Comments (6)

By Marc, September 21, 2011 11:00 am

Has everyone in Stafford County gone bananas? No, really?

This story is so ludicrous; I don’t even know where to begin. According to myFoxdc.com, a Colonial Forge High School student was “handcuffed and placed in a police car for running down the sidelines during halftime at a [High School] football game” in a banana suit this past Friday.

I’m so glad that Sheriff Jett (R-Stafford) is taking my article on increased crime in Stafford County so seriously. Clearly, the Banana Man posed an imminent danger to the community and it was necessary to handcuff him and throw him in the back of a squad car. This isn’t exactly what I had in mind when I wrote the post. He wasn’t arrested and no charges have been filed, but I hear that Eric Olsen (R-Stafford) is on the case – that’s after he finishes returning the illegal campaign donation.

Simply put, all of this is beyond reason.

If being thrown into a squad car wasn’t enough, Stafford County schools also suspended this student for 10 days and he is now facing possible expulsion. They apparently have a zero-tolerance policy against bananas.

In a show of support from the student body, some students wore t-shirts that read “Free The Banana Man” to school on Monday. The students claim that their shirts were confiscated and they were ordered to attend Saturday school.

I’ve also received emails, which I’m unable to confirm at this point, which made additional claims that a student had her parking pass yanked for painting “Free Banana Man” on her car; students are now prohibited from eating bananas at school; and a student who came to school with a backpack full of bananas is now facing disciplinary action.

Per Gawker:

Yes, at least Thompson – an autistic teenager with musical talent and a playful sense of humor – wasn’t incarcerated for his totally innocent prank that made people laugh. That’s where we are nowadays, America – being glad when kids avoid being arrested for doing absolutely nothing wrong at all.

Apparently the wise officials at Colonial Forge High School, where Thompson is a student believe that running in a banana suit is disruptive and can lead to “mayhem.” Although this video footage doesn’t show any of the adolescent spectators in the stands declaring a revolution or taking hostages, or burning down the stadium in response to Thompson’s prank, it also doesn’t show what they were thinking about (forming a flash mob).

Here’s live video of Banana Man, as it happened:

Free Banana Man!

Comments Off

By Marc, September 20, 2011 7:50 pm

Here’s the transcript of Chuck Feldbush’s (I-Stafford) recent event to kickoff his upstart campaign (my emphasis included):

I stand before you as the Independent Candidate for the Office of Sheriff here in Stafford County. When I made the final decision to run for the Office of the Sheriff, I knew that there were numerous obstacles standing in my way. I was not born or raised here in Stafford. I didn’t grow up with any of the well known families that are prominent in Stafford County and I didn’t grow up with the boys that grew up on the streets of Stafford. I guess the bottom line here is that I am by no means one of the good ole boys. I consider myself to be a consummate professional dedicated to Law Enforcement and every facet involved with it.

Three years ago on June 29, 2008 a friend of mine that I have known since my days of growing up in Woodbridge was shot and fatally wounded at the rear basement door of his residence while his wife and a neighbor stood with him. It had been learned that Mr. David Gandy had had an altercation with his youngest son earlier in the evening and had been drinking when he made the statement that he would “Just shoot himself”. Mr. Gandy’s son believed that his dad might carry this threat out and as a result notified the Stafford Sheriff’s Office for their “assistance and help”. When the (4) deputies arrived on the scene that evening they spoke with Mr. Gandy’s son for under a minute and then promptly “Barnstormed” the back yard of the residence. Within (3) seconds Mr. Gandy was shot (3) times in the back and side with a .223 Assault Rifle carrying copper jacketed rounds.

