Sailfish City - Stuart Florida Community Site

The Martin County 

  Defender 

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 78

NOV. 4, 2008 

COUNTY COMMISSION ELECTION 

Number of candidates: There were 14 initial ballot candidates for the three Commission slots (a write-in and a couple that dropped out early are not counted). 8 were Republicans, 4 Democrats, and 2 No Party Affiliation (NPA). 9 of the 14 were in contested Primary races. 8 of the 14 made it to the General Election - 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 2 NPA.

Congratulations …. and Condolences

We congratulate the successful Martin County Commission candidates – Doug Smith in District 1, Patrick Hayes in District 3, and Ed Ciampi in District 5 - on their election victories. The condolences we offer are, perhaps perversely, to the winners rather than the losers. This sympathy is a recognition of the tough job commissioners will face in these difficult economic times; the requirement that they spend the large amount of time necessary to learn the full implications of decisions they will make; and the paramount need for patience and understanding in dealing with citizens who feel passionately about our community. It’s a weighty obligation. 

Financial analysis of the election

Campaign expenditures: A total of about $765,000 was spent by all of the Primary and General campaigns, including an estimated $35,000 which has not yet been reported. This is a record amount, especially notable in this depressed economy. About 60% of the total was spent during contested primaries.

Not included in the $765,000 are substantial amounts spent by independent groups. For example, the Keep Martin Green committee spent $129,065 this year for various issues and candidate positions.

Biggest spenders: For the Primary and General Elections, Doug Smith is expected to have spent about $200,000, Ed Ciampi and Lee Weberman over $100,000 each, mostly from business/developer related sources. They have  claimed that such generous contributions will not affect their decisions on the Commission. These three alone accounted for more than half of the campaign expenditures by all 14 candidates. The median total campaign expenditure for the eight final candidates was $43,910. 

Money matters – but not always: In the District 3 Primary, incumbent Lee Weberman outspent fellow Republican challenger Patrick Hayes $108,305 to $25,489, but still lost. So if enough people are fed up with a candidate, even a 4-to-1 money advantage will not save him. But in all General Election Districts, it was the biggest spenders who won.            

Voting analysis of the election 

THERE IS NO SINGLE FACTOR THAT DETERMINES VICTORY.

The four factors that seem to determine who will win are:

– Running on the Republican ticket

– Spending the most money

– Having multiple opponents split the vote

- Being better known 

In District 1: Running on the Republican line, Doug Smith spent more money by far than his two opponents combined. As an eight-year incumbent, he is well known. Furthermore, those two opponents split the Preservationist or slow-growth electorate. Since there is no runoff thanks to the state law of several years ago, which one can call The Incumbent Protection Act, Smith was elected  by a plurality (49.29%), not a majority.

In District 3: Running on the Republican line, Patrick Hayes outspent his Democratic opponent, a lesser known political newcomer. 

In District 5: Running as the official Republican candidate, Ed Ciampi also spent far more than his opponents. 

This election underscores the importance of the Primary election. So much money was spent on it because it turns out to be the election.

Wrap-up 

Even with two new faces, the new Commission will have more or less the same composition as the previous one – 4-to-1 in support of Expansionist or faster-growth proposals. If Preservationists want to prevail, they will need a more unified leadership.

+++++

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                                  11/5/08

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

Behind the closed doors of a Commission “Executive Session”

TRANSCRIPT REVEALS THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE “BIOTECH BOONDOGLE”

Florida’s Sunshine Law (Statute 286.011) allows exemptions from the requirement that officials must meet openly in public. One such exemption permits Martin County commissioners to meet in private with County attorneys to obtain legal advice.

On Nov. 27, 2007, Commissioners Doug Smith, Lee Weberman, Michael DiTerlizzi, Susan Valliere and Sarah Heard met in executive session with County Administrator Duncan Ballantyne, County Attorney Stephen Frey, and Assistant County Attorney David Acton. Court reporter Deanne Morris prepared a verbatim transcript of this discussion, which was closed to the public.

The subject of the meeting was an amendment passed by the Commission and approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The focus was on highway interchange areas that had previously allowed for services just to transient motorists. The amendment provided for an overlay called the Exchange Oriented Research and Biotech (EORB) zone. In particular, the discussion centered around a legal challenge to the amendment filed by attorney Virginia Sherlock on behalf of Donna Melzer and (your editor) Al Forman.

Now that the commission has repealed their amendment to avoid having a judge or state agency repeal it for them, the 32-page transcript has become public record.

I initially spoke before the Commission against the EORB amendment when applicant Don Cuozzo of developer-planner Houston Cuozzo presented it. I did so because the amendment would set up an industrial spot zone far outside the Urban Service Boundary (USB), allowing risky biochemical manufacturing next to my residential community. This was reported in Defender Issue No. 4 of 4/5/07 in the article, “Case History – How commissioners and developers worked together to undermine the Comp Plan and foster industrial sprawl.”

I have woven my interpretive comments (in regular type) with those portions taken verbatim from the transcript and printed in underlined italics so readers can better understand the meaning of the transcript quotes below.

