People Over Politics

So believes Conductor Rick Dwyer. He believes it so strongly he recently quit an orchestra he founded a few years earlier so he could form another that performs for free.

And so Orange City and DeBary -- two neighboring cities whose combined population is less than 25,000 -- have two separate orchestras. As the Gateway Center for the Arts Orchestra of DeBary carries on without Dwyer, the Orange City Orchestra is striking a chord.

"It's an important addition to our community," Orange City Mayor Harley Strickland said. "I think it adds to our whole sense of community and culture."

The Gateway Center Orchestra, by contrast, charged $18 at the door to nonmembers for its holiday concert.

Dwyer said he decided to leave the Gateway orchestra because he didn't agree with the center's philosophy of charging for performances.

"My goal in bringing the orchestra to a community is to introduce those who do not have the financial capability to go to Daytona Beach or Orlando to see a symphony to still enjoy the musical arts. A community orchestra ... my philosophy is one that is open to all members of society to participate and listen to."

The Orange City Orchestra is starting slow, with about 15 members usually in attendance, Dwyer said.

"We are fledgling a bit," Dwyer said. "It brings back memories of when I started the Gateway orchestra and we had 12 to 15 people."

But, he added, the show came off well and was attended by more people, 167, than he expected.

After the Christmas performance on Dec. 3, three new performers have joined the Orange City orchestra.

"We got up to about 30 people in Gateway," Dwyer said. "My goal is 30, which is about half the size (of a full orchestra)."

Dwyer's new orchestra has a wide range of performers, in terms of experience. There's concertmaster Gil Stemm, a 70-year-old violin player and Orange City retiree who spent three years with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. And there's Aaron Carlson, a 23-year-old Rollins College student from DeLand.

Carlson, who also studies with Stemm, said it's important for communities to have culture and to "have music available for the sake of good music," rather than commerce.

Dwyer, 60, has been a musical conductor since the 1960s, when he was in the Navy. Trained as a pianist, he became interested in community orchestras about five years ago and started Gateway.

Frank Vardaros, a Deltona trumpet player and band leader who replaced Dwyer as conductor of the Gateway orchestra, said he's been able to keep 35 to 40 performers and attract younger members.

Vardaros said he's leaving the question of charging patrons to the Gateway Center's board members.

"They have a building that needs to survive," Vardaros said. "They have to get what they need to get."

"If it hadn't been for Frank, who is a personal friend, I would have been gone from (Gateway)," Stemm said. "I hate to get involved in the political wranglings, but my wife doesn't go to the concerts for the Gateway. She goes to everything else I do."

Stemm's wife, who he calls his "biggest critic," skips his Gateway performances not because she can't afford them, but because she doesn't want to see what Stemm called a "$5 show" for $18.

But Vardaros suggested an alternative view for those who would argue music should be free.

"I have a philosophy that if you give something away," he said, "people don't value it as much."

Accusations Fly As Debary Race Heads To Voters

Election 2001

Incumbents Contend Challengers Are Indebted To Development Interests, But They Say That's Not So.

DEBARY -- Two races that were somewhat tame until recently heated up last week as the two incumbents mailed campaign fliers accusing their opponents of being influenced by developers' campaign contributions.

Danny Allen and George Coleman are seeking re-election against two former City Council members who have accepted several hundred campaign dollars each from De- Bary developer John Gray and his associates.

"I want to concentrate on just keeping DeBary a nice place to live and not bending over for developers that do whatever they want and don't look out for the citizens," Allen said.

Gray or his family donated $700 to Rob Sullivan, Allen's opponent, and $200 to Cliff Rutz, Coleman's opponent. Thomas Cloud, who works for the Gray family's Orlando law firm, Gray, Harris & Robinson, donated $100 to Sullivan and $100 to Rutz.

Sullivan has collected a total of $2,315 and Rutz collected a total of $1,320, according to the latest campaign report in October.

According to that same filing, Allen funded his entire $1,200 campaign himself and Coleman funded nearly all of his $925 campaign, except one $25 donation.

"I think any community should be developer friendly," Rutz said. "I certainly don't want to get the reputation that I'm against developers, because they play an important role in the community."

Sullivan said the donations don't mean the Gray family will have any special influence. In fact, he said, Gray has been a friend of his family for decades.

"I'm going to make the best decisions for DeBary," Sullivan said. "I can't afford to run a campaign on my own against someone who has as much money as Danny Allen does."

Known as one of the most prominent developers in De- Bary, Gray's family sold Gemini Springs to the county and developed several subdivisions, including The Reserve at De- Bary.

Earlier this year, Gray butted heads with the council when it tabled a rezoning request on a piece of his property while it negotiated with angry residents there for months. Ultimately the residents relented and Gray got the green light to build an office complex in a neighborhood across the street from a row of homes, but not before getting into a fistfight with one of the residents at a council meeting.

Rutz said it would take far more than a campaign contribution to influence his votes as a city councilman.

Opinion

Our Position: Vote To Keep Danny Allen, Add Clifford Rutz And Ok All But One Charter Change.

DeBary residents will choose two City Council members from a slate of familiar faces on Nov. 6. They'll also face a dizzying array of 18 charter changes.

In the Seat 2 race, first-term incumbent Danny Allen faces former council member Rob Sullivan.

Both are qualified, dedicated members of the community, but Mr. Allen's independent thinking and more cautious approach to development give him the edge.

In his first term, Mr. Allen brought to the table some badly needed skepticism about the city's policies toward growth and development. In the young city's first few years, there seemed to be little concern about the quality and wisdom of development, only how much it would generate in property taxes.

That philosophy culminated in the city's ill-advised approval of a housing project along the St. Johns River. There was little thought given to the environmental consequences or to the precedent it might set for other riverfront property in the city.

Mr. Allen, while not rejecting development altogether, favors a process in which tough questions get asked and reasonable demands are made to ensure the city's long-term interests are protected.

That said, Mr. Allen needs to work to overcome some blind spots. He showed stunningly bad judgment in backing a candidate for the city's parks and recreation chief who had a criminal record and a well-documented history of losing his temper at youth-sports events. To be a more effective council member, Mr. Allen must be willing to admit when he is wrong.

Also, Mr. Allen could make himself more valuable to the community by adopting a broader, more visionary view of his council role. Government shouldn't always be about the bottom line; there's more to it than making sure that all the regulations and ordinances are followed. By broadening his approach, Mr. Allen could tap into his enormous potential.

Mr. Sullivan served with distinction on the City Council until leaving office several years ago because of term limits. He was especially interested in parks, and pushed some strong initiatives in that area, for which he deserves credit.

However, Mr. Sullivan was too inclined to go along with developers without taking a more critical view of their plans. Indeed, he's enjoying strong financial support from developers in his current campaign.

The city would not suffer with Mr. Sullivan in office, but Mr. Allen's approach to development is better for the city in the long run.

“It’s an embarrassment for any city to waste 16…17 thousand dollars on a forensic audit and then get proved wrong on your suspicions. You can thank certain members of your City Council for that and they can deny it all they want but the proof is in the pudding: nothing illegal was found…she (City Manager Courson) served the city well.”

“Protect the City’s integrity by doing proper research and utilizing my 12 years of local government experience.”

Fact: It was a 5-0 vote. The Council voted on this unanimously – so “certain members” was simply said as an attack on Councilman Marks and Vice Mayor Erickson. It's a cheap shot not supported by the facts. Did the Mayor vote for the forensic audit to find "dirt"? Did Councilman Lenzen? It's amazing how hearts and minds are being "read" by citizens in this town.

