S.O.B.

Shop our Businesses in IRB

In a recession, the economy operates backwards. It recedes instead of advancing. Most folks you talk to in IRB have all felt the pinch…albeit to differing degrees. But, the folks most affected by the economic downturn are our small businesses—our shops, restaurants, bars, salons, etc.

The official definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth marked by a slump in consumer spending. Only a very few number of businesses—like funeral homes--are truly recession-proof. (Death and taxes, right?) For the average retailer here on the barrier island, the challenge is to keep the doors open with less revenue while maintaining the same quality and level of service. Nearly 70% of the U.S. economy relies on consumer spending. For our local restaurants, hotels, shops, bars, etc. in IRB, that percentage is undoubtedly much higher.

It’s more important now than ever to “buy” locally. As a community, IRB is fortunate to have so many solid small businesses headed by smart, successful proprietors. They deserve our respect and our support—now and always.

In lean times, businesses tend to reduce advertising expenditures, so we must be proactive patrons—and visit without waiting to be “coaxed” to do so. Some IRB businesses have intelligently explored ways to replace the business robbed by the economy. My Place, J.D.’s and Crabby Bill’s appeared at last Tuesday's commission meeting (10/28) to ask the City to allow them to extend live entertainment hours by one hour on the weekends. Please urge your City Commission to grant this request. And hopefully, as former City Commission candidate and IRB P & Z Board Member Don House suggested, the deadline for businesses to comply with the new sign ordinance will also be extended. As a community, we need to do everything possible to keep the businesses we love from being downturn casualties…even if it means lesser emphasis on the esthetics...at least in the short run.

You’ll notice a new addition to the right-hand column of the IRBeHEARD blog—IRBeBiz. E-mail us at irbeheard@cmdinc.net with a great experience you’ve had with an IRB business. We’ll share it with our readers in an upcoming posting—a little FREE word-of-blog advertising for our local businesses!

Shop, eat, party, pamper, recreate…right here at home in IRB. It saves on gas!

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

FIRED AND RE-FIRED

Schless Pink Slipped--AGAIN?

At the October 14th commission meeting, Finance Director Marty Schless was, by a 3-2 commission vote, relieved of his duties as our city’s Chief Financial Officer. However, the item, as it appeared on the meeting agenda, called for a performance review only. Once again, it took citizens to point out that Marty’s firing was not agenda-ed properly and that the action taken needed to be formalized by a resolution since termination of a charter officer requires it.

At last night’s commission meeting (October 28th), the City Attorney indicated that a resolution is in the works and asked that it be put on the next meeting’s agenda. So, another vote will be taken and Marty will be fired—a second time—by resolution. The termination, according to Kiefer will be retroactive. Doesn’t it seem like a lot of things require “doing and re-doing” these days?

Kennedy, who made the motion to fire Schless at the 10/14 meeting, went predictably into “blame mode” and asked if she did anything improper in making the motion to fire Marty. Kennedy carefully pointed out that she asked the City Attorney first before making the motion and Kiefer gave her the go-ahead.

Could this incessant need to point fingers be why no one on the commission seemed particularly “excited” about Kennedy’s desire to be appointed as the beaches’ representative on the Pinellas Planning Council?

In reference to Kennedy’s fingerpointing on the Schless firing, Kiefer said that everything was done properly but that a resolution was required. So, Marty’s “real” firing is now scheduled for the upcoming meeting on November 13th.

Blamers and bumblers and whiskers on kittens…some of IRB’s favorite things.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

IRB BLAME GAME

Fine Art of Fingerpointing

I often ask my two mischievous nephews the proverbial question…"Alright, which one of you two did this?" Inevitably, they grin and point to one another uttering those magical words nearly in unison “HE did.” I never get any closer to the answer, yet I still ask the question. The truth is that I get a kick out of their rather predictable responses. With kids, fingerpointing is amusing; with adults, it’s not…especially when it’s more motivated by politics than by a desire for “real” answers.

Last Sunday, October 29th, a St. Petersburg Times article included back-to-back fingerpointing quotes by two IRB City Commissioners.

