Showing posts with label Integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Integrity. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Conversation Between Gloucester Supervisor and Superintendent of Schools


On October 20
th the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and School Board had a joint meeting. Near the end of the meeting, Supervisor Winebarger said the following:

“Dr. Clemons, glad you’re here. I’ve gotten multiple phone calls from parents saying that they’ve heard; and I want you to either tell me yes, or no or maybe so; that Gloucester is going to start requiring a class in black history in order to graduate and that they are going to start to teach history based on 1619 instead of 1609. Tell me it ain’t so.”

See the SlideShare presentation below to see the email conversation that followed and other emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) After that you will find a link to hear the Supervisor's question. After that you will find a link to a Board of Supervisor "Public Comment" section where certain people spoke about the Supervisor and his question to the Superintendent. 

Written By: Kenny Hogge, Sr.

SlideShare presentation of documents obtained under FOIA



Monday, December 14, 2020

Superintendent of Gloucester County Public Schools Plays Race Card


On October 20th the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and School Board had a joint meeting. Near the end of the meeting, Supervisor Winebarger said the following:

“Dr. Clemons, glad you’re here. I’ve gotten multiple phone calls from parents saying that they’ve heard; and I want you to either tell me yes, or no or maybe so; that Gloucester is going to start requiring a class in black history in order to graduate and that they are going to start to teach history based on 1619 instead of 1609. Tell me it ain’t so.”

For those who do not know, the 1619 date comes from what is known as the 1619 Project, a highly controversial black history piece created by several “journalists” at the New York Times. I strongly believe the Supervisor's, “Tell me it ain’t so.” ending to his question was directed solely at the inclusion of highly questionable content from the 1609 Project; something every American should be concerned about.   

Superintendent Clemons responded, but did not actually answer Mr. Winebarger’s question, so Mr. Winebarger sent Superintendent Clemons the following in an email:

“Rick, is Gloucester School Systems one of the 16 pilot programs and will the program be teaching history from 1609 or 1619? Mike”

At this point, nothing appears to be unusual; right? Just a simple conversation between a Supervisor and a School Superintendent. The Superintendent did respond with a partial answer to the Supervisor’s questions, but he also had a lot more to say. The following is the Superintendent's reply to the Supervisor:

Good Morning Mr. Winebarger:

As a follow-up to our conversation from the meeting last night, I will provide the Board of Supervisors and the School Board an outline of the course so all know the framework and contents within. I will make sure all know the periods of history that will be taught. In addition, GCPS is not one of the 16 districts piloting the course this year.

However, I must tell you that as an African American/black man, notwithstanding the fact that I happen to be the Superintendent of Schools in a majority non-minority community, I found your comments last night to be racially insensitive at a minimum if not downright racist in nature, and I am very disappointed, angry and offended by such comments.

Please let me be clear. I have no problem with anyone asking about the course, periods of time or content within. However, your comments around the fact of what you heard and if it was going to be required as a course for graduation is deeply disturbing. My question to you would be, "So what if it was a course needed for graduation?" Would you have a problem with that? Your comments in my view showed an insensitivity to African American History and it came across that it is not good enough or appropriate to teach in this community.

Please know that I do plan to follow up with you, the Board of Supervisors and the Gloucester community on this matter.

In closing, thanks for your time and I hope you have a great day! Sincerely,

Dr. Clemons

I don’t know about you, but I was floored by the Superintendent’s racial attack and the way he attempted to label the Supervisor an insensitive racist. Why would he say such things to someone asking a simple question on behalf of a Constituent? The Superintendent’s comments were nothing less than “race baiting”. (An attempt to deflect a conversation by implementing an assertion that the asker is racist.) I also believe there are political motivations behind the Superintendent’s unacceptable behavior. He, at least five School Board members and four to five Supervisors would love to see Mr. Winebarger leave the BOS. They want him gone because he and Supervisor Bazzani are the only two Supervisors who are constantly fiscally responsible in the way they vote and are more than willing to ask the tough questions. A few days later, the Supervisor sent the following in an email to the Superintendent:

Dear Dr. Clemons,

I have given your email to me dated October 21 some thought, especially given its concerning rhetoric. As the old saying goes, "Don't shoot the messenger". As a Supervisor elected by the citizens of this County, it is my duty to investigate and respond to questions or concerns expressed to me by my constituents. I always ask these questions in public, even though others may do so in private. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future because it is my duty.

