As promised, this is the first of several postings I had referenced previously that I would be addressing. It's been a busy week or so with work demands and the fact that we've had our Granddaughter for an entire week while her Mother was on vacation on a planned out of state trip...and keeping up with a 2-1/2 year old can be challenging at times...but we wouldn't had traded the experience for anything ! (We see her constantly and she spends one night a week with us, but an entire week was something else.) She went home to her Mommy today, and we miss her already!
OK, on to the fireworks, otherwise known as "Thunder Over Oldham County Fiscal Court" in keeping with the Derby spirit this time of year...
I've thought long and hard about what I wanted to say here regarding the events that took place during the April 7, 2009 Fiscal Court meeting between Magistrates David Voegele and Scott Davis. I've watched the broadcast several times on Channel 25 and online to get to this point.
"The fact of the matter is..."
Without going into all the details, since they have been fairly well publicized, there was an exchange between the two Magistrates regarding the lawsuit filed by Davis against County Judge/Executive Duane Murner and the other members of Fiscal Court over the Rawlings donation and the secret meeting issue.
"The fact of the matter is..."
Voegele was on target in his views as he addressed Davis and once again Davis danced around in his comments without ever giving a concrete answer. He refused to answer directly why he didn't bring his concerns to Fiscal Court over either issue before filing his lawsuit. He gladly voted to accept the Rawlings donation (anonymous at the time to all but Judge Murner), and he chose to stay for the entire alledged illegal meeting.
"The fact of the matter is..."
Mr. Davis, simply put, you can't have it both ways. You want to tout that you stand for transparent and open and honest government, but yet you refuse to answer honest and legitimate questions posed directly to you. You deny the public you serve and who pay your salary and benefits the opportunity to hear an honest answer.
"The fact of the matter is..."
You disrespected Voegele and the other members of the Court. You had opportunities to bring your concerns over these issues up in a public forum for all to see, but chose not to. I'm not saying that you were wrong in questioning the source (even at a later date) of the donation to the county, but you were dead wrong in how you then went about things. Same theory applies to the meeting issue. I think you still have a lot to learn about being a politician...and every elected official is a politician...some are even truly public servants. Which are you ?
"The fact of the matter is..."
All of this apparently was going to come to a head at some point, and even Voegele said he was going to address these issues during the "payables" section of the meeting, since the legal fees to the attorney for Davis were due and the court fines were also on the agenda to be approved by the Court and paid.
"The fact of the matter is..."
I believe all of this started earlier than it may have since someone who can now be best described as a "cheerleader" for Davis addressed the Court in the first "Public Comment" section, and brought up issues related to the lawsuit. Those comments sparked Voegele to respond and the showdown was on !
"The fact of the matter is..."
Davis claims that some members on the Court were "trivializing" the issues when in fact, he keeps telling them they are misguided and incorrect in their ways of thinking. Is that not a way to also "trivialize" someone else's comments ? Once again, you can't have it both ways. If they were so trivial to Davis at the time he voted to accept the donation and also remained in the meeting, what then took place to make "a mountain out of a molehill" as one Magistrate termed the whole episode ?
"The fact of the matter is..."
If this was indeed a calculated political move on the part of Davis, it has sadly backfired by now. While some will continue to defend him to the end, the bottom line is that the negative publicity will hurt him in the long run. There is always a learning curve in the world of politics, regardless of the size of the stage and people are going to remember this come the next election cycle.
"The fact of the matter is..."
Maybe Judge Murner didn't offer up an apology, and that's his decision. But he did reimburse the taxpaying citizens of Oldham County for the $2,600.00 part of the court decision for one half of the fees billed by Davis' attorney ($2,500.00) and the $100.00 fine regarding the Rawlings donation. For that, he should be commended. I take that as an apology and understand and respect his decision to keep his word to someone. And his letter to the editor in the Oldham Era, I have to assume was his way of addressing the issues.
As for the other half of the attorney fees and fine, also in the total amount of $2,600.00, I think it only right since the Court was ruled against that ALL nine members reimburse the county and the citizens in equal amounts. Seems fair to me.
During the first exchange, Judge Murner was wrong to call an end to it when he did. It should have continued playing out in the hope that Davis would have finally answered the questions he was being asked. And during the second exchange, Magistrate Steve Church was wrong to call for adjournment when he did. We as the taxpaying public have a right to hear every detail until there is a final resolution.
Also, I'd like to see a copy of the attorney's billing to the county on behalf of his work for Davis. $5,000.000 ? Seriously ? How about donating the fees back to the county and designate that it be used for a specific purpose, such as purchasing a K-9 dog for the police department, or adding playground equipment to a local park, etc?