Fact: We only did one of three phases. To say that nothing illegal was found is not correct; we didn’t do a full forensic audit so we don't know if illegality existed or not. There was no motion to continue the process which is more proof that no one was looking for "dirt" but, rather, to fix our financial standing. We stopped because it was recommended by the forensic auditor to stop (and to save some money) and we had 13 items to address just from the initial report. Mr. Parrott is using this report to start implementing safeguards as it relates to financial policies and procedures.

City Manager Courson did not serve this City well; that Councilman-elect Carson still doesn’t realize this flies in the face of his claim to experience, and “doing proper research”.

His two sentences are as infected with misinformation as a streetwalker is with syphilis.

There have been a lot of questions about what form of government DeBary has. DeBary has a Council-Manager form of government. Per our charter the Council’s only prerogative is to set policy; the City Manger’s duty is to implement it. This form of government is the overwhelming choice (90%) of all city governments.

From what I have read and researched about different forms of government, the overwhelming choice is the Council/Manager style. The bulk of my research came from the ICMA website, which is the organization for City Managers, and below is the result of all my reading and research.

There are very important reasons that a Council/Manager form of government is chosen by 90% of the Cities, Municipalities and Towns. It is an approach to local government that unites the strong leadership of elected officials in the form of a Council, with the managerial experience of an appointed City Manager. The Council/Manager form introduces a system where all power is given to the elected council and is responsible for making policy, passing ordinances, voting appropriations and having overall supervisory authority in the city government. In such a government, the mayor will perform strictly ceremonial duties or will act as a member and presiding officer of the council, similar to a chairman.

The Mayor shall serve as Chairperson during meetings of the Council. In addition, the Mayor shall:

The council will hire a city manager or administrator, who has been educated and can professionally conduct the everyday administration of the city. He/she will be responsible for supervising government operations and implementing polices adopted by the council. He/she will run the City. The manager serves the Council, usually with a contract that specifies duties and responsibilities. The manager is and should remain apolitical.

There is some redundancy; this has been done by design to keep making the point of what you the voters have approved, for the City of DeBary’s government.

It’s Responsive: In a council manager form of government, the Mayor and Council Members are the policy makers who were elected to represent the community. They respond to issues of needs and wishes of the citizen’s. The manager is appointed by the City Council to enforce City policy’s and make sure that the City is being served. If the city manager is not accountable to the City Council’s wishes; the City Council has the authority to terminate the manager at any time. In that sense, a manager’s accountability is tested daily.

It’s less expensive: City governments have found costs of running a City have been lowered with competent management. Savings come through lower operating costs, increased efficiency and productivity, improved revenue collection, or effective use of technology.

When viewed together, the overwhelming advantages of the Council/Manager become apparent:

Neighborhoods strengthen their voices: The Council/Manager form encourages open communication between citizens and their government. Under this form, each member of the governing body has an equal voice in policy development and administrative oversight. This gives neighborhoods and diverse groups a greater opportunity to influence policy.

Under the Mayor Strong form, political power is concentrated in the Mayor, which means that other members of the elected body relinquish at least some of their policy-making power and influence. This loss of decision-making power among Council Members can have a chilling effect on the voices of neighborhoods and City residents. Under the Mayor Strong form of government, the day-to-day management of community operations shifts to the Mayor, who often lacks the appropriate training, education, and experience in municipal administration and finance to oversee the delivery of essential community services.

Also, under the Mayor Strong form, there is the temptation to make decisions regarding the hiring and firing of key department head positions such as the police chief, public works director, and finance director based on the applicants political support rather than his or her professional qualifications.

The Power of Special Interests is diffused: Under the Council/Manager form of government, involvement of the entire elected body ensures a more balanced approach to community decision making, so that all interests can be exposed and heard not just those that are well funded. Under the Mayor Strong form, however, it’s easier for special interests to use money and political power to influence a single elected official, rather than having to secure a majority of the City Councils support for their agenda.

Merit-Based Decision Making vs. Partisan Politics: Under Council/Manager government, qualifications and performance – and not skillful navigation of the political election process – are the criteria the elected body uses to select a professional manager. In this way, Council/manager government maintains critical checks and balances to ensure accountability at City Hall.

Reasons why 90% of the Cities, Municipalities and Towns choose the Council/Manager form of government.

The City’s first council agreed that the Council/Manager form of government be used. It was placed on the ballot for the voters to approve. It was approved by the voters and became part of the City Charter.

When Mayor Garcia makes statements that “The form of government 5-10 years ago was good – but nowadays its not.” or “The idea of running this government nowadays can’t be run under the principles…of a weak mayor – the mayor must be proactive.” What I don’t know is why the Mayor is going down the road to change our form of government without citizen approval. What I do know is that any change in our government must come from the voters.

Since at least 2007 Wikipedia has been displaying the wrong form of government we have here in DeBary: Mayor-Form of Government. We have a Council-Manager form of government.

Hopefully this can be resolved because it might come up as an issue in 2011...in early to mid-January.

Chris Carson selected only 1 person out of 24 to replace Richard Diamond as City Manager: Maryann Courson. Other Council members had selected anywhere from 3-5 candidates. Apparently Mr. Carson, nor the rest of that Council, never read her last evaluation just a few months earlier. Here are some excerpts:

From City Manager Courson to Richard Diamond dated 7/29/04 in response to her evaluation:

“Based upon my most recent performance evaluation and past performance evaluations my securing other employment would not be of any great concern or detriment to the City of DeBary. I am currently looking for other employment and feel that within a six-month period I can secure other employment.”

Ms. Courson’s evaluation regarding the physical work space at City Hall was a reference to her repeated and loud exclamations – in front of citizens and employees: “This place is a dump!” and “This place sucks!” These comments are demoralizing and do not set a good example of City management. She has informed me of her desire to find other employment since mid 2002 due to being “burned out”…”

“Examples of inaccurate recommendations: expenditures for scoreboards at Bill Keller Park did not follow purchasing requirements; expenditures for land clearing by Volusia County at Gateway Park were unnecessarily incurred since they were included in the contractor’s bid; until it was brought to her attention, the State Law requirements under the Consultant’s Competitive Negotiations Act was not being followed for the Stormwater Master Plan request for proposals.”

From Richard Diamond in his attached comments to City Manager Courson’s evaluation from 7/7/04:

“Therefore, I am hereby placing Ms. Courson on probation for a 180-day period.”

FIVE MONTHS LATER AND STILL WITHIN THE PROBATION PERIOD:

"She's done a lot for this community, and, honestly, I think she's the best candidate," said Mayor Carmen Rosamonda.

Rosamonda said the other candidates have strong points, but he was more comfortable with Courson because she's been a proven success during the nearly eight years she worked for DeBary, including a previous stint as interim manager.

"I believe that I'm the best-qualified because, basically, I love this city," she said. "I have been here almost eight years and we have been through ups and downs, and I know the residents and they all have a very special place in my heart, just like this city does."

From City Manager Courson to Richard Diamond dated 7/29/04 in response to her evaluation:

“I am currently looking for other employment and feel that within a six-month period I can secure other employment.”

“Ms. Courson’s evaluation regarding the physical work space at City Hall was a reference to her repeated and loud exclamations – in front of citizens and employees: “This place is a dump!” and “This place sucks!”

I’ve never known anyone who has been put on a 180 day probation and is looking for work elsewhere because she’s been “burned out since 2002” to then be promoted to the highest position in the City’s organizational chart. Does this suggest in any way that the ability to judge, assess or evaluate was present in performing one of the most, if not THE most, important issue a Council member will weigh in on: the hiring of a City Manager? Is this the experience Mr. Carson is peddling in his mailers? Remember, Ms. Courson was Mr. Carson's only choice out of 24.

