Sailfish City - Stuart Florida Community Site

The Martin County

  Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 77

The frozen-out Republicans

HALF OF THE COUNTY’S REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE PARTY’S INSIDE DECISION MAKING

About half of all Martin County registered voters are Republicans. Though they may differ on the details, they generally favor business support, environmental protection and limited spending. However, based on the District 1 and 5 Primary Elections, about half of those Republicans favor more restrictive development, greater protection of neighborhoods, and opposition to Comp Plan amendments designed to accelerate growth. Those are the Republicans who are finding an increasingly unwelcome reception by the other half - sometimes subtle, often brazen - in the party’s inner councils.

Let’s be more specific about those inner councils. Within the party, there are such influential groups as the Republican Executive Committee, the Council of 100, and the Republican Club of Martin County. Many of the financiers and foot soldiers come from such organizations as the Chambers of Commerce, Economic Council, and Future Group. Speak up in some of these groups as being in favor of rescinding the Valliere Amendment, or increasing impact fees, or not extending public utilities beyond the primary Urban Service boundary, or keeping giant warehouses from looming over homes – to take a few of many examples – and you are likely to be treated like the proverbial skunk at the garden party.

With new Democratic voter registration outstripping that of Republicans, this exclusionary sentiment does not bode well for the Republican Party in the years ahead. And that is a shame because the basic Republican philosophy has so much merit. A bigger political tent is needed, not a smaller one. We don’t need reformers to be mislabeled “not real Republicans” by insiders in control.

The long term solution is balance, compromise and working out differences between opposing views. Both sides need to welcome each other in their inner councils. The short term solution is to send a strong message to those now at the top of the Republican power structure that money from Big Sugar, the growth machine and its allies can not buy our votes.

About half of voting residents in the recent Republican primary voted for quality-of-life candidates Henry Copeland, Ian Pollack and John Born. They – and independents who did not get the opportunity to do so – can make sure their voices are heard by voting for two long term active Republicans running without party blessing: Joan Wilcox (District 1) and John Patteson (District 5). And for those Democrats willing to support the best qualified candidates, irrespective of party affiliation, Wilcox and Patteson should be appealing.

This is the year of national Republican maverick reformers who stood up to the old establishment to improve the party. It can happen in Martin County as well.

BLIND LOYALTY DEPARTMENT

“We do still support Tim Mahoney” - Pat Emmert, President, 

Palm Beach-Treasure Coast AFL-CIO

Undecided voters really aren’t

A recent issue of Science carried a research report that people who think they are undecided about an issue often have made up their mind at an unconscious level. Using a computer-based psychological tool called the “implicit association test,” the researchers were able to predict with a high degree of accuracy whether study participants who sincerely considered themselves undecided would later be for or against a candidate or political viewpoint.

Participants were asked to respond as quickly as possible to word and picture cues by pressing a negative or positive key as directed. The reaction time difference between groups was small, about 100 to 200 milliseconds. However, the delay was long enough to predict their eventual positions.

+++++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.

Al

Al Forman, Editor                                  10/25/08

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica,

. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE:  All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

--
  Al Forman
  mc_defender@fastmail.net

The Martin County

  Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 66

Stuart News screws up – again

ENDORSEMENTS REFLECT SHORT-SIGHTED BIAS

The Stuart News is a remarkable newspaper. Some may consider it a touch schizoid. Normally it sails along in the finest tradition of journalism, not only presenting excellent news reports, but also opening its pages and blog to a wide array of different viewpoints. We are fortunate to have a local daily that allows its severe critics to use its pages to lambaste the paper itself. Bravo!

However, when it comes to endorsing political candidates, an unhealthy different personality emerges. The interviews with candidates, and an examination of their records, seem to mean nothing. The editorial board’s mind is apparently already made up, coinciding with the views of some private organizations that work for the selfish interests of their members.

Some residents claim that the endorsements reflect the financial self-interest agenda of the News. That is, faster growth candidates will convert to more readers and more advertising dollars. I don’t think so. I think it’s simply their sincere but misguided adoption of the inverted and discredited old view: What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.