Magistrate Rick Rash, comparing the whole secret meeting fine to jaywalking was out of line and his comments were uncalled for. These are indeed serious issues and smug comments are not needed. Your comments showed a lack of respect for the citizens of this county who paid the bill for you and your fellow Magistrates, and we deserve better than that. Maybe you're becoming more and more jaded and a bit too comfortable in your position. The circuit court decision should serve as a wakeup call to you and the others conduct the people's business in a fair and serious manner at ALL times. Since when did jaywalking issues come before Fiscal Court ?
Finally, I could say more, but will refrain at this time. Judging by the hits and page views this site has generated in a short amount of time, I'm sure to get comments and emails on my views in this particular posting, and that's fine. I treat each topic fairly and base it on facts, and "the truth of the matter" is, I'm getting tired of what I think are "cheerleaders" and "plants" to benefit any member of the Court.
I simply call them as I see them, my own take on things. I may be critical of a Court member during one posting, and complimentary in another. It's called true balance. I'm never out to disrespect, slander or libel any member of the Court or any other elected official...and I won't stoop to that level ever. But I will post my opinions and you may agree or disagree with me, which is your right...it's called freedom and democracy.
So, in case you've noticed an underlying theme here, I'm sick of hearing "the truth of the matter is..." during comments from Scott Davis surrounding this entire issue. The REAL truth of the matter is, he owes us, his public employers the answers to the following questions:
1 - Why did you, Magistrate Davis, stay in an executive session Fiscal Court meeting and then only challenge and sue your fellow Court members over it, after the fact, without first raising your concerns in an open court session ?
2 - Why did you, Magistrate Davis, not bring up your concerns to your fellow Magistrates and the public you serve over the anonymous donation after you first gladly voted to accept it in the spirit it was given in, after Judge Murner denied your open records request ?
Having stated the obvious, and the Fiscal Court video meeting records don't lie, you owe us answers. If you continue your own dance and end run around these issues and questions, then you are just as guilty of not serving the best interests of the citizens you were somehow elected to represent. Failure to be totally open, honest, transparent and accountable leaves you but one choice, resign from your office, because you truly are not standing for what you claim.
The truth hurts sometimes. Those who may be guiding you are steering you in the wrong direction (see former Governor Ernie Fletcher as an example) and you need to do what is right for all of us. So, this is your invitation to answer me, a taxpayer who helps pay your salary either by email or posting your answers on your personal website. Or better yet, since you were absent from the April 21, 2009 Fiscal Court meeting without explanation, make a statement to the Court and the citizens of Oldham County at the next Fiscal Court meeting.
As of now, your future in Oldham County politics is getting very cloudy...as is the futures of a few others...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you hit the nail on the head and have told it well. Murner was wrong in the end on the donation part, but did the right thing by paying half of the fines. Davis on the other hand, is so smug and unwavering in his remarks, but won't himself answer a legitmate question honestly. No, he wants to seesaw around the core issues and refuses to explain himself. As for his constant use of the phrase 'the fact of the matter is' only proves he is trying to divert attention away from himself by sounding all legal and stuff, and he ain't no lawyer. He actually should answer Voegele or resign himself from the court. Is he even from Oldham county? Keep on tellin' it like it is.
ReplyDeletebingo! someone telling like it is, way to go! voegel sometimes comes off all high and mighty and wants to take murners seat, but davis is an embarrasment to the court. He's got that blonde lady always singing his praises to everyone on tv and worting writing nothing but good stuff about him. baloney! voegel was right to question him and he should have given us all an answer. he simply stayed put in that secret meeting and thought he could keep his trap shut and sue later for the publicity and the money for one of his lawyer friends. He cost me money to, since I'm a taxpayer. same as he sued murner about the money donation. he won't get elected again, davis is gone when his 1st term is up. thank God
ReplyDeleteYou have analyzied this issue very well. Voegel nailed Davis and he could not give a straight answer. Like you, I did not like Murner cutting off the debate at the end. I wonder why the other magistrates just sit there and say nothing and let Voegel do all the heavy lifting. I don't always like everything Voegel says, but he is the only one who will take on Davis, Woortring and the dizzy blond.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the only thing pithy S. Davis can do to salvage his reputation, what he has left of it is to resign from the court now. His pathetic personal website is outdated, full of pics touting himself and saying how great he is. He takes himself way to seriously and he did us all dirty. He may not like Murner, but then he needs to realize not may like him now. I say since he was a part of the secret meeting that was ruled unfair, and did nothing about it until well after the fact, he and the other magistrates should pony up the money to repay us taxpayers like Murner did on the donation issue. Scott Davis has got to go!
ReplyDelete