While some might accurately respond with “Why didn’t Mr. Diamond fire her?”, I would retort with, “ I wish he would have and I think he was in the process of doing just that. However, why did the Council at the time HIRE her?” might be a better question.

“ Ken Weaver was chosen by the Council as the new replacement but some citizens raised questions about the lack of a thorough background check failing to be done prior to the vote to offer Mr. Weaver the job.”

While it came out that what was presented about Ken Weaver was wrong, this information presented about City Manager Courson is not. It’s in her evaluations that apparently no one read; or they read it but didn’t care. And these evaluations were in City Hall and but a request away from being copied and read.

Richard Gunter, let the record show, did not vote to hire City Manager Courson. But Mayor Rosamonda, Council members Danny Allen, George Coleman, and Chris Carson did. They all promoted someone to City Manager who was at the time on probation, burned out since 2002 and was, at the time, looking for work elsewhere because she didn’t want to work in DeBary: “This place is a dump!” and “This place sucks!” Is this the kind of “experience” we want back in office? The people will decide.

I wonder what was happening behind the scenes with this whole issue? I wonder how many people were aware of these evaluations at the time. I wonder how many people knew about it but kept their mouths shut. But even if this had come out at the time, it would have changed nothing. I know the Council and particularly Chris Carson whose ONLY choice was Ms. Courson still would have chosen friendship over facts, camaraderie over capability.

Will the same thing happen this Tuesday? Have we learned our lesson? The people will decide.

P.S. Mayor Rosamonda, George Coleman and Danny Allen are all currently endorsing Chris Carson for re-election. Danny Allen is also supporting Lita Handy-Peters and Bill Long; this is the first place where this fact has been printed. Having said that, I wish the best of luck to Mr. Kolba, Mr. Long and Mrs. Handy-Peters. And having said that, the people will still decide.

What are we coming to?

The average citizen, here and elsewhere, bristles with indignation - hisses and boos - when told that a smaller group may help enhance the management of the City and their life style. They are afraid of change. Even when it is for the better. They stay where they are and let others determine their destiny - taxes, overcrowding, environmental disasters, bypass the laws - as long as they don't have to get involved outside of their enclaves and daily routines. Don't question the direction their "spokesman" is taking them and the City. Don't look behind the elusive promises to see the dangers they will inherit.

Take the time to look into the past management of the City.
Take the time to look and see how the City was on the brink of bankruptcy.
Take the time to look and see if this is the "experience" you want.
Take a look and see how new Councilmen were treated when mismanagement and the truth was presented. How the simple act of reading their packets prior to Council meetings so they would be able to discuss the information BEFORE voting yes or no or recommend revision.

So what shall it be? A thinking, growing City tuned to the needs of the citizens - without hidden agendas? Discussions that end in understandings with civility to all? A City that respects the laws, its Codes, and its citizens? Or none of the above?

I've been watching the most despicable national mid-term election ever and shudder to think any of our candidates might fall into the same trap. I've read the flyers and heard the comments. I've gasped at the amount of money being spent - the BILLIONS spent nationally and probably the most ever spent for our election and wonder if we've come to the point where elections are bought. Where candidates are fed the information that the big donors want presented to the electorate. It often shows up when candidates talk about things already taken care of, things that have no relationship to the Comp Plan, LDC and items that were discussed in previous Council meetings - not the last few but a year's worth.

I urge the citizens of DeBary to look, listen and try to get some information about the past and whose votes will carry what YOU want to see in the future. Insist on the truth. Meetings that con well-meaning citizens with misinformation - most of whom have never been to a Council meeting - are not what you want. This is not a popularity contest. It's who can help manage the City - with the City Manager we now have who pulled us out of danger - and plan for a City that will be the envy of all those around us. Not dysfunctional.

It's up to you.

Thanks,
John Likakis

A letter to the editor posted in the Beacon, October 7 th, 2010 by Mr. John Rokop states that a “lot of voters are not aware of past efforts by candidate Chris Carson during his 6 years of serving on the City Council”. What Mr. Rokop lists as Mr. Carson efforts are only two: US17/92 lighting and the Gateway Park Christmas Display are City issues. The rest are civic involvements.

Some involvements came as a teenager while volunteering for the “Citizens of DeBary” - a civic organization. These events were the Original Christmas Parade, gazebo concerts, and Easter-egg hunts. None of which are DeBary issues! Other activities include the staging of baseball and basketball games to benefit the library, benefit dances for youths at the DeBary Elementary School and assisted the DeBary Art League’s Haunted Hikes. None of which are DeBary issues! Once again these are civic involvements!

What a lot of voters may not know is the lighting up and down US 17/92 and on Mansion Blvd. has a cost factor of over $3,000 per month! He supported the removing of a state - approved lighting system to be replaced by the decorative system we now have. The reason there are so many decorative lights is they do not give off the amount of lighting that is required by law, so more had to be added closer together to meet the State regulation. The Gateway Park Christmas display budgeted at a cost of $25,000 is a lot easier to do when tax money is pouring in at the height of the building bubble. When the bubble burst, other Councils were challenged to cut the budget, not so easy.

All the rest of the stated accomplishments are not City issues, they’re not even close to leadership. We have staff at City Hall that can complete any of these tasks.

Let’s examine some of the issues Chris Carson was involved in: Wasted approximately $300,000 supporting a $2 million skateboard park that never came to fruition, but still cost the city for services rendered for the project; lost approximately $120,000 on the Partnership center. DeBary cut a check to the Partnership Center for $1 million and when it failed, received a refund of $880,000. A loss of $120,000; Gone with the wind, never to be seen again. People warned against these adventures with taxpayer’s money, but to no avail.

He voted YES to the Race Track/Card Room, with no valid reason for approval! Just YES!! Whether you approve or deny any development issue coming before you on the Council, you must be able to present your arguments from the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. Not just YES or NO with no legitimate reasons. These are all facts, but oh, the Easter Egg Hunts, the Easter Egg hunts. I guess it’s because he loves the City. There are more facts I could mention, but I don’t want to be accused of playing dirty!

Are these really the reasons why we elect someone to office: Easter egg hunts and dances? Please tell me you have more Mr. Rokop. 19,000 people are going to be served by whom we elect. Please tell me how Mr. Carson shows competence on actual DeBary issues.

DeBary does not need a Good leader, what DeBary needs is a leader that’s Good.

“Our current Council has routinely said “No” to businesses who wish to come to DeBary. If elected, I would work to ensure that we attract businesses that benefit the community with service and continued revenue.”

If you say something long enough, people start to think it’s the truth. Resident Frank Miller echoed publicly the above thoughts as well at a workshop some months ago.

Instead of coming up with a convoluted argument, let’s have the record do the talking:

So, let the record reflect, and not Mr. Miller's or Mr. Hunt’s loose commentary, what we have voted to approve in terms of both residential and commercial growth. Let the record also reflect that we are only two individuals on the Council and the other council members, mostly, also voted to bring this activity into DeBary; but they aren’t targeted the way we are so we felt a response was necessary. Did we say “No” to the Horse track and the Race Trac gas station – we did say “No” to those two projects – and the latter was denied unanimously. But as the list above demonstrates, we’ve said “yes” to a number of other projects. To say that we want nothing and “routinely” say “no” to growth and commercial businesses just isn’t supported by the record. The recent TOD at the South end of town will bring any number of commercial and residential projects to DeBary. We set aside personal opinions and did the best we could for this City with what we were given by State and Federal entities.

If it’s not corrected here, people will fall prey to believing what is repeated over and over again.

Lastly, Mr. Hunt since the record reflects that what you want to do is being done, what will you do now? Will you simply just vote for any business that comes to DeBary?