Endorsements for Districts 1 & 5 prove the point

First came the endorsement for Commission District 1. The paper made it possible for readers to view online the interviews of Republicans Doug Smith and Henry Copeland. The contrast between the two was striking.  More important than coming in late for the interview and some bad slouching body language, Smith’s answers were often mumbled, vague or evasive. Copeland’s replies were clear, constructive and insightful. So, to further its business organization agenda, the News endorsed Smith!

Hard on the heels of that fiasco, their editorial board considered the four Republican candidates in District 5. There were three good candidates truly concerned with the quality of life in the county, men who had spoken up publicly for some time on key issues. I think Ian Pollack had done so most effectively and for the longest time. A fourth Republican candidate, Ed Ciampi, thinks that our river and estuary are “pristine,” not surprising from someone who is a big booster of Big Sugar. Ciampi supports rural clustering. His views, ranging from angry to vague, did apparently have one over-riding saving grace for the editorial board: They parrot the positions of some business organizations. So on the very day that a reader guest column stated “I would hope that the paper’s endorsement for the District 5 race is not a foregone conclusion,” the News showed it was indeed a foregone conclusion. It endorsed Ciampi.

In the interest of honest communication, I urge the editors to post the following notice outside its interview room when speaking to Commission candidates opposing fast growth changes to the Comp Plan:

***
IF YOU HAVE NOT ADOPTED THE POSITIONS OF THE

ECONOMIC COUNCIL AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

DO NOT WASTE OUR TIME TRYING TO PERSUADE

THE NEWS EDITORS TO ENDORSE YOU!

***

However, when the question is not local fast growth, but rather understanding of other issues, sanity returns to the editorial board. For example, with the News Democratic endorsement for state rep District 81, the paper wisely endorsed Bill Ramos over his opponent who is flush with an $89,786 bankroll - hardly any of the contributions from Martin County.

The Commission gift to developers is  primed to explode in their faces

Would you like a gift with a bomb attached? That’s what two developers would get if they start pouring money into a system for utility water and sewer. The developments are outside the Primary Urban Services Boundary, and thus not consistent with the Comp Plan.

I hope that before supporters of Commissioners Smith, DiTerlizzi, Valliere and Weberman tell me that the Developer’s Elected Quartet knows what it’s doing, consider that it is not just my opinion. It is the conclusion of the Growth Management Department staff and the County Attorney.

County Attorney Steve Fry said: “If the Board were sued over this matter … I think the likelihood would be that we would not be successful.” HERE’S THE BOMB: “And any improvements done would be subject to a Pinecrest Lakes type remedy.” (For newcomers, a somewhat similar scenario of Commissioners ignoring the law some years ago led to tearing down a new, occupied apartment building under court order.)

Judge Larry Schack - we need you back here in Martin County!

Firefighter contract “giveback” a ripoff

COUNTY DIGS A DEEPER FINANCIAL HOLE AS COMMISSIONERS PANDER FOR UNION VOTES

NON-NEGOTIATED SWEETHEART DEAL GETS THUMBS DOWN FROM TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION

In 2006, the Commission signed an overly generous 3-year contract with the firefighters union (IAFF). Many of their non-managerial members earn over $100,000/yr. Recognizing that contract renewal next y ear would be tough in a budget cutting period, IAFF offered to forgo half of their 10% annual raise due in October 2008.

However, the strings attached to this supposed concession would eventually cost more than would be saved. The amended contract approved on August 5, 2008 by Commissioners Smith, Weberman, DiTerlizzi and Valliere, under the claim of public safety, would extend 5% annual increases to 2011 whether we have the money or not.

Furthermore, the base pay of, say a firefighter/paramedic that goes up to $85,370, is just a starting point. The overtime, bonuses and retirement boost it considerably. And there are numerous “plus-ups,” 5% more for becoming a field training officer, 10% more for a promotion, and so on.

