Planning commission should be halved
Director of Community Development Don Charles dropped a bombshell near the end of the January 26 Goochland County Planning Commission meeting when he informed the group that, as a result of expected revenue shortfalls, the county administrator will recommend that the supervisors reduce the size of the commission to five.
Commissioners are paid $100 and mileage per meeting.
This is a long overdue move. For some reason, lost in the mists of time, Goochland has had a ten member planning commission, two from each district. Neighboring jurisdictions get along nicely with far fewer planning commissioners.
Henrico, for instance, whose land area is slightly smaller than Goochland, but whose population is about 15 times larger, has five planning commissioners.
The planning commission, whose members are appointed by the supervisor for each district, is charged with reviewing zoning and other land use changes.
The commission holds public hearings on land use matters and makes recommendations to the supervisors, who have the final say on such issues.
Because the planning commissioners address only land use issues, they are able to delve deeply into the various aspects of rezoning, conditional use and related matters. They have a public forum that provides the opportunity to discuss the consequences of land use changes and provide useful information to citizens in this area.
Public hearings before the planning commission often attract large numbers of residents concerned about pending changes in their area. Understandably, few people welcome rezoning, especially when farms are transformed into subdivisions. The planning commission tries to ensure that changes in land use meet county regulations, especially those concerning health and safety.
The final details about development are ironed out at the staff level with little public scrutiny. Often, there is little discussion about land use matters at the supervisor level before votes are taken, so the deliberations of the planning commission are an important step in the development process.
During public hearings, residents often trot out a standard list of objections. These include increased traffic; increasing the drawdown on the water table; concerns about soil hydraulics and septic systems; attracting “the wrong kind of people” and inappropriate location.
People in Goochland, especially those who have lived here fewer than 10 years, do not favor additional development of any kind. Sometimes they raise legitimate concerns about a specific proposal. The planning commission is supposed to consider the validity of these comments, as well as the merits of the application before taking its vote.
In order to understand the ramifications of proposed land use changes, it is vital for planning commissioners to be familiar with the property in question as well as county ordinances and regulations.
Not that long ago, it was obvious from comments made by commissioners during their deliberations that each had visited and walked the parcels in question and took the time to carefully consider the consequences of the proposal.
In the past few years, newly appointed commissioners seem to have little idea what they are supposed to do, particulars of county zoning ordinances and even where properties under consideration are located. This is all too obvious from the often bizarre and inappropriate comments made during their deliberations.
Candidates for the planning commission, in some cases, seem to have been selected for reasons other than their understanding of or interest in land use matters. Supervisors seem to have been so desperate to fill vacant seats that they appointed anyone who would take the job.
The planning commission has no power. The supervisors, who frequently ignore the commission’s recommendations, have the final say in land use. These decisions often seem to have been made long before they get to the public hearing stage.
Some of the commissioners seem clueless about the matters at hand. Whether this is caused by lack of interest or preparation, it serves no one well. They might even be embarrassed if they listened to a recording of their discussions.
In 2003, there were naturally occurring vacancies on the commission in each district. The supervisors could have easily reduced the number of planning commission seats to five with little heartburn but declined to act.
With the drastic decline in applications for zoning changes and conditional use permits, this is an ideal time to reduce the planning commission. Perhaps a smaller group will result in thoughtful, pertinent consideration of land use matters instead of the confabulation that often results with the current group.
Goochland has no need of a ten member planning commission. This is one budget cut that is good news.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
All politics are local
School board emulates Congress
At its January 26 meeting the Goochland School Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of a proposed budget present by Dr. Linda Underwood, superintendent of schools.
This action was a nasty slap in the face to the Goochland Parents Education Association (GEPA)whose suggested alternatives to cutting teaching positions was ignored.(See their budget proposal at goochlandparents.blogspot.com)
Reportedly comments at the school board meeting characterized GEPA as bad little boys and girls who would be sent to bed without supper after throwing a tantrum.
The budget approved by the school board retains all of the high dollar administrative folk that have come on board since Underwood took over at the start of the 2007-08 school year while eliminating teachers. (See this budget at the school website www.glnd.k12.va.us) It’s still about $1 million more than projected tax revenues. The annual Goochland school budget is typically a bit more than all of the real estate taxes collected.
Although the school board’s action is no surprise, it signals a return to the “good old boy business as usual” method of operations used by Goochland for many decades.
Emulating other school boards in the region, Goochland’s “fab five” urged parents to demand that the board of supervisors increase the real estate tax rates to generate at least the amount of revenue realized last year.
On January 19 County Administrator Rebecca T. Dickson made a presentation to the supervisors of the revenue generated by the current 53 cents per $100 of assessed valuation that has been in place for several years. (To view this excellent summary of the county’s fiscal condition, go to www.co.goochland.va.us and click on supervisors and January 19 packet. This is a somewhat large pdf file, so download on a hi speed connection is recommended.)
The school board’s reaction to the GEPA budget and general comments made by parents questioning budget items mirrors the posture taken by Congressional leaders to those who question the health care reform legislation. They are in charge, they know what’s best and they will do as they please. Don’t bother them with pesky facts and reasonable questions.
Underwood will present her budget to the supervisors next Tuesday night at 7 p.m. in the board meeting room. It will be interesting to see if the supervisors cave in to school demands as they have done in past years, or hold the line.
With all of the specific questions about the school budget that have been raised by parents and ignored by school administration it is hard to see how the supervisors will be able to justify raising the tax rate to fund more smoke and mirrors.
We have gone beyond the point where the school system can show up each year waving standardized test reports and demand a blank check from the taxpayers because it did a good job. This is definitely a situation when the maxim “never trust anyone who says trust me” applies.
Having elected school boards that lack the power to levy taxes paves the way for this kind of total abdication of fiscal responsibility. If the school board had to justify its expenditures to every taxpayer at the ballot box, it would be singing a different tune.
That argument is for another day.
It’s hard to see how parents can be motivated to support a tax increase to fund a budget that they have found seriously flawed. We all want good schools, but we’re still wondering how retaining expensive administrators while eliminating teachers makes sense.
At its January 26 meeting the Goochland School Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of a proposed budget present by Dr. Linda Underwood, superintendent of schools.
This action was a nasty slap in the face to the Goochland Parents Education Association (GEPA)whose suggested alternatives to cutting teaching positions was ignored.(See their budget proposal at goochlandparents.blogspot.com)
Reportedly comments at the school board meeting characterized GEPA as bad little boys and girls who would be sent to bed without supper after throwing a tantrum.
The budget approved by the school board retains all of the high dollar administrative folk that have come on board since Underwood took over at the start of the 2007-08 school year while eliminating teachers. (See this budget at the school website www.glnd.k12.va.us) It’s still about $1 million more than projected tax revenues. The annual Goochland school budget is typically a bit more than all of the real estate taxes collected.
Although the school board’s action is no surprise, it signals a return to the “good old boy business as usual” method of operations used by Goochland for many decades.
Emulating other school boards in the region, Goochland’s “fab five” urged parents to demand that the board of supervisors increase the real estate tax rates to generate at least the amount of revenue realized last year.
On January 19 County Administrator Rebecca T. Dickson made a presentation to the supervisors of the revenue generated by the current 53 cents per $100 of assessed valuation that has been in place for several years. (To view this excellent summary of the county’s fiscal condition, go to www.co.goochland.va.us and click on supervisors and January 19 packet. This is a somewhat large pdf file, so download on a hi speed connection is recommended.)
The school board’s reaction to the GEPA budget and general comments made by parents questioning budget items mirrors the posture taken by Congressional leaders to those who question the health care reform legislation. They are in charge, they know what’s best and they will do as they please. Don’t bother them with pesky facts and reasonable questions.
Underwood will present her budget to the supervisors next Tuesday night at 7 p.m. in the board meeting room. It will be interesting to see if the supervisors cave in to school demands as they have done in past years, or hold the line.
With all of the specific questions about the school budget that have been raised by parents and ignored by school administration it is hard to see how the supervisors will be able to justify raising the tax rate to fund more smoke and mirrors.
We have gone beyond the point where the school system can show up each year waving standardized test reports and demand a blank check from the taxpayers because it did a good job. This is definitely a situation when the maxim “never trust anyone who says trust me” applies.
Having elected school boards that lack the power to levy taxes paves the way for this kind of total abdication of fiscal responsibility. If the school board had to justify its expenditures to every taxpayer at the ballot box, it would be singing a different tune.
That argument is for another day.
It’s hard to see how parents can be motivated to support a tax increase to fund a budget that they have found seriously flawed. We all want good schools, but we’re still wondering how retaining expensive administrators while eliminating teachers makes sense.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
How much is that education in the window?
What is most important for good education?
On January 19 school officials held what was billed as a roundtable discussion with concerned parents before yet another public hearing on the proposed school budget for fiscal year 2010-11.
The roundtable discussion consisted of the school superintendent Dr. Linda Underwood responding to questions submitted by concerned parents.
Underwood may be one of those former teachers who addresses everyone as those they are a cognitively challenged first grader. Her tone, that of an exasperated parent dealing with a child who had thrown a tantrum, was troubling.
The gist of Underwood’s responses was “it’s complicated.” Given the myriad regulations and funding sources that are part of any public school budget process, that is both accurate and understatement. That same complexity, unfortunately, also offers opportunity for obfuscation and slight of hand maneuvers that are hard for lay folk to follow.
Please visit the school website at www.glnd.k12.va.us and read both the superintendent’s proposed budget and her blog, which contains her comments on these issues.
When asked if the school board will include parental input as a part of the budget process going forward, Underwood said that the size of the revenue shortfall caught school officials unawares and dealing with severe budget retractions was an entirely new experience.
She said that in a normal year the budget process would involve looking for ways to enhance the educational experience with new and better programs. Her neglect to mention ways to ensure that the system retains outstanding teachers that make all the positive results in the classroom possible reinforced the notion that the school board and administration view teachers as fungible costs on two feet.
Neither Underwood nor any school board members seemed remotely interested in parental scrutiny of or participation in the budget process going forward. They declined to make any promises in that direction other than the usual nonspecific welcome of community participation.
At the conclusion of a very brief public hearing with two speakers, both associated with the Goochland Education Parents Association (GEPA), some school board members commented on the situation.
In an interesting turn of events, GEPA presented its own proposed budget using the information in Underwood’s budget proposal. The GEPA budget preserves all teaching positions; funds textbooks, sports, the Tender Tots program and musical instruments. (See the GEPA questions, budget comments and spreadsheet at goochlandparents.blogspot.com)
The GEPA proposal also urges that the supervisors fund the school budget by category as permitted under Virginia law rather than in a lump sum. While flexibility provided by being able to move funds among categories during the fiscal year as conditions change can be a useful mechanism for budget management, it also provides the opportunity for mischief.
An ongoing contention about which positions in the central office are administrative and which instructional could be eliminated this way. Cost reallocations advocated by the GEPA budget include elimination of several high salaried positions whose duties, it contends, could be spread among other staff members.
In spite of all of the public comment at past meetings, Jim Haskell, District 1 sounded like a telemarketer whose sales pitch was interrupted by a pesky question from his mark and resumed his spiel as though the question had never been asked. He acted as though the proposed school budget was carved in stone when Underwood handed it down from the mountain and it is now the parents’ duty to demand that the supervisors pony up the money.
Did he really not understand what all the fuss has been about for the past few months?
In a letter to Goochland parents (see school website) school board chair Raymond Miller, District 2 contended that the proposed budget reflects the concerns of the parents. Virtually every parent who spoke about the proposed budget implored the school board not to cut teacher jobs yet Underwood’s proposed budget eliminates front line teacher positions.
Was the school board not listening? The condescending arrogance of the school board puts even the board of supervisors to shame.
Parents reported that at school board meeting last fall, one board member advocated threatening to cut the gifted center, sports and other popular and successful school programs from the proposed budget because it would enrage parents and compel them to harass the supervisors into doing whatever is necessary to fully fund their budget.
Goochland parents have tired of being used as unwitting pawns in the annual game of budget chicken played by the school board and the board of supervisors. It should be no surprise to the school board that the reason children are in the gifted program is because they have very intelligent parents. These people are more than capable of understanding the school budget and asking specific questions about the way that their tax dollars are being spent for education. They want answers, not tap dancing.
The school board takes credit for the change in Goochland schools from an embarrassment to an example for the region. Many of the same people were on the school board when our schools were dreadful.
Why did they improve so drastically? As Goochland grew, people who believe in the value of a public education came here. They got involved and fought for better schools. Motivated parents are a vital ingredient in good schools. They want to ensure that the schools their children attend are the best possible and if that benefits all the students in a system, so much the better.
These parents are willing to go to bat for the school system, but if school officials shut them out, it could be back to the bad old days.
Both proposed budgets are more than will be generated by all of the real estate taxes the county expects to collect using the current 53 cents per $100 rate. With all of the shadows cast on Underwood’s budget, it is doubtful that the supervisors will be comfortable raising the tax rate for the schools.
This will be a year of hard choices, next year may be worse. Taxpayers want government to be open and honest. We’re not there yet. If the school board ignores the parents and insists on the Underwood budget that eliminates teachers, yet retains high dollar administrative positions, there will be fallout. The real question is, does the school board care?
“We do hear you,” Miller said at the conclusion. “We made changes based on community input and will send the supervisors what we consider to be a good budget to do the job for the children.”
Please read the supporting documents and draw your own conclusions.
On January 19 school officials held what was billed as a roundtable discussion with concerned parents before yet another public hearing on the proposed school budget for fiscal year 2010-11.
