|
 |
||
| Home | ||
| Venice Florida! dot com stories archive | ||
| ||||||||||||||||
|
Got a comment? Make it here. Related:
The $10 million bond referendum
While the projects seem worthy of deserving funding, the plain fact is that time and time again, funny things have been done with city money and Hunt has had his fingerprints on it all. Every time Hunt has been caught, he has managed to wriggle out of it by coming up with very creative explanations that don't fit the facts or he has just dug his heels in and not given any satisfactory explanation. Examples are numerous: the computer department embezzlement scheme of last year, wastewater supervisor Pat Wilson racking up personal phone call charges on her city cell phone and her attempt to use city funds to buy vanity signs at the treatment plant, all incidents that went largely unpunished. On a larger scale, the city spent $75,000 for legal expenses to defend the Venice Golf Association's lease against a charge from the FAA, who accused the city of diversion of revenue. Say it again slowly: diversion of revenue. Then there is the reinstatement of a fired worker due to a union arbitration agreement that will cost the city somewhere around $100,000 for two-and-a-half years worth of back pay, medical benefits and legal costs when all is said and done. Let's not forget the EPA criminal investigation into the city's wastewater department, a political and criminal nuclear bomb that could go off at any moment. There is more, much more actually, but you get the idea. What is totally amazing and mind-boggling is that both papers, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and the Venice Gondolier, have time and time again walked away from such stories without once saying "enough is enough -- Hunt has to go." The tolerance level for ineptitude and outright blatant dishonesty among the news and editorial writers is sky-high when it comes to Hunt and his shenanigans. With all of that in mind, it doesn't matter how many legal assurances we receive that the bond money will only go to the four listed causes. Time and time again, Hunt has shown little to no regard for legalities. This is, after all, Venice. We do things differently. Then there is the troublesome wording of the ballot itself. As council candidate Gary Anderson noted in the final public bond hearing sales pitch, the referendum refers to the beach property purchase as a very vaguely worded referendum to "expand and improve a municipal park." There's an awful lot of fudge room in that troublesome wording. Too much, in fact. If the Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant needs more upgrades (and there is every indication that it does, and badly), all that has to be done is to designate it as a park and voila: goodbye $2.5 million or more. While that is an admittedly extreme and unlikely example, don't be too quick to laugh. Poorly written contracts often end up as the centerpiece of civil court disputes for the very reason that they were poorly written. In Venice, we write a lot of poorly written legal documents and some have ended up in legal fiascos, mostly due to the fact that our city attorney has been left out of the loop in many contract negotiations. No matter how many legal assurances that council gives us now, this is a 25-year bond. Bond monies do get diverted. Take a look at what happened in council candidate John Simmonds' home town of Winter Haven on a $4 million bond that was issued in 1996. This $10 million bond referendum is a poorly written referendum that gives the city way too much latitude, so much latitude that we have no reason to believe that George Hunt will not try to exploit the weaknesses in the wording. Two things would have given us pause to seriously consider supporting the bond: tighter and more restrictive language in the referendum as it appears on the ballot, and the removal of George Hunt as city manager and the appointment of Marty Black. We believe that Black could be trusted with the administration of the funds, and if he were city manager, we likely would have advocated a yes vote even with the ambiguous wording of the referendum. But Hunt? Giving George Hunt access to $10 million is like giving a can of gasoline and a book of matches to an arsonist. Well, no, that's not entirely true: an arsonist will probably have some matches left over.
Council seat elections
Their answers to these key questions were a large factor in determining our endorsement. Additionally, we have met with each candidate informally along the campaign trail, and have gotten to know them fairly well. Rather than rehash their bio information, links to the candidate profiles from the Venice Gondolier Sun are included for further background on each candidate.
