Showing posts with label Hutson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hutson. Show all posts

Thursday, July 3, 2014

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

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.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Gloucester, VA Bos's Christ Hutson: Second Conflict of Interest Vote?




Inappropriate Actions
 
During the May 20, 2014 Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Chris Hutson voted to approve the Terrapin Cove Sewer Extension project.  Part of the project entails installing public sewer along Laurel Drive at Gloucester Point at a cost of $773,638.  The vote was 4 in favor of the project and 3 against it.  The following information was obtained from the Gloucester County online property database and is for property on Laurel drive that is owned by Mr. Hutson’s father and mother in-law
Property Owner: THE BREEDEN TRUST
Owner Address:
PO BOX 122
GLOUCESTER POINTVA 23062
RPC #: 32740
Physical Location:
1672 LAUREL DR
Magisterial District: Gloucester Point
Tax Map #: 051C 5 C 5
 
Chris Hutson should have abstained from voting on the Terrapin Cove sewer project in accordance with Commonwealth of Virginia Conflict of Interest laws.  Without publicly disclosing his family relations to a project area property owner, Chris Hutson not only voted for the project, he also acted as the primary public body advocate during the design, review and procurement processes.  Shortly after the BOS meeting this information was brought to the attention of all of the Supervisors via an email message.  After the email notification was sent it was further realized that Chris Hutson’s father in-law has served on the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee since 2004 and was reappointed for another four year term by Mr. Hutson in 2012.  The appearance alone screams inappropriate.
 
During the June 3, 2014 BOS meeting the Terrapin Cove project was brought back to the floor for further discussion by Supervisor Ashley Chrisco, on the premise that funding is now uncertain due to the Commonwealth not yet approving its budget.  The Terrapin Cove project is not a Commonwealth funded project and the County’s ability to fund it has been uncertain from the beginning.  The BOS voted to delay the project start up and to pull funding from it until the Commonwealth approves its budget.  The Supervisors then directed that a certified letter be sent to each property owner within the project area asking the owners for a binding commitment to hook up to the sewer system if the project moves forward.  This and other steps should have been accomplished before money was spent to design the sewer expansion. 
 
Does this area of the County need public sewer?  I don’t think so but admit that it could be arguable.  At issue here is the conflict of interest vote made by Mr. Hutson and the efforts taken in the June 3rd BOS meeting to cover it up.  Does Gloucester County really want politicians who are self serving, not forthcoming and who have no conscious when it comes to spending hard earned tax dollars?  The answer is an emphatic NO.  The three newest Supervisors are the ones who initially voted against the project and did so with stated justifications.  These three seem to be working very hard to do what is in the best interest of the County as a whole; the other four should join them.   
 
During the June 5, 2014 BOS and Planning Commission meeting Chris Hutson encouraged citizens and business owners to bring instances of improprieties related to construction inspections to the BOS attention so they can be looked into.  How can he make such a hypocritical statement after voting on a project that he or his spouse “may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment from?”
 
We the people of Gloucester County deserve much more from our elected officials.  I encourage my fellow citizens to express their opinions on this matter and to remember these types of behaviors when election season returns.  Just remember; Political Parties do not make a good government, good people do.
 
Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point

Our Notes:  Mr Hutson voted yet again despite what looks like a clear conflict of interest.  Even if it were the correct vote to reverse the earlier decision, he still should have abstained from the vote.  Nothing much other than non funding the sewer extension was corrected, but instead, was compounded.  Once was too much, twice is just a complete violation of the public trust and a slap in the face to every citizen within the county.  Exactly why is Mr Hutson serving on the board other than to possibly personally financially gain by doing such?   That is just "NOT" sound government.
Enhanced by Zemanta