The roundtable discussion consisted of the school superintendent Dr. Linda Underwood responding to questions submitted by concerned parents.
Underwood may be one of those former teachers who addresses everyone as those they are a cognitively challenged first grader. Her tone, that of an exasperated parent dealing with a child who had thrown a tantrum, was troubling.
The gist of Underwood’s responses was “it’s complicated.” Given the myriad regulations and funding sources that are part of any public school budget process, that is both accurate and understatement. That same complexity, unfortunately, also offers opportunity for obfuscation and slight of hand maneuvers that are hard for lay folk to follow.
Please visit the school website at www.glnd.k12.va.us and read both the superintendent’s proposed budget and her blog, which contains her comments on these issues.
When asked if the school board will include parental input as a part of the budget process going forward, Underwood said that the size of the revenue shortfall caught school officials unawares and dealing with severe budget retractions was an entirely new experience.
She said that in a normal year the budget process would involve looking for ways to enhance the educational experience with new and better programs. Her neglect to mention ways to ensure that the system retains outstanding teachers that make all the positive results in the classroom possible reinforced the notion that the school board and administration view teachers as fungible costs on two feet.
Neither Underwood nor any school board members seemed remotely interested in parental scrutiny of or participation in the budget process going forward. They declined to make any promises in that direction other than the usual nonspecific welcome of community participation.
At the conclusion of a very brief public hearing with two speakers, both associated with the Goochland Education Parents Association (GEPA), some school board members commented on the situation.
In an interesting turn of events, GEPA presented its own proposed budget using the information in Underwood’s budget proposal. The GEPA budget preserves all teaching positions; funds textbooks, sports, the Tender Tots program and musical instruments. (See the GEPA questions, budget comments and spreadsheet at goochlandparents.blogspot.com)
The GEPA proposal also urges that the supervisors fund the school budget by category as permitted under Virginia law rather than in a lump sum. While flexibility provided by being able to move funds among categories during the fiscal year as conditions change can be a useful mechanism for budget management, it also provides the opportunity for mischief.
An ongoing contention about which positions in the central office are administrative and which instructional could be eliminated this way. Cost reallocations advocated by the GEPA budget include elimination of several high salaried positions whose duties, it contends, could be spread among other staff members.
In spite of all of the public comment at past meetings, Jim Haskell, District 1 sounded like a telemarketer whose sales pitch was interrupted by a pesky question from his mark and resumed his spiel as though the question had never been asked. He acted as though the proposed school budget was carved in stone when Underwood handed it down from the mountain and it is now the parents’ duty to demand that the supervisors pony up the money.
Did he really not understand what all the fuss has been about for the past few months?
In a letter to Goochland parents (see school website) school board chair Raymond Miller, District 2 contended that the proposed budget reflects the concerns of the parents. Virtually every parent who spoke about the proposed budget implored the school board not to cut teacher jobs yet Underwood’s proposed budget eliminates front line teacher positions.
Was the school board not listening? The condescending arrogance of the school board puts even the board of supervisors to shame.
Parents reported that at school board meeting last fall, one board member advocated threatening to cut the gifted center, sports and other popular and successful school programs from the proposed budget because it would enrage parents and compel them to harass the supervisors into doing whatever is necessary to fully fund their budget.
Goochland parents have tired of being used as unwitting pawns in the annual game of budget chicken played by the school board and the board of supervisors. It should be no surprise to the school board that the reason children are in the gifted program is because they have very intelligent parents. These people are more than capable of understanding the school budget and asking specific questions about the way that their tax dollars are being spent for education. They want answers, not tap dancing.
The school board takes credit for the change in Goochland schools from an embarrassment to an example for the region. Many of the same people were on the school board when our schools were dreadful.
Why did they improve so drastically? As Goochland grew, people who believe in the value of a public education came here. They got involved and fought for better schools. Motivated parents are a vital ingredient in good schools. They want to ensure that the schools their children attend are the best possible and if that benefits all the students in a system, so much the better.
These parents are willing to go to bat for the school system, but if school officials shut them out, it could be back to the bad old days.
Both proposed budgets are more than will be generated by all of the real estate taxes the county expects to collect using the current 53 cents per $100 rate. With all of the shadows cast on Underwood’s budget, it is doubtful that the supervisors will be comfortable raising the tax rate for the schools.
This will be a year of hard choices, next year may be worse. Taxpayers want government to be open and honest. We’re not there yet. If the school board ignores the parents and insists on the Underwood budget that eliminates teachers, yet retains high dollar administrative positions, there will be fallout. The real question is, does the school board care?
“We do hear you,” Miller said at the conclusion. “We made changes based on community input and will send the supervisors what we consider to be a good budget to do the job for the children.”
Please read the supporting documents and draw your own conclusions.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The tax plan debate
Sort of verbatim
Gentle readers,
Below is a quick and dirty cut and paste recap of the debate that raged through the email list yesterday. Apologies to those who felt besieged by a plethora of emails. To those who waded in, thanks for your passion.
Please add additional thoughts to the debate by posting comments below.
Thanks,
SEW
Ending the Corporate Tax Will Create Jobs
BOB MARCELLUS TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published: January 17, 2010
» 0 Comments | Post a Comment
vote
nowBuzz up!
Virginia has the opportunity to act decisively to create a more just, productive, and economically competitive environment. To reach this goal, I advocate the complete elimination of Virginia's corporate income tax.
We need to take bold action to protect and create jobs here in Virginia.
Our combined federal and state corporate income tax rate of 41 percent (35 percent federal plus 6 percent state) is now the highest in the world -- surpassing Japan and communist China -- and is double the average rate in developed countries. While other countries have been slashing this tax, America has been asleep at the switch.
A first misunderstanding is to suppose that rate cuts lead to lower tax receipts. Nothing is less true. Investment and work behavior change when taxes are less onerous. Everyone knows this is true, even if they don't want to admit it. But government largely uses a "static" model of tax revenues that ignores human behavior -- something that businesses would never dream of doing.
During the past 20 years, dozens of countries have concluded that the corporate income tax is one of the most economically destructive mechanisms for raising revenue because it destroys production.
While other countries have been cutting corporate income taxes year after year, our corporate taxes have remained the same, destroying our competitive position. Today, many continue to talk about punishing companies that move jobs overseas -- but the more rational course of action is to stop punishing them for staying here.
Countries and regions that have cut the corporate income tax have experienced impressive increases in the rate of new jobs, corporate relocations, economic competition, and new investment. The evidence is overwhelming.
Abolishing this tax, with a date certain 12 to 24 months in the future, creates a "wow" factor for growth while still building tax revenue until the actual implementation. This window buffers state revenue while building the base that culminates in a sustained growth of revenue created by an ensuing 0.5 percentage point to 1 percentage point expansion in the annual growth rate of Virginia's GDP. This roughly translates (on the low end of expectations) to creating new jobs for the entire city of Bristol -- population 17,000 -- every year.
The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2006 that more than 70 percent of the burden of corporate income taxes falls on labor. A European Union study of 50,000 businesses found an even stronger connection to wages -- a 1 percent increase in corporate income tax rates leads to a 0.92 percent decrease in real wages.
It would be easy to criticize eliminating this tax as a give-away to major corporations. But this initiative is so overwhelmingly pro-labor that it is hard to understand why business people have to be the ones to propose it.
National and provincial governments across the political spectrum have been working to cut this tax and have experienced increasing tax revenue as a result. People don't understand how destructive the tax is to jobs, investment, and business growth. They certainly don't understand that labor ultimately pays the highest price. Labor deserves the right to negotiate for this portion of company profits.
While removing this tax will indeed lead to ongoing expansion of the economy, the justification is not just financial but moral: Shareholders should not be double taxed -- they should be able to reinvest profits. Labor should not be deprived of higher earnings.
I note that this stimulus to a state or nation's economy does not discriminate as to industry or interest group. Eliminating the corporate income tax will offer a true stimulus that requires no bias -- you do not have to have a stake in a government-subsidized industry to benefit. The current federal "stimulus" initiatives -- in the form of expanded government spending and income redistribution -- ignore the important difference between market investments of private capital on the one hand and government programs that usurp markets and drain away private investment capital -- or dilute our currency -- on the other.
There is no other long-term method or greater incentive for creating jobs and growing an economy than profits.
No state or nation should need to apologize for restoring the incentive for businesses to grow and become more prosperous. Even charities require the existence of profits in an economy.
The only way to have more jobs and a stronger economy is with a stronger business community. The only stimulus to a bigger and stronger business community is to allow individuals and businesses to take the risk, innovate, and to out-compete others -- while reaping the rewards.
I urge Gov. Bob McDonnell and our elected representatives in the General Assembly to send a bold message and implement this policy with all due haste -- for the benefit of all of the citizens of the state.
Bob Marcellus
President
Richmond Group Fund Co. Ltd
Corporate income taxes may well be a pass-through expense and so may not REALLY be paid by the corporations if levied across the board. If so, then elimination of the corporate income tax may not make much of an economic difference (so long as tax revenues are increased elsewhere, such as on individuals), but it is specious to assert that its elimination will surely promote job growth. If that were so, then there should not have been nearly as much "job growth" back in the 1990's as there was when the American economy was doing quite well, despite a much more "aggressive" individual and corporate tax structure.
The ill-advised 2001 tax cuts rendered the American tax system "regressive" (not "progressive") for the first time, at least since WWII. The larger the gross income, the larger PERCENTAGE of gross income retained after taxes and ordinary living expenses. Middle-class families now retain a smaller PERCENTAGE of their after-tax gross income than do wealthier families. I think that has been a major contributing factor to our current economic meltdown.
I suggest the PRIMARY reason jobs are now suffering is because "mercantilism" (the buying and selling of goods and services mostly at the local-market level) has been almost totally ignored in the "Bailouts," while there continue to be undue emphasis and focus on "capitalism," which cannot create many jobs if the goods produced by "capitalism" (like GM's cars) aren't selling. Most American industry is now run (into the ground) by clueless "bean-counters," and their chickens have finally come home to roost.
Trickle-down "free-market capitalism" is a nonsensical "bean-counter" mantra parroted in rote fashion by most that has served as Conventional Wisdom in America for far too long. The US economy is more truly driven by middle-class "fair-market mercantilism" instead. Jobs won't be created or maintained until middle-class purchasing power is restored.
Cutting federal payroll taxes (FICA--12.4% & Medicare--2.9%, both half nondeductible) instead of cutting corporate or individual income taxes might be a good start, as one Republican congressman has suggested.
H. Watkins Ellerson
Dear Mr. Ellerson
The utter speciousness of your argument is that nowhere do even acknowledge, much less propose replacement of the lost tax REVENUES that will surely result from the proposed elimination of the corporate income tax.
You must have missed a key part of my op-ed noting the increase in treasury revenues by the next budget cycle in each of the three country examples. It’s revenue positive, nothing to “make up” as long as announced 12-24 months in advance of the actual effective date. The analysis of their treasury receipts show no dip in a 20 year period
To imply, as you say "everyone knows,"
Everyone knows that the corporate tax cuts come out labor at this point. Again, you seem to have missed my reference as even the unbiased Congressional Budget Office is noting this negative effect on wages. That’s a lot of bad water trickling down to the average worker. Don’t fall into the trap of analyzing the data statically as opposed to dynamically.
that prosperity will magically "trickle down" from corporate tax cuts generating newfound corporate spending on goods and wages is ludicrous in the extreme. Trickle-down economics has been thoroughly discredited over the years, and that is all you are proposing--more of the same-ol'/same-ol'. You might try suggesting something novel besides cutting taxes on top earners for broad-based economic recovery. The unspoken intent to put Va. government on an extreme "diet" by radically cutting tax revenues won't work. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. That sort of suggestion is rather tiresome. You don't even suggest where state government services should be cut, to reduce the need for those lost tax revenues.
Funny that labor unions and democrats are viewing this as supportive to government spending due to the increase in revenues It has always brought.
You raise the specter of double taxation of shareholders, intending to whip up indignation over perceived unfairness, without providing the economic history of such a policy. Corporations are purely creatures of the legislatures and did not exist prior to about 1500 CE. As the doctrines of limited investor liability evolved for corporations (contrasted with unlimited investor liability of partnerships), the historical quid pro quo for allowing such limited liability was the notion that the corporation, deemed a stand-alone investor-sheltering entity, should pay its own taxes. There is nothing inherently natural or predictable about the limited-liability form of investment. The only "double-taxation" in the corporate form is derived from the dividends paid out to investors being neither deductible from non-pass-through corporate gross income nor excludable by investors when received, thus being a second taxable event. BUT, there is no double tax on earnings retained by such corporations nor on earnings paid out to workers, nor on earnings used to purchase inventories and raw materials, and so forth. The latter are all deductible corporate expenses. One could, therefore, argue with as much credibility as your arguments that a tax policy that encouraged corporations to retain earnings and grow in value might well enrich investors more in the long run than dissipating earnings as dividends. But, I am not making that argument. The corporate income tax may be a pass-through cost of doing business (as I suspect), but I reject the notion that it is somehow "unfair" in the historical context.
It is unfair for many reasons, especially to the average worker. This tax is one of the best examples of “unintended” consequences resulting from what was supposed to be an easy target to increase government spending. .
I will repeat my primary assertion: that the only way to restore our economy, whether measured in Gross Domestic Product or otherwise, is to put spendable "spare change" back into the pockets of the workers and middle class, which was once the bedrock of American prosperity since World War II , but has itself been dissipated in more recent times. It was consumer spending by the workers and middle class that once kept the US economy running, and most workers are, by far, employed by businesses that are NOT publicly traded.