UPDATE: Because Councilman Marks does not profit monetarily from the vote discussed below, he WILL be able to vote on the issue. I, for one, am relieved to know that. After reading what is quoted below, I thought he might have to abstain. The article seemed to confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

Kolba's opponent, Chris Carson -- a former councilman -- questions whether representing all of those interests is a good idea. Carson lives in a homeowner association community, Glen Abbey, but says he has never held a leadership post on the association board.

"It's a huge conflict, especially because you're dealing with the stormwater issue," said (Chris) Carson, a 36-year-old recreation and events coordinator for the city of Winter Springs. "What's he (Mike Kolba) going to do, abstain every time?"

Will Chris Carson ask Lenny Marks to abstain from voting on October 20th? There is an issue that involves Lake Anna Maria and Mr. Marks lives on that lake. The issue is an expenditure of over a quarter of a million dollars that will minimize the potential for flooding on Lake Anna Maria, Lake Maud, and Lake Olivia. This is a stormwater issue. Mr. Marks will benefit from the project. No, Mr. Marks is not on a homeowner association board, but he will benefit from the expenditure.

So, Mr. Marks WILL benefit from this vote...will Mr. Carson call for him to abstain from voting? Only time will tell. He seems to be saying Mike Kolba will have to...will Mr. Carson continue to stand on principle and do the same with Mr. Marks?

Deltona commissioner, mayor not at odds

I write to correct one of those occasional errors that even the most conscientious journalists make.

Al Everson's Sept. 9 article, about Deltona firemen wanting to wear pink uniform shirts, mistakenly stated: "Mayor Dennis Mulder and Commissioner Herb Zischkau — who are normally at odds on virtually every issue coming before the governing body ... ."

To the contrary, Dennis and I vote the same on a majority of the issues put to a vote. In fact, those votes are unanimous most of the time.

Unfortunately, that fact is overlooked because of our well-known disagreements over nonnegotiable issues like rules of order, defending our First Amendment rights of free speech, spending millions of dollars in violation of Florida law, and my objection to the mayor's raising our tax rates 26.5 percent, 31 percent and 18 percent for three years running.

It’s as if I was reading about DeBary. Citizens say that the DeBary Council is always fighting. First, we’re not. Secondly, on literally 98 percent of all issues we vote the same way. Lastly, which issues have been front and center in the last year? Ken Weaver - that was the Mayor and a couple of citizens - chief among them Jack Wilson - co-campaign manager for Nick Koval. The Mayor called the media to say he would only sign the contract under protest and he didn't want this to go forward. The ICMA Ethics Committee cited the Mayor and citizens as having created a poisonous atmosphere forcing Mr. Weaver to turn down the job.

Then we had the Mayor’s public hearing which was triggered when the Mayor said that he asked Mr. Seelbinder to change his job duties – this is not allowed for by our Charter so a public hearing was necessary unless the citizens do not want us to follow the Charter. This was a 4-1 vote. As I’ve written before, the public hearing was important because when the Mayor said he asked Mr. Seelbinder to focus on FEMA, what actually happened is that City Manager Courson asked Mr. Seelbinder to do it; she deserves the credit not the Mayor. She brought the money into the City because, unlike what the Mayor said, she did NOT over look it and it was NOT forgotten about. Everything he stated to Ms. Emerson was wrong as we found out in the public hearing.

Filling the Seat 3 vacancy went rather well. No shouting. No calling the media. Finding City Manager Parrott went rather smoothly. No shouting. No calling the media. Citizens fail to mention this.

The office of Mayor has been a recent debate. Initially it had 4-1 support and then 3-2 support. For five days the Mayor had MY notes in his packet to read and think about. In the end he said as I have often quoted: “If for any reason the council feels that it warrants that the office is not good for the mayor and you wish to remove it I have no problem with that.” He then speed dialed every media outlet known to man to tell them he had a problem with it and proceeded to embarrass the City.

On July 21st when we first tried to discuss this, he left the dais and went to the podium which automatically dismissed the possibility of a discussion and immediately made it confrontational. A discussion was never had on it due to his actions before a word had been spoken. I raised the issue, put it on the agenda and typed notes that were in the packets of each council member, yet NO citizen that spoke against it ever called me to talk about it.

If you want to hear Mr. Garcia’s own words on what he feels is the role of the Mayor, just listen to the 2:36:45 – 2:44:25 part of the City Council meeting on August 4th, 2010.

Below is the link to take you to the video and then you can scroll along with the cursor to the appropriate time. Listen to it yourself. Come to your own conclusions. But remember, it usually does not take as long to say something as it does to say nothing.

“The form of government 5-10 years ago was good – but nowadays it’s not.” Mayor Garcia

What form of government do we need, Mr. Garcia? What form of government do we need if the one we have “nowadays” is not good as you stated?

Is this the platform that Mr. Garcia ran on: changing our form of government? I don’t remember that. How do the current crop of candidates feel about changing our form of government? We may want to discuss that before they are elected and installed.

But, maybe I’m looking at things too closely. Also from the August 4th meeting:

“Instead of looking at the big picture and thinking outside the box, you have evil thoughts.” Mayor Garcia

Who gets to decide which thoughts are evil and which are beneficial to the city, its citizens and its government? “Thought crime” is one thing but when we start bandying about “evil thoughts” Salem comes to mind. Black cats and stakes in the ground with wood around it come to mind.

“The idea of running this government nowadays can’t be run under the principles, ideas or what we’re trying to do to move this city forward based on Mr. Erickson’s idea of a weak mayor – the mayor must be proactive.” 2:39:30

While there is a Council-Weak Mayor form of government, I don’t think that’s what Mr. Garcia was talking about; in fact, I don’t really know anymore what he’s talking about when he gets going on a rant like that. He just says things that have no connection to what’s on public record or to what’s true or not true. But what I do know is Mr. Garcia is working hard with the Governor and the White House to remove four city council members; I know this because Mr. Garcia stated it on the record and in public at the August 4th meeting – so that has to be true. I suppose. Right?

As far as being proactive, I suggest a beginning would be making motions at meetings instead of entertaining them. I believe I've made all the motions I'm going to make.

Fact: John Wilson is the co-campaign manager of Nick Koval who is running for seat 2.

“…and then it kinda comes down to my sword is bigger than yours or yours is bigger than mine- and you understand that” (here Mr. Wilson pointed at Lita Handy-Peters). Mr. Wilson then went on to say: “Size does matter.”

That’s the difference between these two individuals when that comment was made by Mr. Wilson: one man said it was out of order and Mr. Garcia laughed.

What’s really interesting is that Mr. Wilson had such a problem with inappropriate comments made toward women in September of 2009 as it related to Mr. Ken Weaver. Mr. Wilson said the following on 9/2 at the 1:59:20 part of the meeting:

“Out in Pennsylvania the public works department unionized because of this guy (Ken Weaver). Said women did not like him, I (Mr. Wilson) asked why, ‘inappropriate remarks to women’. I (Mr. Wilson) got a wife, a mom, and 2 daughters…don’t ever do that in front of me.”

First of all, the Ken Weaver that was selected by the Council never worked in Pennsylvania. So Mr. Wilson smeared an innocent man.

Secondly, isn’t what Mr. Wilson said to Ms. Handy-Peters inappropriate? I think it is…you may disagree. Read again what Mr. Wilson said:

This had nothing to do with the topic: offices in city hall so Mr. Wilson should have been called out of order by the Chair. Secondly, what does it all mean? And why the reference to Ms. Handy-Peters? What was the punchline that Mr. Garcia was laughing about?

I overwhelmingly applaud Councilman Marks saying that this was out of order. The four Council members should have made a motion to remove Mr. Wilson from the room. I’m sorry I didn’t speak up like Council member Marks did.

What an irresponsible statement and no correction from the Chair. Mr. Wilson, who is the racist? Can you back it up or does it require too much thought? Or do you simply throw snowballs and then run? Give me a room full of teenagers any day.

“This is crap. We wouldn’t put up with this for two seconds in the good ole’ days – we’d take you behind the barn and educate you.”

It's not much to show for four billion years of evolution. I don’t think discussing our form of government and how best to ensure it and protect it is “crap”, but Mr. Wilson does – that says more about Mr. Wilson than the issue of offices. Mr. Garcia wanted to “dance” with me and Mr. Wilson wants an exchange of fists rather than an exchange of thoughtful ideas. And when Mr. Wilson said the above, people in the audience laughed. Is this who we are? I'm a teacher and now a father...is this what we want in our classrooms? Is this how we want our kids to behave: if someone raises a point that we can only characterize as "crap" we take them out back and "educate" them?

If we agree that civility, the ability to read, think and speak coherently are desired qualities for our kids and students, are we saying that we want those qualities to be abandoned upon entering adulthood? Or only at the podium at City Council meetings? But that's another essay for another time...

What is unfortunate is that we have a Chair that doesn’t know Robert’s Rules and doesn’t run the meeting…the meetings run him. Mr. Wilson told the Chair when he, Mr. Wilson, would speak. The Mayor thanked Mr. Wilson for giving him the floor. That’s not running a meeting. The Chair had closed public participation…then opened it; that’s not how a meeting is run. The Chair didn’t know how to “call the question” or push the issue to an immediate vote which is the most basic of motions.

Certain people can run off Ken Weaver on unsubstantiated allegations and it passes for the betterment of the city. Other people such as myself try to improve the process of government and protect it and it’s suggested I’m a racist and should be beat up. There’s a mob mentality here in DeBary. Is that what we want? Is this who we are? It’s childish, asinine and ridiculous all at once.

Some might think it’s overboard for me to go into this issue as I have. It’s not overboard; it’s just the beginning. Secondly, if John Wilson is going to get so upset and vocal about things Mr. Weaver did NOT say, I think I am well within my rights to be equally as upset and vocal about things Mr. Wilson HAS said and, possibly in the future, will say. He can take me behind the barn and educate me all he wants, but the record, facts, clear thinking and clear writing are, unfortunately for Mr. Wilson, fist proof.

Fact: John Wilson is the co-campaign manager of Nick Koval who is running for seat 2.

With the exception of editorial commentary on City Council Summaries, I have kept quiet on other matters regarding the City and its direction.

Where to begin? With disappearing ethics? With disappearing truths? Let’s start with the truths because lack of truths will lead to lack of ethics.

Mr. Mayor, you have often said that you arrive at 7:30AM at City hall and spend 77 and a half hours doing a variety of things. That averages out to 15 and a half hours per day for 5 days. That means you don’t leave until after 10PM each night.

At the Council meeting on 8/4/10, your friend, Mr. Wilson, said “I come by City Hall sometimes at 9:30 in the morning and I’ve never seen you there and I’m one of the ones that comes through here (City Hall) more than most.” Who’s lying?

Mr. Wilson, you often say that if a member of the Council or Staff doesn’t meet your or the Mayor’s desires you wouldn’t stand for that because of your military background. You would just as soon take them to the barn and beat them. I’ve been told you were in the Coast Guard. Where did you do something comparable during your military service? Did your rank or rating give you the right to abuse anyone below your rank?

The Mayor suggested that Council members take some courses in leadership training. Did either of you take one of these courses? I don’t think so. Your comments to our Council-lady showed a lack of ethics, courtesy, public behavior and the fact that both of you thought it funny. That is not leadership. She deserves a public apology from both of you – certainly Mr. Wilson. And what was the racist remark you made, Mr. Wilson? Was that also part of a joke?

Not too long ago a little man in Europe made a powerful statement which you may not have heard. “Repeat a lie often enough and the people will accept it as a truth.” That’s how people began losing their lives and countries. That’s how mass shouting, clapping, booing and ugly comments keep the other side of an idea from being presented. Do you think that mass you had imported knew what they were doing? Do you think any of them had ever been to a Council meeting more than twice or at all? Do you think any one with a counter thought would go in front of that mob? The civility comment on the screens was only invoked once. The rest of the time a gentle tap at the wrong end of the gavel was all that was heard. How come? You beat the hell out of the heavy end of your gavel when you decided to cut off discussions that weren’t going your way.

Incidentally, the little man’s name was Joseph Goebbels and he and his partner changed the world – and not for the better. If you had a good History teacher you may have learned all about it.

We are a nation of laws. Evidently you don’t believe that. You said you don’t have to abide by what the Council votes on or pay attention to the Charter. You said, “It’s too old. It’s not proactive.” (That’s the current buzz-word). Does that mean we change or disregard the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution? They’re old. VERY old. Why not?

How do you justify praising the Council with the following statement – “On the record. I want to say that this Council has accomplished a lot in a short time. I commend them.” This was said quite a few times at the end of meetings. Also, “We will miss Mr. Erickson and Mr. Marks.” How do you go from high praise to “I don’t need this Council. I don’t need the Charter. I have the People.” “I know what has to be done.”

In the Mayor’s 7 minute speech on August 4 th, he invoked the word “people” 22 times. 22. That’s using “people” about every 20 seconds. Why? Overkill? He will convince you that whatever he does is correct and “for the people”. LISTEN

He can turn on you as quickly as he turned on the Council and anyone that doesn’t agree with what he wants. LISTEN.

The only truth among all this is that we are a City abiding by laws and for the welfare of the City and its citizens. It is not MY people. MY Council. MY City Manager. MY beautiful City. MY Attorney. MY City Hall. Whatever happened to “OUR”? Let him chip away at our laws and see what happens. LISTEN.

If you want a City that operates within the laws and for the good of the City and its people, raise your voices and put your pens – or your computers – to work.

I’ve been doing this for a long time. I have no personal agendas or politics. I respond when MY Ox is gored because MY Ox is the City of DeBary. I’ve said it many times.

Mark Meister asked the following question on December 4, 2009 about the public hearing held concerning Mayor Garcia:

It seemed necessary for Mr. Chapman to insist on a public hearing for Mr. Conoley although no council member agreed with Mr. Chapman; however, four councilmen agreed that the Mayor did state or misstate something that triggered a public hearing. Should following the charter be limited to only Mr. Conoley or some council members? For people like Mark Meister, yes. And so below I’ve answered Mark Meister’s question fully and completely with the following title:

On December 9, 2009 there was a public hearing for Mayor Garcia. At that public hearing Mr. Seelbinder the Finance Administrator swore under oath that it was City Manager Maryann Courson that directed him to focus on the FEMA reimbursement money and not the audit; thus the audit was late.

But, on September 2, 2009 Val Emerson asked Mayor Garcia why the audit was late. The Mayor responded that he asked Mr. Seelbinder to focus on the FEMA reimbursement money rather than the audit.

Of course, when I brought out the fact that we can’t direct staff or even ask them to focus their duties on one project rather than another, the Mayor did not like what I had to say and ultimately it was this issue and the Mayor’s words that caused the public hearing.

But in response to my concern, the Mayor said he didn’t know why City Manager Courson didn’t follow through with the FEMA money and that it was the City Manager’s responsibility to complete that project – 51:00 – 51:24 of the same meeting on 9/2/09.

But, now we know that City Manager Courson DID follow through with it and she DID complete that project--but the Mayor wanted to take credit for it –again, listen to 27:07-27:20 of the same meeting wherein the Mayor said “1.4 million dollars was brought back to the city by the Mayor.”