At the joint meeting of the School Board and Board of Supervisors on October 20, I relayed to you questions which I had been asked by a constituent. You provided partial answers in the meeting and indicated you would provide follow-up information. As a builder who has worked construction my entire life, I do not have the benefit of multiple degrees - I speak simply and plainly without any hidden agendas. On October 21, the morning after the meeting, I emailed you as a reminder of the information I was seeking. Your email response did not provide answers to enable me to respond to my constituent, but instead expressed your feelings about my question. In the joint meeting of the School Board and Board of Supervisors, the forum is one where the Boards ask the questions and the employees provide the answers. I regret that you attributed any insensitive or offensive meaning to my words - none was intended - it was just a question asked by one of my constituents about a course. I await your response to my inquires.

Your accusation that my "comment in [your] view showed an insensitivity to African American History and it came across that it is not good enough or appropriate to teach in this community" is grossly misguided and false. In my view, American History is the history of the American people. I believe that as Americans we are all a great melting pot and any American history course should highlight the participation of all Americans regardless of race, creed, or color, and the African American experience is absolutely an important part of our history.

Please know that I am ready and willing to have further discussions with you on this issue and encourage you to call me at your earliest convenience.

Mike Winebarger

Supervisor, Petsworth District

The Supervisor’s reply is pretty cut and dry. You certainly can’t blame him for doing what he was elected to do, unlike numerous other elected people in Gloucester County.

The story does not end there. On November 4, 2020, the Superintendent and several school employees spoke during the BOS meeting Public Comment period, publicly attacking Mr. Winebarger, with some attempting to label him a racist. Mr. Winebarger maintained his composure throughout the whole orchestrated ordeal. The same cannot be said about some of the speakers.

Several people in the community told me about the Superintendent’s email to the Supervisor, so I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the school system asking for all the Superintendent’s emails between October 16, 2020 and November 15, 2020; essentially 30 days’ worth. I was shocked by the following reply from the school system:

“the school division estimates that the cost for accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the records responsive your request is $2,926.00 based on 5,600 emails and estimated an average of one minute to review each, at the hourly rate of the Superintendent’s Executive Assistant.” 

They sure don’t want me or anyone else checking out their emails. That amount is ludicrous and beyond what I am willing to spend on seeking such information, so I revised my request to:

“all emails sent and or received by the Superintendent of GCPS that pertain to, reference, mention and or touch on the "1619 Project" and or African American history and or Black history and or Native American history during the time period of Oct 16, 2020 thru November 15, 2020.”

I received copies of several emails and a bill for $62.94. Like I've said before, transparency isn't cheap in Gloucester County. The entire first part of an email was completely redacted. It appears like the Superintendent forwarded the Supervisor’s question and the Superintendent’s response to someone they claim is exempt from being identified under the “Working Papers” FOIA release exemption. I have received many emails and other documents containing redactions authorized under FOIA, but I have never received any in which the sender, recipients, subject, date and 100% of the content was blacked out. I sure would like to know who the Superintendent forwarded the email to and what his comments were. One can only imagine at this point, but one thing is crystal clear, he does not want the People to know. 

Gloucester County has always been a civil place to live and raise children. Of course, we have had our moments and like everywhere, there are a handful of true racists of all skin colors, but overall, most people tend to get along without a lot chaos and drama. It seems the Superintendent does not feel that way. It seems like he thinks there is significant racial divide and inequality in Gloucester and in Gloucester schools and “as an African American/black man, notwithstanding the fact that he happens to be the Superintendent of Schools in a majority non-minority community,”  it appears he has done very little over the last several years to adequately blend his little part of the American melting pot into a unified culture of acceptance, instead choosing in this instance to spew unwarranted accusations of racism. In another instance he complained about his child not having a teacher of color since attending Gloucester schools. In still yet another instance of having taxpayers pay for his membership to the National Association of Black Educators. Of all people to complain about ethnic diversity when he is the one person in this community in the best position to cause effective improvements, not only in our schools but in our County as well; if the need truly exists. As for membership in the NABE; didn’t segregation end in the 60’s? Why does the Superintendent feel he must belong to a racially segregated organization? Should there also be separate organizations for each race of educators? The Superintendent certainly does not reflect unity, diversity, equality, integrity, civility and honor; all essential traits necessary to preserve American freedom, liberty, justice and equality for all. Instead, he travels the path of race baiting and exclusion to silence those who do not align with his ideals and agenda and to silence those who question what is taking place in our public school system.

