.....This time I did. I Picked up the phone and made the call.
Yes, I normally do not return calls where the citizen is irate and yells at my aide(s) or is rude, threatening, or just plain onry in their call to our office. I especially avoid the ones where they make a threat or an ultimatum.
Because, what is the point, right? Obviously this individual--whoever they may be at any given time--has made up their mind and have picked up a phone and taken the time to call my office to enunciate the fact that:
1.) If I vote for "X"--they will never vote for me again or 2.) They will never vote for me again because of some "thing" I purportedly did or 3.) they think I am somehow engaged in criminal conduct or 4.) all of the above.
These are not every day occurrences, but these sorts of calls do come in from time to time.
And I normally don't do it, I normally don't call back--especially when they explicitly tell my staff "not to bother having Bergosh call back." But this time, along with the "don't bother having him call back" --the individual actually left a name and number. So I did call back--and I am glad I did. I actually had a productive conversation with the original caller and one of this individual's relatives who listened in.
The setup was this: I am apparently not worthy of continued support because of the state retirment plan others on the board take. And the article in the paper was infuriating to this constituent!
So, again, I called her and asked her about it.
"Look, I read that article in the PNJ, and it made me so angry! It's not right that the commissioners are taking an extra $40,000.00 per year over and above their $85,000.00 salary for a part-time job--and I am mad!" She continued..."Look, I know you don't take that plan, but you voted for it and so I am not happy about that either!"
I listened to her speak, and there is no doubt she was angry and worked up. So I listened, and then we had a back and forth dialogue and she listened as well.
"I understand you are angry, but that was not a news piece you read--it was an opinion piece from the local cartoonist, Andy Marlette. And, it is full of lies, half-truths, and falsehoods." I stated flatly.
"Look, that guy is constantly taking shots at me, he has for the last 16 years. Cartoons, hit pieces, and flat out lies, slander, and libel about me and other elected conservatives. He is a sack of garbage, a liar, a misogynist, a racist, and he is not anyone who is trustworthy in any sense of the word" I explained to her. "I'm astonished you even take the paper locally--it is so bad, they LIE so OFTEN and so many I know have cancelled their subscriptions!" I stated. Then I asked her how, if I was such an horrible dishonest politician as Marlette insinuates falsely--"how in the world could I not have been ever accused of doing anything unethical, illegal, or immoral in the last 16 years as an elected official where my entire life exists under a microscope for everyone to examine?"
We talked for a while, and I asked her if she has seen the toxic garbage lies this same individual, racist liberal activist and conservative Christian-hater ---Andy Marlette--- puts out about our Governor, Ron DeSantis, and our Senator(s) Marco Rubio and Rick Scott. "Yes, I have" she conceded. "And yet you still support those elected officials though?" At which point she expressed support for these men while also volunteering the fact that she is/was a Democrat that "votes for the person, not the party, and at the last election I voted straight Republican."
Then we talked at length about the FRS, the 401(a) the differences and the costs for both plans. I went through the plans in meticulous detail, including the fact that these plans have been in existance in the county for 25 years, the commissioners did not "invent" these plans, and I have not voted for these plans.
We talked about all the employees and elected officials who have expensive pensions, the employees who retire with 100% of their pay for life, and also the exorbitant costs associated with the pension plan for constitutional officers like, for instance, clerk of the court Pam Childers--who's FRS pension costs to the taxpayer are nearly DOUBLE every year (nearly $80K) what the county commissioner's plans
cost.We had a long and good conversation, and if nothing else I am appreciative of her and her daughter speaking with me and then listening to me and hearing me out.
Will I recapture their support in any future runs for office? I don't know and I didn't ask. But telling the truth to them in the face of the LIES from PNJ and racist Cartoonist Andy Marlette was mildly cathartic and made it worth the time spent.
When they lie about me, I will tell the truth about them.
The next step that I hope the Supreme Court makes is the overturning of Times v Sullivan. When that does occur, dishonest, lying, racist, and creepy slimeball types like Andy Marlette might very well get held to account for their slander and libel.
10 comments:
If this is the one who shared the hit piece on ECW and keeps saying Childers is Wonder Woman, hopefully she will clear that up publicly on that platform.
Group think is quite the phenomena.
When the owner, in cahoots with a commissioner publicly smirks and scolds and a handful of partners in the toxic discussion band together the debate usually ends. Maybe she will have the courage and integrity to set it right.