And so the public hearing was important because we learned literally everything the Mayor said to Val Emerson was wrong…it was several minutes wherein the Mayor misstated several things. The Mayor didn’t ask Mr. Seelbinder to focus on FEMA City Manger Courson did. The Mayor can’t claim credit for the FEMA money, but City Manager Courson can. The Mayor was wrong when he said the late audit was an oversight: it wasn’t – it was due to the fact that City Manager Courson directed Mr. Seelbinder to focus on FEMA money rather than the audit.

These are all facts on the record in the Mayor’s own words and if the record isn’t set straight here, then we would all be under the notion that the Mayor was responsible for bringing in 1.4 million dollars when he wasn’t, and that City Manager Courson was irresponsible in not completing something when she did. And that’s why the public hearing was important and that’s what was learned.

“This hearing was a “smoke and mirrors” attempt to place the pressure that has been on Councilman Van Conoley by the citizens and redirect it to the Mayor.”

The public hearing on December 9 th was triggered not by “smoke and mirrors” but by the Mayor’s own words on the record in response to Val Emerson’s question. It was only an attempt to follow the Charter as was so desired by Mr. Chapman. If the other Council members had thought Conoley deserved a public hearing, they could have pursued it but they are on the record stating they did not hold that opinion.

“The Council never did have the procedure in place BEFORE the actual hearing was to be conducted.”

The Mayor knew all about procedure and due process for his public hearing, but never before or since did he bring up procedure and due process for any other public hearing. This was simply another public hearing that are routine nearly every month. Mark Meister is right: there was no procedure in place before or after this public hearing when there should have been. But the Mayor insisted on his rights…but never again for any other applicant or for the process of government itself. Subjective reasoning over the common good. Every public hearing should have a process and procedure, not just sometimes. Every public hearing should be run the same way for everyone and not in a carnival atmosphere complete with a ringmaster yelling at everyone.

From my perspective, Mr. Garcia will say anything and then when called on it, wants to change it, shape it, shift it or simply talk about something else. It makes it difficult when the person you're talking to doesn't or can't say what they mean and mean what they say. It's not lying...it's called bullshit and it's the subject of the next POP Editorial coming in a few days.

Lastly, some council members are innocent until proven innocent, and others are guilty until proven guilty. There are two sets of rules around here where some people can attack Ken Weaver and run him off with misinformation and it's called "looking out for the city". Others try to protect and ensure our form of government and we're called "racists" and should be "...taken behind the barn and educated".

DEBARY -- City Manager Dan Parrott recently referred to the city's past accounting practices as "dysfunctional" and added that after six weeks of digging he still didn't know how much reserve cash the city had in its general fund.

Earlier this week, though, Parrott delivered on a promise to unravel the mystery, estimating the city will have a cash balance of about $1.6 million in the general fund at the end of the fiscal year.

The figures are important to council members. The fiscal year ends Sept. 30 and, in coming weeks, the council plans to dive deeper into the budget process.

It will be Parrott's first time working out a budget with the council. He was hired as city manager in January.

Mayor Bob Garcia said he believes Parrott and other city staffers are doing a fine job to improve the budget process.

Garcia said he and other council members have had concerns about the city's finances. Most notably, Garcia said, former council member Van Conoley was concerned last year when the city prepared a budget, although it did not have an audit to use as a benchmark.

Conoley said at the council's regular meeting Wednesday that his concerns about the 2009 budget process contributed to his decision to resign in March.

Garcia said it seemed to him that city staff had little grasp of the budget in the past and that "we were more or less running blind for a while there." Garcia welcomed the possibility of better budget clarity and management.

"This year, we're going to have the best budget, with more information on it, than we've ever had before," Garcia said. "You're only as good as the facts that are presented to you."

On May 5, Parrott said he was seriously concerned with the financial accounting that took place before he started in his new position Feb. 8.

Parrott, who previously served as an administration official in Ardmore, Okla., said the citizens and council were not well-served by the budget process and financial accounting practices that had been done in the past.

He called them "very dysfunctional" and said the city's financial reporting failed to show the city's "cash position."

"Our balance sheets are meaningless," said Parrott.

That statement came as the City Council voted unanimously to approve nine amendments to the city's budget. Parrott said the budget amendments were designed to clean up some of the financial mess he inherited when he took the job.

The City Council fired City Manager Maryann Courson in April 2009, and two interim city managers handled most of the city's finances, with help from other staff members, for almost a full year.

Parrott said the budget adjustments, which reduced the city's general fund by $2.4 million, would give city staff and the council a better snapshot of the city's true financial health.

"This will correct the revenues and expenditures to give us an idea of where we're at," Parrott said.

1. Let's play a numbers game

DeBary population:- approx. 18,000
Reduce for adults:- 9,000
Retired adults:- (2/3) - 6,000
Average Council attendees:- 50-100 (depending on the OX)
Attendees:- 2/3 against Council. 1/3 for Council

Of the approximately 33 who understand what's going on regarding City Management and past management, shouldn't there be 5-10 citizens who want to be a part of the City's future prosperity? 5-10 citizens who want to keep the City on an honest, manageable path? Out of 3000 citizens, not one wants to protect the City and THEIR future by keeping the right people on the City Council? Only one - maybe - per seat is available? What is the reason? Fear? Apathy? Ignorance? Can't be bothered? (Until their Ox is gored) You voted in 2 new members who weren't afraid to change the financial plunge that was underway. They weren't afraid to reveal the personal agendas and the disregard of the Comp Plan and Land Development Code. They were castigated for daring to return the City to the people.

In time, other things happened. A forensic audit was done at the request of Vice Mayor Erickson and it revealed gross mismanagement of the budget and the City. The auditors who reviewed the City budget annually repeatedly commented on the need for better management. The "Old Guard" hung in there and nothing was being done to fix the problems. The 2 new members continued to be vilified.

A new City Manager was finally hired. Mr. Dan Parrott. Within just a few days he saw how far a field the City's accounting, spending, and finances were. And to this day, 3 months of budget reviewing has led to his describing the City's financing as follows (in case you're not aware of what takes place at City Council meetings):

1. To be quite honest, I don't think the Citizens or the Council have been well served by Staff as far as the budget process nor financial reporting aspect of what we're supposed to be doing as an organization. It's very dysfunctional.

2. The budget process is the City Manager's responsibility and my review of what was submitted is that you were not well served.

3. The big issue is that the balance sheets are meaningless; they can't - don't determine our cash position.

Summary: It's very dysfunctional and no one is being very well served by the current process.

What has taken place in the last 8 years is a disgrace. Still think the naysayers are right and the 2 Councilmen, auditors and actual City management are wrong?

Last year 21 of you signed up to serve on the Strategic Planning Steering Committee. Maybe you could fulfill your wishes and do a service to the City at the same time. Faster than waiting for what may be endless
committee meetings.

2. Awards for Anonymity

It's a shame that formal awards aren't given to those wonderfully anonymous people who like to call other people dirty names, dummies, ignorant, etc. It takes a special talent (sometime called cowardliness) to achieve such high ground. A mirror would help them see what they look like as they read their slanderous blogs. See which words fit them the best. Watch as they puff with pride on their accomplishment.

POP does not accept inane dribbling masquerading anonymously as commentary. Nor does it accept slander. Some people think it's fun to deride others as long as they don't have to sign their name.

Sad, isn't it that these same people have counterparts who believe some of their moronic dribble and spread it around. No facts. No ethics.

Stick to your mirror and enjoy yourself.
DeBary POP
John Likakis

Fact: Lenny and Norm selected Val Emerson as their first choice for Seat 3 appointment.

Fact: Bob and Jack selected Chris Carson as their first choice for Seat 3 appointment.

Is it just coincidental that Marks and Erickson nominate the same person. Surely, no Sunshine Laws broken here. What a joke they have made this council. By all means, lets nominate someone with NO experience.

I called it and was correct that you (Val Emerson) were the number one pick of two individuals.

I don’t think it gets any clearer when Marks and Erickson do exactly the same thing as the Mayor and Lenzen yet only aspersions are cast for Marks and Erickson. It can’t be based on anything else other than personalities, personal dislikes, anything other than reason, facts, and evidence. There is no real concern about Sunshine Law violation or the Mayor and Jack would have been mentioned. It's not the issue, the law, or the behavior: it's the person that is being attacked. Personal attacks are not a real concern for process and equality. Again, I don’t think it gets any clearer that when Marks and Erickson do exactly the same thing as Garcia and Lenzen only aspersions are cast for Marks and Erickson.

How nice it must be to be the Mayor and Councilman Lenzen and it's not their fault and this isn't a shot at them...it's just something they dont' have to deal with and they should appreciate it. Apparently they've done something where when two people do something that the other two do, only one group is singled out. Interesting. Is it because we pushed for a functional city rather than a dysfunctional city? Too confrontational when it came to following codes, accountability, being told the truth, being informed, etc,.? I'm at a loss. It's probably no more complicated than we upset the apple cart for those benefitting for having had a dysfunctional city.

The Corner BPUD that was voted on Wednesday night. In 2008 Mayor Coleman, Vice Mayor Carson and Councilman Lenzen all voted for its rezoning, the development agreement and the platting. Lenny and I lost 3-2 on all those votes. No one ever suggested nor should they that there was a Sunshine violation for the three that voted for it. But for Conoley, Marks, and Erickson – yes – most assuredly.

It’s not what is said on the dais but who says it. Ultimately this renders most criticism impotent because there is no foundation of reason to support it and what is simply blathering, which is how I interpret most of this because it is, literally, non – sense, soon passes for debate and thought.

As I said at the meeting: facts, evidence, truth will lose to ignorance, bias, prejudice and friendships. I think this is another example of it. But I accept it. That's what these individuals do who attack not the issue but the person.

Why is Amendment 4 on the ballot? Answers will vary with a certain amount of truth being contained in each response. One thing is irrefutable: it is on the ballot. Why? Recently at Stetson University there was a roundtable discussion on growth. In the Daytona Beach News Journal a quote caught my attention: “the system is broken” – and perhaps therein rests part of the answer.

For many, Amendment 4 is on the ballot because enough individuals recognize that the system has been and continues to be broken. This frustration is born from the following conspicuous contradiction: while for decades Florida has had the most stringent growth management laws in the country, growth has run rampant over our land and over those laws with no end in sight. Moreover, the state and local jurisdictions are doing their best to strip even these evidently impotent growth laws that have no teeth and are regularly violated that are on the books as a check to irresponsible growth. It gives new meaning to circular reasoning.

Amendment 4 is a referendum on elected officials past and present. Elected officials unable or unwilling (but probably both) to say “no” to growth, negotiate growth, or even lawfully and appropriately approve growth so that it is at least remotely consistent and concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan and state statutes. In effect, to carry out the oaths officials swore upon entering office.

The system is broken. Whether Amendment 4 is the cure remains and that is what is most interesting and distressing. People may not care if Amendment 4 works – they just want something else than what they know is not working: the current system. Conditions have deteriorated over the years to get us where we are today. To speak frankly, the people are tired of it and that disappointment and dissatisfaction will lead them to vote for something else and anything else – regardless of the pros and cons.

The ultimate irony: elected officials and other proponents now telling people not to vote for Amendment 4 and its dire consequences probably did the most to set its creation first in motion.

Regarding the VGMC Farmton vote that Mr. Allen discussed at the last Council Meeting, he mentioned the necessity of following the “Law” that required a "Yes" vote. This would mean that the 5 who voted "No" were breaking the law. We don't think Mr. Allen intended that. This is the purpose of this editorial co-authored by John and myself.

There was no mention of a "Law" in the editorial written by John after the VGMC meeting entitled "And then there were 5" because John didn't know of any "Law". He responded to the strange way this project was given a clean slate to proceed in spite of many negatives and lack of specifics.

The Farmton public hearing was just that: a public hearing. Evidence for and against the project was presented to the quasi-judicial VGMC who were then to approve or deny the consistency of the project with some basis for that approval or denial. To say that one voted “yes” or “no” because they had to follow the law necessarily suggests the opposing votes were in some way illegal and that’s not the case. What is the case is that an interpretation was rendered and the prevailing vote was that Farmton is consistent with the guidelines the committee is to follow in spite of no specific dates for construction of schools, water systems, traffic, etc.

In DeBary when there is a public hearing an approval or denial should be followed with the basis for that approval or denial. If it is challenged, a higher court will look at those reasons to see if they align with the Comp Plan, LDC or, in the case of the VGMC, their guidelines. So, it is incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to have a basis of approval or denial that can withstand the scrutiny of a higher court.

And then there were 5

I went to a VGMC meeting on March 24th. Or was it a séance? It was a gathering behind a semi-circle who sat silently awaiting a message from the Spirit. And the Spirit eventually rose and proclaimed the direction this gathering must take, regardless of what they had heard.

Or was it a crapshoot that I was watching? The little cubes kept coming up boxcars (12) +1. Tricky little critters!. Or was it Roulette with the Miami/Farmton(M/F) spinner making sure the little ball would only land on M/F?

Ah!, That's it. A crapshoot. What else can you call it when 13 individuals kept hearing "We're not quite ready to explain what we're going to do about Water. Roads, Schools." Pick a category. Just give us a go ahead and we'll take care of it later. We won't be doing anything until 2015 or later all the way to 2060. We can't wait until November so say "Yes". And the silent mass - except for 5 brave people - listened to the Spirit and the little ball that landed on M/F and said "YES". Fearful they would not be part of the mass. Can't miss out on something that might be lucrative.

Scary, isn't it? Let's hope the DCA isn't as maleable or as fearful that they don't stick to the rules and the facts of this monstrosity. It isn't going to be good for the State, the County, the environment or in the long run the people. And this is also the time for the SJWMD to stand strong and protect this watershed and fresh water source from destruction.

What's the rush? Something we don't know about underway? If it's so great why can't they get all the facts ready and then make a presentation so that everyone knows what they will be voting for? They say they won't be doing anything until 2015 and the 2025 and on to 2050. Is slow destruction better than mass destruction in one shot?

Does anyone remember the book "The Silent Spring" when the "experts" ignored the destruction that would happen if developers had their way in the Everglades? Ignored the unique role the Everglades play in the life of just about everything in half of the peninsula. And now billions of dollars are being spent to try and restore the Everglades. It may be too late.

Instead of looking at alternate sources of water to accommodate development, why not preserve what we have and preserve the health and beauty of this State.

Why should we allow the few - operating behind closed doors, personal agendas and disregarding all the negatives of this project - to pocket the dollars and go leaving the next generation to repair what's left? Who needs:

- Ten times the residential density
- 23,100 homes (2/pr home = 46,000 people)
- 4.7 million sq'ft of non-residential building
- Massive traffic increases - in all directions.
- Water problems. This is a water dependent State.

People more learned than me have tried their damndest to wake up everybody who doesn't have their hands in the wrong pockets. It's only a matter of time before this area and the State becomes a concrete jungle having to import everything - including water because billion dollar treatment plants are not the answer.

Wake up folks. Speak out. Get involved. Help those 5 brave people and the handful of others working to preserve a better way of life and you'll be helping yourselves and future generations.

John Likakis

* I felt that the subject matter below should not be part of my City Council summary.

*First item:-

"Contentious"- Webster defines it as "exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes." Isn't it interesting that it appears between "contention" and "contentment"?

Mr. Chapman appeared before the Council during a discussion on Contracts. Mr. Chapman felt Councilman Conoley was being contentious in addressing an issue concerning a contract. The two gentlemen exchanged pleasantries for a few moments. Mr. Chapman left and Councilman Conoley continued the discussion.

It was obvious that there is no love lost between them. And this has been going on for awhile. Personal exchanges do not belong at Council Meetings. It's not City Business. If Mr. Chapman has sufficient information to pursue what he considers improper behavior, then a document should be prepared that can be presented to whatever entity can start whatever is necessary.

And Councilman Conoley is not completely blameless. To repeat the word
"contentious" at least 6-7 times sprinkled through the current discussion but also other subjects being discussed - treating it as great fun - is not what the citizens or your fellow Councilmen want to hear.

Item 2:-

This one is all Councilman Conoley. We now have, for all intents and purposes, a competent City Manager. He is bringing to DeBary the ability to MANAGE the needs of the City. If you have a complaint about how someone is doing - or not doing - their job, the first step is to contact the City Manager. You know that. Not a cross examination of the individual in public. Yes, you don't think you do that but as I've said before; "Come sit in the audience and hear the difference. "Personnel problems" are the City Manager's turf. He will review, analyze, recommend changes and in short bring what has been missing for a long time - MANAGEMENT.

Let him do his job. Remember, on March 17th City Manager Parrott is bringing to Council a presentation of the financial health of this city and other subjects that need to be addressed. This tells me he is doing his job.

You have a great, diverse Council to work with. You have a lot to offer this City. Don't get hung up in minutia.

I hope you accept this in the manner it has been presented...for the good of the City.

Thanks,

A lone female was ultimately responsible for shutting down(temporarily) this incredibly important and unique website where citizens come for information and to express their opinion.

The female in question will not release her name yet but a physical description has been issued:

It is unknown how long debarypop will be shut down but the First Amendment advocacy group will soon be involved to overturn these disastrous events. Until then....vigilance.

This idea of owning land gets the applicant anything they want just isn't true if the development agreement and the law is on the city's side. What it comes down to is if the Council wants to spend the money to control their destiny, not bow down and hold their own.

Oviedo lawsuit dismissed

Developer claims city discriminates

OVIEDO - A lawsuit claiming the city is discriminating against minorities by requiring a development be owner-occupied rather than tenant-occupied was thrown out by a federal judge last Thursday.

Atlantic Housing Partners sued the city in May of 2009, and U.S. District Judge Anne Conway threw out the lawsuit Jan. 21, saying the developer agreed to the conditions and was therefore bound by them.

Atlantic contended that forcing the property to be town homes and condominiums violated the federal Fair Housing Act.

"Plaintiffs cannot simply go back on their word by saying, 'I didn't really mean it,' " Conway wrote in the court's ruling. "They cannot agree to something then reverse course and sue the city for holding them to their agreement."

Atlantic Housing Partners, which has locally built the Oviedo Town Center apartments, two apartment complexes by the Mall at Millenia and is looking to develop Town Parke Apartments in Winter Springs, has developed more than 100 low-income communities.

In 2003, it bought the property near Chapman Road and state Road 434 after checking with the city to see if the zoning allowed for multi-family housing, which it did.

The Planning, Zoning and Appeals board recommended to the City Council that it require the development be owner-occupied.

The City Council did that in resolution form, and the developer later signed a developer's agreement with that condition - a move they did "with the proverbial gun to their head and with the expectation that [Atlantic Housing] would be able to remove Condition No. 9," Atlantic wrote in the lawsuit.

Atlantic Housing Partners executive vice president Scott Culp said they plan to appeal the decision and will likely file a fresh lawsuit. He also pointed out that U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is still investigating the situation after Atlantic filed a complaint with them.

"This particular decision on the motion for summary judgment is just a technical blip in the legal side of the case," Culp said. "... Essentially, we're not going away. We want to develop the property. We want to develop a quality community that would be a benefit to Oviedo."

The lawsuit also named Deputy Mayor Dominic Persampiere as a defendant. Persampiere declined to comment for this story because the litigation could potentially be ongoing.

Lonnie Groot, an attorney for the city of Oviedo, said Oviedo never denied the developer anything and that the site, as it stands right now, could be developed - if the property owner made that decision to move forward.

"The developer was never denied anything by the city," Groot said. "The developer has received approvals throughout the process and made deals with the city under the zoning processes that are allowed by state law and basically tried to renege from its agreement."

Atlantic Housing said that, if it got the owner-occupied language removed, it could start building almost immediately. That language, Culp said, makes the property undevelopable.

The judge's dismissal order, though, doesn't comment on whether or not it would be a violation of the Fair Housing Act to require a development to be owner-occupied instead of a rental property.

The order said that, regardless, Atlantic Housing agreed to the conditions of the developer's agreement, which means it can't now say it was a violation of the law.

"It is plain to the court as a matter of law that Plaintiffs waived their right to complain of Condition No. 9," Conway wrote in the dismissal. "To state the obvious, they agreed to the condition."

Groot also said that, in his opinion, the court's decision will make the HUD complaint invalid as well.

He said they've responded "in depth" to the complaint and are expecting a final report from HUD on the matter.

"It's very normal in the development process for local governments and property owners to make agreements," Groot said. "It's very unusual for anyone to break those agreements, especially after years and years go by.

"The city council has acted very normatively in accordance with the law. It's a shame the developer has, for whatever reason, decided to back out of the deal."

Campaigning Season just around the Corner

Attacks aren't indigenous to the political season; this is well known to Ken Weaver who has been placed out of the running for City Manager. Mr. Weaver had accepted a job last year but then declined. Why? The Ethics Committee of the ICMA: "Blogs and the comments of Mayor Garcia which made it difficult if not impossible to form a working relationship". Again, that's from the Ethics Committee, an impartial, 3rd party not Norm Erickson and I actually talked to the real Ken Weaver to get this information.

Beyond attacks are threats and it's clear where the citizens of DeBary stand on this issue. Mark Meister read an anonymous letter into the record stating Councilman Conoley carries a gun and will drop pepole in a flash; no one cared and all were silent except Norm Erickson who said anonymous letters should not be read and it was disgraceful that Mr. Meister read such a thing. I've been attacked as a teacher. Mark Meister has referred to my profession a number of times. People have written attacks on me as a teacher and what kind of teacher must I be and here are "Councilman Conoley and Erickson two teachers who have not done their homework". I don't recall anyone questioning the talents of Mr. Tillis, Mr. Fulton, or Mr. Lenzen in their respective business dealings. No one ever linked a decision they made as a Council member to their profession as has happened with me and Councilman Conoley. And not one citizen has stepped forward to say, "this isn't right".

Which is stated only to support the statement I already made on the dais: the best city manager won't apply; the best candidate for council won't ever run because of how good, honest people are run off:

"At the present day the most able men in the United States are rarely placed at the head of affairs…”

“We forgot to make ourselves intelligent when we made ourselves sovereign. We do not demand greatness or foresight in our elected officials, but only bare-toothed oratory and something this side of starvation.”

If attacks and threats were truly detested, then there would have been an outrage, not applause, when these issues came to light in 2009. Issues are unfortunately decided not on their merits but on whom is to benefit. It leads to inconsistent and unfair decisions as well as disasters. Citizens were bombarded with nonsense and incorrect information and did not care. An innocent man was attacked with incorrect information and no one cared. Since that first go around, no citizens have come forward with their short list for City Manager. Will they simply be reactive? If the writer of the editorial is against political attacks, they would speak out whenever they happened, not just during the political season.