FOGLE GETS IT RIGHT!
As it has been said many times before, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Allow me to elaborate with the aid of Adam Fogle from Palmetto Scoop.
Not So Transparent After All
Reps. Haley, Ballentine Sought Combined $1.44 Million In Hidden Earmarks
http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2009/01/05/not-so-transparent-after-all/#more-4948
Snipping from the article:
The now-defunct competitive grants program allowed legislators to secretly sponsor earmarks and anonymously flood the budget with pork barrel spending — something that would seem to contradict the transparency rhetoric coming from both Haley and Ballentine over the last six months.
Haley told SCHotline.com in an August 2008 interview, “What I need is for the public to go to their legislators and say ‘we want [roll call voting], we want to see how you’re spending taxpayer dollars, and we know that you want this so that you can go on the record and show us how you’re trying to spend it wisely and not blow it away like everybody says.’”
It gets worse . . .
Haley’s most paradoxical competitive grant applications were in 2006 and 2007 when she secretly requested $90,000 for Lexington Fun Fest, $25,000 for Lexington Festivals, Inc., and $3,500 for Lexington Community Fun Day. This came prior to her 2008 re-election campaign in which she railed against competitive grants for festivals – including the Gilbert Peach Festival.
So ... what does this matter, right?
You are looking at two of the LARGEST supporters of Transparent and Open Government, called on the carpet for being anything but. These are also two of the largest critics of the now defunct Competitive Grants Program.
Funny ... they didn't have any qualms about taking money from something they were hypercritical about.
Moral of the story: Putting lipstick on a pig does not hide the fact that it still remains a pig.
- SSHM
Loading
360 views
Transparency Is A SHAM!
Page 1
(items) 1–9 of 9
FOGLE GETS IT RIGHT!As it has been said many times before, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Allow me to elaborate with the aid of Adam Fogle from Palmetto Scoop.Not So Transparent After AllReps. Haley, Ballentine Sought Combined $1.44 Million In Hidden Earmarks[url]Snipping from the article:The now-defunct competitive grants program allowed legislators to secretly sponsor earmarks and anonymously flood the budget with pork barrel spending — something that would seem to contradict the transparency rhetoric coming from both Haley and Ballentine over the last six months.Haley told SCHotline.com in an August 2008 interview, “What I need is for the public to go to their legislators and say ‘we want [roll call voting], we want to see how you’re spending taxpayer dollars, and we know that you want this so that you can go on the record and show us how you’re trying to spend it wisely and not blow it away like everybody says.’”It gets worse . . .Haley’s most paradoxical competitive grant applications were in 2006 and 2007 when she secretly requested $90,000 for Lexington Fun Fest, $25,000 for Lexington Festivals, Inc., and $3,500 for Lexington Community Fun Day. This came prior to her 2008 re-election campaign in which she railed against competitive grants for festivals – including the Gilbert Peach Festival.So ... what does this matter, right?You are looking at two of the LARGEST supporters of Transparent and Open Government, called on the carpet for being anything but. These are also two of the largest critics of the now defunct Competitive Grants Program.Funny ... they didn't have any qualms about taking money from something they were hypercritical about.Moral of the story: Putting lipstick on a pig does not hide the fact that it still remains a pig.- SSHM-sshm
Anderson County got funds from the Competitive Grants Program. The funds were used for what the grants indicated. It will be a loss for us that these grants are no longer available.
Transparancy is often used as a campaign strategy. The candidates often don't really want it when it comes to them. Obama used it, and we've seen little of it from him and his team. MCW and Bob Waldrip used it. Of course, they don't really want transparancy. Remember Ms. Wilson trying to hide from the voters the real estate commisison she received on the Walgreens land purchase ? Worse, her family members got a higher rate per acre on land in the Beaver Dam Creek deal. Very strange. I recall when uncle Bob was in the State Senate, he wasn't much for transparancy, although most in Columbia saw right through him. Hee,hee.
My guess is that it will only take a couple of Council meetings before the goals of the new majority will be transparent.
-1
permalink
I think their actions will be very transparent as soon as they know the truth of what has happened in Anderson for the past decade. This whole "glass house" analogy is getting a little worn out. It doesn't seem to be scaring the current council, as they are forging right on. I find it interesting you have to misquote the facts in order to try and make a point. Do you actually believe it was political influence that got Cindy's family (not Cindy) more money in a real estate deal, or was it just tough business? If they held out for more money, how is that wrong? I find it hard to believe, with a county administrator and five votes against you on council, that Cindy (or her family) was permitted to do anything even remotely unlawful. If it happened, they must have had no choice but to allow and it must have been lawful or Preston would have found some way to block it. I am glad to see these voices, that have tirelessly defended the corrupt activities in the county, to start sounding so nervous. We must be headed in the right direction.