When speaking of Finance Director’s Schless firing, Commission Wollin was quoted as saying: “It is not his fault that he was hired without that experience. That is the fault of the people that hired him.” Schless had no municipal accounting experience when joining the IRB staff. Do you think Wollin realizes she’s criticizing the judgment of the gentleman immediately to her right on dais, Mayor (then Commissioner) R.B. Johnson—who voted “Yea” on the Schless hiring? (Wasn't it Ockunzzi and Carmody who were the initial "NO" votes for Schless?)

Commissioner Kennedy's reported remark accuses the city of using “bad judgment” in hiring Marty without the proper experience. How soon she forgets that Marty's predecessor left behind an accounting mess so abomindable that it required a forensic accountant to unravel it. And that was a DiNicola commission who hired the Schless predecessor...right? That kind of spoils Kennedy's depiction of the “DiNicola Days” as some sort of beachy Camelot with herself as one the roundtable knights, doesn't it?

Commissioner Valery doesn’t point fingers. He speaks his mind and has very strong opinions but is not a blamer. The thoughtful Torres isn’t a fingerpointer either. Mayor R. B. Johnson almost goes the other way; he tends to accept responsibility for his decisions even when it’s not really warranted.

So…why is it that primarily the women on our commission engage in “blamecasting” every chance they get? Is the purpose of this selective disparagement to somehow make themselves look smarter or more qualified?

And, some of the fingerpointing has been rather expensive. Consultant Rob Garner’s timetable tracing the Sewer/Solid Waste Funds debacle represented thousands upon thousands of dollars in prime PowerPoint fingerpointing. His timetable listed the names of all the commissioners who sat on the commission and the dates when City Managers and Finance Directors came and went in relationship to the still-mysterious loans. Yet, when it came to showing important info, like the actual date when Pinellas County increased their rates to IRB, that info was noticeably missing. Instead, the date when the commission was TOLD about the County’s increase was shown…because that date better supported the claim that the County’s rate increase is what caused the Sewer Fund to go upside down.

Ironically, when it comes time to engaging in fingerpointing that could actually be beneficial, the commission suddenly develops a case of governmental carpal tunnel syndrome. Soon-to-be-departing Finance Director Marty Schless has been blamed for everything in IRB right down to Chief Chic-a-Si breaking his ankle while crossing the rocks in the Narrows. Don't some of the misdeeds Schless has been saddled with pre-date his arrival in IRB? Plenty of fingers were pointed at Marty alright. But, when it came to asking him the hard questions like “Who the hell authorized these loans?” or "Did you take it upon yourself to approve the loans," no commissioner so much as raised a pinky.

Is this commission protecting someone? Won’t the City’s errors and omissions insurance cover the loss if some sort of malfeasance can be shown? Isn’t that reason enough to put a proverbial finger on the culprit or culprits? Or, is it just easier to continue protecting those who put our City in such financial peril while the taxpayers foot the million dollar tab?

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

LEO RETORTS

Blasting Blog Comments

I received an e-mail on October 18th from our buddy, Leo Coughlin, who said the following:

“You have the following posted on your blog and this is to inform you that it erroneously is attributed as appearing on the news web site I edit, LeoReports (www.leoreports.com). Because it is falsely attributed and you may not know this from an anonymous poster, you would be well advised to remove immediately any connection of this with LeoReports. I understand that, in editing an influential news web site that thousands of people in the area depend on for news, there will be criticism directed my way and this is fine. But please don't post material falsely attributed to the LeoReports news web site.”

Technically, IRBeHEARD is NOT REQUIRED to do squat about what Coughlin claims to be an erroneous posting. According to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

IRBeHEARD prides itself on the fact that posted comments are not censored in any way, shape or form. However, we certainly don’t want to hurt the reputation or credibility of such an influential news source, so we deleted it. Apologies to whoever posted it for doing so. If the commenter would care to repost it anonymously, hands off on this end.