"City council runs this town as a government of the council, by the council and for the council." So states Gary A. Anderson, a political neophyte who is running for office on a candidacy based on moral outrage. Anderson's campaign has had more hiccups than any candidacy ought to have in such a short time and still survive, but survive so far he has. Short on political vision and cash, long on energy, Anderson is struggling to come to grips with a lot of the issues that Venice faces. "I don't have the answers, but I'm going to listen and I'm a fast learner. The city government hasn't reflected the will of the people -- it's what the citizens want that counts, all of them, not just the Good Ol' Boys." One thing that Anderson learned quickly and has made a core of his campaign: we need a change in city managers. While some of the rest of Anderson's campaign is short on substance, his stance on that issue alone is music written by Handel. The Gondolier has formally endorsed Anderson's opponent, stating "[Anderson is] what Texans call 'all hat and no cattle.' He has a lot of opinions, but we couldn't tell that they were based on anything other than armchair politicking he decided -- rather at the last minute -- to abandon." That's pretty much the same sentiment that was aimed at Martha Hanneman when she ran for council in 1999. Anderson couldn't contrast more if he tried from his old, old-school opponent, John Simmonds. At 80, Simmonds becomes the oldest non-incumbent candidate ever to run for a Venice council seat. "I'm running because in the next year, there will be five new council members and I'm going to be needed to help bring some stability to the council," Simmonds stated in one campaign stump stop. As near as we can figure, this means that Simmonds thinks he is the last and best hope of the council Good Ol' Boy status quo, somebody desperately needed to keep the flickering flame alive. A staunch and unwavering Hunt supporter, Simmonds has so far used every campaign opportunity to heap praises on the city manager in an almost religious and reverential tone, just as he has in the past (see the second half of this story). This endorsement decision is a no-brainer. Given Simmonds' history of support for Hunt, we probably would have endorsed Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy as opposition candidates. Neither ran. Anderson did, and while he isn't necessarily the best candidate that one could hope for in a race for Venice city council, the fact that he hasn't actually killed or eaten anyone is a major bonus. So... In the race for Venice City Council seat 3, we endorse Gary A. Anderson NOTE: Venice Florida! dot com has donated $25 to Anderson's campaign, and we offer to purchase a one-way bus ticket to Winter Haven for Simmonds.
Taylor gave a conditional NO in the question on George Hunt. Taylor stated that she was aware of the illegalities in the computer department that had been uncovered and that she was aware of Patricia 'Pat' Wilson's expensive use of a city cell phone for personal calls. She stated that those things should not be allowed to go unpunished. At the same time, she stated that not all the facts were in on Hunt's job performance. Taylor then stated that if Hunt continued to make decisions like the ones that allowed Randall and Wilson to get away with wrongdoing, then she would vote to remove him. Until then, she would allow him to remain in place. Taylor has easily been the most accessible candidate and will listen to any point of view with grace and respect. That is admirable and remarkably refreshing for a Venice city council candidate. Regrettably, she lacks a line-in-the-sand attitude towards Hunt and his tolerance for wrongdoing. In an attempt to be a mainstream candidate, she is willing to accept his past foibles and move past them. Exactly how much more wrongdoing would be allowed before she would take a stand against Hunt? A little? A lot? Equally troubling is Taylor's endorsement by and stated membership in the CQG, the same gang that has supported every current elected member of council and is known within its own ranks as the Good Ol' Boys. CQG members include an array of high-powered business and development interests, many of whom do not live within the city. Even so, for a CQG candidate to publicly acknowledge that corruption actually exists, well, that's an astounding break from the party line. Gelormino takes a stronger stand by boldly stating, "I've had enough of the current city council." He says it loudly and with a strong sense of conviction. As for Hunt, Gelormino believes it is well past time for him to go. And that, in the long run, is the main difference between the two candidates. Both have a history of community ties and activities, Gelormino in a long and impressive list of civic organization memberships and leadership positions, Taylor in a number of professional organizations and city committees. Both candidates have impressive resumes. Both have studied the issues. Both are incredibly passionate in their personal desire to serve. Both are intelligent, hard working, ethical and honorable. It's a darned shame that they both can't get elected, as these are easily the two best candidates out of the current pack of four. However, both can't serve; only one can. In the end, it's Gelormino's strong desire to clean up city hall now over Taylor's wait-and-see attitude that trips the weight over to Gelormino's side of the scale for us. In the race for Venice City Council seat 4, we endorse Mike Gelormino NOTE: Venice Florida! dot com has donated $25 to the campaigns of both Gelormino and Taylor.
*Anderson does
have a web site, several in fact, but none are related to his candidacy.
| |||||||||||||
|
Our stance on the bond issue is fairly simple. We don't
trust George Hunt. We certainly don't trust him with $10 million dollars.