I noticed an ER nurse also finally pointed out that a lot of the problem with EMS is the public calls them when they could handle situations themselves.
Also Doug pointing fingers that the BOC is a problem is finally met and someone states the obvious. He is part of the BOC.
It really is ridiculous. Marlette is a tool.
William Reynolds on North Escambia is also bad for Century.
Perhaps people have enough sense and stamina to just be like Teflon and let it roll off but it is human nature, that public scorning is difficult to overcome and deal with, in conjunction for a public servant stepping up trying to do a job and live his life also.
The media being irresponsible and trolling and blowing things out of proportion is a huge problem as most people don't have the time, sense nor maturity to see past it.
While I'm glad you made this connection, and hate Marlette's disinformation as much as the next reasonable person, I am so shocked to see you falling into the Clarence Thomas strain of dismantling NYT versus Sullivan, which is the ONLY thing keeping NOT. JUST. MEDIA. but *any* person who is a public figure safe legally from BS litigation to shut them up.
So basically, you're advocating for stripping away the essential precedent on which JJ based my right to a voice as a citizen against a government agent, backed at the time by the full force of that government's administration, suing me for libel simply for speaking the truth about her.
I really, really hope that as a proponent of free speech, you will reflect on these moves through the bigger prism. Take away NYT vs Sullivan, you take away *anybody's* right to speaking an opinion.
As far as Andy goes, if you guys would take him to court for his out-and-out libel, NYT vs Sullivan would *not* defend his actions, as he is knowingly and maliciously smearing the BOCC with intentional lies. THAT is defamation, and NYT vs Sullivan does *not* protect actual libel coming from malice. Instead of desiring to throw the baby free speech out with the bathwater of water carriers like Marlette, why doesn't the BOCC just sue Gannett and/or Marlette as an individual? Lord knows you have *plenty* of evidence from the garbage he has been churning out for his Downtown puppet masters. If the BOCC won't do it, why don't you do it yourself?
You would not be the first elected official to receive a verdict of guilty when a news agency knowingly circulates defamatory and damaging lies. Because it's not just the reputation or electability of the sitting commissioners that this malice of lies is damaging to. It's damaging to the PUBLIC. Just as NYT vs Sullivan protects the opinion, when it really is opinion, of garbage smash-mouths like Andy, it also protects the opinion of citizens who have a right to redress their government and gigantic corporation interests such as FPL from dragging them through the courts for years and breaking their backs financially to shut them up. Strip away that ruling, and this country is toast for free speech. Thomas recognizes that because he is an elite autocrat who does not want not just the press, but ordinary citizens to have a voice against all his monied corporate special interest backers. That's why he coming for that ruling. Not to shut up a squawker in a daily local rag.
To win a case under Times vs Sullivan you have to prove actual malice.
Marlette is obviously an idiot, he may not know he is publishing lies. The editor should ... as well as the corporation. He does it under opinion, you know, like assholes.
The 401a rates are voted on by BOCC. They could lower the rates to allow the participants to get the same % as FRS participant. That would be fair. The excess contribution to FRS is to the unfunded actuarial liability to ensure the plan is health for the rank and file. Speak the TOTAL truth Jeff
Anon 1:22, yes on the malice--as it should be. An idiot spouting opinion may be annoying, but that's free speech. False statements spoken in malice are NOT covered under NYT vs Sullivan. That's exactly why Janice Gilley was feeding Edler cherry picked public record on me...everything she turned over was intended to form a false narrative that would strip away my NYT vs Sullivan defense, because if I had stated any untruths (which I didn't) and I had done it knowingly with malice, NYT vs Sullivan doesn't cover that.
Andy Marlette stated--as a matter of fac--that the commission had pre-orchestrated the censure on Doug Underhill. He knows that there is ZERO evidence of that, as Alison Rogers didn't even let the Board know until the meeting was in progress that she might be bringing it. His editors know there is zero evidence. When Andy says something tantamount to "In an obvious preorchestration of votes" which would have been a screaming illegality: that's actual malice.
So sue him. Don't strip everybody else's right to free speech away, with NY Times vs Sullivan Supreme Court decision being the only thing federally that codifies and enshrines that right. They purposely used that ruling to further strengthen free speech in this country for *everybody* (and when I mentioned public figures above, I got interrupted and forget to put the "and private citizen alike" part). They knew what they were doing. Just as Thomas and the radical right know damn well what they're doing with their disinformation that the only legal bearing that case has is on media. Total and utter hogwash, as the language of the ruling makes clear--along with the language of the three dissenters, who believed in free speech but thought it was protected on a state by state level. It wasn't and isn't, the majority of the Supreme Court knew it, and so do Clarence Thomas et al--who are hellbent in taking away the right of free speech from *everyone* who doesn't have the resources to defend themselves if they get socked with a suit for speaking truth to power.