Strangely, it affects non c corps as well for many reasons
Your next statement will likely be “ok, wiseguy, if this is the silver bullet with regards to the best tax to eliminate to spur growth, then why isn’t everyone doing it?” They already are! Note the data “touch points” attachment.
This is a very good idea to mitigate the hemorrhaging in jobs and state revenues. I stand by that statement and the research.
Regards
H. Watkins Ellerson
The argument is far from specious as you assert. You may wish to research the issue more before making that assertion in public. You are welcome to see a copy of the report we gave the Governor which contains clear and convincing academic support from nobel laureates to actual data from countries and provinces that achieved material gains in jobs and GDP growth. It is incontrovertible that the corporate income tax harms wages disproportionately. There is no academic or empirical argument otherwise. At the moment, your argument below seems to only contain your assertions and bias as opposed to reason and factual data subject to peer review.
There was a measure of confidence that I gained before putting my name on the op-ed I wrote for all to see. This confidence was founded in the form of personal conversations with US Federal Reserve Presidents (both active and retired), Nobel Laureate economists, Government officials in Canada, Switzerland, and Ireland (where this was successfully enacted) and a few other assorted economists that advise US Presidents and State Governments. Not to mention my personal experience in the global capital markets.
The inaccuracy of the premises you present in your email below are too numerous to address in my short response here. For that I apologize. Best of luck with your research. Mine has been vetted by some of the best economic minds on the planet.
Bob Marcellus
My only comment to the aurguments is where is the lost revenue coming from if $650m plus is no longer coming into the state, especially while we are looking for $4B? As I teach my students in the areas of Critical Thinking, we sometimes come up with what appear to be valid solutions, but fail to examine closely the long term impacts; i.e. Ethanol. I continue to see short term solutions being proposed that will only leave my children and grandchildren with the long term effects. Finally, since Va will not be the first in implementing this concept, what has been analyzed and assessed in the other states that have such programs. Did they see corporations coming into the states at rates that would justify implementing such a program in Va?
One need only look to Ireland which reduced its corporate income taxes, prompting complaints from the European Union, particularly the French, that this gave them an unfair competitive advantage. The Republic of Ireland experienced unprecedented economic growth from the mid-1990s until 2009.
Let’s give Virginia an unfair competitive advantage!
If you’re concerned that we’ll lose $650M (which seems highly unlikely if the state economy takes off), then tax the churches. There’s no justification for giving them a tax break. They are in the sales business. Their product may be intangible, but it’s a business nonetheless. There is no justification for churches to enjoy tax-free status.
One need only look to Ireland which reduced its corporate income taxes, prompting complaints from the European Union, particularly the French, that this gave them an unfair competitive advantage. The Republic of Ireland experienced unprecedented economic growth from the mid-1990s until 2009.
Let’s give Virginia an unfair competitive advantage!
If you’re concerned that we’ll lose $650M (which seems highly unlikely if the state economy takes off), then tax the churches. There’s no justification for giving them a tax break. They are in the sales business. Their product may be intangible, but it’s a business nonetheless. There is no justification for churches to enjoy tax-free status.
I don’t think that taxing the churches is the answer even though there are some very wealthy churches even in our locality. Churches play a huge role in providing monetary support for missions projects locally and worldwide. So what happens when you lose those dollars to taxes? Who will fill that void?
Let those contributions be tax deductible, just as they are for corporations and individuals.
I’d actually like to see the numbers regarding that “huge role in providing monetary support.” Churches don’t have to open their books, so I’m not sure we really know what they do with all the money they collect. When you look at the size and magnificence of church construction, it’s clear that their funds aren’t all going to help the poor. Ministers of even poor churches usually drive very nice cars. Church support of the poor is almost always tied to a requirement that the recipient listen to proselytizing and preaching, i.e. blackmailing the most desperate.
Rather than giving charity, it’s better to give business loans – particularly to women, as the liberation of women is the single most critical component for pulling a country out of the dark ages, as it is women who raise the next generation. All we do with charity is keep people dependent and breeding children they can’t afford. Government charity of course breeds corruption. In 3rd world countries, the best solution is to provide small business loans to women.
With regard to Christianity, in the New Testament Jesus provides 8 specific steps (some of which contradict each other) to get into heaven. However he repeats one step twice – SELL EVERYTHING and give it to the poor. Since churches won’t sell everything and give it to the poor, tax them.
Yes, I know this is getting off topic. (And it’s really easy to hit DELETE).
Well, that’s what great about this country is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement “All we do with charity is keep people dependent and breeding children they can’t afford.” I have witnessed firsthand how helping folks in need gave them the break they needed to succeed in life. There are always a few bad apples in every bunch, that mooch off the system but all in all, churches play a very important role in society and taxing churches is not the answer.
This isn’t about a few bad apples.
Yes, you can help INDIVIDUALS with charity, but you help SOCIETIES by empowering women with a small business – and that means business loans. I work with clients in 3rd world countries around the world, and things are not getting better. Running a mission may make YOU feel better, but it does nothing to solve the systemic problems that confront third world countries. This is like the so called war on drugs. How long do you pour money down a rat hole before you realize that your efforts are counterproductive, despite your good intentions?
Did you read the Richmond Times Dispatch Insight edition this past Saturday? There is a population explosion in Africa, due in large part because Bush refused to let funds for his AIDs initiative be used for contraception and education about family planning. Like the Catholic Church and other abstinence-only organizations, all we’ve done is manage to create an environment for more poverty, sickness and death – and in time, the certainty of war over scarce resources.
The revenue is not lost by any means, not even in the relatively short term of12-24 months. Both the actual results of eliminating this particular tax and also the economic modeling note increased flows in investments, increases in payroll, income and sales taxes etc as a result. Note, the lag between announcing this policy and actual implementation is an important factor. By making this effective 12-24 months in the future creates a climate where “revenues” do not dip nor experience the total “loss” that is of your concern. The j curve effect is typically in between the fiscal budget cycle and is effectively masked. This allays fears of those defending existing spending levels. I do not wish to enter that debate but suffice it to say that this is net revenue positive in addition to the employment and growth benefits. The benefits do not just extend to the migration factor of new business coming into the state. Our existing wage base is currently depressed by about 5% due to the existence of this tax. The body of research does not find similar effect with reductions of any other tax like the sales tax and income tax unless they are truly punitive. The reason this jumps out is that it is a tax on capital and not on the end production of the economy. I was surprised at the body of work on this subject.
If you would like more detail other than the two attachments I will be glad to send you the talking points. See attached 3 page brief and report.
Dear Mr. Ellerson
The argument is far from specious as you assert. You may wish to research the issue more before making that assertion in public. You are welcome to see a copy of the report we gave the Governor which contains clear and convincing academic support from nobel laureates to actual data from countries and provinces that achieved material gains in jobs and GDP growth. It is incontrovertible that the corporate income tax harms wages disproportionately. There is no academic or empirical argument otherwise. At the moment, your argument below seems to only contain your assertions and bias as opposed to reason and factual data subject to peer review.
There was a measure of confidence that I gained before putting my name on the op-ed I wrote for all to see. This confidence was founded in the form of personal conversations with US Federal Reserve Presidents (both active and retired), Nobel Laureate economists, Government officials in Canada, Switzerland, and Ireland (where this was successfully enacted) and a few other assorted economists that advise US Presidents and State Governments. Not to mention my personal experience in the global capital markets.
The inaccuracy of the premises you present in your email below are too numerous to address in my short response here. For that I apologize. Best of luck with your research. Mine has been vetted by some of the best economic minds on the planet.
The executive brief and research reports summarizing the data referenced in my op-ed is available upon request. Just email me anytime
Regards
Bob Marcellus
The utter speciousness of your argument is that nowhere do even acknowledge, much less propose replacement of the lost tax REVENUES that will surely result from the proposed elimination of the corporate income tax. To imply, as you say "everyone knows," that prosperity will magically "trickle down" from corporate tax cuts generating newfound corporate spending on goods and wages is ludicrous in the extreme. Trickle-down economics has been thoroughly discredited over the years, and that is all you are proposing--more of the same-ol'/same-ol'. You might try suggesting something novel besides cutting taxes on top earners for broad-based economic recovery. The unspoken intent to put Va. government on an extreme "diet" by radically cutting tax revenues won't work. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. That sort of suggestion is rather tiresome. You don't even suggest where state government services should be cut, to reduce the need for those lost tax revenues.
You raise the specter of double taxation of shareholders, intending to whip up indignation over perceived unfairness, without providing the economic history of such a policy. Corporations are purely creatures of the legislatures and did not exist prior to about 1500 CE. As the doctrines of limited investor liability evolved for corporations (contrasted with unlimited investor liability of partnerships), the historical quid pro quo for allowing such limited liability was the notion that the corporation, deemed a stand-alone investor-sheltering entity, should pay its own taxes. There is nothing inherently natural or predictable about the limited-liability form of investment. The only "double-taxation" in the corporate form is derived from the dividends paid out to investors being neither deductible from non-pass-through corporate gross income nor excludable by investors when received, thus being a second taxable event. BUT, there is no double tax on earnings retained by such corporations nor on earnings paid out to workers, nor on earnings used to purchase inventories and raw materials, and so forth. The latter are all deductible corporate expenses. One could, therefore, argue with as much credibility as your arguments that a tax policy that encouraged corporations to retain earnings and grow in value might well enrich investors more in the long run than dissipating earnings as dividends. But, I am not making that argument. The corporate income tax may be a pass-through cost of doing business (as I suspect), but I reject the notion that it is somehow "unfair" in the historical context.
I will repeat my primary assertion: that the only way to restore our economy, whether measured in Gross Domestic Product or otherwise, is to put spendable "spare change" back into the pockets of the workers and middle class, which was once the bedrock of American prosperity since World War II , but has itself been dissipated in more recent times. It was consumer spending by the workers and middle class that once kept the US economy running, and most workers are, by far, employed by businesses that are NOT publicly traded.
H. Watkins Ellerson
But aren’t you missing the point?
Reducing or eliminating the corporate income tax means Virginia will be more competitive in bringing new corporations to Virginia. More corporations means more jobs. More jobs means more individual income and sales taxes and a higher standard of living for the state’s citizens. This is what happened in Ireland.
Am I missing something?
Unfortunately a private discussion between two individuals with dissenting opinions is of little value to the community at large. Hopefully Sandie will in fact post the discussion on her blog, but the blog site seldom generates any discussion even though the issues she posts there are interesting and critical to the community.
Personally I prefer the email forum, and people who aren’t interested can take a half second to hit DELETE. Goochlanders are by and large apathetic, but I’ll bet that many of the people on her mail list read the emails. Nobody has complained to me about copying the entire list (which as I indicated in an earlier email, I will always do if I am open copied on a broadcast email).
Gentle readers,
Below is a quick and dirty cut and paste recap of the debate that raged through the email list yesterday. Apologies to those who felt besieged by a plethora of emails. To those who waded in, thanks for your passion.
Please add additional thoughts to the debate by posting comments below.
Thanks,
SEW
Ending the Corporate Tax Will Create Jobs
BOB MARCELLUS TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published: January 17, 2010
» 0 Comments | Post a Comment
vote
nowBuzz up!
Virginia has the opportunity to act decisively to create a more just, productive, and economically competitive environment. To reach this goal, I advocate the complete elimination of Virginia's corporate income tax.
We need to take bold action to protect and create jobs here in Virginia.
Our combined federal and state corporate income tax rate of 41 percent (35 percent federal plus 6 percent state) is now the highest in the world -- surpassing Japan and communist China -- and is double the average rate in developed countries. While other countries have been slashing this tax, America has been asleep at the switch.
A first misunderstanding is to suppose that rate cuts lead to lower tax receipts. Nothing is less true. Investment and work behavior change when taxes are less onerous. Everyone knows this is true, even if they don't want to admit it. But government largely uses a "static" model of tax revenues that ignores human behavior -- something that businesses would never dream of doing.
During the past 20 years, dozens of countries have concluded that the corporate income tax is one of the most economically destructive mechanisms for raising revenue because it destroys production.
While other countries have been cutting corporate income taxes year after year, our corporate taxes have remained the same, destroying our competitive position. Today, many continue to talk about punishing companies that move jobs overseas -- but the more rational course of action is to stop punishing them for staying here.
Countries and regions that have cut the corporate income tax have experienced impressive increases in the rate of new jobs, corporate relocations, economic competition, and new investment. The evidence is overwhelming.
Abolishing this tax, with a date certain 12 to 24 months in the future, creates a "wow" factor for growth while still building tax revenue until the actual implementation. This window buffers state revenue while building the base that culminates in a sustained growth of revenue created by an ensuing 0.5 percentage point to 1 percentage point expansion in the annual growth rate of Virginia's GDP. This roughly translates (on the low end of expectations) to creating new jobs for the entire city of Bristol -- population 17,000 -- every year.
The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2006 that more than 70 percent of the burden of corporate income taxes falls on labor. A European Union study of 50,000 businesses found an even stronger connection to wages -- a 1 percent increase in corporate income tax rates leads to a 0.92 percent decrease in real wages.
It would be easy to criticize eliminating this tax as a give-away to major corporations. But this initiative is so overwhelmingly pro-labor that it is hard to understand why business people have to be the ones to propose it.
