Gloucester, VA Woodville Park, What You Don't Know

We are once again bringing up the Board of Supervisors meeting to point out that the majority of the first hour was an amazing puppet show of people trying every way they could to convince the Board of Supervisors that the new Wooodville park needs sewer run down to the park in order for the community to have some place to go and play or something to that effect.  These people want the taxpayers to fork over money for a park that was accepted by a past Board of Supervisors under the condition that the park would NOT cost the taxpayers any money.

  Well when you have a few select individuals that may just benefit from sewer going to the park at taxpayer expense, it might be worth putting up the fight to argue the park needs taxpayer money so that the few do not have to pay the expense of getting sewer which would raise the  value of property in the area that is up for sale.

Woodville Park Area, Gloucester, VA, Overlay Map from Chuck Thompson

The map above shows property around the Woodville park that would benefit from sewer being run to the park.  They would then be able to hook up to the sewer line for much less than having to pay to run the line down themselves.  A question comes up and has been asked if the park may have been donated in order to get taxpayers to pay for county services instead of paying to run lines themselves.  It would possibly be a much cheaper option to pull off if it would have worked.

  The local paper seems to support the idea that the Board of Supervisors did not act in the best interest of the people because they did not fund the sewer line.  The arguments at the meeting were that this park is exactly what the children of this county need.  Claims that Gloucester County lacks proper parks was stated over and over.  Never mind that Abingdon Community park is capable of fulfilling the needs of a sports complex park.  But we are told that the community park at Abingdon is owned by the school board.  Never mind that it already has water, sewer and or septic and electricity.  It also has lighting too.

  But let's buy the argument that the Abingdon park is owned by the school board, thus not available as a sports complex park for county residents and others outside of Gloucester County.  What everyone failed to look at is Ark Park.  A full sports complex with soccer fields galore, basketball court, baseball diamond, bathrooms, water, sewer or septic and electricity as well.  It has 3 dedicated soccer fields, two make shift fields and room for two more fields or a football field, baseball diamond, amphitheater or camping area.

But wait!  How many soccer fields does the county need?  We found yet another area with multiple soccer fields and it's right in the courthouse area.

This is right across the street from McDonald's which is located on route 17.  This soccer field is on the small dirt road that goes to the Gloucester County Golf Course.  Now these fields do not have lights, bathrooms, running water or other desired amenities but it offers yet more fields that were being complained that the children of this county must simply have in order to enjoy a decent quality of life here in Gloucester.  Is anyone's BS meter going into overdrive yet?

How many parks does Gloucester County need?  The moment you get into the county, you already have 2 parks.  Gloucester Point Beach and Tyndall's Point Park.  Then we have Abingdon Community park.  Now Woodville Park,  Beaver Dam's 2 parks, a proposed state park up by the Rosewell Ruins, Ark Park, and still another park in Ark in commemoration of Powhatan and Pocahontas.  That is a total of 8 parks for a county with less than 40 thousand people.  Most of the parks are not even used in the county most of the time.  Yeah, we need more parks and should spend every penny we can and a lot more to support everything that everyone wants so that maybe one day, someone will actually use something.

Don't get us wrong.  We appreciate Woodville park and all the work that the community has put into it.  We just do not buy the arguments to spend a bunch of taxpayer money, especially in this economy, on parks or other areas that look like the money spent would only benefit the few instead of the majority.

Gloucester, VA FOIA Fraud?

Watch the above video all the way through if you can, it's about 4 hours long, but to make a long story short, we were at this meeting and we watched everything going on during the entire meeting.  Here is what we sent to Mr Chriscoe, Board of Supervisor member at large.

"Mr Chriscoe:  We are going to FIOA your text messages made and received during the BoS meeting.  We not only saw what you were doing, we also heard your phone going off numerous times.  Thought there was a policy passed last year that prohibited this.  Since it was done during a BoS meeting, it becomes BoS business.  May we suggest you refrain from this in the future?"