I see what you did there Jeffery. It's not that the 401(a) puts so much more into the individual's plan, it's just that FRS sucks. What a great way to justify a perk for a select few that overwhelmingly the citizens of this county don't support.
Thomas is right but it looks like this court won't revisit it. Actual malice is a double standard. Whether the media knows they are being truthful or not is no excuse.
Print the truth. That is what editors should be drawing a paycheck on.
I guess putting Roe vs Wade back to states was took much for the screamers and mob to understand.
Anon 1:22 Yes, he is one and has one---nevertheless, insidiously, he puts these "hit" pieces out, laced with what he purports to be "facts" which are actually lies, and some people read it and believe it and presto--you have character assassination which was /is the goal of the author, Andy Marlette. Which is why the Times v Sullivan case should be revisited and that protection stripped away from organizations like Gannett and PNJ. They don't deserve it because they are not worthy. Garbage rags. 4:45--I never said FRS Sucks--I am a member since 2006. This said--their overhead is ridiculous, exorbitant. 3;59--wrong. I simply asked the clerk if it was illegal and then she hemmed and hawed and her lawyer finally said he thinks "it is!"--but that seminal question has not yet been answered by the court. Meanwhile--now the clerk says adjusting the rates doesn't solve the issue and the whole thing is "illegal" so she has stopped paying on the plan completely--so no--your premise is wrong--we can't adjust it because the clerk has blocked us from doing it--thus the court case. Get the facts before you spout untruths, please.
I hadn't realized that even this junta of a Supreme Court had just whapped Thomas upside the head on NYT vs Sullivan, a true marker of just how extreme the idea of stripping away the expansive free speech protections that ruling codifies really is. But hey, if Tucker said it.
Commissioner Bergosh, the part of Andy's screed that is opinion--deal with it like the rest of us have do. Why should commissioners have better protection than anyone else from this sort of thing? Do you perceive the consequences to be greater for you than for the average citizen? We are ALL captives of a society in which half the population can't tell the truth from fiction now. You can't have your cake and eat it too--the GOP can't inculcate its base with falsehoods on the daily and then pick and choose which disinformation is personally wounding and cry foul.
The part that is disinformation? Congress looked into passing law that would cut down on dangerous dis- and malinformation, and conservatives just about lost your minds over "free speech." Because if it ever came down to holding people liable for actively disseminating disinformation--which is different from unknowingly spreading disinformation as misinformation--that would strip away the GOP's ability to keep its base in a hysterical cult fever and malleable to whatever ends they see fit. Wouldn't want that, would we? Free speech and all. So deal with that also, like the rest of us who are subjected to it not just individually, but who have to live in a society where a huge portion of the population is completely and continually deranged in the day to day because of it.
The part that is malicious lies? Find a rock star constitutional lawyer to consult with, lay it out, and if that lawyer thinks you have a case, sue him individually.
Politicians and elected officials should be no more protected from media than any of our populace is protected from any bad actor slinging dangerous crap.
Also, one of the reasons that this thing got so out of control is that the County does NOTHING to combat it. Over and over, it's as if there's a mentality of taking the high road, sitting on top of a mountain, and waiting for it to pass. So the PNJ, and sometimes WEAR, just churn baby churn on the bias and disinformation, and by the time the Board figures out it's WAY out of the box and not going away, it's too late.
Why has Administration never directed CMR to combat this type of thing with public awareness campaigns? You guys have a fantastic CMR department now, fully capable of handling that sort of thing. Why no public awareness campaign?
Why have you guys never brought it for public discussion how to combat the constant disinformation? Why do you only bitch about it? It deserves fighting back. But from where I sit, the tacit idea seems to be that the best way to respond as a body is to do nothing. Just act as if it doesn't bear notice and it won't hurt anything, and it will eventually go away.
That's not how it works. So instead of asking for special legal protection, why don't you try fighting back as a unified board and take actual steps to educate the public on the truth?
And WHY are none of you hammering on the fact that the 401a is a one time payout rather than a lifetime benefit?
The media should be held to a higher standard particularly regarding government.
Post a Comment