National and provincial governments across the political spectrum have been working to cut this tax and have experienced increasing tax revenue as a result. People don't understand how destructive the tax is to jobs, investment, and business growth. They certainly don't understand that labor ultimately pays the highest price. Labor deserves the right to negotiate for this portion of company profits.
While removing this tax will indeed lead to ongoing expansion of the economy, the justification is not just financial but moral: Shareholders should not be double taxed -- they should be able to reinvest profits. Labor should not be deprived of higher earnings.
I note that this stimulus to a state or nation's economy does not discriminate as to industry or interest group. Eliminating the corporate income tax will offer a true stimulus that requires no bias -- you do not have to have a stake in a government-subsidized industry to benefit. The current federal "stimulus" initiatives -- in the form of expanded government spending and income redistribution -- ignore the important difference between market investments of private capital on the one hand and government programs that usurp markets and drain away private investment capital -- or dilute our currency -- on the other.
There is no other long-term method or greater incentive for creating jobs and growing an economy than profits.
No state or nation should need to apologize for restoring the incentive for businesses to grow and become more prosperous. Even charities require the existence of profits in an economy.
The only way to have more jobs and a stronger economy is with a stronger business community. The only stimulus to a bigger and stronger business community is to allow individuals and businesses to take the risk, innovate, and to out-compete others -- while reaping the rewards.
I urge Gov. Bob McDonnell and our elected representatives in the General Assembly to send a bold message and implement this policy with all due haste -- for the benefit of all of the citizens of the state.
Bob Marcellus
President
Richmond Group Fund Co. Ltd
Corporate income taxes may well be a pass-through expense and so may not REALLY be paid by the corporations if levied across the board. If so, then elimination of the corporate income tax may not make much of an economic difference (so long as tax revenues are increased elsewhere, such as on individuals), but it is specious to assert that its elimination will surely promote job growth. If that were so, then there should not have been nearly as much "job growth" back in the 1990's as there was when the American economy was doing quite well, despite a much more "aggressive" individual and corporate tax structure.
The ill-advised 2001 tax cuts rendered the American tax system "regressive" (not "progressive") for the first time, at least since WWII. The larger the gross income, the larger PERCENTAGE of gross income retained after taxes and ordinary living expenses. Middle-class families now retain a smaller PERCENTAGE of their after-tax gross income than do wealthier families. I think that has been a major contributing factor to our current economic meltdown.
I suggest the PRIMARY reason jobs are now suffering is because "mercantilism" (the buying and selling of goods and services mostly at the local-market level) has been almost totally ignored in the "Bailouts," while there continue to be undue emphasis and focus on "capitalism," which cannot create many jobs if the goods produced by "capitalism" (like GM's cars) aren't selling. Most American industry is now run (into the ground) by clueless "bean-counters," and their chickens have finally come home to roost.
Trickle-down "free-market capitalism" is a nonsensical "bean-counter" mantra parroted in rote fashion by most that has served as Conventional Wisdom in America for far too long. The US economy is more truly driven by middle-class "fair-market mercantilism" instead. Jobs won't be created or maintained until middle-class purchasing power is restored.
Cutting federal payroll taxes (FICA--12.4% & Medicare--2.9%, both half nondeductible) instead of cutting corporate or individual income taxes might be a good start, as one Republican congressman has suggested.
H. Watkins Ellerson
Dear Mr. Ellerson
The utter speciousness of your argument is that nowhere do even acknowledge, much less propose replacement of the lost tax REVENUES that will surely result from the proposed elimination of the corporate income tax.
You must have missed a key part of my op-ed noting the increase in treasury revenues by the next budget cycle in each of the three country examples. It’s revenue positive, nothing to “make up” as long as announced 12-24 months in advance of the actual effective date. The analysis of their treasury receipts show no dip in a 20 year period
To imply, as you say "everyone knows,"
Everyone knows that the corporate tax cuts come out labor at this point. Again, you seem to have missed my reference as even the unbiased Congressional Budget Office is noting this negative effect on wages. That’s a lot of bad water trickling down to the average worker. Don’t fall into the trap of analyzing the data statically as opposed to dynamically.
that prosperity will magically "trickle down" from corporate tax cuts generating newfound corporate spending on goods and wages is ludicrous in the extreme. Trickle-down economics has been thoroughly discredited over the years, and that is all you are proposing--more of the same-ol'/same-ol'. You might try suggesting something novel besides cutting taxes on top earners for broad-based economic recovery. The unspoken intent to put Va. government on an extreme "diet" by radically cutting tax revenues won't work. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. That sort of suggestion is rather tiresome. You don't even suggest where state government services should be cut, to reduce the need for those lost tax revenues.
Funny that labor unions and democrats are viewing this as supportive to government spending due to the increase in revenues It has always brought.
You raise the specter of double taxation of shareholders, intending to whip up indignation over perceived unfairness, without providing the economic history of such a policy. Corporations are purely creatures of the legislatures and did not exist prior to about 1500 CE. As the doctrines of limited investor liability evolved for corporations (contrasted with unlimited investor liability of partnerships), the historical quid pro quo for allowing such limited liability was the notion that the corporation, deemed a stand-alone investor-sheltering entity, should pay its own taxes. There is nothing inherently natural or predictable about the limited-liability form of investment. The only "double-taxation" in the corporate form is derived from the dividends paid out to investors being neither deductible from non-pass-through corporate gross income nor excludable by investors when received, thus being a second taxable event. BUT, there is no double tax on earnings retained by such corporations nor on earnings paid out to workers, nor on earnings used to purchase inventories and raw materials, and so forth. The latter are all deductible corporate expenses. One could, therefore, argue with as much credibility as your arguments that a tax policy that encouraged corporations to retain earnings and grow in value might well enrich investors more in the long run than dissipating earnings as dividends. But, I am not making that argument. The corporate income tax may be a pass-through cost of doing business (as I suspect), but I reject the notion that it is somehow "unfair" in the historical context.
It is unfair for many reasons, especially to the average worker. This tax is one of the best examples of “unintended” consequences resulting from what was supposed to be an easy target to increase government spending. .
I will repeat my primary assertion: that the only way to restore our economy, whether measured in Gross Domestic Product or otherwise, is to put spendable "spare change" back into the pockets of the workers and middle class, which was once the bedrock of American prosperity since World War II , but has itself been dissipated in more recent times. It was consumer spending by the workers and middle class that once kept the US economy running, and most workers are, by far, employed by businesses that are NOT publicly traded.
Strangely, it affects non c corps as well for many reasons
Your next statement will likely be “ok, wiseguy, if this is the silver bullet with regards to the best tax to eliminate to spur growth, then why isn’t everyone doing it?” They already are! Note the data “touch points” attachment.
This is a very good idea to mitigate the hemorrhaging in jobs and state revenues. I stand by that statement and the research.
Regards
H. Watkins Ellerson
The argument is far from specious as you assert. You may wish to research the issue more before making that assertion in public. You are welcome to see a copy of the report we gave the Governor which contains clear and convincing academic support from nobel laureates to actual data from countries and provinces that achieved material gains in jobs and GDP growth. It is incontrovertible that the corporate income tax harms wages disproportionately. There is no academic or empirical argument otherwise. At the moment, your argument below seems to only contain your assertions and bias as opposed to reason and factual data subject to peer review.
There was a measure of confidence that I gained before putting my name on the op-ed I wrote for all to see. This confidence was founded in the form of personal conversations with US Federal Reserve Presidents (both active and retired), Nobel Laureate economists, Government officials in Canada, Switzerland, and Ireland (where this was successfully enacted) and a few other assorted economists that advise US Presidents and State Governments. Not to mention my personal experience in the global capital markets.
The inaccuracy of the premises you present in your email below are too numerous to address in my short response here. For that I apologize. Best of luck with your research. Mine has been vetted by some of the best economic minds on the planet.
Bob Marcellus
My only comment to the aurguments is where is the lost revenue coming from if $650m plus is no longer coming into the state, especially while we are looking for $4B? As I teach my students in the areas of Critical Thinking, we sometimes come up with what appear to be valid solutions, but fail to examine closely the long term impacts; i.e. Ethanol. I continue to see short term solutions being proposed that will only leave my children and grandchildren with the long term effects. Finally, since Va will not be the first in implementing this concept, what has been analyzed and assessed in the other states that have such programs. Did they see corporations coming into the states at rates that would justify implementing such a program in Va?
One need only look to Ireland which reduced its corporate income taxes, prompting complaints from the European Union, particularly the French, that this gave them an unfair competitive advantage. The Republic of Ireland experienced unprecedented economic growth from the mid-1990s until 2009.
Let’s give Virginia an unfair competitive advantage!
If you’re concerned that we’ll lose $650M (which seems highly unlikely if the state economy takes off), then tax the churches. There’s no justification for giving them a tax break. They are in the sales business. Their product may be intangible, but it’s a business nonetheless. There is no justification for churches to enjoy tax-free status.
One need only look to Ireland which reduced its corporate income taxes, prompting complaints from the European Union, particularly the French, that this gave them an unfair competitive advantage. The Republic of Ireland experienced unprecedented economic growth from the mid-1990s until 2009.
Let’s give Virginia an unfair competitive advantage!
If you’re concerned that we’ll lose $650M (which seems highly unlikely if the state economy takes off), then tax the churches. There’s no justification for giving them a tax break. They are in the sales business. Their product may be intangible, but it’s a business nonetheless. There is no justification for churches to enjoy tax-free status.
I don’t think that taxing the churches is the answer even though there are some very wealthy churches even in our locality. Churches play a huge role in providing monetary support for missions projects locally and worldwide. So what happens when you lose those dollars to taxes? Who will fill that void?
Let those contributions be tax deductible, just as they are for corporations and individuals.
I’d actually like to see the numbers regarding that “huge role in providing monetary support.” Churches don’t have to open their books, so I’m not sure we really know what they do with all the money they collect. When you look at the size and magnificence of church construction, it’s clear that their funds aren’t all going to help the poor. Ministers of even poor churches usually drive very nice cars. Church support of the poor is almost always tied to a requirement that the recipient listen to proselytizing and preaching, i.e. blackmailing the most desperate.
Rather than giving charity, it’s better to give business loans – particularly to women, as the liberation of women is the single most critical component for pulling a country out of the dark ages, as it is women who raise the next generation. All we do with charity is keep people dependent and breeding children they can’t afford. Government charity of course breeds corruption. In 3rd world countries, the best solution is to provide small business loans to women.
With regard to Christianity, in the New Testament Jesus provides 8 specific steps (some of which contradict each other) to get into heaven. However he repeats one step twice – SELL EVERYTHING and give it to the poor. Since churches won’t sell everything and give it to the poor, tax them.
Yes, I know this is getting off topic. (And it’s really easy to hit DELETE).
Well, that’s what great about this country is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement “All we do with charity is keep people dependent and breeding children they can’t afford.” I have witnessed firsthand how helping folks in need gave them the break they needed to succeed in life. There are always a few bad apples in every bunch, that mooch off the system but all in all, churches play a very important role in society and taxing churches is not the answer.
This isn’t about a few bad apples.
Yes, you can help INDIVIDUALS with charity, but you help SOCIETIES by empowering women with a small business – and that means business loans. I work with clients in 3rd world countries around the world, and things are not getting better. Running a mission may make YOU feel better, but it does nothing to solve the systemic problems that confront third world countries. This is like the so called war on drugs. How long do you pour money down a rat hole before you realize that your efforts are counterproductive, despite your good intentions?
Did you read the Richmond Times Dispatch Insight edition this past Saturday? There is a population explosion in Africa, due in large part because Bush refused to let funds for his AIDs initiative be used for contraception and education about family planning. Like the Catholic Church and other abstinence-only organizations, all we’ve done is manage to create an environment for more poverty, sickness and death – and in time, the certainty of war over scarce resources.
The revenue is not lost by any means, not even in the relatively short term of12-24 months. Both the actual results of eliminating this particular tax and also the economic modeling note increased flows in investments, increases in payroll, income and sales taxes etc as a result. Note, the lag between announcing this policy and actual implementation is an important factor. By making this effective 12-24 months in the future creates a climate where “revenues” do not dip nor experience the total “loss” that is of your concern. The j curve effect is typically in between the fiscal budget cycle and is effectively masked. This allays fears of those defending existing spending levels. I do not wish to enter that debate but suffice it to say that this is net revenue positive in addition to the employment and growth benefits. The benefits do not just extend to the migration factor of new business coming into the state. Our existing wage base is currently depressed by about 5% due to the existence of this tax. The body of research does not find similar effect with reductions of any other tax like the sales tax and income tax unless they are truly punitive. The reason this jumps out is that it is a tax on capital and not on the end production of the economy. I was surprised at the body of work on this subject.
If you would like more detail other than the two attachments I will be glad to send you the talking points. See attached 3 page brief and report.
Dear Mr. Ellerson
The argument is far from specious as you assert. You may wish to research the issue more before making that assertion in public. You are welcome to see a copy of the report we gave the Governor which contains clear and convincing academic support from nobel laureates to actual data from countries and provinces that achieved material gains in jobs and GDP growth. It is incontrovertible that the corporate income tax harms wages disproportionately. There is no academic or empirical argument otherwise. At the moment, your argument below seems to only contain your assertions and bias as opposed to reason and factual data subject to peer review.
There was a measure of confidence that I gained before putting my name on the op-ed I wrote for all to see. This confidence was founded in the form of personal conversations with US Federal Reserve Presidents (both active and retired), Nobel Laureate economists, Government officials in Canada, Switzerland, and Ireland (where this was successfully enacted) and a few other assorted economists that advise US Presidents and State Governments. Not to mention my personal experience in the global capital markets.
