A Review of Our Local Calvert Politics You Don’t Want to Miss Dear friends, citizens of Calvert County, on Tuesday the 27th of August there was an issue debated at our Board of County Commissioners that will be indicative of future stances on our County as we gear up for a new election. The topic, money to be given to the Calvert Marine Museum for renovations, serves as a way to see which of us politicians will be honest with you, stand up for what they believe despite pressure from peers, and consider all the facts regarding how to spend YOUR money responsibly. For those of you not caught up on this debate, a brief synopsis is that Commissioner Evan Slaughenhoupt was the only of the Board of five to vote against sending $1,600,000 to the Marine Museum for its desired renovations. He has received some flak for his stance that spending that kind of money in one area during a worsening economy is not wise. Furthermore, on Commissioner Slaughenhoupt’s own page we see further justification for his belief when he states to concerned citizens that had some sort of plan for how this $1.6 million would increase revenue if used, or renew revenue that was lost, been shown then he may have voted in favor of such an expenditure. However, no such business proposal was shown. Criticisms of this view included that $600,000 of that money was raised by volunteers of the museum, and that this money was allotted as part of a previous year’s obligation. All of these issues will be addressed shortly. Current Commissioners and at least one Commissioner hopeful have shown their disdain for Slaughenhoupt’s concern. This is the part that will create a few angry faces from my peers in politics, but I find that if someone says something, then they must be given credit for their quote. Not doing so, where I come from, is called plagiarism or citing improperly. So, I will give you the names of those that I disagree with when I discuss them, and furthermore, will freely use their names when I am addressing my issues with their opinions on this matter. If you disagree with me, or don’t think my quotations are accurate, then you can listen to the BOCC video yourself or go to their own public pages where I have taken a good portion of these quotations. We will start with Commissioner Shaw: Before we begin, I would like you to know that I have nothing but the upmost respect for all of these individuals that will be discussed. I have personally known Commissioner Shaw and some members of her family for many years, and none of this is to be taken as an “attack” on her good name. However, that is not to say that I do not take some concerned issue with what she had to say on Tuesday the 27th, and I believe it to be more respectful to you as a concerned citizen and her as a public figure if I were to express my criticisms. Commissioner Shaw seems to have forgotten some of her own words during her expressed opposition to Slaughenhoupt. Just a few months ago, Shaw boasted how great our economy was, especially in the housing market. Now, she has recanted and admits that the economy is starting to cave again. This economic fact is not something that is at all surprising to Slaughenhoupt and myself…but it seems to come as a shock to some others on the Board. Even Shaw claims that there are “many, many competing demands,” and that “if this were a new idea that came down the pike right now” then she would not support it. Well… I guess this just goes to show how forward thinking one needs to be in tinkering with over 1 million dollar “obligations.” Had Shaw and the three other Commissioners watched for the clear economic trends that Slaughenhoupt and I had, then they would have seen this problem coming OVER a year in advance. We need politicians serving us at ALL levels who understand the complexities of economic fluctuations. We can NO longer allow persons such as this, and certain up and coming candidates, to flaunt our hard earned tax payer dollars in “promises” and “obligations” that perhaps should not be made in economic times such as the last few years. Economist Milton Friedman is clear when he says that the logic of an action must be viewed from all its possible conclusions on either extreme. That being said, we must ask ourselves if it is EVER okay to promise money such as this when the dollars in question do not belong to a Board of County Commissioners, or the entity asking for it. Commissioner Slaughenhoupt’s heart was in the right place when he stated that the money being discussed should be used for the County as a whole. Why? Because that is OUR money. We earned it, and we gave it over to the County with the understanding that it would be used in the BEST possible ways for OUR benefit. As the Marine Museum earned its approximately $600,000 on its own, so did the County citizens earn their 1 million dollars. Being such, every last penny of it should be used RESPONSIBLY and no promises given in regards to its expenditure, except for those which hold the County as a whole body first and foremost. Next up, Commissioner Clark: Commissioner Clark, another man I respect in many degrees expressed his opposition in much the same ways, expressing that this money was part of the 2013 budget cycle, but also made this a greater political issue. Here I can find some agreement with Clark’s words; this is indicative of a greater issue that EVERY Calvert citizen should be aware of…economics and how our money is spent. For someone so concerned about tourism dollars, Clark seems to have missed the boat on some other measures which could bring in recreational/tourist surplus for the County. Instead of using the $1,600,000 for the Marine Museum, perhaps just $2,000-6,000 of that could be used to buy quality canoes and kayaks for rental at King’s Landing Park; an expenditure that would pay for itself in just a few months. Better yet, why not use some of that same amount and maybe a little extra to help renovate the camping facilities at King’s Landing and make them available for individual use. Such a measure is not outside of the realm of possibility and could bring in four times that amount in one summer. It appalls me that some Commissioners and Commissioner candidates are okay with simply stating that we have 600,000 plus dollars laying in obligation to projects that have presented the Board with no facts and figures for how that money will be used to generate even more dough. Can one say that the Marine Museum is hurting without these renovations? Can one say that it would generate more with them? Being one who has performed at , attended many a concert at, and looked at up and coming events taking place at the museum; it seems to me that there is no slowing down of its use over time. Before writing this piece, I interviewed a person who got a front and behind the scenes tour of the Marine Museum just a couple short months ago. When I related this discussion of the BOCC to her, she did not understand what the “dire need of repair [being discussed] was and where it was needed.” She went on further to say how everything looked well kept and new…especially a conference room type place with nice furniture in it. Upon expressing Slaughenhoupt, Shaw, and Clark’s words with her, this person agreed with Slaughenhoupt almost immediately saying that there was nothing visually that turned her away, and saw nothing that seemed to be in immediate need of repair. I am a believer that the money a person earns is the money that they have beholden to them. That being said, the “three quarters of a million dollars” that the volunteers of the Marine Museum earned should be given to the museum for any pursuits that it sees as beneficial. However, the money being given was over $1 million more than this earned supply. That is where I, and perhaps Slaughenhoupt, have a problem. It is not necessarily in the money earned going to the entity that earned it, but more that extra money is being given to an entity that did not necessarily earn it and has done little to show that its desires are greater than the needs of other departments and entities. Before we take to spending money for desires, maybe we should take a step back and see what things we need first. If there can be extra funds achieved, let them come from finding other ways to cut back on the wants so we have more for the needs that most assuredly WILL come the more our County reflects the nation’s economy as a whole. Now to Commissioners Nutter and Weems: There is not a lot to say here, because one only said a little in regards to the issue, and the other said nothing at all. If I were to speak of these men personally, I would call President of the Board Nutter, one of the kindest individuals I have ever met, and one of the few who remembers the names and likenesses of those he speaks to…which as a politician, must be a lot. Likewise, Commissioner Weems is a pleasant persona to talk with no matter the time, and is one of the few who ever visited King’s Landing Park who actually greeted and spoke to some great extent with the staff…his employees. With that said…I do have criticisms of both in a political landscape. Weems’ lack of comment can best be described as “safe,” whereas Nutter’s small blurb seemed more to be of formalities than anything else. This was an IMPORTANT issue, and both men let it slip without contributing to the conversation. Unfortunately, this lack of comment is indicative of nearly every one of their meetings that I have listened to, in that neither is willing to put forth much of a vocal opinion to any issues one way or another. They are not outspoken, do not seem passionate about the issues, and appear to be “taking it safe” in order to be seen as “not partisan.” Well dear Commissioners, all I have to say to you both in regards to the topic is this: When all you have to say is your vote, it leaves to the imagination what you really feel about the issue. So, I am left with one of two impressions that your lack of comment and “safe” playing has created. 1. You do not care much about, or are not concerned with the Calvert Marine Museum and the over $1 million being allotted. 2. You are in passionate agreement with Clark and Shaw, but do not want to offend the other side by speaking out. Unfortunately, neither one is working in your favor. And the best for last… Commissioner hopeful David Gatton: I like Mr. Gatton for his outspoken attitude and honesty. I never feel like I am lacking for information, or being lied to when I read his pieces on his pages. However, Mr. Gatton and I are at odds when it comes to many of the details of how to spend our County’s money. This is unfortunate, but civil disagreements do happen. Unlike the others where you can go to the BOCC site and watch the video for validation of my quotations, for Gatton’s you will have to visit his personal campaign page… please do if you wish to fact check me on his quotes, because I am taking them straight from it. One of the first things you will note upon reading Gatton’s synthesis, is that he refuses to use names in his breakdown and summarizing. I have politely, and to the best of my ability, filled in those gaps in my paragraphs above. Like Clark, Gatton suffers from “must spend money due to being large tourist attraction” syndrome. Just because something is “one of our biggest tourist attractions” does not mean that we need to give a million dollars to renovations that are not proven to be absolutely necessary, revenue increasing, or detrimental to the museum’s existence. Again, whether or not the money was “approved in the 2013 FY budget,” is not indicative of whether or not this money is a want or a necessity, or better used elsewhere. Gatton further expresses concern of “how this commissioner [Slaughenhoupt] will vote when it comes to spending ‘millions’…to build a new Parks and Recreation facility in the Dunkirk area or to spend thousands of dollars to replace light bulbs or heaven forbid another burned up pump at the county owned pool.” Again, this is where Gatton and I must part ways. For a man who runs a campaign based on fiscal responsibility, wanting to give further money to teachers’ unions, AND grant obligated raises to County employees…I do not see where this money is to come from, especially when he is quite okay with giving another $1 million to an entity that does not show how it can increase revenue with it. His comment about a new Parks and Rec. facility is unfounded as the department currently generates most, if not all, of its revenue itself. Money that the Parks and Rec. department borrows from the County Treasury is paid off in time, and does not take from the coffers without giving back. I have no reason to doubt that a new facility would pay for itself relatively quickly, as well as, add to our County’s supply of annual income. Furthermore, Gatton’s comparing the “burned up pump” at the pool to Calvert Marine Museum’s desires is missing the mark. Without a new pump, the County pool facility will die out; whereas there is no evidence to support the notion that without this money the Marine Museum too will die or see decreased business. This is EXACTLY what persons such as myself and Slaughenhoupt are talking about. Need versus want. Obligation to the County as a whole versus what specific entities desire. Money spent now after carefully laid out business plans to increase revenue in the future versus spending that same money on things that have no evidence to support revenue increase. Unfortunately, Mr. Gatton seems to be more of our run-of-the-mill politicians. He makes many promises on cutting back spending, while also saying that he will give large amounts of money to entities that may not need it. He warns citizens to “see through this rhetoric,” yet uses the same games he accuses others of using. Where Gatton claims that Slaughenhoupt only votes to “approve this [Dunkirk area Parks and Rec. facility] because it will get me votes in my district,” he, himself, MAY have fallen into the same trap by jumping on the band wagon that says, “People like this. He voted against it, so I will make an example of him to constituents by showing that I will throw money into plans and projects that don’t necessarily need it, but desire it greatly.” If this comes across as too harsh, I still cannot apologize. Again, and again, we complain about a State and Federal government that spends money just as easily as four of our sitting Commissioners and Mr. Gatton want to. However, we continue to allow this kind of rhetoric sway us because of its passionate display of charisma and charm that pulls at our emotions: for example, the fact that the Marine Museum is a part of our “heritage.” Indeed, the museum IS a part of our heritage. I know this perhaps better than most with my Masters degree in the field of history and employment with the Department of Natural Resources. However, I see no reason to allocate over $1 million to a project that does not need that money, whereas there are other projects and individuals that do need that money and can use it to increase revenues. Let us begin with creating income opportunities in our parks and existing areas. Then, let us use that earned money and the funds we currently allot to projects such as this to give Calvert employees their contractual raises and salaries. Now that is a plan I can support, and I’m sure as the election draws nigh, other local politicians will too. Let us Change the Conversation over the use of County funds one dollar at a time, Benjamin Krause, Candidate for Calvert Commissioner, 2014
Posted on: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 01:10:42 +0000