Hmmm...Leo is considered the press? Does that mean that IRBTV would fit into the same category? IRBTV is a group of residents who are interested in bringing more transparency to our local government by streaming video of the commission meetings. With the exception of Commissioner Valery, opposition abounds.

P.S. Anyone have any ideas about the identity of the “Private Caller” who called my house on Sunday morning at 5:30 a.m. and hung up.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

WHAT'S GOOD FOR IRB GOOSE

Isn’t Necessarily Good for IRB Gander

Selective Code Enforcement
A resident on Legion Lane (behind City Hall) was spotted by our selectively sharp-eyed code enforcer and cited for adding a railing to her steps. She was ordered to apply for a variance and pay triple permit fees. At the variance hearing, the City Attorney opined that a variance was not needed because it was only a minor improvement, yet the commission went ahead and voted anyway. Why didn’t the planning staff, building inspector, City Manager, etc. know the code? Did the commission vote on this unnecessary variance to avoid refunding this resident’s money? How is it that code enforcement spots a railing but fails to notice that the Mayor rarely cuts his grass? Most importantly, why didn’t any commissioner go to bat for this applicant? Isn't anyone sitting on the commission working for us?

Selective Law Enforcement
Economy is down. Unemployment and crime are up, yet IRB has less police protection. And, one of our officers sits at nearly every commisison meeting just in case someone gets out of line.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

SURPRISING PREZ CANDIDATE

It’s Someone You Know

For those who were hoping a third choice for President would emerge, your prayers have been answered. And, it’s someone from right here in IRB…would you believe? Click on the link below and check it out…

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Tdpuu&altl=Tibqjsp

TRUE COLORS

Whole Lot of "Leaving" Going On

Does anyone else, besides me, miss seeing the fall leaves? If so, here’s a taste of autumn in the New York Adirondacks. Autumn in all its splendor! [Photo submitted by IRB seasonal resident Lori Henry.]

Speaking of "leaving"...the City Commission voted on Tuesday night to relieve IRB Finance Director Marty Schless of his duties.

Mystery: Tuesday night's agenda item was listed as "Evaluation of City Treasurer." How did an evaluation discussion turn to termination? Did Commissioner Kennedy jump the gun and make an improper motion--a procedural error that, once again, went unnoticed?

Commissioner Kennedy voted NOT to fire Schless some months back and pointed to the lack of a plan as to her reasoning. So what's different now? There still isn't a plan...at least one the public has been made privvy to...yet she changed her vote?

Besides, isn't adoption of a resolution required to fire a charter officer? If so, why wasn't one drafted and passed? The word is that Schless will be staying on for 30 days, but how and when was that decided? It didn't happen at the meeting. And, since Marty reports to the commission, was this decision to keep him on for another month made off the dais and "outside" the sunshine? Was the commission polled by a third party in violation of the Sunshine Law?

What effect, if any, does firing Schless for writing the infamous Grieshaber check have on the City's lawsuit against the former City Manager? Won't Grieshaber now just say..."Hey, it was IRB's misstep, not mine; they even fired their own official over it"?

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

UNTRUTH IN MILLAGE

A THIRD Shot at Setting Millage?

In 1980, the Florida legislature passed the "Truth-in-Millage" (TRIM) Act. The “Notice of Proposed Property Taxes” everyone receives as a result is affectionately known as the dreaded TRIM notice. It informs taxpayers of their tax liability in advance and provides ample opportunity to voice concerns, objections, etc.

The TRIM process is set forth by state statute and has some specific requirements. Setting of the millage rate by IRB is part of the process. Initially, our City Commission, in error, set the millage rate with a supermajority vote on 9/18. They were forced to re-vote unanimously on 9/30 to fix the error. Did the commission not realize that they were jacking our millage above the 110% threshold? Did they not know the rules? The biggest travesty here is NOT in not knowing--that's understandable. It's in not asking questions. Why doesn’t this group ever ask questions from the dais? Are they afraid of the answers? Do they fear appearing ignorant? All five commissioners claim to do a lot of homework behind the scenes. Well, in this case, the dog must have eaten it. How is it that average IRB citizens in the audience seem to know the rules better than those those looking out (and in some cases--down) on the audience?

At the re-hearing on 9/30, a number of citizens voiced their objections to the re-vote taking place that evening, citing specific violations of Florida Statute Chapter 200 entitled “Determination of Millage.” As usual, these "complaints" fell on deaf ears and the re-vote was taken anyway.

The “yowlers” were duly put in their place and informed that the Department of Revenue (DOR), the overseer of the TRIM process, had authorized the City to proceed with the re-hearing. It wasn’t until obtaining a copy of a 10/7 e-mail sent by DOR Attorney Robert Speirs to IRB City Attorney Maura Kiefer that it became clear the department's “blessing” was NOT without qualifiers.

“Dear Madam Kiefer:
I see no requirement for a taxing authority to wait until submission of a TRIM package to the Department for review to re-advertise and re-hold the hearings required under S. 200.065, Florida Statutes, when you, as attorney for the taxing authority, are reasonably certain a violation has occurred. Your description of the course of events sets out a probable violation that would require re-advertising and re-holding of the hearings. It might be a good idea to review the violations listed in the statutes and S. 12D-17.005, Florida Administrative Code, to make doubly sure that no other violation has occurred which might not show up until the submission of the TRIM package.If any such second violation appeared at the time of review, of course, another re-advertisement and re-hearing might be required.”

Attorney Speirs carefully stated that if other violations came to light another “re-do” might be in order. So buckle up for Round 3, if any of the following get caught:

1. The number of days between the adoption of the tentative millage rate on 9/4 and the publication of the St. Petersburg Times advertisement on 9/28 exceeded the maximum 15 days permitted between the two events.

2. The budget published for the FIRST Second/Final Reading on 9/18/08 DID NOT match the budget advertised for the RE-HEARING Second/Final reading held on 9/30/08. (Additional columns/figures were added.)

3. The published notice did not meet the required minimum 2-day notice. Florida Statute 200.065 mandates the meeting be held “not less than 2 days nor more than 5 days” AFTER the day the meeting advertisement is first published. Assuming that two (2) days means forty-eight (48) hours, the City of IRB failed to comply. The notice was published on Sunday. The first day AFTER the Sunday advertisement appeared would have been Monday, which began at 0000 hours and ended at 2400 hours. The second day (Tuesday) started at 0000 hours and ended at 2400 hours. The meeting began at 7:00 p.m. (1900) on Tuesday or about five (5) hours short of the minimum 2-day (48-hour) requirement.

It is no surprise that attendance at the re-vote hearing was noticeably less than at the initial hearing. Citizens received a 4-day notice for the INITIAL Second/Final Reading (published 9/14 for a 9/18 reading) and less than two days notice of the 9/30 re-hearing. In light of new figures added to the published budget, this gave citizens about 16 city business hours to explore the revisions. NOT ONE COMMISSIONER expressed any concern whatsoever that the rights of their constituents may have been compromised. Once again, no one stood up for us. And, the commission's silence may have also compromised IRB's $100,000+ in sales tax revenues in the process. Not a good time to walk away from that much money, is it?

Admittedly, the FY 2008-2009 millage rate for Indian Rocks Beach might well have ended up the same had procedures been followed. But, in light of nearly $1 million in unauthorized loans we are now being asked to repay, following proper procedure is more crucial than ever.

Will the Department of Revenue catch these other violations when IRB files its TRIM package? Better hope not or…here we go again…third time’s a charm.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

IRB CONNECTED

City Launches New Web Site

At the very first IRB City Commission meeting I attended many, many years ago, there was one guy in the house who just wouldn’t shut up about the City’s need for a Web site. Way back then, most meeting attendees--commissioners and citizens alike--greeted the idea with “Yeah…yeah…yeah….we don’t need no stinking Web site.” Yet he persisted.

Had it not been for this one lone voice, we’d still be requesting (and paying for!) hard copies of many documents which are now right at the fingertips of all connected IRB residents—virtually on demand. This forward-looking resident who constructed the City’s first Web site, paid the expenses out of his own pocket and even updated and maintained it in his spare time for years: former Commissioner Jeremiah Carmody.