The inaccuracy of the premises you present in your email below are too numerous to address in my short response here. For that I apologize. Best of luck with your research. Mine has been vetted by some of the best economic minds on the planet.
The executive brief and research reports summarizing the data referenced in my op-ed is available upon request. Just email me anytime
Regards
Bob Marcellus
The utter speciousness of your argument is that nowhere do even acknowledge, much less propose replacement of the lost tax REVENUES that will surely result from the proposed elimination of the corporate income tax. To imply, as you say "everyone knows," that prosperity will magically "trickle down" from corporate tax cuts generating newfound corporate spending on goods and wages is ludicrous in the extreme. Trickle-down economics has been thoroughly discredited over the years, and that is all you are proposing--more of the same-ol'/same-ol'. You might try suggesting something novel besides cutting taxes on top earners for broad-based economic recovery. The unspoken intent to put Va. government on an extreme "diet" by radically cutting tax revenues won't work. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. That sort of suggestion is rather tiresome. You don't even suggest where state government services should be cut, to reduce the need for those lost tax revenues.
You raise the specter of double taxation of shareholders, intending to whip up indignation over perceived unfairness, without providing the economic history of such a policy. Corporations are purely creatures of the legislatures and did not exist prior to about 1500 CE. As the doctrines of limited investor liability evolved for corporations (contrasted with unlimited investor liability of partnerships), the historical quid pro quo for allowing such limited liability was the notion that the corporation, deemed a stand-alone investor-sheltering entity, should pay its own taxes. There is nothing inherently natural or predictable about the limited-liability form of investment. The only "double-taxation" in the corporate form is derived from the dividends paid out to investors being neither deductible from non-pass-through corporate gross income nor excludable by investors when received, thus being a second taxable event. BUT, there is no double tax on earnings retained by such corporations nor on earnings paid out to workers, nor on earnings used to purchase inventories and raw materials, and so forth. The latter are all deductible corporate expenses. One could, therefore, argue with as much credibility as your arguments that a tax policy that encouraged corporations to retain earnings and grow in value might well enrich investors more in the long run than dissipating earnings as dividends. But, I am not making that argument. The corporate income tax may be a pass-through cost of doing business (as I suspect), but I reject the notion that it is somehow "unfair" in the historical context.
I will repeat my primary assertion: that the only way to restore our economy, whether measured in Gross Domestic Product or otherwise, is to put spendable "spare change" back into the pockets of the workers and middle class, which was once the bedrock of American prosperity since World War II , but has itself been dissipated in more recent times. It was consumer spending by the workers and middle class that once kept the US economy running, and most workers are, by far, employed by businesses that are NOT publicly traded.
H. Watkins Ellerson
But aren’t you missing the point?
Reducing or eliminating the corporate income tax means Virginia will be more competitive in bringing new corporations to Virginia. More corporations means more jobs. More jobs means more individual income and sales taxes and a higher standard of living for the state’s citizens. This is what happened in Ireland.
Am I missing something?
Unfortunately a private discussion between two individuals with dissenting opinions is of little value to the community at large. Hopefully Sandie will in fact post the discussion on her blog, but the blog site seldom generates any discussion even though the issues she posts there are interesting and critical to the community.
Personally I prefer the email forum, and people who aren’t interested can take a half second to hit DELETE. Goochlanders are by and large apathetic, but I’ll bet that many of the people on her mail list read the emails. Nobody has complained to me about copying the entire list (which as I indicated in an earlier email, I will always do if I am open copied on a broadcast email).
Monday, January 18, 2010
Monday in the park with Pat
Reflections on a tea party
More than 1,000 people gathered on the park like grounds of the Virginia State Capital near the bell tower on January 18 for a rally in support of the founding ideals of the nation.
Cloudless skies and relatively balmy temperatures provided a perfect backdrop to listen to speakers, with Patrick Henry as master of ceremonies, express frustration with government and exhortations to change the status quo.
It was a tame, well-behaved crowd of mostly older people, though there was a sprinkling of kids with their parents and younger people who might have been college students or even media representatives. Garb ranged from blue jeans and military camo to business suits.
Grammatically correct homemade hand held signs peppered the group. One showed a pair of eyeglasses with a message to Congress to “read the bill” alluding to the mammoth health care reform legislation created by a plethora of committees whose product is more horrific than any sausage created by the imagination of Upton Sinclair.
A handful of people circulated through the throng wearing blue windbreakers with “Tyranny Response Team.”
Gun rights advocates handed out stickers and literature. Others distributed copies of the Constitution. A surprising number of people declined the nation’s founding documents saying “no thanks, I’ve already got one.”
For almost 90 minutes speakers encouraged the gathering to return to their communities and start holding all elected officials accountable for their actions and demanding smaller less intrusive government.
One speaker advocated taking over both the democrat and republican parties to ensure that all elected officials are responsive to the will of the people.
Speakers reminded the group that Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added.
In an echo of the early days of the American nation, allusions were made to the battle underway in Massachusetts. Although that contest is for a seat in the US Senate and being fought with robocalls and television spots, the urgency and import was on a level with the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord.
Governor Henry repeated his well-known words first uttered in St. John’s Church a short distance from the capital on Richmond’s Church Hill.
His declaration of “Give me liberty or give me death” drew a huge cheer.
At the conclusion of the rally the group was urged to meet with state legislators in support of HB10 and HB69, which challenge the imposition of mandatory health insurance and restrictions on sale of firearms respectively.
It was a lovely rally.
How far will citizens take the Tea Party fervor?
Right now in Goochland, concerned parents are demanding that the school board be more transparent in its budget process so that vital people and programs are retained and everything else pared from the budget.
The next local and state elections are in two years. Will this fervor for change and accountability endure that long? Or will we return to complacency and business as usual?
The Tea Party movement is a manifestation of the frustration that everyone has felt with some level of government somewhere along the way. As government spending reaches heights few could imagine, citizens expect that their already heavy tax burden will soon become unbearable.
Tea Party Patriots are saying no to big expensive government; no to erosion of personal liberties and no to the socialism that is creeping across the land like kudzu in August. Their numbers are growing. Will the politicians take heed? Will real change happen? Stay tuned.
More than 1,000 people gathered on the park like grounds of the Virginia State Capital near the bell tower on January 18 for a rally in support of the founding ideals of the nation.
Cloudless skies and relatively balmy temperatures provided a perfect backdrop to listen to speakers, with Patrick Henry as master of ceremonies, express frustration with government and exhortations to change the status quo.
It was a tame, well-behaved crowd of mostly older people, though there was a sprinkling of kids with their parents and younger people who might have been college students or even media representatives. Garb ranged from blue jeans and military camo to business suits.
Grammatically correct homemade hand held signs peppered the group. One showed a pair of eyeglasses with a message to Congress to “read the bill” alluding to the mammoth health care reform legislation created by a plethora of committees whose product is more horrific than any sausage created by the imagination of Upton Sinclair.
A handful of people circulated through the throng wearing blue windbreakers with “Tyranny Response Team.”
Gun rights advocates handed out stickers and literature. Others distributed copies of the Constitution. A surprising number of people declined the nation’s founding documents saying “no thanks, I’ve already got one.”
For almost 90 minutes speakers encouraged the gathering to return to their communities and start holding all elected officials accountable for their actions and demanding smaller less intrusive government.
One speaker advocated taking over both the democrat and republican parties to ensure that all elected officials are responsive to the will of the people.
Speakers reminded the group that Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added.
In an echo of the early days of the American nation, allusions were made to the battle underway in Massachusetts. Although that contest is for a seat in the US Senate and being fought with robocalls and television spots, the urgency and import was on a level with the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord.
Governor Henry repeated his well-known words first uttered in St. John’s Church a short distance from the capital on Richmond’s Church Hill.
His declaration of “Give me liberty or give me death” drew a huge cheer.
At the conclusion of the rally the group was urged to meet with state legislators in support of HB10 and HB69, which challenge the imposition of mandatory health insurance and restrictions on sale of firearms respectively.
It was a lovely rally.
How far will citizens take the Tea Party fervor?
Right now in Goochland, concerned parents are demanding that the school board be more transparent in its budget process so that vital people and programs are retained and everything else pared from the budget.
The next local and state elections are in two years. Will this fervor for change and accountability endure that long? Or will we return to complacency and business as usual?
The Tea Party movement is a manifestation of the frustration that everyone has felt with some level of government somewhere along the way. As government spending reaches heights few could imagine, citizens expect that their already heavy tax burden will soon become unbearable.
Tea Party Patriots are saying no to big expensive government; no to erosion of personal liberties and no to the socialism that is creeping across the land like kudzu in August. Their numbers are growing. Will the politicians take heed? Will real change happen? Stay tuned.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tea and tyranny redux
Parents teach by example
Goochland is filled with amazing people. They are smart, creative and resourceful. At the January 12 school board meeting, all of these attributes came into play as parents, tired of being ignored, took school officials to task for their lack of transparency in the budget process.
Last fall, to no one’s surprise, the county administrator publicly informed school officials that a drastic contraction in county revenues was expected for the 2010-11 fiscal year and that they needed to remove about $2.9 million from the school budget.
Instead of carefully examining every school expenditure, the school board seems to have decided to use its tried and true tactic of scaring the tar out of parents with rumors that programs such as the gifted center, Tender Tots and sports would be cut.
Late last year, some fearful parents even demanded that the supervisors increase next year’s tax rate to fully fund the proposed school budget as prepared by superintendent Dr. Linda Underwood and advocated by the school board based on those rumors.
When they finally got a look at that budget, about 48 hours before the December public hearing, parents put on their critical thinking caps, asked questions and are now demanding responsive detailed answers.
At the January 12 school board meeting, it was quite clear that parents had done their homework.
Once again the meeting was held in the high school auditorium with very poor audio. Several parents suggested that the proceedings be podcast with equipment available at that facility.
Why can’t Goochland schools’ much touted technology be used to let the taxpayers who fund it see what goes on at school board meetings? Even the supervisors record their meetings.
Several speakers from a newly formed group The Goochland Education Parents Association (GEPA) addressed different parts of the proposed budget. The entire presentation is online at http://goochlandparents.blogspot.com.
The latest iteration of the proposed 2010-11 budget is finally available on the school website at www.glnd.k12.va.us.
GEPA questioned the validity of classifying some clearly administrative positions as instructional, which could be a violation of state law. The disproportionally high cost of transportation and maintenance, increase in health care costs and eliminating participation in the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School program were also questioned in detail.
Maygan Elliott asked why a new teacher orientation position ($32,000 salary) had not been eliminated. The school district will not be hiring new teachers for a while and any vacancies caused by attrition will be filled with laid off teachers who should know their way around the system.
She also wanted to know exactly what a research and information technologist, paid more than $50,000 annually with another 30 or so percent for benefits, does to justify the expense.
It would be interesting to know who authorized creation of those jobs and how the salaries were determined.
Parent Julie Valerie contended that the Tender Tots program is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal program and cannot be eliminated without serious legal consequences. This seems to be another indication that whoever crafted the proposed budget either had little knowledge of the law or had no intention of cutting the program and was using the threat of its elimination as a reprehensible scare tactic
Chad Smith expressed outrage that his children have no textbooks. He said they were taken to a landfill because they were dated 1997.
“Math is still math and a verb is a still a verb,” he said.
All parents expressed anger and frustration at the arrogance of Underwood and the school board. They spoke of suggestions ignored and phone calls and emails not returned. This arrogant lack of response from elected and appointed public officials allegedly pledged to serve the taxpayers is outrageous and unacceptable.
Some speakers cited teachers with constructive and creative ideas for reducing expenditures who refused to speak put fearing reprisals. How outrageous! This is America, not Iran!
The school budget process is especially appropriate for transparency and collaboration among parents, teachers and school administration. It would be in the schools’ best interest to have as many stakeholders involved and invested in its budget process as possible.
Instead, school administration chose to do as it pleased. The four-week extension of the approval date for the school budget, December 31 in past years, seems to have disrupted business as usual. When budgets were passed “in the dead of night just before Christmas” as characterized by one parent, there was little time for parental review or comment.
It’s a new day. The school budget must be the product of honest and open collaboration to ensure that all voices are heard and tax dollars are spent wisely to ensure the best possible education for every child in the system.
These fine Goochland parents who collectively and individually are demanding honest answers to their well conceived questions are a fine example for their children and the entire community. They should be supported and emulated.
The school board and superintendent seem to have forgotten that they are charged with educating the children of Goochland, not building personal power bases.
Goochland is filled with amazing people. They are smart, creative and resourceful. At the January 12 school board meeting, all of these attributes came into play as parents, tired of being ignored, took school officials to task for their lack of transparency in the budget process.
Last fall, to no one’s surprise, the county administrator publicly informed school officials that a drastic contraction in county revenues was expected for the 2010-11 fiscal year and that they needed to remove about $2.9 million from the school budget.
Instead of carefully examining every school expenditure, the school board seems to have decided to use its tried and true tactic of scaring the tar out of parents with rumors that programs such as the gifted center, Tender Tots and sports would be cut.
Late last year, some fearful parents even demanded that the supervisors increase next year’s tax rate to fully fund the proposed school budget as prepared by superintendent Dr. Linda Underwood and advocated by the school board based on those rumors.
When they finally got a look at that budget, about 48 hours before the December public hearing, parents put on their critical thinking caps, asked questions and are now demanding responsive detailed answers.