It was not until the Civil Trial in Federal Court started on August 1, 2011 that all the facts were learned. Each of the (4) deputies involved in the shooting were all “IMPEACHED” during their testimony. This ladies and gentlemen cinched the decision for me to run for the position of Stafford County Sheriff. We all know that an individual needs a better reason to run for political office than to just say I want to run. It was very easy for my campaign to make the decision as to what the issues would be for this election. They are as follows:

1. The Budget: The 2011 budget for the Sheriff’s Office is just a few dollars shy of (21) million dollars. This is a staggering number considering that just as early as (6) years ago the Sheriff’s Budget was a little over (13) million dollars. In the last (6) since years the Sheriff’s Budget has increased a whopping (52) percent.

2. The Crime Rate: In a June 12th 2011 edition of the Free Lance Star an article was written concerning the crime trends across this country and the State of Virginia. The article went on to say that while those trends were down the Fredericksburg region was still quite high. In fact the article showed that Stafford Counties crime trends were very high. The violent crime rate was well in excess of (13) percent, while the property crime rate was a whopping (20) percent. In doing the research of the trends since 2005, it has been learned that Stafford County’s crime rate has soared a staggering (60) percent. The violent crime rate since 2005 has soared an unbelievable (66) percent. Ladies and gentlemen these are alarming numbers, and there has been absolutely no accountability to the people in Stafford.

3. The training that the deputies go through in this jurisdiction is done through the Rappahannock Criminal Justice Academy. It is also known as a minimum standards program, meaning that our deputies do not get the same training as do the police departments just to the north of Stafford in Prince William or Fairfax Counties. The number of weeks attended in the respective academies is significantly different. Under my administration my goal is to significantly change the training program that deputies go through prior to being released to the street for duty in Stafford County. These deputies will be trained to deal with mentally ill patients as well as suicidal subjects so that we never have to go through again what the Gandy family of Stafford County has gone through for the past (3) years.

4. My fourth goal is to enhance the communications that the Sheriff’s Department has with the businesses in Stafford County. Businesses in this county will not have to worry whether or not their case is worked and they will never be told by this “Sheriff” that “we will not be working their case’.

5. Accountability: Over the last (12) years that Mr. Jett has been in office here in Stafford County, there that been little to no accountability to the people of Stafford County what so ever. It has been business as usual with this Sheriff’s Department. It is time that changes. Our slogan for this campaign is a very simple one. “Change” through Integrity, Loyalty, and Commitment. It can be no other way. If the people do not trust their Law Enforcement, where do they go!

Over the next several days, weeks and months our campaign will do everything possible to make sure that we reach as many of the voters and citizens as is possible. The message is clear and strong! We need change in Stafford County Law Enforcement, and there has never been a year like this year to accomplish that.

Thank you and on we go to November!

Feldbush touched on a few points that I’ve made about the need for accountability and results in the Sheriff’s office. Overall, it’s a nice start to his campaign. On November 8th, it’s to time to JETTison Jett and vote for Chuck Feldbush (I-Stafford) for Sheriff.

Comments (3)

By Marc, September 13, 2011 8:20 pm

I’m betting many residents are not aware that Sheriff Charlie Jett (R-Stafford) was the lead acquisition official in charge of Stafford County’s procurement of a $40 million public safety radio communications system from Motorola.

In past blog posts, I’ve alluded to my outrage over this purchase. In this post, I want to elaborate a bit on just how bad of a deal this was for Stafford taxpayers; and, make the case that we are in desperate need of procurement reform in Stafford and new leadership.

Let me be clear. My main concern was with the overall cost of the system and the procurement process. I recognize that we absolutely needed to upgrade our outdated system and that the 700 Mhz Project 25 compatible system purchased from Motorola appeared to be in full compliance with Virginia’s Strategic Plan for Statewide Communications Interoperability.

It wasn’t until the Economic Development Authority (EDA) was asked to approve funding, in 2007, for bonds in order to finance several capital projects approved by the Board of Supervisors, which included this system, that significant flaws in the procurement process began to come to light – not to mention a complete failure of leadership from our elected officials.

To start off, why on earth was the Board of Supervisors asking the EDA to approve funding for the issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds, rather than the more appropriate and less expensive General Obligation Bonds?

