Comments (1)

By Marc, November 4, 2011 11:01 pm

In case you missed it earlier today, the petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto by David Johnston, challenging Eric Olsen’s residency, was dismissed on procedural grounds by Judge Ferris. It wasn’t dismissed because it lacked merit, as some sources wrongly reported. It’s a BIG distinction!

Olsen’s legal residency was not decided in today’s hearing. The judge did not make a finding that Olsen was a legal resident of Stafford. You can read more about today’s hearing here.

In this post, I want to address the hypocrisy that is Eric “Law & Order” Olsen. At today’s hearing, Judge Ferris advised Olsen that he had a right to a jury trial if he so wished. Olsen said that he didn’t want a jury trial and that he was fine with a bench trial, before launching into a challenge of the whole hearing on procedural grounds.

This is the same guy that had the following to say, when he announced his run for Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney:

I’ve tried many jury trials ladies and gentlemen. I can tell you that there is no better arbiters of justice then twelve citizens chosen at random, asked to come into court and take a day off and decide the facts of the case and administer justice. I believe in the jury system.

What a hypocrite! This is just another example of how duplicitous Olsen can be.

The topic of jury trials is somewhat complicated for the average person, but it’s an important one to understand. The Commonwealth of Virginia is part of a minority of States that allow the Government to force a jury trial. If the Defendant wants a jury trial then under the Constitution he/she can have one, but the Defendant also has the right to waive that right. If a Defendant waives their right to a jury trial, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office does not need to insist on a jury. Why you ask?

First and foremost, jury trials are slow and expensive. Every other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth understands that fact. So they have jury trials about 15 percent of the time while Stafford has them about 95 percent of the time.

As the Free Lance-Star previously reported:

Olsen and Chichester have relied heavily on jury trials throughout their careers. In fact, Stafford was second only to the massive Fairfax County in the number of juries convened in 2010. Stafford had 79, according to figures compiled by the state Supreme Court.

Spotsylvania County, with a population similar to Stafford’s, had 13 jury trials last year.

This is a point of pride for Olsen, who prefers to let county residents determine the outcome of trials.

Yeah, Olsen takes pride in jury trials as long as they don’t involve him. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. Fairfax County is massive and Stafford has the second most jury trials to them?!

Jury trials are typically very slow and it could take an entire day to try a jury case. In Fredericksburg, where bench trials are the rule, Judge Willis can knock out six trials to Stafford’s one. Plain and simple, jury trials just clog up the entire system. As Independent Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney candidate Tim Barbrow puts it,

In addition to the cost of a jury trial to the taxpayer, the policy of requesting a jury trial in nearly every criminal case puts a strain on the entire judicial system. The Circuit Courts also hear a wide variety of civil cases including divorce, child support, custody, adoption, lawsuits between private parties, condemnation, and personal injury and medical malpractice. By tying up the Court’s docket with unnecessary requests for jury trials in the majority of criminal cases, most of which never go to trial, the citizens of Stafford County often have to wait months if not years to have their civil cases heard.

Jury trials are incredibly expensive. Each jury costs the taxpayers of Stafford County about $2,300. That doesn’t sound like much for one trial, but Olsen and Chichester ask for a jury trial in nearly every case. The Clerk of the Court spent ¾ of a million dollars on jury trials last year. That is money coming directly from the taxpayers of Stafford County.

Olsen likes to say that the money is from Richmond and not Stafford, but he is flat wrong. Go ask the Clerk of the Court!

I’ve said it time-and-time again, we need to start making smarter fiscal decisions in the county; otherwise, we will continue to divert funds away from education, transportation and public safety (e.g. see the wasteful public radio communication system). If a Defendant doesn’t want a jury trial, don’t force one on taxpayers!

This is another example of Olsen saying one thing and doing another. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

On November 8, let’s vote for a new direction by casting a vote for Tim Barbrow!

Comments Off

By Marc, October 27, 2011 9:53 pm

Barbrow does a great job of highlighting the current lack of prosecutorial discretion in Stafford’s Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. As Barbrow so eloquently states, “Justice is not like a baseball cap where one size fits all.”

In citing the now infamous “McMissile” case, Barbrow states in no uncertain terms, “there will be no McMissile cases on my watch.” Thank goodness!

Under his watch, he pledges to fully participate in the Drug Court Program. Stafford County is the only jurisdiction within the area that doesn’t participate in this program. This program allows a first-time offender to avoid a felony conviction by participating in a yearlong, rigorous drug court program. If they fail to complete this, they are then convicted of a felony and receive a six-month sentence. Statistics show that the drug courts work, “Virginia’s Drug Court felony recidivism rate is 5.9% as compared to a 50% felony recidivism rate for other Virginia drug offenders handled in traditional ways of probation or incarceration.”

Not only do they work, but they are also way cheaper than incarceration. On a side, I previously wrote a post on how Stafford County pays $60 per day for each inmate versus $21 per day on each student. Participation in drug courts should be a no-brainer.

He also highlights the fact that there has been a 300 percent increase in the office’s budget over the last decade. We are now spending 54 percent more, per capita, then Spotsylvania County. The size of the staff of the commonwealth’s attorney’s office has also tripled over this same time period. Barbrow concludes that “despite these huge increases in funding crime continues to rise in Stafford County.” He pledges to better maximize the resources of the office in order to save taxpayers money and get results.

He also talks about the need and benefits of a more culturally diverse office, which I covered at length recently. One new tidbit that I didn’t know is that in 72-years there has only been a single African American employed as an assistant commonwealth’s attorney – currently there are none.

Barbrow also stresses the importance of hiring attorney’s who live in the area. Barbrow explains, “Currently, more than three-fourths of the Commonwealth Attorney’s employed by Stafford County do not live in Stafford or the surrounding areas. It’s important because prosecutors should reflect the values of the community.” I couldn’t agree more with Barbrow.

He also notes how important it is that Commonwealth’s Attorney’s don’t “play fast and loose with the rules.” He points out how his opponent was forced to “take down campaign ads because they infringed on someone’s trademark,” how he “accepted an illegal contribution from a foreign national,” and how questions continue to swirl on his residency.

Tim Barbrow is just the sort of fresh voice we need after 72-years of the same family controlling the office. The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office shouldn’t belong to one family, but all the residents of Stafford County. On November 8, let’s vote for a new direction in Tim Barbrow for Stafford Commonwealth’s Attorney!

Comments Off

By Marc, October 3, 2011 4:41 pm

I can’t tell you how impressed I am with Tim Barbrow (I-Stafford) and the refreshing vision he has for the Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office.

Barbrow is running to replace retiring Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney Daniel Chichester.

From his official campaign website:

I will bring a new direction to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office in Stafford County. If elected, I will:

- Work effectively with prosecutors in the surrounding communities. Given the close proximity of the surrounding communities, it is absolutely essential that local law enforcement and the respective Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Offices work together in fighting crime. Criminals do not stop at the county line.

- Fully participate in the regional Drug Court Program. It is a win-win situation for first time drug offenders and the community. The offender receives the intensive treatment necessary to overcome their addiction, probation, and the opportunity to avoid a felony conviction rather than incarceration. The community gets an individual who has beaten the addiction that caused them to commit crime and avoids the costs of incarceration and possibly future crimes.

- End the policy of requesting a jury trial in nearly every criminal case. It is an unnecessary practice which wastes valuable court resources and tax dollars and clogs up the courts. Stafford County has access to three (3) of the best Circuit Court Judges in the area, one of whom is the former Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Fredericksburg and another who is a former deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney for Stafford County.

In addition to the cost of a jury trial to the taxpayer, the policy of requesting a jury trial in nearly every criminal case puts a strain on the entire judicial system. The Circuit Courts also hear a wide variety of civil cases including divorce, child support, custody, adoption, lawsuits between private parties, condemnation, and personal injury and medical malpractice. By tying up the Court’s docket with unnecessary requests for jury trials in the majority of criminal cases, most of which never go to trial, the citizens of Stafford County often have to wait months if not years to have their civil cases heard. I will not hesitate to request a jury trial when appropriate. But I will also trust our distinguished Judges to hear criminal cases as well.

- Hire a more diverse staff with an emphasis on hiring attorneys who live in the area. The Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney should reflect the constituency it serves. As a result, I will make it a priority to ensure that our staff reflects the cultural diversity of Stafford County. The ability to effectively communicate and to connect with witnesses and victims is essential to effective prosecution. It is important to have prosecutors who live in the area because the Office should reflect the values of the community.

- Use my prosecutorial discretion to pursue a just outcome in every case. Justice is not like a baseball cap where one size fits all. I will try to do the “right thing” and seek justice in every case, regardless of whether the victim or defendant is rich or poor, and regardless of race or gender or ethnicity. I will never try to obtain a conviction by using deceit or trickery. As a prosecutor, I will be tough but fair.

- Use a more creative approach in the Juvenile Court System to rehabilitate juvenile offenders and expand the outreach of the Office into the schools and community. It is essential that we use all of the resources available to intervene with the young people in Stafford County in order to divert them from a path of crime and addiction. As with adults, I will fully participate in the regional drug court program. I will work closely with the school system and other agencies to identify problem areas and to monitor youthful offenders.

- Operate a more fiscally responsible office. From the year 2000 to the present, the budget for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office has risen from just over one (1) million dollars to nearly three (3) million dollars. We are spending 54% more per capita on the Commonwealth’ Attorney’s Office in Stafford County than Spotsylvania County. The number of prosecutors employed by the office has risen dramatically over the past ten (10) years. Despite this increase in funding, since 2005, overall crime in Stafford County has increased by 60% and violent crimes have increased by 66%.

- Respect the parties. I will treat everyone who comes into contact with the Office with respect and courtesy. The judicial system can be a very stressful environment for all involved. The stakes involved are often great. Emotions can run high. But everyone involved in the process, including witnesses, family members, and attorneys are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

- Protect the citizens of Stafford from violent offenders and repeat offenders. My number one priority is to protect the citizens of Stafford County to the best of my ability. I will be tough when it comes to the prosecution of violent offenders and repeat offenders. There are individuals who commit crimes that are so heinous or violent or who continue to commit crime again and again that need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I will not hesitate to ask for lengthy sentences for these individuals.

On November 8th, I’ll be voting for Tim Barbrow for Commonwealth’s Attorney. A new direction is just what Stafford County needs!

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 (2)

By Marc, September 1, 2011 11:43 pm

Barbrow is what Stafford County NEEDS in a commonwealth’s attorney.

He’s seen “too many examples in the current administration where the lack of prosecutorial discretion has resulted in unjust convictions or sentences.” For him it’s about “fundamental fairness.”

“As a prosecutor, I will be tough but fair. I will be aggressive in my prosecution of the worst offenders.”

Most importantly, he will end the office’s practice of asking for jury trials too often. Stafford County was second to only Fairfax County in the number of jury trials held last year. When comparing Stafford to its similarly sized neighbor, Spotsylvania County, Stafford County convened 79 jury trials last year versus only 13 in Spotsylvania.

Something is seriously wrong with this picture and it is costing taxpayers dearly.

Barbrow believes that this practice is a “waste of resources.” If (When) elected, he will employ a “more diverse staff” and bring fiscal responsibility to the office.

What’s not to like about Tim. It’s no wonder that he is garnering so much bi-partisan support.

Comments Off

By Marc, December 11, 2009 6:19 pm

In a follow-up to my post last week, the Stafford County School Board voted 5-2, late this past Tuesday evening, to provide almost ALL school employees a continuing pay rate increase (step increase) effective April 2010. The one group excluded from this increase is newly hired instructional staff, with teaching experience, hired this fiscal year (FY ’10), since they were already hired in at a higher step. This has been a sore subject for many returning teachers, who did not receive a cost-of-living raise or step increase this year; and, as a result, are making less in comparison to these new teachers, based in many cases on a similar amount of teaching experience. Those employees that are already topped out within the scale will receive stipends.

This vote was in response to a resolution passed (read more about it here) by the Stafford County Board of Supervisors last week that used a portion of a recently discovered surplus to provide bonuses for teachers, paraprofessionals, school nurses and sheriff deputies.