At the January 12 school board meeting, it was quite clear that parents had done their homework.
Once again the meeting was held in the high school auditorium with very poor audio. Several parents suggested that the proceedings be podcast with equipment available at that facility.
Why can’t Goochland schools’ much touted technology be used to let the taxpayers who fund it see what goes on at school board meetings? Even the supervisors record their meetings.
Several speakers from a newly formed group The Goochland Education Parents Association (GEPA) addressed different parts of the proposed budget. The entire presentation is online at http://goochlandparents.blogspot.com.
The latest iteration of the proposed 2010-11 budget is finally available on the school website at www.glnd.k12.va.us.
GEPA questioned the validity of classifying some clearly administrative positions as instructional, which could be a violation of state law. The disproportionally high cost of transportation and maintenance, increase in health care costs and eliminating participation in the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School program were also questioned in detail.
Maygan Elliott asked why a new teacher orientation position ($32,000 salary) had not been eliminated. The school district will not be hiring new teachers for a while and any vacancies caused by attrition will be filled with laid off teachers who should know their way around the system.
She also wanted to know exactly what a research and information technologist, paid more than $50,000 annually with another 30 or so percent for benefits, does to justify the expense.
It would be interesting to know who authorized creation of those jobs and how the salaries were determined.
Parent Julie Valerie contended that the Tender Tots program is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal program and cannot be eliminated without serious legal consequences. This seems to be another indication that whoever crafted the proposed budget either had little knowledge of the law or had no intention of cutting the program and was using the threat of its elimination as a reprehensible scare tactic
Chad Smith expressed outrage that his children have no textbooks. He said they were taken to a landfill because they were dated 1997.
“Math is still math and a verb is a still a verb,” he said.
All parents expressed anger and frustration at the arrogance of Underwood and the school board. They spoke of suggestions ignored and phone calls and emails not returned. This arrogant lack of response from elected and appointed public officials allegedly pledged to serve the taxpayers is outrageous and unacceptable.
Some speakers cited teachers with constructive and creative ideas for reducing expenditures who refused to speak put fearing reprisals. How outrageous! This is America, not Iran!
The school budget process is especially appropriate for transparency and collaboration among parents, teachers and school administration. It would be in the schools’ best interest to have as many stakeholders involved and invested in its budget process as possible.
Instead, school administration chose to do as it pleased. The four-week extension of the approval date for the school budget, December 31 in past years, seems to have disrupted business as usual. When budgets were passed “in the dead of night just before Christmas” as characterized by one parent, there was little time for parental review or comment.
It’s a new day. The school budget must be the product of honest and open collaboration to ensure that all voices are heard and tax dollars are spent wisely to ensure the best possible education for every child in the system.
These fine Goochland parents who collectively and individually are demanding honest answers to their well conceived questions are a fine example for their children and the entire community. They should be supported and emulated.
The school board and superintendent seem to have forgotten that they are charged with educating the children of Goochland, not building personal power bases.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Virginia is for (election) lovers
Local political events warm winter’s chill
Virginians vote every year. Late last week, two Goochland citizens tossed their hats into the electoral ring for District 5 supervisor. The next election for that office is in November 2011.
Ken Peterson, a West Point graduate, former army officer and bond trader, announced on Thursday via an email sent to chairman of the Goochland Republican Committee, Ben Slone, that he planned to seek the GOP nomination for the position. Peterson said he would formally state his intentions at a special event on January 9.
Not to be outdone, Courtney Hyers, a retired attorney announced her intention to seek the GOP nomination at a meeting of the Goochland Republican Women on Friday, January 9.
Incumbent District 5 supervisor James T. Eads, who attended the GRW meeting, promptly endorsed Hyers. Although he did not specifically announce his intention to retire at the end of his current term, Eads’ endorsement seems to be a de facto indication that he will not seek reelection.
Hyers has represented District 5 on the county planning commission since 2006.
She is a graduate of Randolph Macon Women’s College and the University of Florida College of Law. During a three decade career with CSX Corporation Hyers served as Senior Tax Counsel, which included responsibility for tax legislative matters.
She and her husband have lived in Goochland for 20 years and she served as president of the Lower Tuckahoe Homeowners’ Association.
Hers said that she believes citizens must fight to preserve Goochland’s rural character. She rejects then notion that Goochland must look like Chesterfield and Henrico. She is committed to an efficient high quality school system as well as supporting law enforcement and fire-rescue volunteers.
She commended the board of supervisors for taking the initiative to identify and correct recently discovered deficiencies in the county’s public utilities department.
She praised James Eads, current District 5 supervisor, for introducing sound business practices to county government including careful and controlled growth and pledged to continue his work.
Of major concern, said Hyers is the Tuckahoe Creek Service District, which was conceived to provide opportunities for high quality economic development, which she supports.
She supports low taxes and believes that government, like families and businesses, must adjust its expenditures to deal with revenue shortfalls.
Eads endorsed her.
“Beginning with the utility billing problems we discovered last year and weaknesses in our administration we know we have to restructure our county government with skilled professionals,” said Eads.
This was great political theater following the long tradition of notables like former President Bill Clinton who overlook past events.
It was quite curious that Eads took credit for uncovering the discrepancies in the utility department and seemed surprised to learn that county administration was at the least, inept.
One of the reasons that Eads was ”hired” by his constituents in 1999 was to remove the former county administrator. In comments made before the 2007 election, Eads praised that very person. About a year ago, during an open meeting of the board of supervisors, Eads voted against a motion to essentially fire that person, who was permitted to retire.
Peterson is new to county politics.
He announced at a event at the Manakin Fire-Rescue station on Saturday, January 9.
He was introduced by Bob Marcellus who is president of The Richmond Group Fund and a member of the economic work group committee of the transition team of governor-elect Bob McDonnell. Marcellus cited Peterson’s MBA from Northwestern University and experience as a Wall Street bond trader as prime credentials for elected office in the county.
Peterson, a former paratrooper, has been treasurer of River Road Methodist Church and the Meadows Homeowners Association. Marcellus said that Peterson has provided valuable input to the “business of the state of Virginia.”
He has lived in Goochland since 2006 arriving here after an exhaustive search for the best place to live in America.
“Today’s rally is a celebration of democracy in action,” said Peterson. “It is an opportunity for the citizens of Goochland to discuss the issues of the day and learn more about our campaign.”
In very brief remarks following his formal announcement, Peterson said that he plans to spend the coming months meeting the citizens of District 5 and listening to their concerns about local government and collecting good ideas.
He said that positions for his campaign will be formulated around basic concepts including fiscal responsibility, transparency in government and focus on the will of the people.
“That’s not just the few courageous people who speak during the board of supervisors’ open mike sessions, but everyone,” said Peterson. “I am honored to help shape the debate about Goochland’s future.”
Liz Culley, GRW president, and Slone welcomed both candidates to the fray. The GOP will formally select its candidates at a mass meeting in April 2011. The deadline for legal filings to be a candidate in the 2011 elections is in June 2011.
This is quite a startling development. Eads’ vote to support District 2 supervisor William Quarles, Jr. as
2010 Board chair last Tuesday was viewed with displeasure among republicans and his supporters may have precipitated the announcements.
That there is enough interest in holding the position, which pays $1,000 per month and comes with a mountain of headaches, is a positive development. It will be interesting to see if any democrats jump in the ring before the election.
These candidacies will also provide a gracious plenty of opportunity for detailed discussion and careful thought about issues facing Goochland ranging from the amount and kind of development appropriate for our county to the portion of our public treasure that we want to devote to education.
Perhaps theses discussions will result in a more useful definition of rural than “I know it when I see it” so that county officials can guide Goochland’s future in the direction that its citizens truly want to go.
The time is past to let things roll along and hope for the best.
Too many citizens have become either complacent or disgusted and turned their backs on government involvement at all levels. The time has come to pay attention and decide who will lead us and hold our leaders responsible fro their actions.
As the magnitude of the mismanagement of county government comes into greater focus, we can only hope that the voters of all five districts in the county will realize the consequences of their inattention to local government over the years.
Kudos to Hyers and Peterson for their interest in civic matters and willingness to devote their considerable talents to public service.
Virginians vote every year. Late last week, two Goochland citizens tossed their hats into the electoral ring for District 5 supervisor. The next election for that office is in November 2011.
Ken Peterson, a West Point graduate, former army officer and bond trader, announced on Thursday via an email sent to chairman of the Goochland Republican Committee, Ben Slone, that he planned to seek the GOP nomination for the position. Peterson said he would formally state his intentions at a special event on January 9.
Not to be outdone, Courtney Hyers, a retired attorney announced her intention to seek the GOP nomination at a meeting of the Goochland Republican Women on Friday, January 9.
Incumbent District 5 supervisor James T. Eads, who attended the GRW meeting, promptly endorsed Hyers. Although he did not specifically announce his intention to retire at the end of his current term, Eads’ endorsement seems to be a de facto indication that he will not seek reelection.
Hyers has represented District 5 on the county planning commission since 2006.
She is a graduate of Randolph Macon Women’s College and the University of Florida College of Law. During a three decade career with CSX Corporation Hyers served as Senior Tax Counsel, which included responsibility for tax legislative matters.
She and her husband have lived in Goochland for 20 years and she served as president of the Lower Tuckahoe Homeowners’ Association.
Hers said that she believes citizens must fight to preserve Goochland’s rural character. She rejects then notion that Goochland must look like Chesterfield and Henrico. She is committed to an efficient high quality school system as well as supporting law enforcement and fire-rescue volunteers.
She commended the board of supervisors for taking the initiative to identify and correct recently discovered deficiencies in the county’s public utilities department.
She praised James Eads, current District 5 supervisor, for introducing sound business practices to county government including careful and controlled growth and pledged to continue his work.
Of major concern, said Hyers is the Tuckahoe Creek Service District, which was conceived to provide opportunities for high quality economic development, which she supports.
She supports low taxes and believes that government, like families and businesses, must adjust its expenditures to deal with revenue shortfalls.
Eads endorsed her.
“Beginning with the utility billing problems we discovered last year and weaknesses in our administration we know we have to restructure our county government with skilled professionals,” said Eads.
This was great political theater following the long tradition of notables like former President Bill Clinton who overlook past events.
It was quite curious that Eads took credit for uncovering the discrepancies in the utility department and seemed surprised to learn that county administration was at the least, inept.
One of the reasons that Eads was ”hired” by his constituents in 1999 was to remove the former county administrator. In comments made before the 2007 election, Eads praised that very person. About a year ago, during an open meeting of the board of supervisors, Eads voted against a motion to essentially fire that person, who was permitted to retire.
Peterson is new to county politics.
He announced at a event at the Manakin Fire-Rescue station on Saturday, January 9.
He was introduced by Bob Marcellus who is president of The Richmond Group Fund and a member of the economic work group committee of the transition team of governor-elect Bob McDonnell. Marcellus cited Peterson’s MBA from Northwestern University and experience as a Wall Street bond trader as prime credentials for elected office in the county.
Peterson, a former paratrooper, has been treasurer of River Road Methodist Church and the Meadows Homeowners Association. Marcellus said that Peterson has provided valuable input to the “business of the state of Virginia.”
He has lived in Goochland since 2006 arriving here after an exhaustive search for the best place to live in America.
“Today’s rally is a celebration of democracy in action,” said Peterson. “It is an opportunity for the citizens of Goochland to discuss the issues of the day and learn more about our campaign.”
In very brief remarks following his formal announcement, Peterson said that he plans to spend the coming months meeting the citizens of District 5 and listening to their concerns about local government and collecting good ideas.
He said that positions for his campaign will be formulated around basic concepts including fiscal responsibility, transparency in government and focus on the will of the people.
“That’s not just the few courageous people who speak during the board of supervisors’ open mike sessions, but everyone,” said Peterson. “I am honored to help shape the debate about Goochland’s future.”
Liz Culley, GRW president, and Slone welcomed both candidates to the fray. The GOP will formally select its candidates at a mass meeting in April 2011. The deadline for legal filings to be a candidate in the 2011 elections is in June 2011.
This is quite a startling development. Eads’ vote to support District 2 supervisor William Quarles, Jr. as
2010 Board chair last Tuesday was viewed with displeasure among republicans and his supporters may have precipitated the announcements.
That there is enough interest in holding the position, which pays $1,000 per month and comes with a mountain of headaches, is a positive development. It will be interesting to see if any democrats jump in the ring before the election.
These candidacies will also provide a gracious plenty of opportunity for detailed discussion and careful thought about issues facing Goochland ranging from the amount and kind of development appropriate for our county to the portion of our public treasure that we want to devote to education.
Perhaps theses discussions will result in a more useful definition of rural than “I know it when I see it” so that county officials can guide Goochland’s future in the direction that its citizens truly want to go.
The time is past to let things roll along and hope for the best.
Too many citizens have become either complacent or disgusted and turned their backs on government involvement at all levels. The time has come to pay attention and decide who will lead us and hold our leaders responsible fro their actions.
As the magnitude of the mismanagement of county government comes into greater focus, we can only hope that the voters of all five districts in the county will realize the consequences of their inattention to local government over the years.
Kudos to Hyers and Peterson for their interest in civic matters and willingness to devote their considerable talents to public service.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Of tea and tyranny
Grass roots movement stirs sleeping giant
The Boston Tea Party is perhaps the most famous manifestation of an “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore” attitude. It will not be the last.