Per Wikipedia, “a revenue bond is a special type of municipal bond distinguished by its guarantee of repayment solely from revenues generated by a specific revenue-generating entity associated with the purpose of the bonds.” Can anyone tell me what “revenue” is being generated by this public safety radio communication system? Is anyone else scratching his or her heads? You should be.

Plain and simple, the Board of Supervisors did not want to fund this with General Obligation Bonds – as they would require approval from Stafford County voters, and not just the EDA as is the case for Lease Revenue Bonds. They simply didn’t want the added level of scrutiny on this procurement. It was a bad deal for taxpayers and they knew it from the start.

Worse yet for taxpayers, Lease Revenue Bonds generally carry a higher interest rate than General Obligation Bonds. According to notes, which I’ve obtained from a November 16, 2007 meeting of the EDA, it was estimated that that Lease Revenue Bonds would cost $750K more than if these projects were funded with General Obligation Bonds.

Talk about a bad deal. If you’re upset about the financing chosen, you probably won’t be surprised that there was little concern by the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Jett over the cost of the system – in general.

In a September 30, 2007 memo to the Board of Supervisors, EDA members Ted Hontz and Jack Rowley wrote about their concerns over cost not being an “important enough parameter in the development of options” in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

They went on to express their significant concerns over the emphasis of performance over cost containment and wondered whether the goals specified in the RFP lead to the contractor discounting cost as a factor; thus, proposing a system with “more expensive characteristics.” They ended up performing independent research on similar systems by the same vendor and concluded that the procurement may be “overpriced by $4M to $10M.”

Hontz and Rowley wrote, “A 700 MHz, Project 25 system like the one recommended for Stafford in Johnson County MO is projected to cost $23M; however, Johnson County MO is over 1.7 times the area of Stafford and the population is over 4 times as large as Stafford.”

A similar system in Albemarle County, which was developed by the same consulting company used in Stafford, relied on significantly fewer cell towers than what was being proposed in Stafford, even though the coverage area was three times that of Stafford. When prodded by Hontz and Rowley on why lower cost options were not presented, the consultant hired by Stafford County indicated that Albemarle County was financially constrained in their procurement. Whereas the consultant provided lower cost alternatives, such as repeaters, to Albermarle, no such options were provided to Stafford. The consultant also indicated that the Board of Supervisors directed him to only consider the existing shorter towers rather than a potentially much less expensive option with fewer taller towers.

During the November 16, 2007 EDA meeting, Rowley also noted a huge conflict of interest that existed. The consultant that Stafford hired to advise the county on this procurement would benefit $800K for their work on the project and their ongoing billings were estimated to be $200K per year. Conflict of interest anyone?! You have to wonder whether or not the consultant was motivated to choose the most expensive solution, since it would have a direct impact on their bottom line.

Hontz separately wrote that the process did not include a Validation of Requirements or it’s equivalent; an Analysis of Alternatives or it’s equivalent; and the consultant didn’t provide lower cost alternatives, like they had done in other counties to meet cost constraints.

How could a system of this magnitude be procured without any sort of validation of requirements? Hontz and Rowley wrote, “We are unable to comment on appropriate levels of coverage but do note that in Albermarle County, the decision was made not to require 8 db in-building coverage in rural areas but instead to require 95% on ground coverage. No known analysis was done to determine cost and coverage tradeoffs in this regard for Stafford’s system.”

So in the end, a system was procured that endorsed a “many” cell tower leasing approach (13 in total) – with no new towers to be considered.

When you take into account the subsequent leases, the cost of this system rises by between $10 and $15 million over the next 30 years. It’s also unclear, from my research, what costs may be incurred by the choice made to modify certain county-owned towers to accommodate the additional gear. When you add in this additional cost to $23.8M reported price tag of this system, you’re looking at least at a $40 million system over 30 years.

Hontz and Rowley rightfully concluded, “the robustness of this system, and the cost, exceed that of any other municipal system that we found in our brief research.”

