney | May 30, 2008 11:25 AM
So the lynching party is over, it's about time saner minds prevailed! Now the residents should question their Mayor, about the insider deal her and her hubby did with the Montera fiasco. That smells of a REAL CRIME!
Posted by: West Hollywood Dissident | May 30, 2008 11:33 AM
We will see how stupid Debby Eisinger, Elliot Kleiman, Greg Ross and Lori Green are when they are hauled off to jail for civil conspiracy. Commissioner Sims WILL prove the blog was not his in court. Just watch & wait. He will be a rich man at Cooper City taxpayer's expense when this is all over...
Posted by: Go Sims | May 30, 2008 11:35 AM
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.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Kudos to the Editor of Davie & Ranches Magazine
We were provide an e-mail that we thought worthy of your viewing.
It represents a position of a true patriot.
Thank You,
Jared Blaut
Owner/Editor
Davie & The Ranches Magazine
"Forgive me for stating this last part "publicly," but I feel it must be addressed. There has been some controversy surrounding anti-Semetic campaign activities which, depending on who you ask, were either perpetrated with Mr. Sims' knowledge, or were the result of anti-Sims opponents hacking into a website. Some have asked whether we would continue to run Mr. Sims' articles in light of this.
It's been the toughest one-person jury situation I've faced with the magazine. I'm Jewish, and find baseless hatred directed towards anyone, particularly for political gain, repulsive. but I'm also American, and in this country we are supposed to presume innocence unless proven guilty. And to date Mr. Sims hasn't even been charged with a crime, much less been found guilty of one. There are others in our area who have in the past been accused of unfortunate behavior, and most certainly they asked for the evidence (such as it was) to be carefully considered. It is POSSIBLE that Mr. Sims approved of the anti-Semitic acts, but it is also POSSIBLE that he did not and that others are to blame. He states on his website: "The anti-Semitic comments and illustrations were not authored by me, and I vehemently condemn any such act or participation in any such act, which depicts an affront to any member, or, any part of our civilized society." It is only American to give him the benefit of the doubt until such time there is definitive proof of guilt (should that time ever come). And so that is what I am going to do. All the best, -- "
Jared Blaut Owner/Editor
Davie & The Ranches Magazine (954) 384-9666 (o)
(954) 599-2617 (c)
(954) 206-0481 (f)
www.DavieAndTheRanches.com
DIRECT-MAILED TO 30,000 MONTHLY
It represents a position of a true patriot.
Thank You,
Jared Blaut
Owner/Editor
Davie & The Ranches Magazine
"Forgive me for stating this last part "publicly," but I feel it must be addressed. There has been some controversy surrounding anti-Semetic campaign activities which, depending on who you ask, were either perpetrated with Mr. Sims' knowledge, or were the result of anti-Sims opponents hacking into a website. Some have asked whether we would continue to run Mr. Sims' articles in light of this.
It's been the toughest one-person jury situation I've faced with the magazine. I'm Jewish, and find baseless hatred directed towards anyone, particularly for political gain, repulsive. but I'm also American, and in this country we are supposed to presume innocence unless proven guilty. And to date Mr. Sims hasn't even been charged with a crime, much less been found guilty of one. There are others in our area who have in the past been accused of unfortunate behavior, and most certainly they asked for the evidence (such as it was) to be carefully considered. It is POSSIBLE that Mr. Sims approved of the anti-Semitic acts, but it is also POSSIBLE that he did not and that others are to blame. He states on his website: "The anti-Semitic comments and illustrations were not authored by me, and I vehemently condemn any such act or participation in any such act, which depicts an affront to any member, or, any part of our civilized society." It is only American to give him the benefit of the doubt until such time there is definitive proof of guilt (should that time ever come). And so that is what I am going to do. All the best, -- "
Jared Blaut Owner/Editor
Davie & The Ranches Magazine (954) 384-9666 (o)
(954) 599-2617 (c)
(954) 206-0481 (f)
www.DavieAndTheRanches.com
DIRECT-MAILED TO 30,000 MONTHLY
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Talk about Turnabout
Recent Cooper City Commission meeting was a drama of Histroical portions. That is to say, we saw a turnabout for former Commission Elliott Kleiman, who now knows what it is to be denied the right to speak and be heard by the city commission. Subsequently, Elliot has become a strong advocate if not a harden dissent regarding the right to free speech. He feels so strongly about the First Amendment rights that he posted the following on his website. As he is absolutely right on
we feel it is only fitting that the First Amndment review he offerred should be shown.
(more on this subject will follow.)
The following is from the website -->Wex The Legal Information Institute (LII) is a research and electronic publishing activity of the Cornell Law School. Popular collections include: the U.S. Code, Supreme Court opinions, and Law about.
First amendmentent: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
[Thank You Elliot]
As always your comments are welcomed. Remember, no foul language or salacious commentary.
we feel it is only fitting that the First Amndment review he offerred should be shown.
(more on this subject will follow.)
The following is from the website -->Wex The Legal Information Institute (LII) is a research and electronic publishing activity of the Cornell Law School. Popular collections include: the U.S. Code, Supreme Court opinions, and Law about.
First amendmentent: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
[Thank You Elliot]
As always your comments are welcomed. Remember, no foul language or salacious commentary.
Monday, May 12, 2008
The E-Mail Battle of Truth
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)