When I attended Gloucester schools from the late 60’s till the late 70’s, we were taught to get along and respect each other, despite, nationality, skin color and financial or academic standing. We were also taught; our personal choices and level of effort would determine our destiny. We had black teachers and white teachers and thought of them all as just teachers. Their color didn’t matter, just like the color of our fellow students didn’t matter.  At GHS, Mr. Loring had a class in which the students replicated the cast of “Welcome Back Kotter”. We watched the Jefferson’s, Sanford and Son, All In The Family, Good Times and other shows that offered moral lessons on race relations, among other things. Today Gloucester has an activist school Superintendent who, despite his own career success as a “black man”, is setting a path for racial divide in our community in order to further progress the Socialist/Marxist/Communist movement that is jeopardizing our great Nation. Does anyone really want this kind of drama in Gloucester County? I know I don’t and believe we owe it to the children of Gloucester to put a stop to it sooner than later. Superintendent Clemons was welcomed into this community when he was selected for the job, but I believe because of this instance and other instances in other areas he is responsible for, he has worn that welcome out.

Below I have included a SlideShare presentation of the emails responsive to my FOIA request. I have also included links to the section of the Joint meeting where the Supervisor asked the question and subsequent section of the BOS meeting where the Public Comments were made.

Written By: Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Email Presentation


Monday, October 23, 2017

Are Gloucester County’s Real Estate Tax Assessments Corrupt? You Decide

During a recent Gloucester Board of Supervisor and School Board candidate forum, York District Candidate Kevin Farmer expressed concerns about real estate tax rates and real estate tax assessments. § 58.1-3201 of the Code of Virginia requires all property to be assessed at 100% of fair market value. If that is the case, why does Gloucester County seem to adjust the values of property based on the amount of money needed to run our local government? I have been asking that question ever since Gloucester County Assistant Administrator Garrey Curry explained such to me about three years ago. When Mr. Curry rendered his explanation to me and another citizen, I told him under the method he described, one key element is left out of the equation; fair market value of the property.

During the candidate forum, current board members mocked at Mr. Farmer’s assertion that increases in certain real estate assessment values is how they have avoided increasing real estate tax rates each year. In Mr. Farmer’s defense, the County, through certain assessment value increases, increased revenue from real estate property taxes by $3 million since 2012.

I became even more skeptical of Gloucester’s assessments in 2016 when the Board of Supervisors approved a land swap deal with Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr.; in which the County traded two pieces of property for one of Mr. Kerns’ properties. When the deal was first presented to the Board of Supervisors, then Chairperson John Meyer publicly asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal, in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to the County.

During that time, I was an appointed At-Large member of the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee. Once I reviewed the seven properties contained in the land swap proposal, I discovered serious flaws in the assessment values of the three key properties contained in the deal. I pointed the flaws out to the Board and an independent appraiser was hired by the County to determine the value of the properties.

When the Board approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the independent appraisal values. The combined value of the County’s two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of the County’s two former properties after the deal changed to $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns' former property changed to $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from the County. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from the County was assessed by the County to be worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on the County. Not wanting to be associated with corruption, I resigned from the Utilities Advisory Committee immediately after the Board approved the corrupt land swap deal.

The land swap deal story did not end there. Three months after the Board approved the deal, the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed one of Mr. Kerns new properties as being sold for $55,000. According to online property records; Mr. Kerns sold it to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. Why didn’t the Board offer the property to the adjacent landowners before trading it to Mr. Kerns? Even Mr. Kerns’ offered to sell his property to Supervisor Meyer before offering it to the County. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value; saving $25,000.

One can’t help but wonder if the whole corrupt land swap deal was perpetrated to keep anything from being built at the entrance to Supervisors Meyer’s and Mr. Kerns’ estates. One can easily assume the recent paving of the entrance of Summerville Road to the end of Mr. Meyer’s property line was funded with money from the land sold by Mr. Kerns. One could also easily assume this was done to move the entrance to Mr. Meyer’s estate so it is easier to find by his Airbnb customers. Despite whether or not these assumptions are correct, one fact remains; manipulation of the assessment values is clearly evident and is nothing short of government corruption. This deal needs to be investigated and those found guilty of corruption and conspiracy to commit corruption need to be held accountable.