On April 15, 2009, the seeds planted by early patriots as they threw precious tea into Boston Harbor sprouted with renewed vigor as Americans of all backgrounds and political philosophies gave voice to their disgust about the manner in which they are governed.
Dismissed as Astroturf by the leftists in power, the Tea Party Movement erupted spontaneously at the grass roots level and is spreading around the country faster than kudzu in a Mississippi summer.
On January 8 Jamie Radtke the chairwoman of the Richmond Tea Party (richmondteaparty.com) and Federation of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots (virginiateapartypatriots.com) spoke to the Goochland Republican Women about the history of the movement and its future on the local level.
Radtke said liberals believed that the original tea parties that took place all over the country last April resulted from a well organized group.
“That couldn’t have been further from the truth, but that’s changing,” said Radtke who holds a master’s degree from William and Mary. “The April 15 rally was thrown together in three weeks. People decided enough is enough and 5,500 people showed up.”
The initial tea parties resonated in the hearts and minds of the American people. They are finally starting to get interested in the government process said Radtke.
Other events, including the 9/12 event in Washington, D.C. advocated by conservative thinker Glenn Beck, drew huge crowds of like-minded people.
The 9/12 event, which drew many locals was quite moving, said Radtke. Americans are ready to restore the Founders’ Vision for our country.
They feel a sense of urgency and cannot be silent anymore, she contended.
“Even college kids are starting to understand the financial burden that actions currently underway in congress will place on them.”
The Founding Fathers were incredibly perceptive when they built a political system on the foundations of justice, personal responsibility and restraint, Radtke said.
Government takeover of the auto and banking industries are clear indications that America has forsaken its virtue.
Radtke said that even the legendary Russian newspaper Pravda observed that the speed of America’s descent into Marxism is breathtaking.
The tea party movement, said Radtke, is a way for concerned citizens to get involved to change things. When many people work together big changes can happen fast.
Radtke was careful to point out that, while many in the tea party movement are republicans, the GOP is not behind the tea party movement. Many tea party patriots consider themselves independents and there may even be a few lapsed democrats in there too. All tea party patriots are conservatives and will oppose putative republicans who do not act in accordance with the republican creed.
For years, she contended, the Republican Party has been on the defensive instead of setting forth proactive solutions for the challenges that face our country.
She believes that, without the tea party movement health care legislation would have passed last summer.
Now, the movement is shifting its focus to the local level, because that is where elected officials get their start and are groomed for higher office.
“We’ll never change congress if we can’t change our own backyards,” she said. “Local government is boring for most people, they’d rather send hate mail to their senators.”
The tea party movement, which consisted of 24 local tea parties and about 10,000 people in October, 2009 and grew to 40 local groups representing more than 25,000 by December, is supporting two bills at this year’s session of the Virginia General Assembly.
One House Bill 10, would say that the government may not mandate health insurance in Virginia nor fine nor jail anyone who does not have insurance.
House bill 69 will challenge the federal commerce clause contending that the feds cannot regulate firearms if they are built and sold in Virginia.
While there are currently no manufacturers of firearms in the Commonwealth, success of this legislation might well create new industry and attract new jobs.
Radtke invites all to a rally to be held at the bell tower on Capital Square in Richmond on Monday, January 18, 2010 at 10 a.m. Valet parking and shuttles will be available at the Tobacco Company restaurant. Following the rally, participants are encouraged to meet with their representatives.
(The Goochland Republican Women will next meet on Friday, February 5 at 10 a.m. at the Manakin Fire-Rescue Station on Rt.6. Thelma Drake, former US representative will speak about issues facing Congress, the GOP and what it will take, especially for women, to win elections in 2010. For more information, contact president Liz Culley at elizabethacully@aol.com)
The Boston Tea Party is perhaps the most famous manifestation of an “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore” attitude. It will not be the last.
On April 15, 2009, the seeds planted by early patriots as they threw precious tea into Boston Harbor sprouted with renewed vigor as Americans of all backgrounds and political philosophies gave voice to their disgust about the manner in which they are governed.
Dismissed as Astroturf by the leftists in power, the Tea Party Movement erupted spontaneously at the grass roots level and is spreading around the country faster than kudzu in a Mississippi summer.
On January 8 Jamie Radtke the chairwoman of the Richmond Tea Party (richmondteaparty.com) and Federation of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots (virginiateapartypatriots.com) spoke to the Goochland Republican Women about the history of the movement and its future on the local level.
Radtke said liberals believed that the original tea parties that took place all over the country last April resulted from a well organized group.
“That couldn’t have been further from the truth, but that’s changing,” said Radtke who holds a master’s degree from William and Mary. “The April 15 rally was thrown together in three weeks. People decided enough is enough and 5,500 people showed up.”
The initial tea parties resonated in the hearts and minds of the American people. They are finally starting to get interested in the government process said Radtke.
Other events, including the 9/12 event in Washington, D.C. advocated by conservative thinker Glenn Beck, drew huge crowds of like-minded people.
The 9/12 event, which drew many locals was quite moving, said Radtke. Americans are ready to restore the Founders’ Vision for our country.
They feel a sense of urgency and cannot be silent anymore, she contended.
“Even college kids are starting to understand the financial burden that actions currently underway in congress will place on them.”
The Founding Fathers were incredibly perceptive when they built a political system on the foundations of justice, personal responsibility and restraint, Radtke said.
Government takeover of the auto and banking industries are clear indications that America has forsaken its virtue.
Radtke said that even the legendary Russian newspaper Pravda observed that the speed of America’s descent into Marxism is breathtaking.
The tea party movement, said Radtke, is a way for concerned citizens to get involved to change things. When many people work together big changes can happen fast.
Radtke was careful to point out that, while many in the tea party movement are republicans, the GOP is not behind the tea party movement. Many tea party patriots consider themselves independents and there may even be a few lapsed democrats in there too. All tea party patriots are conservatives and will oppose putative republicans who do not act in accordance with the republican creed.
For years, she contended, the Republican Party has been on the defensive instead of setting forth proactive solutions for the challenges that face our country.
She believes that, without the tea party movement health care legislation would have passed last summer.
Now, the movement is shifting its focus to the local level, because that is where elected officials get their start and are groomed for higher office.
“We’ll never change congress if we can’t change our own backyards,” she said. “Local government is boring for most people, they’d rather send hate mail to their senators.”
The tea party movement, which consisted of 24 local tea parties and about 10,000 people in October, 2009 and grew to 40 local groups representing more than 25,000 by December, is supporting two bills at this year’s session of the Virginia General Assembly.
One House Bill 10, would say that the government may not mandate health insurance in Virginia nor fine nor jail anyone who does not have insurance.
House bill 69 will challenge the federal commerce clause contending that the feds cannot regulate firearms if they are built and sold in Virginia.
While there are currently no manufacturers of firearms in the Commonwealth, success of this legislation might well create new industry and attract new jobs.
Radtke invites all to a rally to be held at the bell tower on Capital Square in Richmond on Monday, January 18, 2010 at 10 a.m. Valet parking and shuttles will be available at the Tobacco Company restaurant. Following the rally, participants are encouraged to meet with their representatives.
(The Goochland Republican Women will next meet on Friday, February 5 at 10 a.m. at the Manakin Fire-Rescue Station on Rt.6. Thelma Drake, former US representative will speak about issues facing Congress, the GOP and what it will take, especially for women, to win elections in 2010. For more information, contact president Liz Culley at elizabethacully@aol.com)
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Welcome to 2010
Highlights of the first supervisors’ meeting
In addition to choosing a new chairman, the board of supervisors started to address issues facing the county in 2010. Their most important is how to determine what services are essential and how to fund them.
County assessor Glenn Branham presented a summary of the latest reassessment of county property. Real estate taxes provide the single largest revenue source for Goochland.
Overall, land values declined by 8.2 percent or $451,043,600. Residential assessments decreased by 7.7 percent. Commercial assessments for 2010 declined by 11.5 percent due to increased vacancy rates, lower rents, difficulty in securing financing and overall negative economic conditions.
According to a reassessment overview distributed by Branham, the county’s commercial tax base is about 15 percent of the total real estate tax base. There are currently 717 commercial properties in the county. Of those 385 are improved and 332 are vacant.
Land use values will not change for 2010. Agricultural land will remain at $220 per acre and forestal at $613. The deadline for applying for land use taxation status for 2010 is February 16, 2010.
Notices of reassessment will be mailed on January 15, 2010 and property owners will have until February 16, 2010 to appeal that assessment.
The supervisors will set the real estate tax rate, currently 53 cents per $100 of valuation, on April 6 and the first half tax payments are due on June 5.
The board’s meeting schedule includes several possible dates for additional meetings to work on the budget. They’ve also built some time before meetings for workshop sessions as needed.
Sheriff Agnew reported that as a result of multijurisdictional cooperation among Goochland, Louisa and Hanover law enforcement, suspects in the rash of break-ins have been arrested and charged with the crimes. He warned that citizens should still be on guard and lock their doors and not leave keys or valuables in vehicles.
Agnew said that, in spite of rewards, there are no leads about the disgusting vandalism of Second Union Baptist Church on Hadensville-Fife Road last fall. Anyone with information about this crime is asked to contact the sheriff’s office at 556-5349 or crimestoppers at 780-1000.
The county faired well in the recent snowstorm thanks to citizens staying home and driving carefully when they did venture out, said Agnew. He said that VDOT got the main roads clear promptly and did as good a job as possible on secondary roads.
D. E. “Eddie” Ferguson, Jr. Deputy Chief-EMS said that Goochland’s fire-rescue volunteers spent hundreds of hours in their stations and responding to emergency calls during the storm. EMS volunteers operated under storm procedures that included deploying four wheel drive winch equipped “brush trucks” with ambulances to deal with unplowed roads and driveways.
Wayne Allen will serve as interim fire-rescue chief until a permanent chief is hired. Ferguson will supervise all fire-rescue personnel who are county employees. Anthony “Tony” Gordon, former Courthouse Company 5 District Chief, will assume the duties of Deputy Chief-operations, a volunteer position. The changes follow the retirement of Ken Brown as fire-rescue chief on December 31.
To accommodate land owners, action on the proposed Oilville pre-zoning and establishment of a utilities service district there has been moved back to the spring.
Needed roof repairs provoked yet another discussion about the fate of the old middle school, which has been vacant since June 2007. The county received some money as part of a class action lawsuit about a portion of the roof.
Suggestions for its future include renovation as a new elementary school, a community center and site for a fire-rescue station in District 2. This is yet another issue that generates much smoke and little light.
County administrator Rebecca T. Dickson offered to include a plan for its use when restored to a useful condition in the next capital improvement plan.
During the citizen comment period preceding the evening public hearing, several parents of students in Goochland schools implored to supervisors to tread lightly when dealing with the school budget.
These parents, mostly of children who attend the gifted center, a rumored target of budget cuts, offered some tasty food for thought.
Jo D. Hosken suggested that the board enact a temporary auxiliary land tax of $25 per acre for the next three years. She contended that this would generate sufficient revenue to cover the expected shortfall in the school budget.
Hosken said that school parents will not support elected officials who do not support a school budget that funds essentials.
“You opened this box, now it’s time to think outside it,” she said.
Temporary taxes have a nasty habit of becoming permanent, like the temporary tax levied on phone use to fund the Spanish-American War in 1898 that was only eliminated a few years ago.
More important, because Virginia operates under the Dillon Rule, localities only have the powers given to them by the General Assembly. The state folk guard their power to tax carefully and the supervisors are not able to add new methods of taxation at will.
While there may well be ample justification for an upward adjustment in the real estate tax rate this year, there is just not enough available information about what is essential and what is fluff to make that call just yet.
Carolyn Elliott asked the board to videotape its meetings and put them on the internet for people unable to attend. Supervisors’ meetings are recorded and CDs of the meetings are available for a modest fee from the county.
It would be nice if school board meetings were at least recorded for those unable to attend. While the school board does post minutes of their meetings, they tend to be brief summaries of the proceedings and do not record verbatim statements of those present. As the board room in the administration building is set up to record meetings, it would make a lot of sense for school board meetings to be held there.
Elliott observed that the $3 million the board recently loaned the Tuckahoe Creek Service District to build a water line extension entirely in Henrico County is a bit more than the $2.9 million the school system was asked to cut from its budget.
“It would have been nice to have had that money available for the schools,” said Elliott.
Although the $3 million will be repaid to the county’s general fund, with interest, and the money will be used for capital costs rather than operating expenses, her comments were on target.
Elliott said that a 15 percent reduction of the school budget is more than the system can sustain. She supports cutting wasteful spending and implementing economies of scale including the combination of county and school employees in the same health insurance plan.
She also said that she had been pleased to notice some supervisors attending school board meetings and commended Dickson for her the prompt and helpful response to some earlier questions.
“This is change,” said Elliott.
Elliott characterized moving the required date for approval of the school budget to the end of January from December 31, “when it was approved in the dead of night just before Christmas” as a step in the right direction.
The meeting also marked the departure of Barbra Rose, who served as interim county attorney since early summer. Ms. Rose gracefully applied her broad knowledge of law and procedure to Goochland government at a time when it was badly needed.
In addition to choosing a new chairman, the board of supervisors started to address issues facing the county in 2010. Their most important is how to determine what services are essential and how to fund them.
County assessor Glenn Branham presented a summary of the latest reassessment of county property. Real estate taxes provide the single largest revenue source for Goochland.
Overall, land values declined by 8.2 percent or $451,043,600. Residential assessments decreased by 7.7 percent. Commercial assessments for 2010 declined by 11.5 percent due to increased vacancy rates, lower rents, difficulty in securing financing and overall negative economic conditions.