…At the end of the day, I’m happy that all school employees received a much deserved continual pay rate increase…This is by far a more equitable outcome than only providing raises (be it bonuses or step increases) to specific categories of school employees, as desired by the Board of Supervisors…The reality is that they would have and should have received raises earlier, if not for the “lost” school money that was recently discovered (i.e. the surplus)…

…The reason why they delayed this continuous pay rate increase until April 2010 is that the $1 million or so funds provided by the Board of Supervisors is only enough funds to provide this increase for a total of 3 months…It will cost approximately $4 million to fund this raise annually over a 12-month period…It is important to note that the fiscal year for the schools run from June to June…

Stafford County School Superintendent David Sawyer stated that the resolution passed by the Stafford County Board of Supervisors was non-biding and allowed the school board some leeway in spending the approximate $1 million they were provided. He presented several options and the school board eventually settled on the aforementioned distribution methodology, which provides a continuing pay rate increase for a much wider swath of school employees versus the narrow categories of school employees whom the Board of Supervisors prescribed bonuses.

According to the FLS, Superintendent Sawyer stated that the School Board’s decision was a

”bold step, in light of the fiscal circumstances.”

…As I stated last week, I think that all school employees (minus the administrators) deserved a continuing pay rate increase (step increase) over a bonus; however, I had grave concern over using the surplus to fund it…As I stated, I feel that if the board stops wasting money on staffing a large transportation department when they have no money or responsibility for transportation and stop wasting money on overpriced, exuberant procurements such as the radio communication system, when a cheaper one would have sufficed, then they would have plenty of funds to support our schools…

…I fear that unintended consequences of the Supervisors actions in spending the surplus funds may be the eventual layoff of school employees, pay cuts, larger class sizes or other unpalatable cuts, especially if state and local revenues continue to decline; Gov.-elect McDonnell (R-VA) follows through on his promise to raid the General Fund to pay for his transportation initiatives at the expense of Education funds; and the board doesn’t do a better job of prioritizing and spending our tax dollars…

…The Dude and Milde are also hell bent on repealing the business tax…How is this fiscally responsible when it is likely that the county will be facing a budget shortfall this fiscal year, due to likely declining revenues locally and statewide…So in a time of falling revenues they actually want to cause an even more dire fiscal situation…Of course they will disingenuously spew outrage over the usage of surplus funds for other purposes, since they want to use it to repeal the business tax…There will be a time and a place to discuss the merits or non-merits of the business tax and whether a return to the merchants capital tax is better or not and now is not the time…If this is so urgent why isn’t Spotsylvania or the City of Fredericksburg raising this issue too…

…It is likely that once this surplus is depleted that the only two options that supervisors will have at their disposal is to either cut core services or raise our property taxes, both of which would be hard to swallow right now…Our core services such as the schools, police and fire and rescue must be protected…

…I’ve also been closely following the discussion on the $7 million of appropriated FY’10 funds that have yet to be transferred to the schools…Several folks have brought this up as a major problem within other discussion forums…This sort of “hold-back” has been standard within the county for some time…The County Administrator regularly holds-back a percentage of money each year from each county department (7% this year)…A mid-year review is conducted in mid-January where budgets are reviewed and expected revenue projections are re-analyzed…Without holding back these funds, it would be very difficult to balance the budget based on revised revenue projections…I’ve been told that folks have expressed concern that if the funds are not transferred immediately to the schools that they will lose matching funds from the federal government…It is my understanding that this is not the case and that the school has met the current funding requirements, based on the funds already transferred…If I’m wrong, which is possible, I would welcome any corrections in the comments…

Comments (3)

By Marc, December 4, 2009 2:02 pm

As most are no doubt already aware, an accounting error between the school board and the county two years ago, recently confirmed by the results of audits, has led to a sudden $6.2 million surplus in county coffers.

This past Tuesday at the regular meeting of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors, the board approved a resolution authorizing the appropriation of a portion of the aforementioned surplus – approximately $1.4 million to be exact. Supervisor Joe Brito (I-Hartwood) introduced a resolution that would have provided a 1.5% continuous pay rate increase to school employees.

A heated discussion ensued between board members. The result was a substitute motion put forth by the Republicans that nixed the 1.5% continuous pay rate increase for school employees, which would have brought pay in line with Spotsylvania County. The substitute motion, instead, proposed a one-time bonus be paid to certain categories of school employees and to sheriff deputies. This substitute motion eventually carried with all Republicans on board and Supervisor Crisp (D-George Washington) voting in favor of it. Supervisors Schwartz (D-Falmouth), Woodson (D-Griffis-Widewater) and Brito (I-Hartwood) voted against the resolution.

…Listen, ALL school employees (minus the overpaid administrators) deserve a continuous pay rate increase after two years of salaries remaining essentially stagnant while health care premiums have continued to soar, which has ultimately led to a decrease in employees net pay; however, is dipping into this surplus to pay for this increase advisable…The answer to me is NO…In November, State Sen. Ed Houck (D-Spotsylvania) warned the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors that (from the FLS):

The state’s biennial budget has already been cut by $7 billion, he said, and to finish out the current fiscal year, Houck said it is likely the state could have to make $200 million to $300 million more in cuts to make up for falling revenues.

Looking forward to the next two-year budget period, for which Gov. Tim Kaine will announce his plan next month, Houck said the state could be looking at another $3 billion in cuts.

That will be hard to do without cutting education funding again, and Houck said that at this point his goal is “to control permanent damage to our core services.”

…It is VERY likely that based on declining state revenues that education funding from the state will be cut…Not to mention that Gov.-elect McDonnell (R-Virginia) has proposed taking a significant amount of money ($5.4 billion) out of the general fund to pay for his transportation initiatives, which would undoubtedly lead to further reductions in education funding locally…

…I believe that if common sense prevailed on the board that our schools wouldn’t be getting short changed and school employees would be rewarded…Why is no one talking about the fact that the county has a large transportation department when they have no money or responsibility for transportation or why Supervisors Dudenhefer (R-Garrisonville) and Milde (R-Aquia) are so hell bent on spending $45 million on the $25 million radio communication system the county is buying…Why is Stafford County buying a $25 million radio communications system in the first place…This happens to be one of the most expensive systems around and it appears to me that Stafford County taxpayers would have be better served by a more appropriate choice in systems…It is clear to me that we need some major changes to the way procurements are conducted in this county…

…In the end certain categories of school employees and sheriff deputies will be getting bonuses, based on the aforementioned substitute resolution passing…I think that ALL school employees (minus the overpaid administrators) are deserving of this bonus, although I completely disagree with the fiscally irresponsible means by which this is being funded…While I have a great amount of respect for the job that sheriff deputies do, was it really necessary in these fiscal times to provide a second pay increase for deputies this year when many other county employees have received nothing….How about board members put aside their difference for a change and do right by Stafford County…

Supervisor Joe Brito (I-Hartwood) then proposed enacting a new ordinance that would allow Stafford County to return real property tax revenue to taxpayers in any fiscal year with a surplus. This proposal would have provided an equal payment amount to every taxpayer in Stafford County; however, an amendment was adopted to have the payments distributed on a pro-rata basis. The adoption of a county ordinance requires that a public hearing be held. On a 5-2 vote, with Brito (I-Hartwood), Schwartz (D-Falmouth), Crisp (D-George Washington), Woodson (D-Griffis-Widewater) and Sterling (R-Rock Hill) voting in the affirmative, a public hearing was scheduled on Dec. 15 to potentially adopt this ordinance.

…Consistent with my prior comments, I do not believe the surplus (now down to $4.8 million) should be touched, at this point, with expected state cuts coming down the pike…Providing rebates to taxpayers is not a bad thing; however, given our current economic fiscal condition it is fiscally irresponsible…

…The Republican outrage is also quite disingenuous (earth to Dudenheffer and Milde)…The only reason they are outraged is that they want to spend the surplus on repealing the business tax, which is also fiscally irresponsible at this point…Any decisions on spending this surplus should wait until there is a clearer picture from the state on the size of cuts to expect…

…If the same folks that are so against the business tax stopped wasting county money on overpriced consultants and procurements, the repeal of BPOL could be paid for several times over without cutting any services or dipping into any surpluses…

…Given where revenues are headed at the state level, if the surplus is spent there is a high likelihood that property taxes will have to be raised to offset this loss of revenue or there will be severe cuts to core services…Of course this might still happen if the downturn is severe enough, but why put the county in such a position…It’s time to put aside the partisan bickering and do what is right for Stafford County…

…I hear that Dudenheffer actually threatened Crisp with political retribution, after following him to his car to scold him for his support of the rebate ordinance…This sort of behavior is over-the-line, especially from someone who is rumored to be the next Chairman of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors…The “Dude” needs to get ahold of himself and his political ambitions, if this board has any chance of functioning in the near future…