Below we have provided a listing of randomly selected waterfront properties in four different areas of Gloucester County. Notice how the smaller the property is, the higher the assessed value per acre is. We have also provided a Slideshare presentation of Frequently Asked Questions about real estate tax assessments. 

Email comments to: Kennysr61@gmail.com
To read a detailed account of the corrupt land swap deal click on this link: http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2017/03/gloucester-county-va-real-estate-tax_50.html 


Waterfront Property Heywood Creek Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34244             1.39               $209,110                  $150,439

13952            1.46               $260,770                  $178,609

30791            1.48               $208,560                  $140,919

43160            1.51               $145,940                  $96,649

26229            2.53               $222,950                  $88,123

10669            2.67               $243,790                  $91,307

30679            3.43               $280,310                  $81,723

13369            9.33               $364,960                  $39,117

33757            12.6               $404,020                  $32,065

31355            170.476        $636,730                  $3,735

Bena Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

28739            1                     $225,000                  $225,000

21922            1.25               $233,200                  $186,560

19725            2.88               $201,090                  $78,955

27404            5.25               $296,720                  $56,254

40850            6.39               $342,070                  $53,532

27619            6.46               $817,360                  $126,526

21425            9.3                  $365,060                  $39,254

21951            13.11             $402,110                  $30,672

41567            13.54             $346,810                  $25,540

14341            58.35             $1,190,730              $20,406

Ware Neck Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

16800            0.75               $211,490                  $281,987

21047            0.96               $222,850                  $232,135

22199            1.44               $256,780                  $178,319

16984            1.88               $239,750                  $127,527

10396            2.01               $233,520                  $116,179

23437            2.36               $236,480                  $117,652

22617            5.02               $340,480                  $67,825

43034            6.9                  $417,910                  $60,567

18864            7.39               $209,550                  $28,356

31023            342.57          $1,510,140              $4,408

Gloucester Point Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34254            0.296             $131,440                  $444,054

29005            0.361             $145,470                  $402,963

30469            0.52               $178,910                  $344,058

18220            0.6                  $189,900                  $316,500

12063            0.93               $221,220                  $237,871

30104            1.23               $258,690                  $210,317

29202            1.49               $263,000                  $176,510

33908            2.49               $482,670                  $193,843

15105            3.58               $246,770                  $68,930

22581            17.49             $534,910                  $30,584

Slideshare presentation of frequently asked question about real estate tax assessments. (Compiled by Albemarle County, Virginia)

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Are Gloucester County’s Budgets By Administrator Fedors As Spectacular As York District Supervisor Bazzani Claims?

During a recent Gloucester County candidate forum, York District Supervisor Phillip Bazzani touted his vast experience in creating and managing budgets involving substantial amounts of money. He further insisted he knows every aspect of Gloucester’s 2018 budget. Supervisor Bazzani has also repeatedly publicly asserted that County Administrator Brent Fedors’ budget documents are the best he has seen in the 34 years he has lived in Gloucester. Are these assertions true? Here is what we know to be true and factual.


When Mr. Fedors presented his first budget to the Board of Supervisors and the public, it lacked details that were present in budgets prepared by his predecessors. When we pointed this out to Mr. Fedors he said,

“While we are not planning to add that level of detail to the proposed budget book for FY17, we are preparing a supplemental information piece for Board Members that does. I will make sure you get a copy when it is ready.”

After receiving his response, we forwarded the email conversation with Mr. Fedors and the following statement to the Board of Supervisors.

“I and others find Mr. Fedors' budget proposal and last response disturbing for a number of reasons and hope the majority of you do as well. Foremost, Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include transparency; as the Code of Virginia requires the People to be presented information at the same time as the governing body. (Unless otherwise exempted by FOIA) Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include an acceptable level of transparency which has led to restricting the People from data that is necessary to evaluate how their tax dollars are being spent. I will not say much more at this time as I understand Mr. Fedors' is new to the government game. On the other hand, his staff certainly are not. One would hope they would guide their new boss in a better direction.”

Mr. Fedors provided us the information piece as he promised, but even after we expressed our concerns to him and the Board of Supervisors, his FY18 budget demonstrated the same lack of transparency. Again we contacted Mr. Fedors via email to request line item data, which the Finance Director provided.

What we find concerning is the fact that Mr. Bazzani publicly stated Mr. Fedors’ FY17 Budget was the most comprehensive budget document he has seen in all his years of managing budgets. How could anyone make such a statement about a budget document that lacks the amount of detail Mr. Fedors’ lacked? The FY17 budget email conversation we have shared below clearly demonstrates the Board of Supervisor did not have the necessary data to effectively scrutinize Mr. Fedors’ proposed budget until several days after Mr. Bazzani praised Mr. Fedors.