According to a reassessment overview distributed by Branham, the county’s commercial tax base is about 15 percent of the total real estate tax base. There are currently 717 commercial properties in the county. Of those 385 are improved and 332 are vacant.
Land use values will not change for 2010. Agricultural land will remain at $220 per acre and forestal at $613. The deadline for applying for land use taxation status for 2010 is February 16, 2010.
Notices of reassessment will be mailed on January 15, 2010 and property owners will have until February 16, 2010 to appeal that assessment.
The supervisors will set the real estate tax rate, currently 53 cents per $100 of valuation, on April 6 and the first half tax payments are due on June 5.
The board’s meeting schedule includes several possible dates for additional meetings to work on the budget. They’ve also built some time before meetings for workshop sessions as needed.
Sheriff Agnew reported that as a result of multijurisdictional cooperation among Goochland, Louisa and Hanover law enforcement, suspects in the rash of break-ins have been arrested and charged with the crimes. He warned that citizens should still be on guard and lock their doors and not leave keys or valuables in vehicles.
Agnew said that, in spite of rewards, there are no leads about the disgusting vandalism of Second Union Baptist Church on Hadensville-Fife Road last fall. Anyone with information about this crime is asked to contact the sheriff’s office at 556-5349 or crimestoppers at 780-1000.
The county faired well in the recent snowstorm thanks to citizens staying home and driving carefully when they did venture out, said Agnew. He said that VDOT got the main roads clear promptly and did as good a job as possible on secondary roads.
D. E. “Eddie” Ferguson, Jr. Deputy Chief-EMS said that Goochland’s fire-rescue volunteers spent hundreds of hours in their stations and responding to emergency calls during the storm. EMS volunteers operated under storm procedures that included deploying four wheel drive winch equipped “brush trucks” with ambulances to deal with unplowed roads and driveways.
Wayne Allen will serve as interim fire-rescue chief until a permanent chief is hired. Ferguson will supervise all fire-rescue personnel who are county employees. Anthony “Tony” Gordon, former Courthouse Company 5 District Chief, will assume the duties of Deputy Chief-operations, a volunteer position. The changes follow the retirement of Ken Brown as fire-rescue chief on December 31.
To accommodate land owners, action on the proposed Oilville pre-zoning and establishment of a utilities service district there has been moved back to the spring.
Needed roof repairs provoked yet another discussion about the fate of the old middle school, which has been vacant since June 2007. The county received some money as part of a class action lawsuit about a portion of the roof.
Suggestions for its future include renovation as a new elementary school, a community center and site for a fire-rescue station in District 2. This is yet another issue that generates much smoke and little light.
County administrator Rebecca T. Dickson offered to include a plan for its use when restored to a useful condition in the next capital improvement plan.
During the citizen comment period preceding the evening public hearing, several parents of students in Goochland schools implored to supervisors to tread lightly when dealing with the school budget.
These parents, mostly of children who attend the gifted center, a rumored target of budget cuts, offered some tasty food for thought.
Jo D. Hosken suggested that the board enact a temporary auxiliary land tax of $25 per acre for the next three years. She contended that this would generate sufficient revenue to cover the expected shortfall in the school budget.
Hosken said that school parents will not support elected officials who do not support a school budget that funds essentials.
“You opened this box, now it’s time to think outside it,” she said.
Temporary taxes have a nasty habit of becoming permanent, like the temporary tax levied on phone use to fund the Spanish-American War in 1898 that was only eliminated a few years ago.
More important, because Virginia operates under the Dillon Rule, localities only have the powers given to them by the General Assembly. The state folk guard their power to tax carefully and the supervisors are not able to add new methods of taxation at will.
While there may well be ample justification for an upward adjustment in the real estate tax rate this year, there is just not enough available information about what is essential and what is fluff to make that call just yet.
Carolyn Elliott asked the board to videotape its meetings and put them on the internet for people unable to attend. Supervisors’ meetings are recorded and CDs of the meetings are available for a modest fee from the county.
It would be nice if school board meetings were at least recorded for those unable to attend. While the school board does post minutes of their meetings, they tend to be brief summaries of the proceedings and do not record verbatim statements of those present. As the board room in the administration building is set up to record meetings, it would make a lot of sense for school board meetings to be held there.
Elliott observed that the $3 million the board recently loaned the Tuckahoe Creek Service District to build a water line extension entirely in Henrico County is a bit more than the $2.9 million the school system was asked to cut from its budget.
“It would have been nice to have had that money available for the schools,” said Elliott.
Although the $3 million will be repaid to the county’s general fund, with interest, and the money will be used for capital costs rather than operating expenses, her comments were on target.
Elliott said that a 15 percent reduction of the school budget is more than the system can sustain. She supports cutting wasteful spending and implementing economies of scale including the combination of county and school employees in the same health insurance plan.
She also said that she had been pleased to notice some supervisors attending school board meetings and commended Dickson for her the prompt and helpful response to some earlier questions.
“This is change,” said Elliott.
Elliott characterized moving the required date for approval of the school budget to the end of January from December 31, “when it was approved in the dead of night just before Christmas” as a step in the right direction.
The meeting also marked the departure of Barbra Rose, who served as interim county attorney since early summer. Ms. Rose gracefully applied her broad knowledge of law and procedure to Goochland government at a time when it was badly needed.
What a difference a decade makes
It’s Déjà vu all over again
Ten years ago, James Eads, then newly elected District 5 supervisor, cast the tie-breaking vote to rotate the chairmanship of the board of supervisors. His action ended the rule of the good old boy network. Before Eads’ vote, Andrew Pryor, District 1, had been chair for many years, easily rebuffing any attempt to unseat him. The county was then in the midst of an electoral turmoil following Pryor’s reelection by a handful of votes and many others left under a cloud.
Now, after a decade in office, Eads seems to have become the “goodest” of the good old boys.
At the Tuesday, January 5 organizational meeting of the supervisors, Eads voted with Pryor and William Quarles, Jr. District 2 to break a rotational pattern that would have moved last year’s vice chairman, Rudy Butler District 4, to the chairman’s seat. Instead, Quarles was elected by a 3-2 vote with Eads in the second chair. Quarles last served as chair in 2008. Only Ned Creasey, District 3, first elected in 2007, has not had at least one turn as chair.
Overturning the policy of chair rotation among all board members signals a return to the bad old days.
After a year of changes that filled many with hope, we seem to be headed back to an oppressive regime whose operations are as transparent as mud.
Just a year ago, a battle between the former county administrator, some board members and the citizens about a virtual gag order to be placed on county employees led to significant and sudden high-level personnel changes.
Although there were relatively few people in attendance at Tuesday’s meeting, both Oilville native Ann James, a perennial thorn in the board’s side and community activist Anne Rockecharlie of District 5 used the citizen comment period to express their displeasure at the board’s action.
“Three of you on the board felt threatened by what happened last year,” James told Pryor, Eads and Quarles. “You think the three of you hold all the cards, but you’re the ones who put us in the position we’re in now. People in this county think of you as “the three blind mice” because you turned your eyes away from everything that was happening.”
Rockecharlie, perhaps Eads’ most ardent supporter when he first ran for election, said that she has been apologizing to those she urged to vote for him.
One of Quarles’ first acts as board chair was to ask county administrator Rebecca T. Dickson to read the supervisors’ rules of procedure, code of ethics and standards of conduct into the record before they were adopted by unanimous vote. (These are posted on the county website www.co.goochland.va.us in the board of supervisors’ section.)
The section stating “… E-mails on matters of public business before the Board which are sent to more than one member of the Board of Supervisors
should be sent to all other Board members” was amended to “shall be sent to all board members.”
Hopefully, that will prevent any board subgroup from holding electronic meetings and circumventing the open meeting requirements spelled out in the Code of Virginia.
It looks like 3-2 split on the board of supervisors will continue.
One reason for the enmity between the two factions is believed to be Creasey’s dogged pursuit of the undeposited check matter about a year ago that led to the personnel changes.
It is curious that even though the Code of Ethics states that supervisors are to “….Expose through appropriate means and channels, corruption, misconduct, or neglect of
duty whenever discovered” such action seems to have been deemed inappropriate.
Creasey has been faulted for exposing what can at least be termed profound dysfunction in the public utilities department. Had he worked through the former county administrator, the whole mess would have been swept further under the rug.
Did Eads, Quarles and Pryor truly have no clue about the mess in the utilities department or did they honestly believe that problems there would never float to the surface? Given the state financing and agreements with Henrico and Richmond for water and wastewater respectively, at some point the problems would become impossible to ignore.
Results of the countywide audit, which should be made public in their entirety, will paint a clear picture of the county’s fiscal dysfunction. The auditors, KPMG, have been hard at work for many months in all county departments, including the school system. An audit of a county the size of Goochland normally takes a few weeks. This report is expected in February.
For too many years, the same auditing firm was used to examine the county’s fiscal matters. In the real world, auditors are changed often. Fresh eyes looking at a situation ensure that nothing is overlooked due to familiarity.
The real question in all of this is what do the majority of supervisors fear enough to pull these stunts? By now they surely realize that the county faces significant challenges resulting from long- term mismanagement that must be addressed and corrected.
Crafting this year’s budget will be a painful and delicate process. There will be no room for petty internecine conflict. The county needs a sound fiscal strategy to move forward.
Goochland citizens expect the best for their county and will pay close attention to the actions of their elected officials in the coming months.
Ten years ago, James Eads, then newly elected District 5 supervisor, cast the tie-breaking vote to rotate the chairmanship of the board of supervisors. His action ended the rule of the good old boy network. Before Eads’ vote, Andrew Pryor, District 1, had been chair for many years, easily rebuffing any attempt to unseat him. The county was then in the midst of an electoral turmoil following Pryor’s reelection by a handful of votes and many others left under a cloud.
Now, after a decade in office, Eads seems to have become the “goodest” of the good old boys.
At the Tuesday, January 5 organizational meeting of the supervisors, Eads voted with Pryor and William Quarles, Jr. District 2 to break a rotational pattern that would have moved last year’s vice chairman, Rudy Butler District 4, to the chairman’s seat. Instead, Quarles was elected by a 3-2 vote with Eads in the second chair. Quarles last served as chair in 2008. Only Ned Creasey, District 3, first elected in 2007, has not had at least one turn as chair.
Overturning the policy of chair rotation among all board members signals a return to the bad old days.
After a year of changes that filled many with hope, we seem to be headed back to an oppressive regime whose operations are as transparent as mud.
Just a year ago, a battle between the former county administrator, some board members and the citizens about a virtual gag order to be placed on county employees led to significant and sudden high-level personnel changes.
Although there were relatively few people in attendance at Tuesday’s meeting, both Oilville native Ann James, a perennial thorn in the board’s side and community activist Anne Rockecharlie of District 5 used the citizen comment period to express their displeasure at the board’s action.
“Three of you on the board felt threatened by what happened last year,” James told Pryor, Eads and Quarles. “You think the three of you hold all the cards, but you’re the ones who put us in the position we’re in now. People in this county think of you as “the three blind mice” because you turned your eyes away from everything that was happening.”
Rockecharlie, perhaps Eads’ most ardent supporter when he first ran for election, said that she has been apologizing to those she urged to vote for him.
One of Quarles’ first acts as board chair was to ask county administrator Rebecca T. Dickson to read the supervisors’ rules of procedure, code of ethics and standards of conduct into the record before they were adopted by unanimous vote. (These are posted on the county website www.co.goochland.va.us in the board of supervisors’ section.)
The section stating “… E-mails on matters of public business before the Board which are sent to more than one member of the Board of Supervisors
should be sent to all other Board members” was amended to “shall be sent to all board members.”
Hopefully, that will prevent any board subgroup from holding electronic meetings and circumventing the open meeting requirements spelled out in the Code of Virginia.
It looks like 3-2 split on the board of supervisors will continue.
One reason for the enmity between the two factions is believed to be Creasey’s dogged pursuit of the undeposited check matter about a year ago that led to the personnel changes.
It is curious that even though the Code of Ethics states that supervisors are to “….Expose through appropriate means and channels, corruption, misconduct, or neglect of
duty whenever discovered” such action seems to have been deemed inappropriate.
Creasey has been faulted for exposing what can at least be termed profound dysfunction in the public utilities department. Had he worked through the former county administrator, the whole mess would have been swept further under the rug.
Did Eads, Quarles and Pryor truly have no clue about the mess in the utilities department or did they honestly believe that problems there would never float to the surface? Given the state financing and agreements with Henrico and Richmond for water and wastewater respectively, at some point the problems would become impossible to ignore.
Results of the countywide audit, which should be made public in their entirety, will paint a clear picture of the county’s fiscal dysfunction. The auditors, KPMG, have been hard at work for many months in all county departments, including the school system. An audit of a county the size of Goochland normally takes a few weeks. This report is expected in February.
For too many years, the same auditing firm was used to examine the county’s fiscal matters. In the real world, auditors are changed often. Fresh eyes looking at a situation ensure that nothing is overlooked due to familiarity.
The real question in all of this is what do the majority of supervisors fear enough to pull these stunts? By now they surely realize that the county faces significant challenges resulting from long- term mismanagement that must be addressed and corrected.
Crafting this year’s budget will be a painful and delicate process. There will be no room for petty internecine conflict. The county needs a sound fiscal strategy to move forward.
Goochland citizens expect the best for their county and will pay close attention to the actions of their elected officials in the coming months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)