Jeremiah hung on the legs of his fellow commissioners like a junk yard dog emphasizing the need to “be connected.” Had Jer not picked up the cyber ball and run with it, IRB would never be welcoming the brand new Web site the City launched just last week. While it’s still in the tweaking stages, be sure to check it out if you haven’t already happened upon it:

http://www.indian-rocks-beach.com/

Kudos to Danny Taylor and all those staffers who contributed to its design. It’s graphically pleasing, well organized and user friendly. (Danny & Co.: You’d better get the meeting minutes, after-action agendas, etc. loaded tout de suite; the troops are getting restless out here.)

By pioneering our City's Web site, Jeremiah Carmody taught us the need to look ahead. Next…streaming video of the commission meetings!! Well…maybe first we should get a sound system that allows attendees to actually hear what commissioners and residents are saying. Baby steps.

Thanks, Jeremiah. Your effort to promote open government online has been one of IRB’s most important contributions.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)

LOVE NOTES TO LEO ON FILM

Must See IRB

Rarely does a comment on IRBeHEARD gets its own posting. Since the comments screen doesn't allow for the inclusion of a live Web site link and we don't want anyone to miss this, we made an exception. Click on this link to see one IRBeHEARDers special video tribute to Leo. It's definitely "Must See IRB."

http://www.careerbuilder.com/monk-e-mail/Default.aspx?mid=28123507&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=b9a62abd585f432fb695cab93c7a0ec6-277025949-RC-4

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

LOVE NOTES TO LEO

From the Heart of an Old Cheerleader

[Click on this link to check out "IRB News" on Leo Reports before reading the following blog entry. Very entertaining reading!] http://leoreports.com/leoreports2.aspx

Leo, buddy…ya gotta minute…just a few things…

My name is “Obarski”—with an “i”—not a “y.” (As many times as you’ve trashed me in print, you’d think you might have learned that by now!)

By the way…I WAS a cheerleader, but how did you know? Check out photo above. That would be me---down front. Go Mt. Healthy Owls!

Leo…buddy…your memory must be as short as your…well, never mind…since you have conveniently forgotten that those you now depict as incompetent are the very people you endorsed when they ran for the commission. You…my friend…have taken “long distance flip-flopping” to a new level.

And, wasn’t it you who gave former City Attorney Andy Salzman your best literary “what for” every chance you got? Now, according to you, his successor doesn’t measure up either. You could always come and be our city attorney…couldn't you? Oh wait...never mind again...

Your reference to former Commissioner Jim Palamara as “the Brooklyn carpetbagger” was hysterical. Comparing a guy who has given decades of service to IRB to a northerner who moves south to loot and plunder is a bit of a stretch, even for you, Leo.

Maybe you, as our non-resident “yowler in absentia,” can set us all straight on the difference between a "citizen/taxpayer entitled to a say in his/her local government" and a "yowler." One who agrees with the commission and heaps accolades on them is an interested citizen; those who don't agree are yowlers?

(For those IRBeHEARD readers not in the Leo lingo loop, “yowler” is a 13th century Middle English term for one who utters a loud long cry of grief, pain, or distress. One who complains or protests with yowls. I had to look it up probably because I’m an illiterate who hasn’t spent enough time in the IRB Library!)

IRB yowlers are somewhat unique, Leo, in that they seem to have facts to back up their yowlerspeak. And the way I see it, being forced to repay nearly $1 million dollars in unauthorized loans to ourselves gives us yowling privileges…for decades to come. (Sorry, Leo...since you don't pay taxes here in IRB, your yowling privileges are hereby revoked.)

One potential problem, Leo…you seem to be agreeing more and more with the yowlers these days. Can’t have that now, can we, buddy?

And now for a favor, Leo...if there is ANYONE in IRB that you do like, could you let us know who those folks are before March so we know who (not!) to vote for?

I like to tease you, Leo, but your stuff is always good for a laugh or two—something we definitely need in IRB of late. We need you, Leo…even if it is just for the entertainment value.