We have provided Slideshare presentations of both of Mr. Fedors’ budgets and the last budget his predecessor prepared. We have provided our email conversations with Mr. Fedors, the Finance Director and the Board of Supervisors, as well as Slideshare presentations of the data we were forced to request from Mr. Fedors. We have also provided some video clips for your enjoyment. Though there are numerous other transparency shortcomings and many wasteful spending practices that we have not touched on here, we ask you to take special notice of the difference in the amount of data provided for budgeted expenditures for each department. You will see that Mr. Fedors combined budgeted expenditures into three line items for each department, whereas his predecessor had many more line items for each department. What are they trying to hide??

Written comments may be emailed to Kennysr61@gmail.com
Supervisor Bazzani stating he knows every aspect of the budget


 

Supervisor Bazzani praising Mr. Fedors' FY17 budget even before Mr. Fedors' information piece with detailed data was provided.






FY16 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 75)
FY18 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 71)
FY17 info we were forced to requested from Mr. Fedors
FY18 info we were forced to requested from Mr. Fedors
Email conversation about FY17 budget

03/20/16 at 11:57 AM


Board Members,

I and others find Mr. Fedors' budget proposal and last response disturbing for a number of reasons and hope the majority of you do as well. Foremost, Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include transparency; as the Code of Virginia requires the People to be presented information at the same time as the governing body. (Unless otherwise exempted by FOIA) Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include an acceptable level of transparency which has led to restricting the People from data that is necessary to evaluate how their tax dollars are being spent.

I will not say much more at this time as I understand Mr. Fedors' is new to the government game. On the other hand, his staff certainly are not. One would hope they would guide their new boss in a better direction.

Respectfully,

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Fedors, Brent" bfedors@gloucesterva.info

To: Kenny
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: 2017 Budget

Mr. Hogge -

While we are not planning to add that level of detail to the proposed budget book for FY17, we are preparing a supplemental information piece for Board Members that does.

I will make sure you get a copy when it is ready - likely Tuesday.

Brent

On Mar 17, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Kenny wrote:

Brent,

We are looking for a proposed budget document that contains at least as much information as the 2016 budget proposal which can be found at:  http://www.gloucesterva.info/Portals/0/finance/documents/FY16%20County%20Administrator's%20Proposed%20Budget.pdf?ver=2015-03-05-090048-737

A "general fund expenditure budget" as presented in the 2016 proposal is one example of the expanded data we would like to continue to see and are hoping the Supervisors are already assessing as they process the FY17 proposal. 

Kenny 

From: "Fedors, Brent" <bfedors@gloucesterva.info>
To: Kenny
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: 2017 Budget

Mr. Hogge -


There are also copies of the book available for public review at both libraries and in the County Administration office.

Please let me know if there are specific questions you have that I may be able to address - I'm glad to help in any way I can.

Brent

On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Kenny wrote:

Hello Mr. Fedors,

I would like to get a copy of the "2017 Budget Book" that has been provided to the Supervisors. The information posted on the County's website is not detailed enough for the People to do any sort of analysis of what is being proposed.

Thank you sir,


Email conversation about FY18 budget data


Mar 20 at 11:15 AM

To Kenny


Message body


 Attached is the information as requested.

 1st tab – General Fund by Expenditure Line Item

2nd tab – Provides information on the Total Transfers Out line item from the General Fund

3rd tab – Capital Projects

4th tab – External Agencies Funding Request and what is included in the Proposed Budget

Please let me know if you have questions or need anything further.

Thanks,

Stephanie


From: Fedors, Brent
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:06 PM
To: Kenny
Cc: Tinsley, Stephanie <stinsley@gloucesterva.info>; Lewis, Christi <clewis@gloucesterva.info>
Subject: Re: FY18 Budget Info Request

Mr. Hogge -

I am forwarding this to Ms. Tinsley who will coordinate our response.

Thank you for your inquiry,

Brent


On Mar 19, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Kenny wrote:

Hello Mr. Fedors,

Hope this finds you in good health and spirits.

Can I get a copy of the proposed FY18 line item budget and proposed capital improvement expenditures? If possible; I would also like something that reflects the name of all external agencies/nongovernmental organizations that are requesting FY18 funding and how much each is asking for. Electronic copies are preferred.