Your moral compasses need a litte tune up. Your hatred of Waldrep and Wilson only proves which side of the investigation you are sitting on.
I think their actions will be very transparent as soon as they know the truth of what has happened in Anderson for the past decade. This whole "glass house" analogy is getting a little worn out. It doesn't seem to be scaring the current council, as they are forging right on. I find it interesting you have to misquote the facts in order to try and make a point. Do you actually believe it was political influence that got Cindy's family (not Cindy) more money in a real estate deal, or was it just tough business? If they held out for more money, how is that wrong? I find it hard to believe, with a county administrator and five votes against you on council, that Cindy (or her family) was permitted to do anything even remotely unlawful. If it happened, they must have had no choice but to allow and it must have been lawful or Preston would have found some way to block it. I am glad to see these voices, that have tirelessly defended the corrupt activities in the county, to start sounding so nervous. We must be headed in the right direction.Your moral compasses need a litte tune up. Your hatred of Waldrep and Wilson only proves which side of the investigation you are sitting on.
-cromagnon
I do not "hate" MCW or Bab Waldrip. I hate what they have done and what they are doing. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Since you are so interested in transparency, tell us.
How much is the new county lawyer being paid? How much is the accountant being paid ? Who will inspect and review the billings THEY make to the County? Have you asked the new Council if they plan to push out Cunningham and put in Dan Harvell (a person with no public government experience)?
PS: I take your final sentence as a personal attack. I thought such attacks were forbidden on this forum?
Let's see here. They're paying the attorney a $30,000 and an hourly rate of $95 to look into Council actions of November 18. And they didn't discuss the cost of the audit yet. They just followed up on a vote of the previous Council to do one. Once the scope is clearly determined, I'm sure that information will be made public. But, again, they didn't have to authorize the audit last night. That was already done six months ago.
I wasn't at the meeting last night, Republikin, but the information on how much they're paying their lawyer was in the AIM story. Really had to dig to find that one, didn't I?
Cromagnon's statement wasn't a personal attack on you, Republikin. It was a reasonably civil political attack of the type we should all expect when we stick our heads up in the public forum. Personally, I have no idea - nor do I care - what direction your moral compass is pointed in. I have enough trouble following my own. But it is obvious which side you and a lot of us are on when it comes to these issues. That's why we discuss 'em.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between a blatant personal attack launched against somebody because you don't LIKE them and fair political discourse you engage in because you don't AGREE with them?
-1
permalink
"Your moral compasses need a little tune up"
Did you note the (s) in compasse(s)? That would be as in plural, more than one. That would make that a general statement to ALL defenders of the Preston era. If that comment pinches your toes more than anyone else, then I can't be responsible for how it makes you feel. I am sure all the details about salaries will be submitted and available through the proper channels. I find it alot more sensible to complain about what someone HAS done rather than preemptively whining about what you THINK they might do.
Actually JD, the $95 hourly applies to the accountant and $30,000 is the retainer fee authorized for Billy Wilkins. There was no mention of Wilkins's hourly fee which I imagine would be considerably more than $95, more like $350-500 per hour. I also doubt that that would include the costs of assistants or paralegals. I can't see Billy Wilkins sifting through all those files by himself. It's also interesting that Bob Waldrep's daughter now works for Nexsen Pruet, according to two different sources I talked to.
Maybe, Ellie. I was just quoting the AIM story which said, "Members approved a retainer of $30,000 and an hourly rate of $95 for Daniel and for the firm of Greene and Company LLC to conduct a forensic audit of council finances. Council members did not discuss the retainer or hourly rate for Wilkins’ firm, Nexsen Pruet."
If that's not accurate, please correct it.
Yeah, I think AIM got confused which was really not that hard to do. They reported that Tommy Dunn was elected Vice Chairman when actually it was Tom Allen. Part of the confusion arose out of the fact that Bob Waldrep presented these resolutions at the same time but they were voted on separately. In discussion, both resolutions were discussed simultaneously and the details of each were not separated out. But the vote was taken separately. I'm not familiar enough with Robert's Rules to say if that is correct procedure.
Page 1
(items) 1–9 of 9