Does anyone else (yowlers, non-yowlers and carpetbaggers alike) have anything to say to our old buddy Leo? Blog in and give him a gentle cyber hug.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)

IRB SHORTS

Quick Blurbs for Busy Bloggers

IRBlurb: The Pinellas County Sheriff’s contact has, as of this blog posting, NOT yet been signed by the City of IRB. What’s up with that?

IRBlurb: The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to remove all references to the defunct Beach Management Plan from revisions being made to IRB’s Comprehensive Plan during the E.A.R. review. The commission, however, reversed that decision and the Beach Management Plan—a subject that never fails to fill the seats at City Hall with beach-loving butts—lives to see another day. If citizens don’t take action now, the plan that so many residents vehemently opposed could actually become part of the City’s long-range plan in the area of beach maintenance, preservation and recreation. What’s up with that?

IRBlurb: Did you know that there is a movement afoot to eliminate some of the City’s charter officers? Charter officers, like the City Clerk and City Treasurer, are different than City staff employees in that their fiduciary duty is to US…the citizens of IRB. If these positions, currently mandated by our charter are eliminated, citizen’s rights will be further diminished. What’s up with that?

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)

A - B = C -- OR DOES IT?

Shell Game Budgeting Lives On

Developing a budget is simple, right? Add up the revenue. Project the expenses. Subtract B from A and what’s left over is C -- hopefully profit. So why does simplicity turn into abject confusion every year when IRB prepares the budget for the next fiscal year?

IRB has a number of different revenue streams each with its own set of expenses. Garbage truck maintenance gets charged against the Solid Waste Fund revenues, paper clips and office supplies come out the General Fund pool of monies, etc.

What would happen if ALL of the General Fund expenses were suddenly moved into the Sewer Fund? The General Fund would have a pot full of money at the end of the year; the Sewer Fund would be upside down. That's okay though because sewer fees can simply be raised to cover the increased expenses, right? Sure. Enterprise funds are supposed to be totally supported by the fees paid by residents for the service. So, no matter what the increase or what items are included in the expenses, it gets passed on to the citizens in what is perceived by many as nothing more than a “hidden” tax.

It’s total exaggeration to insinuate that ALL General Fund expenses were moved to our enterprise funds. But, beginning under former City Manager Steve Cottrell’s short reign, the allocations for some line items were increased noticeably—well above prior years’ levels. For instance, a greater percentage of the City Manager’s and Finance Director’s salaries are now being charged to the Sewer/Solid Waste Fund. Does this mean that if IRB sells the sewer system, we reduce the City Manager and Finance Director’s salaries by the amount? Not likely. Is CFO Marty Schless spending more of his day dealing with sewer and garbage issues than he did say three years ago? Also not likely, yet a greater portion of his salary now hits the Sewer Fund books.

Keep in mind, too, that Acting City Manager Danny Taylor, while doing two jobs, is being paid well below the amount set aside in the budget for the City Manager position. (The budgeted amount is based on Cottrell’s much higher compensation plan.) So, why wasn’t last year’s City Manager line item reduced to reflect this savings once the commission decided not to fill the position for at least a year? Instead, the money “saved” by Taylor doing double-duty went to pay for who-knows-what.

How many other general expense items that were moved over to the sewer and solid waste side contributed to the 60% increase in our sewer and garbage rates? How much of the nearly $1 million in loans from the General Fund to the Sewer/Solid Waste Funds were not loans at all but simply payback for overinflation of Sewer Fund expenses over the years?

The shifting of expenses between revenue pools creates a budget without enough transparency for citizens to see the black magic being performed until the rabbit jumps out of the sewer and begins grabbing wallets. Once again this year, if a budget goal was confusing the residents, IRB move than achieved it.