Thank you,

Kenny

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Gloucester County Supervisor’s Trees Destroyed By Tree Trimmers

I never cease to be amazed at the things that happen in this county. The following entry is contained in the Gloucester County, Virginia Utilities Department June report:

“Resolved the complaint from adjacent property owner that tree removal for replacement of Pump Station #12 with Smith & Loveless package station  encroached on their property by requiring the contractor plant replacement trees to satisfy property owner;”

I’ll be damned!! After obtaining way more land than needed, in what I and others consider nothing short of a public corruption property deal, they encroach upon the adjacent property owner’s land to make room to install a new sewer pump system.

As many of you may know; I served on the Gloucester County Public Utilities Advisory Committee for a couple of years or so. I resigned from the committee in 2016 after the committee and the Board of Supervisors approved what I and others strongly believe was a public corruption land deal between Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr. and the Utilities Department. We consider the deal to be public corruption primarly because it appears evident the Gloucester County tax assessor or another person or persons with access, lowered the assessed value of Utilities Department properties and increased the assessed value of Mr. Kern’s property. Click here to read the Gloucester County public corruption land deal story: http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2017/03/gloucester-county-va-real-estate-tax_50.html

At-Large Supervisor John Meyer, who is also the owner of the destroyed trees, had this to say in response to an email I sent to the Board of Supervisors about the tree debacle.
.
“No less amazed than I.  The professional tree service 1) did not know where the property line was and 2) allowed the large trees they were cutting to fall across the property line, wiping out a half-dozen smaller trees in the process.
The County did hold the tree-service responsible and they did replace the trees (six-footers) at no additional cost to the County.
Next time you head down Belroi, take a look at the way Dominion Power mangled the trees between the 1st entrance to Courthouse Square and the Summerville Apartments.  Somebody on their payroll doesn’t like trees!
John”

Proper communication with the tree company and supervision of the trimming by the Utilities Department would have likely prevented the destruction of Mr. Meyer’s trees. As for Mr. Meyer’s complaint about the appearance of trees on Belroi Rd; well I guess now that it has happened on the road to his estate he can see something that has been the norm for decades. First, it is far cheaper to trim trees than to completely remove them. Second, if Dominion hated trees as Mr. Meyer suggests, they would find a way to cut all of them down instead of just trimming them. Maybe the Board of Supervisors can drum up another corrupt crony capitalism deal to get the power lines buried down Belroi Rd. Then the trees Dominion Power chopped up can grow out again, so VDOT can come along and chop them up again. Isn’t it just awful living in an aesthetically imperfect world? But then again; in a free society no individual or class of individuals has the right to determine what should or should not be considered visually appealing to other people; not even the elected class.   

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point
Kennysr61@gmail.com

Crony Capitalism
BusinessDictionary.com defines crony capitalism as; an economy that is nominally free-market, but allows for preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention based on personal relationships. In such a system, the false appearance of "pure" capitalism is publicly maintained to preserve the exclusive influence of well-connected individuals.
Sound familiar??

Monday, March 13, 2017

Gloucester County, Virginia FY 2018 Budget Process; Get Involved!!

Image result for chuck thompson gloucester va. library photos
The Gloucester Board of Supervisors has now started contemplating how they will allow our local government to spend your tax dollars next year. The County Administrator is recommending a one and a half cent real estate tax increase which is the amount of increase the BOS approved last year. If the BOS follow the Administrator’s recommendation, the real estate tax rate will increase from to 69.5 to 71 cents per $100 of assessed value.

There is a small minority of people in Gloucester who, for one personal cause or another, want the real estate tax rate to increase significantly. Like I have many times in the past; I suggest those folks donate as much as they want to their causes and passions, but leave the rest of us out of it. The typical response to my suggestion is something along the lines of them not trusting that their donated money will be used for their cause. What sense does that make?

The majority of people in Gloucester do not want real estate taxes increased at all. I am one of those folks and believe there should be no further tax increases until our local government makes all money matters completely transparent to the public, eliminates all unnecessary spending, consolidates services with our school system, eliminates redundant and unnecessary services and establishes a detailed plan that quantifies and addresses our numerous and neglected infrastructure needs.