EORB ON SHAKY LEGAL GROUND

[ EDITOR’S NOTE: The EORB amendment was on shaky legal ground from the start, but the Commission majority plunged ahead with it. Because of our legal case, the Commission was facing a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who would rule on our complaint. The ALJ could, in effect, throw out the amendment if he found that Melzer and Forman were legally right and the Commission wrong.]

MR. ACTON: The existing plan has some inconsistencies which I’m sure – fairly sure the administration hearing officer will not look favorably on and therefore we face a very real possibility in this case of having the Department’s [DCA] determination reversed. In fact, when this becomes evident to the Department, they may be the ones who are telling us they’re going to back off on their in-compliance finding — So we have a problem in prevailing in this hearing.

COMMISSIONER DEFERENCE TO WHAT THE DEVELOPER-APPLICANT WANTS

COMMISSIONER WEBERMAN: Refresh my memory. Wasn’t this originally a privately submitted comp plan amendment? — Has the applicant themselves been briefed on these facts?

MR. ACTON: Yes, they have.

COMMISSIONER WEBERMAN: Okay. Is it appropriate to ask what their sense is or is not – should it just be our decision?

MR. FRY: Yes. And the applicant’s opinion was that the County shouldn’t settle, that they don’t want to have to wait for the comprehensive plan amendment in order to be able to proceed with the use of the property or the expressway oriented easement.

[EDITOR’S NOTE] Though EORB was a privately submitted application rather than a County proposal, the County paid $5,000 in taxpayer dollars to re-do the inadequate privately sponsored traffic study.]

MISUSE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN “REVIEW”

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The legal thinking goes something like this: The EORB amendment is screwed up, but we can accomplish the same goal for the developer by doing a work-around “review” to jiggle the Comp Plan.]

MR. ACTON: What I’ve outlined for you is why I don’t want to have a hearing in this case if we can. It creates problems we don’t need to address right now, especially since you are in the process administratively of going through the review of the comprehensive plan….So we have a mechanism for addressing the problem in the very near future.

COMMISSIONER FAVORS INDUSTRY OVER PREVENTING POLLUTION

COMMISSIONER DITERLIZZI: Mr. Forman is clearly on record as saying I [he] don’t want those polluting businesses in my backyard. I’m sorry. I have a little different philosophy as far as bringing industry to market.

ONE COMMISSIONER IS WILLING TO SETTLE

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Complainants Melzer and Forman offered a reasonable settlement that would end the dispute and protect all citizens. The Commission ended up killing the amendment rather than giving the public more influence.]

MR. FRY: I personally didn’t get the impression that the Board is interested in settling on the terms that were provided.

COMMISSIONER HEARD: For the record, I think that we should accept the settlement agreement. I think that you’re just going to find yourself in more hot water than you want to be in. But that’s your discretion.”

[EDITOR’S QUERY FOR READERS: Do these transcript excerpts suggest that the commission majority is looking out more for the interests of developers or the interests of residents?]

A candidate interview video worth watching

On July 10. 2008, the Stuart News editorial board conducted a lengthy two-part interview with District 1 Republican commission candidates Doug Smith and Henry Copeland. The relaxed, conversational interview brought out the abilities and differences of these two articulate men. The contrast was dramatic.

It was very evident that one of the two had a far 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. Irrespective of one’s political views, any reasonable person should recognize the significant difference between them, and conclude which would make a better commissioner. See for yourself. Go to:

http://www.tcpalm.com/videos/detail/martin-county-district-1-pt2/

Stuart News declines to endorse either Dem

It’s not very often that a newspaper refuses to endorse either of two candidates in a primary election, but that is what has happened in the District 1 County Commission race after the editors did research and conducted personal interviews.

On July 15, 2008, the Stuart News stated: “After meeting with Brent and Fullman, the editorial board of Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers has decided not to endorse either of the Democratic candidates in the District 1 primary. Neither Brent or Fullman appears to possess the qualities required of a commissioner …. Neither candidate, at this point, is qualified to hold a position of this magnitude.””

Thumbs up for the editorial board having the guts to tell it like it is.

Update on Consensus, Inc.

Following up our exposé of the inner workings of the Martin County Consensus, Inc. in Defender Issue No. 55, readers have inquired about what that group has been doing. The concise answer is: Not very much.

My last involvement with their meetings was the one held in the Blake Library’s John F. Armstrong Wing on Dec. 3, 2007. I arranged for the speaker and did most of the promotion. We had a full house, wall to wall audience.

In March 2008, Consensus, Inc. sponsored a lunch which – to use their words – was “at an undisclosed location … by invitation only.”

On July 14, 2008. they were back at the Blake’s 250-seat Armstrong Wing. Consensus, Inc. promoted the meeting and its speaker in the newspaper and elsewhere. Only about 50 attendees showed up.

This decline in both public event frequency and attendance have come about under the Consensus, Inc.’s exclusionary leadership: President Bill Summers and recently resigned Chairman Tom Fullman, and their self-appointed board.

+++++
•••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 7/19/08

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.
–
Al Forman
mc_defender@fastmail.net