The Martin County Taxpayers Association has strongly urged against acceptance of this union initiative. To quote some highlights of their report:

“Not only are these [IAFF] policies unsustainable for their 290+ personnel, they cause serious management problems for all County supervisors …The Sheriff had to reduce his staff by 36 to meet his reduced budget for 2009 …this agreement also mandates hiring 9 more Fire/EMS personnel, 2 more administrative employees, buying new equipment. This severely reduces even the short-term gain from the ‘give-back’ and will drastically increase longer-term cost.

“With a $25 million shortfall in County revenue, over 100 County employees laid off … why is this contract extension being negotiated in ‘executive session’? Why are additional management prerogatives being given away? The short answer to both is that our Commissioners insist on acting as the County’s negotiators during an election year - while they are running for office.”

Only Commissioner Sarah Heard had the sense of responsibility to all Martin residents to vote against this Sweetheart Deal.

Random Musings …..

….. Even a little wit or humor in the political fray is welcome. At the Palm City forum for District 1 Commission candidates, Doug Smith did not show up. Well, it does take courage to be in front of an audience that is not your cheering squad. Henry Copeland put his hand on the chair reserved for Smith, and said with an impish grin: “I’m going to take his seat.” Good laugh from the crowd.

….. At that same forum, one candidate was off on a rousing I’ll-do-this, and believe-me-I’ll-do-that yada-yada harangue. He may have thought he was presenting as a powerful advocate. One observer quipped that he sounded like that pitchman in the TV commercial. Ah, if only we could see ourselves as others see us.

….. In Doug Smith’s TV commercial, he takes credit for slow growth in Martin County. Considering his slavish obeisance to developer proposals, I was perplexed for a moment by this nervy claim. Then, as a fan of SpongeBob, I realized that today must be Opposite Day.

….. Defender No. 63 exposed verbatim statements made in a closed door Commission Executive Session. Commissioner Weberman is very unhappy that such meetings are not kept secret forever, instead of just until the matter at hand is settled. Yep, it’s that #@$%*& Sunshine Law that lets citizens compare what is said privately with what is said publicly. (For the etymologically inclined, the #@$%*& cartoon substitute for cussing is called a grawlix.)

• NO MORE 2004

+++++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mc-defender@comcast.net

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.

Al

Al Forman, Editor                                  8/7/08

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE:  All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County

  Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 64

$$$$$ for commission candidates involved in primary races

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION / (-EXPENDITURE) TOTALS AS OF 7/18/08

District 1

Doug Smith (R) -  $108,191 / (-$55,217)

Henry Copeland (R) -  $49,962 / (-$15,955)

Tom Fullman (D) -  $5,727 / (-$3,634)

Eric Brent (D) -  $4,590 / (-$4,516)

District 3

Lee Weberman (R) -  $101,505 / (-$70,127)

Patrick Hayes (R) -  $16,550 / (-$6,698)

District 5

Ian Pollack (R) -  $51,510 / (-$11,631)

Edward Ciampi (R) -  $47,129 / (-$23,191)

John Born (R) -  $6,700 / (-$7,887)

John Hockey (R) -  $5,314 / (-$13,055)

[Editor's Personal Note to Pollack, Born and Hockey:  You are all wise enough to know that your campaign can not be won with only a pittance of funding. It's fine to present your positions in person at forums, but it takes money to reach the 49,000 other Republican voters not in attendance. Since so many of your views are similar - especially preventing western rural lands from being spotted dark with cluster housing - it would be heroic for you to support, for the good of the county, one candidate capable of winning.]

Analysis of largest campaign treasuries

Are developer-related interests trying to buy the election? Let’s examine the make-up of the contributions. The numbers will speak for themselves.

Doug Smith in District 1 had 388 contributors, of which 38% gave the maximum allowed of $500, 25% gave $200 to $499, and 37% gave under $200. Of the $500 donors, at least 44% were developer or real estate related. This includes such occupational titles as contractor, realtor, property management, land planner, architect, etc. Undoubtedly the number actually development-connected is higher, but it is not possible to determine by title alone if, say, an attorney or investor is deeply involved in development. Most of the $55,217 paid out is for forthcoming newspaper and direct mail ads.

