I Normally Don't Do it, But......

.....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 I asked a rhetorical.  "So, you support those Republicans, and do not believe what the PNJ says about them---but the Republican Commissioners---you believe what the cartoonist says about us?

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

TDC Votes to Cut Clerk's Administrative Overhead Costs by $212,500.00

Some numbers got re-arranged at today's TDC meeting.......

At this afternoon's Tourist Development Council meeting we went through a number of items related to the proposed yearly budget.

We voted upon  the good idea of establishing some reserves for contingency within the budget--which passed unanimously.

We also had a primer in public records law and the Florida Sunshine Law from BCC attorney Steven West.

Toward the end of the meeting, the chairman brought forward a cleaned up proposed 2023 budget for TDT funds usage for the board's consideration.  (pictured above).

After Chairman David Bear went through the proposed budget line by line, it came time for a motion to approve which I made and which was seconded by Shirley Cronley.  With a motion and a second on the floor, discussion ensued with Ronnie Rivera asking what could be done about the $562,000.00 in budgeted administrative overhead fees to the Clerk of the Court (which appear to have grown geometrically as collections have increased this year).

Discussion went back and forth between Bear and Rivera about how the fee is calculated, which typically has been a flat 3% of collections figure given to the clerk for her staff's effort(s) in supporting this board and managing these funds.  Mr. Rivera obviously wanted the acurate number in that slot--not a formulaic one..which makes perfectly good sense.(Currently, the auditor general is looking into the spending and accounting of these funds, requested by TDC Chairman David Bear, and a clear answer as to what specific ammount [the whole 3%--or up to 3%--of the collections] is authorized has not yet been given.)

So what does it cost for the Clerk to support the TDC and the TDT funds?

Fortunately for us all--Mike Davis from the Clerk's office was still at the meeting------- so I asked him to come to the podium to tell us how much it costs the clerk to manage these funds and support the TDC.  He gave the figure "about $330,000.00"  so I took that number and asked if we budgeted $350,000 for the clerk's administrative overhead--would that work?" to which Mr. Davis agreed.

So I subsequently amended my motion to approve the budget,  inserting $350,000.00 for the Clerk's administrative costs (it had been a flat 3% which generated $562,500.00) and taking the delta of $212,500.00 from what was originally budgeted to go to the clerk for overhead/administrative costs, and adding that number to the 2023 surplus--increasing that number $1,487,500.00 for 2023.

This amended motion was voted upon and passed via a roll-call vote 5-1 with Jim Reeves voting "no."

Jim quipped, before he voted no, "I think this might create a controversial vote for the Board of County Commissioners to approve."  to which I responded "I think I can find at least three votes for it."