A response from Mr Chriscoe;

My phone did not go off during the meeting.  I did receive a text during the meeting, not pertaining to county business.  I also used my phone as a calculator during a portion of the meeting.  I do not send texts during meetings of any kind they are sent automatically by the meeting setting on my phone.

Thank you for the interest in what I do.  Sorry to disappoint.

Regards,

Ashley Chriscoe

Board of Supervisors

Our Response;

" All we can do is go by what we see and hear.  Your phone seemed to have beeped numerous times during the meeting.  Also, your claim that you were making calculations is of concern as you did not bring up any numbers during the meeting that would release you of such a claim.  May we point out that appearance should always be a concern that must be taken into consideration at all times during a Board meeting.  Also, conversations with numerous people after the meeting, the consensus was unanimous, that the appearance was you were texting during the meeting.  

  We are not trying to be offensive to you.  We are showing you what we are seeing and are simply asking for transparency.  Please go back and review the meeting video and take an honest look at yourself and ask what it is that everyone else is seeing."

Again Mr Chriscoe Responds;

" I understand your point.  My harshest critic watches all of the meetings.  And at no time did my mom say anything about my phone.  She says I am an on it all the time and she made no mention of it.  I do keep my phone silenced and if I do get a text I get a green light that blinks.  My mother is a widow and I have two kids at home.  If something happens to one of them someone can always get a hold of me.  At our next meeting if you are there I will show you the feature I use so that the phone does not vibrate or make a sound.  I apologize if it looked like I was using my phone. 

I did have to use my iPad during the meting because the laptop on the counter quit working prior to the meeting.  

Thanks for watching.  Keep pointing these things out.  They are helpful.

Regards,

Ashley Chriscoe

Board of Supervisors"

There is an old saying that we have adopted here.  Trust but verify.  So as we stated, we did a FOIA request for any and all text messages.  It went like this.

"Hello Christie;

  Attached is a PDF formal FOIA request for information regarding any and all text messages sent and or received by Ashley Chriscoe during the July 1st, 2014 Board of Supervisor's meeting between the hours of 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM.  As always, thank you for everything that you do."

The response back from Christie Lewis is as follows.

I am in receipt of your attached FOIA request as emailed and received on Tuesday, July 8, 2014 for “ digital copies of any and all text messages of Ashley Chriscoe during the July 1st, 2014 Board of Supervisor's meeting between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.” 

Mr. Chriscoe has indicated that he reviewed all text messages and only one text message was received and one was sent through automatic response during the timeframe specified.  These texts were not related to public business and do not constitute public records as defined under “Public Records” in the Code of Virginia § 2.2-3701.

FOIA provisions allow a locality to charge a reasonable fee to access and search for requested records.  Total time being charged for this request is 45 minutes at a rate of $15 per hour for a total charge of $11.25.  Please remit payment by check made payable to the “County of Gloucester” for the total amount and mail to Gloucester Community Education, P.O. Box 1306, Gloucester, VA 23061 or you may bring payment in person to our office.  We ask that you call ahead to 693-5730 to ensure staff is available to receive payment.  We are unable to make change, so we ask to please bring the exact amount if paying in person.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you.

Regards,

Christi Lewis

Community Education Director

804-693-5730

We asked for a justification of the above expense as Mr Chriscoe had already went through his text messages prior to the request.  How can he have possibly spent one hour once again reviewing his messages and why would it take anyone so long?  Also, let's look at the facts.  Christie Lewis only asked Mr Chriscoe for any digital copies of any text messages that he may have sent or received during the time frame in question.  She did not search any phone records to verify anything.  She simply asked him for any records.  So we have no idea whether or not he is even telling the truth.  

  Second.  Christie Lewis asks Mr Chriscoe how much time he spent searching his phone records and just goes along with that.  No verification on time spent here either and all this after Mr Chriscoe already told me the same story prior to the FOIA request.  Does anyone wonder why we question the integrity of local government officials?  Here is more of the conversation.

Another email to us from Christie Lewis;

"Mr. Chriscoe indicated he spent approximately one hour reviewing and responding to your request.  The county guideline is to provide a courtesy 15 minutes of response time so we billed for 45 minutes at the clerical rate of $15 per hour."

Our response to this is as follows:

"Please ask Mr Chriscoe to justify his time spent going through his cell phone for one hour after having already provided information on such prior to said request."

Again, we were at the meeting and kept hearing cell phone tones that would indicate a message came in on someone's phone during the meeting and it was coming from the front of the meeting room.  Mr Chriscoe had his head down and looking at something in front of him throughout a great deal of the 4 hour meeting.  It looked as though he was in fact texting.  We tried to work with county officials to clear all of this up, but there has been no response to us from the last email we sent asking Mr Chriscoe to justify his time spent looking through his cell phone messages or was that possibly deleting his cell phone messages?  We are presently looking into potential fraud on this.  This is not what we expect nor is it what anyone should expect of any county officials at any time.  It's disgraceful.  

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Planning Commission and BoS Meeting Video, June, 2014
• Gloucester, VA Real Estate Sales Along Highway 17 Are Telling
• Gloucester, VA Bos's Christ Hutson: Second Conflict of Interest Vote?
• Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust, Secret Shadow Gloucester, VA Government Extended Into 2014?
• Gloucester, VA - FOIA and Private Email Accounts In Virginia
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting, May, 2014 with Notes

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Meeting, Video and Notes, July, 2014

Notes for citizen comment during the July 1, 2014 Gloucester County Board of Supervisor meeting. (This is not an exact transcript of what was said but the notes used to make comments)

Chairman Orth, members of the Board, Ms. Garton, Mr. Wilmot

Wayne Crews

Gloucester Point District

Each of us is represented by three members of the board: two at large and one District.  Currently, I am only represented by one board member looking out for the county’s interest .  Thank you Mr. Meyer.

Two weeks ago the Daily Press ran a story on the Great Recession and the recovery in Virginia.  Last week The Gloucester Gazette-Journal ran a similar story.  Both talked about no recovery or the lack of recovery in Gloucester County and it is the only area in the state like this.

I believe there are on two reasons, both reported on your Gloucester County web site.

1.  County Government is out of control.

Example: Pictures of county vehicles at fast food restaurants, shopping, and banking have been documented and presented to the county for over a year and nothing has been done to stop it.  It is a violation of County rules, and Virginia Code. Wasting gas and man-hours as well as legal liability if there is an accident. 

2.  Board of Supervisors appears to lack moral integrity.

Example:  During the first vote on Terrapin Cove last month Mr. Hutson did not tell the Board of his potential conflict of interest; and the actions and conversations of Mr. Orth and Mr. James during the discussion led me to believe to believe they both were aware of the potential conflict and said nothing.

During the second vote, the second meeting of the month, all members of the board, as well as Mr. Wilmot and Ms. Garton were aware of the potential conflict and no one said anything and allowed Mr. Hutson to vote a second time.

How to Fix This?

Here is what you to do:

1.  Integrity at the Board of Supervisors level.

Quit voting for things that benefit you over the county.

2.  Hold Department Heads and Supervisors to high standards and get rid of them when they break the rules. You cannot hold lower level employees to high standards if they are not practiced at the higher levels.

3.  Fire employees on the spot if they use vehicles for personal business, except in the case of an emergency and the employee better contact the supervisors before the supervisor contacts them.  No shopping, banking, and fast food restaurants in county vehicles.  If trash is found in the vehicle from these places the employee needs to receive the same punishment.

4.  Quit wasting taxpayers money.  The Board of Supervisions and all county employees need to be good stewards of the resources.

5.  Bring County Ordinances into compliance with Virginia Code.  Mr. Wilmot can help you with this if not consider hiring a competent county attorney.

This is presented as notes used during the citizen comment period during the July 1, 2014 Gloucester County Board of Supervisors meeting and not as a transcript of the actual talk.  To get transcript please see the BOS video or County minutes.

Submitted by Wayne Crews

Our Notes:  About use of County Vehicles yet again.

IRS code.

De Minimis Fringe Benefits

In general, a de minimis benefit is one for which, considering its value and the frequency with which it is provided, is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or impractical. De minimis benefits are excluded under Internal Revenue Code section 132(a)(4) and include items which are not specifically excluded under other sections of the Code. These include such items as:

• Controlled, occasional employee use of photocopier
• Occasional snacks, coffee, doughnuts, etc.
• Occasional tickets for entertainment events
• Holiday gifts
• Occasional meal money or transportation expense for working overtime
• Group-term life insurance for employee spouse or dependent with face value not more than $2,000
• Flowers, fruit, books, etc., provided under special circumstances
• Personal use of  a cell phone provided by an employer primarily for business purposes

In determining whether a benefit is de minimis, you should always consider its frequency and its value. An essential element of a de minimis benefit is that it is occasional or unusual in frequency. It also must not be a form of disguised compensation.

Whether an item or service is de minimis depends on all the facts and circumstances. In addition, if a benefit is too large to be considered de minimis, the entire value of the benefit is taxable to the employee, not just the excess over a designated de minimis amount. The IRS has ruled previously in a particular case that items with a value exceeding $100 could not be considered de minimis, even under unusual circumstances.

Cash Benefits

Cash is generally intended as a wage, and usually provides no administrative burden to account for. Cash therefore cannot be a de minimis fringe benefit. An exception is provided for occasional meal or transportation money to enable an employee to work overtime. The benefit must be provided so that employee can work an unusual, extended schedule. The benefit is not excludable for any regular scheduled hours, even if they include overtime. The employee must actually work the overtime.

Meal money calculated on the basis of number of hours worked is not de minimis and is taxable wages.

Gift certificates

Cash or cash equivalent items provided by the employer are never excludable from income. An exception applies for occasional meal money or transportation fare to allow an employee to work beyond normal hours. Gift certificates that are redeemable for general merchandise or have a cash equivalent value are not de minimis benefits and are taxable.

A certificate that allows an employee to receive a specific item of personal property that is minimal in value, provided infrequently, and is administratively impractical to account for, may be excludable as a de minimis benefit, depending on facts and circumstances.

Achievement awards

Special rules apply to allow exclusion from employee wages of certain employee achievement awards of tangible personal property given for length of service or safety. These awards

• Cannot be disguised wages
• Must be awarded as part of a meaningful presentation
• Cannot be cash, cash equivalent, vacation, meals, lodging, theater or sports tickets, or securities.

In addition, there are other requirements specific to achievement and safety awards and there are dollar limitations that must be met. See Publication 5137, Fringe Benefit Guide or Publication 535 for more information.

How are de minimis fringe benefits reported?

If the benefits qualify for exclusion, no reporting is necessary. If they are taxable, they should be included in wages on Form W-2 and subject to income tax withholding. If the employees are covered for social security and Medicare, the value of the benefits are also subject to withholding for these taxes. You may optionally report any information in box 14 of Form W-2.

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 28-Jan-2014

Now this is only a about 6 days worth of pictures collecting them in a small area around the county only in the morning hours until about 10:00 AM at the latest.  This begins to give you an idea of how minuscule the county thinks the issue is.  

  These are only the ones we did get pictures of.  We saw a lot more than this that we did not get pictures of.  The vehicles are a combination of both Gloucester County and Gloucester County School Board.  

  

York Herald, Gloucester, VA BoS 2014 8 from Chuck Thompson
Newsletter by Phillip Bazzani, Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors, York District.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Bos's Christ Hutson: Second Conflict of Interest Vote?
• Gloucester, VA BoS Member, Chris Huston, Violating State Code? Conflict of Interests?
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting, May, 2014 with Notes
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Video, June, 2014
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Corruption?