Lee Weberman in District 3 had 295 contributors, of which 53% gave the maximum allowed of $500, 28% gave $200 to $499, and only 19% gave under $200. Of the $500 donors, at least 42% were developer or real estate related. This includes such occupational titles as contractor, realtor, property management, land planner, architect, etc. Undoubtedly the number actually development-connected is higher. Most of the $70,127 paid out is for a big TV ad campaign later.

Ian Pollack in District 5 had 231 contributors, of which 27% gave $500, 21% gave $200 to $499, and a majority of 52% gave under $200. None of the $500 donors had a recognizable connection with development.

Henry Copeland in District 1 had 237 contributors, of which 26% gave $500, 22% gave $200 to $499, and a majority of 52% gave under $200. None of the $500 donors had a recognizable connection with development.

Edward Ciampi in District 5 had 195 contributors, of which 38% gave the maximum allowed of $500, 14% gave $200 to $499, and 48% gave under $200. Of the $500 donors, at least 12% were developer or real estate related.

Rating the Stuart News

THEY GET MOSTLY “A”, BUT ONE DISAPPOINTING “F”

Diverse Views: Few newspapers present as wide a range of viewpoints as the News. There is hardly a belief or attitude that you can not find in the columns (including staff columnists), letters and online blog. Rating A.  Wide scope of online election content also earns an A.

Reader Access:  The thoughtful and the idiotic all get a chance to express themselves in print and online. The News is almost unique here in the number of reader guest columns they run, covering many important topics. Rating A.

Political Endorsements: This is less than perfect. The News picks up an easy A when it endorses someone like Laurel Kelly, who has been doing a fine job as Tax Assessor for many years. The News also has been bold and wise in refusing to endorse either candidate when one may be only a little less-bad. Some party stalwarts may say you are obligated to endorse, but your primary obligation is to tell the truth. So another A for not endorsing either Eric Brent or Tom Fullman in District 1.

To show how fair they are, the editorial board even videotapes endorsement interviews, and shows them on their website. A reader should be able to see why the editorial board supports a candidate. That’s brave.

Unfortunately, in the case of the endorsement of District 1 Republican candidate Doug Smith, they let preconceived bias make their decision instead of the interview answers. Watch the video and compare Henry Copeland’s sharp, understandable replies with Smith’s vague mumbles, late arrival and disconcerting body language.

Any objective person watching the video clearly saw that it was Copeland who, by far, had a superior understanding of the issues, a clearer insight of what should be done, and a much better approach to making the Commission a more effective and responsive body. The News endorsement editorial almost implied as much.

It almost seems as if the criterion for endorsement requires adopting the business boosting positions held by the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Council. No fair. Some of the views of those organizations are excellent, but other positions would benefit their members primarily, and place burdens on residents. So Copeland didn’t pass that filter, and did not get the endorsement that his interview deserved. Endorsing Smith makes other more sensible endorsements less credible. Regrettable rating F.

STUART NEWS DISTRICT 1 REPUBLICAN POLL

The newspaper’s online poll of reader voting preference makes no claim to being scientific, but its results are interesting food for thought. As of July 25, 286 votes had been cast as follows for the candidates:

Henry Copeland - 58%

Doug Smith - 39%

Undecided - 1%

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Defender’s website is up and running, though still under construction. It contains an archive of all past issues. Attached to this Issue No. 64 is a copy of our  website Home Page in pdf format. It is worth saving because, in addition to the archive link, it has the links to 20 websites containing much useful information related to Martin County. (To open a pdf file, the very widely used Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed. Latest version 9 may be downloaded free at www.Adobe.com.)

+++++

• NO MORE 2004

+++++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:

mc-defender@comcast.net

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.

Al

Al Forman, Editor                                  7/28/08

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica,

. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE:  All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.

--

  Al Forman

  mc_defender@fastmail.net