When is someone—anyone—on the commission going to go to bat for the financially challenged citizens of IRB? Probably not until March.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO OURSELVES

Buy a Little Something Nice for Yourself, Clark

One of my favorite scenes in Chevy Chase’s Christmas Vacation is between Clark W. Griswold (Chevy Chase) and Cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid) in the grocery store aisle. Clark offers to pick up the tab when Eddie admits he has no money to buy Christmas presents for his kids. Eddie, for a split second, refuses Clark’s offer, then promptly whips out his Christmas list, hands it to Clark saying with a wink: “And I really want you to get a little something nice for yourself from me, too, Clark.”

Clark was to buy himself a Christmas gift from Eddie using his own money. Has something similar happened in IRB?

It was recently announced that the Friends of the Library are springing for new computers for the IRB Library. How nice…except...what if the money this group is so magnanimously pledging belongs to us, the taxpayers of IRB? The question has never been answered (or even addressed publicly!) whether any portion of the funds the Friends of the Library, Inc. amassed while under contract to operate the IRB Library belongs to the City.

Earlier this year, the commission abruptly voted for the City to assume total control of the operation of the IRB Library and, as a result, the “library lease agreement” between the City and the Friends was voided. There was no workshop, no public discussion or even low rumblings about this change—until it actually happened. Many citizens wondered why the procedure whereby a commissioner suggests workshopping significant items before voting yea or nay fell by the wayside.


This begs the question: If the impending change to the library operation was never mentioned publicly, how did it even get put on an agenda for a vote? Is the same "conduit" that has produced "other suprises" responsbile? Were the five commissioners polled, behind the scenes, for a consensus to ram this change through? Was Sunshine Law violated here?

The lease agreement that had been in effect for nearly a decade states that “all revenues” from the operation of the library be deposited into the City of IRB treasury. But, the commission, in essence, authorized the Friends to “waltz out the door” with somewhere in the neighborhood of $80,000, no questions asked. The City got squat.

Why hasn’t our commission publicly asked for proof that the funds, now in possession of the Friends of the IRB Library, are truly theirs? Never bite the hand that elects you, right? Is it the same reason why the commission wrangled for the better part of a half hour over cutting three cell phones from the final budget, with not even a whisper about cutting the library or the librarian? (How many cell phones must be cut to make up for a $900,000+ mistake?)

IRB will chase former City Manager Al Grieshaber, spending more money than can ever be recovered, yet no questions were asked of the Friends about an amount of money that makes the alleged Grieshaber grab pale by comparison?

Being fair...maybe the monies DO belong to the Friends. Who knows! The fact that no commissioner has publicly offered any support for that notion makes me wonder. When I requested public records regarding the operation of library well over a year ago, I was, after a huge tussle, handed about two dozen worthless sheets of paper. Those “records” were provided only after the State Attorney’s Office informed the City that the library, because of being operated in the public interest, was indeed subject to Florida Public Records Law. The fact that it was operated by an outside source didn't matter. I was initially denied these documents on the basis that public records law didn’t apply. The reason for my request was to try to get a handle on how much revenue the library was generating in membership fees, fines and other charges. I was never able to do that with the records provided. If the commission was provided the same records that I was, they wouldn't have been able to suss it out either. So, how are they so sure the money isn't ours?

Once again, none of our five commissioners has publicly asked the Friends for proof that the funds they “left with” are theirs. Was this the commission’s way of “protecting” these monies in a lockbox so they weren’t reflected in the next year’s budget? This way, there was no risk that public pressure could force reallocation of these monies elsewhere...say to police protection. Some astute citizen may have even dared to point out that if building reserves is so important, why not put these funds back to the bottom line and not spend them for anything. Either by coincidence or design, the impromptu change to the library operation happened just as IRB’s financial problems began to emerge.

Who do the Friends' funds belong to? If the monies they are so graciously pledging actually belong to us, we are buying computers for ourselves--Cousin Eddie-style. Merry Christmas, Clark. Ho! Ho! Ho!

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

NIT-PICKING IN IRB

Citizens Right To Question

Not following the rules is why we, the taxpayers of Indian Rocks Beach, are now responsible for repaying $900,000+ in unauthorized loans. That's also why procedural questions were asked by a number of citizens at Tuesday’s Special Commission Meeting (9/30); the meeting was a "re-run” of the Second/Final Reading of next year’s millage and operating budget.

Some audience members attending the meeting saw the queries by residents as needless and unwarranted nit-picking. Based on the sea of errors with no admissions that have recently come to light, there can’t be too much nit-picking. Maybe if someone had nit-picked sooner instead of pontificating about the weather, our City wouldn’t be facing financial challenges that were avoidable on top of the ones we already expected.

The repayment monies for the “mystery loans” are coming from two sources: a recent 60% increase in our sewer and solid waste fees and the jacking up of our property tax millage rate--which directly affects our pockets. The increase in the millage rate over last year was so high that it exceeded the threshold requiring everyone on the commission to support it, which they did. Commissioner Torres, who was the lone “NO” vote on both the millage rate AND the budget at the now-defunct first Second/Final Reading on September 18th, joined his colleagues in adopting the 2.0 millage rate by the required 5-0 vote. (Last year’s millage rate was 1.4695. One-tenth of a mill roughly equals $100,000 in tax revenues.)

Ours is a right to ask questions and to challenge. The City Attorney is obviously the last stop on legal matters, but that should not stop our citizens from asking the questions. It’s certainly understandable though that more citizens don’t ask questions. After all, who enjoys being “put down” publicly by former elected officials who, more than most, should respect a citizen’s right to know? There is somewhat of a disconnect with Mayor Johnson taking a hard-line stance against derogatory personal comments being made at the podium between commissioners and citizens (which he should!) and then permitting derogatory comments to be made by a citizen about another citizen—comments that potentially intimidate others from participating in the process.

A number of citizens questioned the relatively short notice for the “re-do” millage and budget meeting. Rules regarding the number of days to advertise a public meeting exist in order to everyone the opportunity of having his/her say, especially with regard to taxation. It turns out that City Attorney Maura Kiefer’s position that a Sunday newspaper notice for a Tuesday meeting is sufficient as supported by a section of the Department of Revenue’s “Trim Compliance Workbook.” This publication shows the calculation of the two-day minimum notice to INCLUDE Saturdays, Sunday and holidays, contrary to what some citizens (including me) thought. Although legally appropriate, the two-day notice of last Tuesday’s meeting was significantly shorter than the notice for both the September 4th First Reading and Second Reading 1 on September 18th; both were Thursday meetings advertised the prior Sunday, providing a full five-day notification to the citizens. Not one commissioner expressed any concern for the shorter public notice of this very important issue.

Still somewhat puzzling is the lack of adherence to Florida Statute Chapter 200 entitled “Determination of Millage.” City Attorney Kiefer, on the record,
reported having a conversation with the Department of Revenue in which they advised her to follow a different procedure than the one outlined in the statute.

Florida Statute 213.05 makes a very clear distinction between the Department of Revenue’s responsibilities for ad valorem taxation (with a specific reference to Chapter 200) and the DOR's responsibilities for other special taxation sources. Chapter 200 charges the DOR with ONLY THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES that are specific to the Department of Revenue as defined in the Statute; whereas, in the case of other special revenue taxes the DOR has THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY of regulating, controlling and administering ALL revenue laws. This begs the question, “Did the Department of Revenue have the power to grant IRB 'a pass' not to follow Florida Statute"?

That statute gives the City of IRB three (3) days after the millage rate was first adopted on September 18, 2008 to forward it the it to the property appraiser, tax collector and Department of Revenue. There is no provision whatsoever in the statute for a city NOT to certify the rate adopted to those authorities—even in the case of an improper vote.

Also, the September 28th advertisement of the second Second/Final Reading on September 30th was required to appear 15 days from the date the tentative budget was approved on September 4th. Tuesday’s (Sept. 30) meeting wasn’t advertised until September 28th--24 days afterwards—well beyond the statute’s 15-day requirement.

We would, with near certainty, still have ended up at a 2.0 millage rate—but it would be nice to know that we got there following the rules this time.

When will there be no more questions? The very minute we’re not asked to pay taxes, which occurs just after the lid slams closed on the casket.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)