Worse, in talking to folks familiar with cell tower leases, the long-term leases negotiated on these cell towers seem to be only a good deal for the tower owners and not taxpayers. The 4% to 5% annual escalation rates on the leases are considered quite high. I was told that 3% annual escalations are usually considered medium to high.

Part of the reason that Stafford is paying so much is that they designed a very complex, expensive “many” cell tower system, which has a large amount of gear on each of the towers – displacing other potential users. The county will tell you that they are free to cancel these leases anytime; however, folks familiar with the system have explained to me that Stafford will NEVER cancel any of the leases, due to the complexity of the system design and the fact that any re-configuration of a lost tower or towers will come at a significant cost.

It’s no wonder this ended up being such a bad deal for Stafford. After all, why in the world was Sheriff Jett the lead acquisition official in charge of this procurement? He had no background or education, that I’m aware of, that would lead to him being an acquisition and contracting expert. It was Jett who asked the Board of Supervisors to approve the negotiated leases (see here and here, as examples). Shouldn’t this have come from the Stafford County Administrator, Anthony Romanello?

When EDA members questioned and pointed out problems with this system, a funny thing happened. No one was jumping up to take credit for it. According to sources close to the procurement, Jett’s reaction was to accuse anyone who pointed out any problems with the system as intentionally trying to hurt the police and firefighters. Apparently, Jett wasn’t too concerned with the taxpayers – or the fact that if he had saved some money on this system, he could have better supported raises, benefits or bonuses for his own people! How getting a good deal for Stafford would hurt police and firefighters are beyond me.

Maybe Jett was pushing the “sweetheart” leases for other reasons. After all, under the tower lease with the Free Lance Star they will make $1.3M over the next 30 years. One has to wonder what promises (or ideas for stories) may have been exchanged?!

Maybe if Jett paid more attention to fighting crime, instead of procuring overpriced systems, we wouldn’t have seen a 66% rise in violent crime over the last five years.

In fairness to Jett, he isn’t the only one to blame. There’s plenty of that to go around.

The Stafford County Board of Supervisors failed all of us too. There were only two supervisors who stood against this huge waste of money. They were former Supervisors Pete Fields (D-George Washington) and Joe Brito (I-Hartwood).

In the end, it was the Republican-led Board that mustered the necessary votes to actually pass this thing. And one of those Board members, Mark Dudenhefer (R-Garrisonville) now wants everyone to vote for him in Virginia’s newly created 2nd House District. Sure, let’s reward him for his complete lack of leadership. Thank goodness he is being challenged by Esteban Garces (D-VA-2nd). He understands what leadership is all about.

And getting an honorable mention is former Griffis-Widewater Supervisor, Jack Cavalier (I-Griffis-Widewater). Apparently, this huge waste of money wasn’t that important to him – as he didn’t even bother to show up for the vote. Now that is leadership – NOT! This is the same individual that wants everyone to vote for him again. Are you kidding me!

It’s time that logic and good stewardship of our tax dollars return to Stafford. Sheriff Jett, while he may be a personable, likeable guy, must be held to account for his failure in leadership and for a complete lack of results (see increase in crime numbers and budget). It’s high time that we got a new sheriff in town whose sole focus was fighting crime and his name is Chuck Feldbush (I-Stafford). Being more fiscally responsible with our tax dollars wouldn’t be bad thing either.

Comments Off

By Marc, September 3, 2011 10:37 am

You can read more about the case that Feldbush is talking about here and here.

This is just one example of what Commonwealth’s Attorney candidate Tim Barbrow recently called “too many examples in the current administration where the lack of prosecutorial discretion has resulted in unjust convictions or sentences.”

This is a truly sad story. What’s even worse is that there are so many more similar stories in Stafford.

It’s time to sweep the courthouse clean and elect a new Sheriff in Chuck Feldbush and a Commonwealth’s Attorney in Tim Barbrow.