Over the last several years there have been efforts by a handful of us to encourage the BOS to put in place measures and policies that will enhance transparency in our local government. When the current BOS evolved through the addition of three board members who are up for reelection this November, they appeared to take significant steps towards making the County’s financial matters more open to the people. After a little over three years, the steps that were initially made have mostly been erased and we are now left with abandoned efforts and broken promises.

During the BOS budget deliberations last year; I pointed out several things our local government spends money on that are a complete waste of tax dollars. The most ludicrous of these expenditures is the amount of tax dollars they throw away on renting our public library and local health department spaces. In my opinion; the rental agreement for the courthouse library and health department space was created as an unethical backdoor funding mechanism to financially empower the Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust. The taxpayers of Gloucester have and continue to be forced to provide money to this “not for profit” non-government organization that has taken control of the courthouse area of the county and the current BOS treats them just as good as prior boards did. The logical thing to do is close the Hayes library until a building can be purchased or built to replace it. All money currently budgeted to that library should be placed in a separate account to go towards buying our way out of the current lease agreement and towards building or buying the necessary library space. Money should be borrowed to build a new main library on the property where Page Middle School is located and to build new health department space in the Gloucester business park where Sentara and the free clinic are located. The Commonwealth rents the health department space from Gloucester County, so those rent payments will ultimately pay to build the building and will eventually turn into a revenue stream. All tolled our local government is throwing away in the neighborhood of a half million dollars annually by not owning our own library and health department spaces.

I also pointed out that almost a half million dollars is being wasted yearly on the community education department. Instead of breaking up this department and returning all of its functions to the school system, social services, information technology and county administration departments; our local government doubled down by giving the director a nice raise and by changing the name of the department to the department of community engagement. This department pays multiple people to manage community use of our public school facilities. Each one of these people receives a salary and benefits that are paid for with tax dollars. I suggested having each school’s administration office re-assume these responsibilities utilizing current school system employees and teachers. Even if we need to pay a few employees and teachers a little more money to perform this function after school, we will still save a significant amount on salaries and benefits by not having the extra employees. Social Services is the governmental department that is supposed to provide assistance to those in the community who are in need. The community engagement department facilitates and supports various non-profit, non-government organizations that should be supported and facilitated by our local social services department. If someone is in need, social services should be the one stop place to go to connect with available government and community resources. There was no need to create a special department to do this. Community engagement also responds to Freedom of Information Act requests for information and publishes the Beehive and the Weekly Town Crier. These functions and all other media and public affairs type functions should become a joint effort between county administration and information technology. There is no need to pay a director over $100,000 plus benefits yearly to manage these functions.

Gloucester’s animal control department spends most of its time patrolling the roads throughout the county. Last year I suggested ending the patrolling and turning animal control into a strictly reactionary department. If someone has a concern about an animal issue they will call. We certainly do not need to be paying employees to visit the public beach under the bridge and the York River Yacht Haven pool at Gloucester Point multiple times a day; or to hang out and shoot the breeze in various local stores. I also suggested routing all animal control dispatch calls through the Sheriff’s department and to limit the number of full time animal control employees to two. These changes should result in significant tax dollar savings and improve animal control’s relationship with the overall community.

These are just a few examples of the unnecessary and costly ways our local government frivolously spends our tax dollars. Consolidating county and school system functions is another way that Gloucester can significantly cut costs and enhance service. We will soon share what our BOS and School Board have done about consolidation over the last three years.

We have provided other information pertaining to Gloucester’s lease agreements, budget and real estate tax rates at the end of this article. Be sure to check it all out.

We encourage all Gloucester residents, landowners and business owners to actively follow our elected and employed local government representatives and administrators, and hold them accountable for their actions. Remember, all levels of government work for We The People.

Let us know what you think and share your comments and Gloucester government related stories by emailing us at Kennysr61@gmail.com or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia
Helping To Drain The Swamp
 

The following are current real estate tax rates:
Gloucester……….69.5 cents per $100 of assessed value
Mathews…………54 cents per $100 of assessed value
New Kent………..83 cents per $100 of assessed value
West Point………72 cents per $100 of assessed value
York……………..75.15 cents per $100.00 of assessed value
Williamsburg…….57 cents per $100 of assessed value
Newport News…..1 dollar and 22 cents per $100 of assessed value
Hampton………...1 dollar and 24 cents per $100 of assessed value

Gloucester’s Proposed FY18 Budget Presentation:



Gloucester’s FY 2017 Budget:
View this slide share to see Gloucester’s library, health department and other lease agreements: