TOWN HALL MEETING SET

Wednesday, January 21

Prior to the last election, many residents literally begged for a Town Hall Meeting. The commission, for whatever reason, promptly decided against it--effectively "staving it off" by saying they would consider holding one after the election. Needless to say, one never transpired.

So, the IRB Homeowners Association has, once again, picked up the ball the City dropped and scheduled a Town Hall Meeting for Wednesday evening, January 21, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium. Some have insinuated that sponsoring a Town Hall meeting is somehow not in keeping with the Homeowners Association’s raison d’être of uniting residents. What better vehicle is there for bringing residents together than holding a long-overdue group meeting chaired by an impartial moderator?

Resistance by this commission to schedule a similar event themselves speaks to the secrecy by which this current group has operated over the last two years. This resistance in addition to the implementation of a more-restrictive Public Records policy has served only to further hamper the efforts of residents to obtain public information they have a right to. If it takes a City employee more than 15 minutes to dig up the records, the resident must personally foot the bill for the staff member’s time in order to gain access to the information. The new rules also apply to the commissioners themselves. The folks who are your "mouths" in our local government, in essence, voted to limit the amount of information they have access to, at a time when financial misdeeds cry for more answers.

The bottom line is that the upcoming Town Hall meeting is a much-needed, positive step toward lifting the veil of IRB secrecy and returning openness to our local government here in IRB.

How do you feel about the Homeowners Association holding a Town Hall Meeting? Will you attend?

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

CESSPOOL'S SHALLOW END

Introducing “Fact Fixer”

Those of you who refuse to visit “the other” Web site dealing with IRB politics--you really should. IRBeHEARD was recently referred to on that site as a cesspool of unsubstantiated allegations. Ironically, that site's very same posting was riddled with so many inaccuracies that it's impossible to tackle them all in one shot.

Thus…the birth of a new feature on IRBeHEARD--FACT FIXER--which will appear on a somewhat regular basis…and is designed to refute questionable IRB information published elsewhere.

Here’s a start…

STATEMENT: IRBeHEARD carries commentary on what goes on in IRB.
TRUTH: Info posted on IRBeHEARD is supported by a careful review of public records and a first-hand account of commission meeting activity. I attend as many meetings as my time permits--in person--and do not rely on the secret reports of "moles" for information.

STATEMENT: IRBeHEARD is a mouthpiece for former Mayor Bill Ockunzzi.
TRUTH: Comments on IRBeHEARD, whether fairly or unfairly, have sometimes been critical of Ockunzzi. IRBeHEARD, as it is billed, is “for IRB residents who have something or nothing to say about anything and everything.” Unlike other Web sites and blogs that don't allow comments, IRBeHEARD is a mouthpiece for EVERYONE in IRB--and yes, that does includes Mr. Ockunzzi.

STATEMENT: Former City Manager Al Grieshaber racked up 5,000 miles on the company vehicle while looking for a new job.
FACT: IRB has spent an unbelievable amount in legal fees going after a relatively small sum, the result of an admitted mistake by our former City Treasurer. And, the commission recently signed on for even MORE fees when authorizing the City Attorney to take this non-hunting doggy to trial at a time when IRB's financial picture is the bleakest in its history. Attempts by residents to get a handle on the exact amount of legal fees paid for by our tax dollars have been unsuccessful.

STATEMENT: The meeting to interview potential City Finance Directors is this Monday night, December 29th.
FACT: According to the online city calendar (which the "other source" obviously didn't double-check!) and the meeting agenda released last week by city staff, interviews for potential Finance Directors are scheduled for Monday MORNING at 9 a.m.--effectively precluding input from 78.5% of our residents who, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, are employed as wage or salary workers.

Check back on IRBeHEARD for more FACT FIXERS in upcoming editions and verify the information for yourselves. You won't need a GPS to find the exact location of the true cesspool, which I highly recommend you read nonetheless.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

WHO IS THAT MASKED BLOGGER

Anonymity Argument

IRBeHEARD accepts anonymous comments to postings. And, as a result, some have leveled criticism our way.

When this blog was established over a year ago, there was an option of accepting or rejecting anonymous comments. I thought about it long and hard before deciding to allow any and all comments—regardless of whether or not an identity was assigned.

First and foremost in my mind when making this decision was what some have referred to as the “IRB Fear Factor.” More than a few citizens have expressed reticence to voice their true opinions about their city government, which is the primary reason I launched this blog in the first place. By granting asylum through anonymity, I intended to encourage those who would otherwise have just kept quiet to share their thoughts and concerns without fear of retribution or retaliation.

Secondly, I felt that our resident readers had enough brains in their heads to read comments and decide for themselves whether or not to put any stock in them. I expected some narrow-mindedness…but it has well exceeded my expectations.

Many of us—including yours truly—have taken a slam or two upside the head in the comments on this blog, on other blogs/Web sites, in mass e-mails and sometimes even in a public forum. I, for one, am constantly accused of being overly critical and never doing anything positive for the community. After spending two and half years volunteering my time working with a great group of people on the Indian Rocks: As It Was pictorial history book, serving on the board at the Historical Museum, and attending as many commission meetings as my schedule permits—that’s a little tough to take sometimes. But, I can’t change how others feel. And, being fair, I probably have been a little too critical at times.

I personally detest censorship in any way, shape or form, which admittedly crept into my thought process as well. What is objectionable to one person may well be palatable to another. I simply was not comfortable sitting “on high” and being the decider of what should or shouldn’t be read by our entire community.

A recently posted comment on IRBeHEARD alluded to our good friend Leo being pressured not to continue writing negatively about IRB. I certainly hope that isn’t the case. Leo has done more to bring this community together than most would ever give him credit for. He effectively flushed certain issues out in the open and encouraged people to talk about them. Perhaps we should be thanking him instead of kicking him in the butt at every turn. Am I in total agreement with everything Leo writes? Hell no. But I applaud his talent and would never poo-poo his work simply because I may not always buy into his content. Those not capable of reading "vintage Leo" and making their own decisions are, in reality, more afraid of themselves that they are of Mr. Coughlin.

The standard response to anyone who posts anything negative on IRBeHEARD meets with the same third-grade response: “Stop being part of the problem. We have enough of those here in town.” I couldn’t agree more with that statement...only I consider the problem to be those who make statements like that! If encouraging folks to listen to all sides of an issue and learn more about how their local government operates creates a problem, then I guess I am part of the problem.

When the subject of the IRBeHEARD blog comes up, I’ve heard some emphatically say “No, I don’t read the blog.” I can only conjecture that these blog haters never read anything they don’t agree with and don’t really care what their neighbors have to say—unless they are “total agreement clones” of themselves. In the barn I’ve been so arrogantly accused of being raised in, we call that ignorance.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

CRYING FOR TRANSPARENCY

IRB Has Nothing on NASDAQ

Alleged improprieties by a former NASDAQ CEO have many screaming for more transparency on Wall Street. Even the most educated, financially savvy folks in our country don’t understand much of Wall Street’s inner-workings and have attributed this latest scandal to this lack of understanding.

Sound familiar? Isn’t that basically the same thing that caused the controversy over the unauthorized Sewer & Solid Waste Fund loans here in IRB? Had there been proper transparency in the financials, several things would have happened differently.

Firstly, the existence of the loans that no one claims to have authorized would have presumably surfaced much sooner. It’s improbable to think that any commission--the present one or any in the past--would have chosen to ignore the fact that our city was going upside down into the seven-figure range without speaking up. Multiple accounts collapsed into one, the absence of paper trails, no “visible” separation of the enterprise funds from IRB’s general operating kitty, a complete disregard for charter requirements…these are just a few of the “systems”—or lack thereof—that contributed to our current financial quagmire.

Secondly, there wouldn’t be such a high level of mistrust among some residents. This undercurrent admittedly existed prior to the “outing” of the loans but has increased exponentially since. And, our current commission, who unknowingly “signed up” for the task of fixing this mess, hasn’t done much to alleviate this community skepticism. Citizens approach the microphone at nearly every commission meeting and ask intuitive questions. Some have even been known to lose their cool in exasperation only to be chastised for the outburst.

Citizen queries are rarely met with plausible answers and almost never result in a commissioner saying: “Hey…he (or she’s) right…what about that?” Figures still don’t jive. Answers to pointed questions are sketchy at best. What is most disconcerting is that no new systems—at least in view of the public—have been put into place to keep another “million dollar oops” from recurring. This, too, is a NASDAQ re-run; NASDAQ has seen many an impropriety since it was founded in the mid-60s, primarily as a result of a failure to provide more transparency and learn from past mistakes.

Wouldn’t one think that the commission would be insisting on MORE control over city finances? What has transpired is exactly the opposite. The commission, over nearly every citizen’s and former mayor’s objections, has insisted that our March ballot include a potentially disastrous referendum. If passed, it would result in the Finance Director no longer being directly accountable to the City Commission. As it stands now, IRB’s CFO serves at the pleasure of the commission with dual reporting responsibilities to the City Manager AND to the commission. If the proposed charter amendment passes, the City Manager would become the point man--sort of a “go-between”--between the Finance Director and the commission.

Why would our commission want to put an extra layer of management between themselves and our CFO…especially after the problems that have come to light over the last year? Why would this commission, with the exception of Commissioner Torres, endorse a system with less checks and balances instead of insisting on more? Are they possibly concerned about their own liability for decisions made regarding these loans and the goal is to “shield” themselves by making the City Manager the responsible party?

This potential change to our City Charter is even scarier when you stop to realize that they have no idea who will occupy the City Manager’s chair. If recent history is any indication, our Finance Director may be reporting to a revolving door. This proposed charter change is almost as puzzling as when this commission voted NOT to continue seeing monthly check registers after the infamous Grieshaber check was issued in error. When the situation demanded more scrutiny, they insisted on less.

Now that the “unauthorized loan horse” has left the stable, the commission’s answer is to sell the farm instead of repairing the hole.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

SALZMAN REWIND

Missing the Mark Big-Time

After talking to a number of residents about last week’s posting regarding former IRB City Attorney Andy Salzman, I realized I missed the mark. Evidently, I must have conveyed the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I was trying to say. Hey…it happens.

Those I spoke with thought my comments were intended as criticism of Salzman when they were meant as precisely the opposite. So this posting is a bit of a rewind in the interest of clarification.

What I tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to emphasize is that Redington Beach, where Salzman is currently the City Attorney, has decided to consider “other” proposals for legal services. Mentioned was the fact that they overshot their legal budget by $3,000. Think twice Redington Beach! Compared to IRB’s overspending in this category since replacing Salzman, your little $3K is a mere pittance.

In fact, some have conjectured that IRB may well exceed the budgeted amount for legal expenses by an amount equal to Redington Beach’s ENTIRE BUDGET for the year…which, in retrospect, makes Andy Salzman a very good deal.

The truth is that we, as citizens, have not been able to get a handle on the total YTD legal expenses in IRB. And it’s not for lack of trying. A public records request made about six months ago for copies of legal invoices associated with the Whitehurst litigation resulted in being asked to wait until the current City Attorney, Salzman’s replacement, had an opportunity to review the bills. Nothing more has been heard on the subject since. No doubt the Whitehurst invoice request fell into the ever-deepening chasm of unanswered public records requests from numerous IRB citizens.

Public records law says that if attorney bills contain items that are exempt because they reflect a legal conclusion, strategy, theory, etc. only that portion of the information can be withheld. Hours worked and the hourly fees do not fall within the scope of the exemption. Unfortunately, the only means a citizen has of compelling public info to which they are entitled but have been refused access to is to file suit…incurring even more legal fees for the city.

Similar “dancing” resulted around a similar question about whether or not the City’s insurance had kicked in with regard to the Grieshaber case or whether the City was still picking up the tab using City funds.

Legal expenses seem to be the topic of conversation in a few other beach communities, too. Last Sunday’s Neighborhood Times featured articles about St. Pete Beach’s struggle under the weight of attorney’s fees and about Madeira Beach paying a hefty price tag to reimburse a former commissioner who was unsuccessfully sued for defamation.

When I asked fellow bloggers to impart advice to Redington Beach regarding their request for proposals for city attorneys, I expected a good many of you to warn them to be very cautious when replacing Salzman because his type of experience and integrity is very tough to come by…especially at a reasonable price. I half expected someone to say that IRB unfairly showed Salzman the door because he refused to tell the commission what they wanted to hear. I thought someone might pipe up and offer the following advice to Redington…”Caution guys: the legal grass is not always greener.”

In 20-20 hindsight, do you feel the city was well served by replacing Mr. Salzman as our City Attorney or would you welcome him back tomorrow if given the opportunity?

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!)

SOBERING IRB STATISTICS

We're NOT All Rich

There is a perception that everyone living in Indian Rocks Beach is rolling in dough. Perception, in this instance, couldn’t be farther from reality. Either that or the 2000 U.S. Census numbers are terrible awry.

Census Bureau statistics show that the median income in IRB is $53,770--half earn more and half earn less. Nearly ¼ of all our households reports an income of less than $30,000 and 80% make less than $100,000. Sadly, 5% of our residents live below the poverty line.

Of the 2,702 IRB households, almost 50% are “nonfamily households.” In fact, the average household size in IRB is 1.88 people. And, of the 50% of our households that are “family households,” less than 25% of that 50% have children ages 6-17 in the household.

With that in mind, does it make sense that IRB budgeted approximately $100,000 for the replacement of playground equipment? And what about the library supporters who claim the library to be a great benefit for our youth?

Turning to the subject of education, nearly 5% of our folks didn’t graduate from high school. Only 25.7% have bachelor’s degrees and 38.6% have a bachelor’s or higher.

And what about the belief that IRB is a community of business owners? IRB has a total of 2,731 civilian workers 16 years and older. While 11.6% do own their own companies, 78.5% are employed as wage and salary workers.

Florida’s population base grew by 10% from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2007. What did IRB’s head count do during the same time period? It experienced a slight decrease; we lost 40 residents. Those transplanting to Florida simply aren’t coming to IRB—and if they are, we’re losing equal numbers to offset the gains.

Are good folks in our community being priced out of town? Do those commissioners voting bingo-bango-bongo for large increases in everything just assume our folks are “good for it”? If the Census data is anywhere close to correct, IRB’s collective pockets might not be as deep as one would prefer to believe. Are libraries, playgrounds, dune walkovers and other frills--spiffs that would be nice to have if times were different--fueling up the moving vans?

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB