I was amazed and disgusted by the reaction to Tiger’s statement. Now more than 24 hours past the event, the TV talking heads, bloggers and the like are still debating whether or not Woods’ apology was sincere, sufficient and “correctly presented.”

You won’t find me in that crowd. I was absolutely impressed by Tiger on Friday.

For the record– Tiger, you owe me nothing, and certainly not an apology. I have no less respect for you now than I did before the revelation of your affairs. In fact, I may have more.

Tiger did not offend me and he did not offend you. What he did was an offense against God, his wife and his children– and no one else.  He has no obligation to me or you to be a role model; it is we who are at fault if our self-worth hinges on the infallibility of a mere mortal.

None are perfect and when we place our confidence in man, we are sure to be disappointed. When any man or woman stumbles, we shouldn’t be amazed… nor should we be surprised.

The pundits and others spent Friday evening questioning Tiger’s sincerity. One network asked several pro golfers to opine on the topic, as if they were the experts. One said, “I am not sure that he was sincere because he read his statement. If he was really sincere, he should have just spoken from his heart.” Others said that he just didn’t “sound sincere.”

It was probably because I understood that Tiger owed me nothing that I was able to listen with an open mind. I have never seen a more sincere public apology than what Tiger offered. When he apologized to his friends and family, he looked them straight in the eye. When he apologized to his fans and the parents who put him on a pedestal, he looked straight into the camera. I have never heard anyone express remorse in such direct terms.

Tiger offered no excuses; no justification; no caveats. He took full responsibility for his actions.

“I knew my actions were wrong. But I convinced myself that normal rules didn’t apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn’t have far — didn’t have to go far to find them.

“I was wrong. I was foolish. I don’t get to play by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me. I brought this shame on myself. I hurt my wife, my kids, my mother, my wife’s family, my friends, my foundation, and kids all around the world who admired me.”

We should all learn a lesson from Tiger– that’s how you say, “I’m sorry.”

Those who criticized his reading from a script suggested that he did it so that he wouldn’t say the wrong thing. I believe that he wrote his statement and read it so that he wouldn’t forget to say every right thing that he needed to say. An apology written down is not necessarily any less sincere than one spoken on the fly.

Besides… sincerity is a state of the heart. Who among us are qualified to discern his intent?

And who are we to write off Woods so quickly as just another unsalvageable “dirtbag” when we would beg for unlimited mercy if we were to fall on our own faces?

“I recognize I have brought this on myself. And I know above all I am the one who needs to change. I owe it to my family to become a better person. I owe it to those closest to me to become a better man. That is where my focus will be. I have a lot of work to do. And I intend to dedicate myself to doing it.”

At the tail end of Glenn Beck’s Friday radio show, he had as a guest a supposed Christian woman, a Fox TV regular, whose claim to fame was a book about the media’s characterization of Christians and Christianity. She criticized Tiger for writing his statement; and she challenged his spirituality when he said that his failures had caused him to return to his faith, which is Buddhism.

Paraphrasing, she said, “That’s what they all do. When they [high-profile philanderers] get caught, they run off to a sex or alcohol addiction clinic and wrap themselves in their religion. They all say that they have ‘found God’.”

You might have a problem with Buddhism, but that’s beside the point. Even Buddhism requires a sinless, devoted life from its faithful. If you are a Christian who doubted the sincerity of Tiger’s rediscovered spirituality, consider this– what does your God say that a sinner should do? Is it not to turn away from the sin and turn to Him? Why, then, should we criticize Tiger when he does exactly what his (and, for that matter, your) God requires of him?

“People probably don’t realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously, I lost track of what I was taught.”

Again… spirituality is a characteristic of the soul. Who among us are qualified to discern the state of Tiger’s heart? And if Tiger says that he has turned from his sin, who are we to say otherwise?

Tiger, you owe me nothing. However, I appreciate the opportunity that you provided on Friday to see a truly good man who, having failed and fallen so badly, was good enough to recognize his failure, turn from it and learn from it.

It is not his past failures, but how Tiger Woods conducts himself from this point forward that will be the true measure of his character. It is too bad that those who criticize him today don’t have the same integrity.

Transcript of apology

Here is a recap of the skirmish to date: in 2004, Snellville voters approved a referendum authorizing the City Council to adopt an ordinance allowing and regulating liquor by the drink. The Council adopted the ordinance, but the majority at the time refused to allow Sunday sales, saying that the referendum didn’t specifically address the question.

Fast forward to 2009. The Council voted to authorize a second referendum specifically directed at Sunday sales, but a miscount of days by the city attorney (there must be 40 days between the calling for a referendum and the vote) prevented the Council from putting the question on the November ballot.

The November vote also changed the face of the Council. Now, there is a majority that appears to favor liquor sales on Sunday. Under the advice of the same attorney that bungled the count, the new Council voted in December to allow Sunday sales by simply amending the original ordinance.

A group of Snellville residents sued to prevent the city from moving forward. Last month, Judge Mark A. Lewis ruled that the city acted improperly and that the handful of liquor licenses that were approved after the December vote must be revoked.

I believe that the judge interpreted state law correctly. I also believe that the law the judge upheld is improper and should be rescinded.

The wording of the referendum on `liquor by the drink` that passed in Snellville on November 2, 2004 reads:

“Shall the governing authority of the City of Snellville, Georgia be authorized to issue licenses to sell distilled spirits for beverage purposes by the drink, such sales to be for consumption only on the premises?”

This is the only referendum on the topic that has been approved. When this ballot issue passed, the City Council was authorized to create an ordinance governing LBTD. There were no restrictions on their authority except that the liquor must be consumed at the place in which it was sold (no package stores). The city could have adopted an ordinance that prohibited LBTD on certain days; prohibited it during certain hours; or even prohibited specific liquors in specific amounts.

In fact, the referendum only authorized the city to adopt an ordinance if it chose; it did not mandate it.

However, there is a statutory restriction on the days and times that liquor can be sold (that being, not on Sunday and not between midnight and 12:30 pm); a restriction that can only be overcome by the approval of a specifically-worded referendum. Georgia law on the topic is clear and unambiguous. OCGA 3-3-7(j)(1) reads:

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, in all counties or municipalities in which the sale of alcoholic beverages is lawful for consumption on the premises, the governing authority of the county or municipality may, by resolution or ordinance conditioned on approval in a referendum, authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises on Sundays from 12:30 pm until 12:00 midnight.”

Although I am not an attorney, the meaning of the law seems clear. Liquor can be served by the drink on Sunday only if approved by the voters in a referendum. It appears that the question of Sunday sales MUST be a separate and expressed question; not just assumed with the approval of a general referendum question on LBTD.

It seems that the City had/has two options in 2004 and thereafter:

1) In 2004, the wording of the referendum could have authorized the sale of liquor on Sunday, Snellville lying within a county “in which the sale of alcoholic beverages is [already] lawful for consumption on the premises….”. Perhaps, in hindsight, it need not have been a general question of “liquor by the drink”. (Someone might argue that, even though the county authorized LBTD, that did not automatically give the city the right to authorize it without its own referendum; that may be correct);

2) In 2004, the wording of the referendum could have authorized BOTH the sale of liquor by the drink generally AND the sale of liquor on Sunday. There could even have been TWO ballot questions with Sunday sales contingent on the approval of the general LBTD referendum;

3) Having permitted liquor by the drink generally in 2004, the Council could now hold a second referendum requesting authorization to adopt an ordinance allowing Sunday sales.

I have never checked to see what other jurisdictions have done. It would be interesting to see how it was handled elsewhere.

The city’s failed argument was based primarily on technicalities… that legal motions were not properly certified and/or filed, for example. The city’s attorney also tried to argue that one part of the above-cited state law allowed the city to authorize liquor on Sunday by ordinance, even when the remainder of the same code section prohibited Sunday sales without a specifically-worded referendum. However, courts generally assume, as a matter of precedent, that laws do not conflict with other laws; and certainly that the State Legislature did not intend that one section of this code should conflict within another part of the same code section.

It’s a common belief that attorneys make an argument on technicalities only when the facts are not on their side.

The city plans to appeal the judge’s decision. From the Mayor’s Tuesday press conference:

“In these economic times, we owe it to our businesses, and the people they employ, to do everything within our power to allow them to compete on a level playing field with others in Gwinnett County. Over the past few weeks, our restaurants have seen as much as a 65% increase in their overall sales on Sunday. We cannot ignore this proof of the economic impact this extra day has had on our City.”

I am all for economic growth… God knows, we need it right now. But economic growth must never justify ignoring the law and personal freedom. That’s the same thinking that brought us Kelo v. New London, which sanctioned the taking of real property via condemnation to turn it over to a developer solely to enhance the tax digest.

There should not be a law restricting the sale of alcohol on Sunday in the first place. I want to live in a county in which adults are not prohibited from exercising their freedom to pursue happiness, even if that includes a bourbon and Coke on Sunday. However, I cannot ignore a clear reading of the current law that appears to require a specifically-worded, maybe even separate referendum to allow Sunday sales.

It seems silly to me that opponents make the argument for “keeping the Lord’s day holy” while railing against the insidious spread of Islam across the globe. The same Constitution that protects my pursuit of happiness also prevents the government from imposing anybody else’s morality on me. The “no Sunday sales” crowd decries the imposition of Sharia law on the masses, but has not  no problem with the use of government force to impose “Baptist law” on everybody.

(That said by a born again, Spirit-filled Christian who appreciates that the Founding Fathers ensured my freedom to worship the God of my choice by limiting the power of the government, whether the laws are being made by Muslims or by Baptists….)

(Whew! Now, I need a drink. What day is it?)

I welcome a dissenting opinion on the law from an attorney. We’ll publish it right here. Non-attorneys can post their comments below (free user account required).

[Update: I have published a more detailed analysis of the legal issues in the TalkGwinnett.net discussion forum.]

Budget `Bait and Switch`

Bannister presented his 2010 budget to the other Commissioners and to the public on December 1, as required by law. The law is designed to give the public ample opportunity to review the document prior to its adoption. The required public hearings were also held.

A day or so before Christmas, however, Bannister sent the Commissioners a revised budget which increases spending by $6.3 million. Not only that, but Bannister juggled a number of capital projects, fast-tracking a park development in his home city of Lilburn while postponing a new park a few miles from the home of Mike Beaudreau, the only Commissioner to vote against the 2.28-mill tax increase.

Even worse, Bannister’s unilateral revision of the published budget may be illegal.

Some of Bannister’s changes:

• $500,000 subsidy to Partnership Gwinnett;
• $82,000 related to the county’s AAA bond rating;
• $6,500 for the County Administrator’s attendance at various conferences.

Bannister proposes to pay for these additions by transferring $500,000 less from the operating budget to the capital budget later in the year, as has been the usual practice. The artful number tweaking allows Bannister to increase non-capital spending without adjusting the operating budget’s bottom line by a single dollar.

Capital spending will increase by much more than the $6.3 million that Bannister proposes to add to the budget. He will make up the difference by deferring other projects including the Harbins Community Park in the Archer school cluster.

Bannister wants to postpone the engineering phase of the District 3 park from 2010 to 2013. He will instead spend that $1.2 million on the Lion’s Club Park in Lilburn this year, rather than in 2012 as planned. There appears to be no justification for this swap except to punish Beaudreau for his continuing stand against wasteful spending and tax increases.

Other additional capital spending:

• $250K for an airport feasibility study;
• $500K for a “nuisance abatement project;”
• $7.6M for fire stations #31 and #10 (relocation);
• $110K for a police aviation fuel truck.

The revision will also postpone development of the Rabbit Hill Park from this year to 2013.

Bannister proposes to increase the budget despite the county’s expectation that 2010 will be worse economically than previously projected.

Budget Deception

State law appears to prohibit the revision of the published budget proposal, except by a majority vote on an amendment during a public meeting… or by starting the public hearing process anew.  The Chairman cannot simply change the budget published on December 1 on his own.

The Chairman’s plan to adopt a budget different from the one that was presented to the public is tantamount to a lie. But then, deception appears to be Bannister’s stock in trade.

After the  2.28-mill tax increase was adopted, the county’s finance director announced that the additional revenue might be spent to reduce the county’s accrued liabilities, even though the increase had been sold as necessary to fund police officers, fire stations and recreation. Apparently, a decision on what the money will actually be spent has not been made.

I strongly encourage you to contact the Commission and send Bannister a message similar to the following:

Commissioners, I do not want you to approve a budget different from the one for which public hearings were held, except by amendment in a public meeting. I do not want you to increase spending. Chairman Bannister, I insist that you honor the expectations created by last year’s millage increase hearings and budget hearings.

To be effective, you must send your email before the Commission’s 2 pm meeting today.

As promised, what follows is my compromise proposal. It is based, in no small amount, on the mostly thoughtful feedback that I have received from the dozens of you. It is also founded, however, on a very hefty dose of political and financial reality, as well as my desire to move forward and make something positive out of a very bad situation.

First, The Reality

The ox is in the ditch. Our county’s finances are in a crisis. The national economic mess has hit at the least opportune time, when our own economy was at a critical transition point. We could have weathered the storm better, but decades of poor growth management and the last five years of unimaginative, reactive leadership has left county officials ill-equipped to respond to the emergency.

It is dangerous to focus on baseball stadiums, bad land deals and shifty politicians. Looking for a scapegoat leaves you paralyzed; unable to move forward. It’s okay to ask “why are we here?” so long as you quickly move on to “how do we get beyond here?”

Our Commission has left us with few options for the 2009 budget. No sale of the stadium– no tax on tourists and renters– no elimination of the Commissioners’ salaries– is going to solve the problem for this year. In fact, at this point it isn’t even realistic to expect the county to cut its way out of this crisis. For 2009, in my opinion, the only viable option is a tax increase.

The Political Realities

The Commissioners know that they are out of options. For that reason, they will vote to enact a millage increase at some level on December 1. The vote will likely be 4-1; District 3’s Mike Beaudreau will continue to honor his conservative Republican sensibilities. It’s a safe vote for him, although it doesn’t make him part of the solution.

Our best hope, then, is that the Commission will be willing to accept a compromise.

I believe I speak for a majority of Gwinnett residents when I say that, if the Commissioners expect us to support the tax increase, they can forget it. However, I am willing to accept a reduced millage increase if I know that there will be a measurable and immediate return; that our elected officials will move forward immediately on several key issues.

My Plan for “Millage Rate 2009”

I suggest that the Commission immediately move forward on five key issues. These five do not represent the entire solution, but meaningful steps toward increasing non-property tax revenues; minimizing the cost of our government; and establishing future accountability.

• Remove the “2010 Budget Deficit” and “2010 Reduction in Digest” Expenses

I described in detail how these two line items are inappropriate for inclusion in this millage increase. Elimination of just these two items will reduce the increase to between 1.55 and 1.75 mills.

Not funding these items will, however, put greater pressure on the staff and the Engage Gwinnett committee to reduce service levels and/or identify non-tax revenue sources. It is possible that Gwinnett property owners might face another, smaller tax hike in 2010.

But, if these two items are not removed, we lose the opportunity to make a difference.

You might say: “But recreation is not a core, essential function of government! We should not impose a tax increase for ballfield lights and aquatic centers!”

And I would agree with you. However, Commissioner Kevin Kenerly represents a key vote on this issue, primarily because he is the only Commissioner who has named a specific reason for imposing an increase– he wants to restore the funding that subsidizes the county’s youth associations.

To ensure funding for what is arguably not a core government service, Kenerly may be willing to strike a deal. Keep in mind that the portion of the increase for recreation is only about 11% of the total while the 2010 items represent about 32%. To protect 11%, Kenerly may be willing to remove 32%… and concede to the other items in my compromise proposal.

• Immediately Create the Impact Fee Advisory Committee

Impact fees serve to transfer the capital costs of new public facilities (fire stations, roads, libraries, etc.) to the homeowners and businesses who not only create the need for the new infrastructure but will be the most likely to use it. Impact fees represent a significant non-tax revenue source that can reduce the government’s dependence on property taxes.

The Engage Gwinnett committee’s charge includes identifying non-property tax revenue sources. The committee’s recommendation is likely to include impact fees, especially since a previous citizen committee has already advised the Commission to move forward with a program.

State law requires that, prior to adopting an impact ordinance, the Commission must appoint a committee of citizens to advise and oversee the process. The timeline from start to implementation can take six months to a year, so to expedite the creation of the impact fee program and in anticipation of Engage Gwinnett’s recommendation, the Commission must lay the groundwork immediately.

• Adopt and Implement the Recommendations of the 2007 Ethics Study

Over two years ago, the Commission retained a consultant to examine the need for an ethics policy and a citizen panel to enforce it; then promptly shelved the consultant’s recommendation. Their decision was extremely unfortunate, especially given the controversies that have swirled around them since the day that they decided that an ethics panel wasn’t needed.

Trust of our county elected officials is at an all-time low, which has made it difficult for taxpayers to trust that the Commission has their best interests at heart with this tax hike. The Commission must authorize the citizens ethics panel and allow it to create and enforce an ethics policy.

• Require Participation in E-Verify for a Business License

Illegal immigrants constitute a measurable drain on public resources. For example, a joint month-long action earlier this year with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) identified 907 illegal alien arrestees in our jail. At $45 dollars a day—the cost to house one prisoner– the daily hit on law enforcement and court budgets can be measured in the tens of thousands of dollars.

287(g), a federal program to identify and deport serious illegal alien offenders, is a costly approach to the problem– this tax increase includes over a million dollars to fund 18 deputies for the first year. Changes to the program by the Obama Administration will make it more difficult to deport arrestees, making 287(g) an even less cost-effective solution.

But there is a better way. The County Commission should adopt an ordinance requiring all businesses, as a condition of receiving or renewing a business license, to enroll in the E-Verify program. E-Verify is a free federal program in which employers can quickly and easily verify the work eligibility of their new hires. Illegal workers are prohibited from working after being confirmed as ineligible and the penalties are stiff for companies that continue to employ illegal workers.

Requiring businesses to enroll in E-Verify would cost the county nothing and would essentially eliminate the primary reason that illegal immigrants come to Gwinnett in the first place—jobs.

The Commission must adopt an ordinance immediately with implementation during the first quarter of 2010. The requirement should apply to all new applications thereafter and license renewals for 2011.

• Resolve to Adopt a Mathematically Correct Millage Rate

I have explained how the Bannister Commission’s decisions to adopt deficient tax rates since 2005 contributed to the current budget crisis. Opponents of the current tax hike proposal have expressed a similar concern– that a tax increase, once in place, will never go away. The concern is a legitimate one; however, there is a remedy.

The Commission should resolve to follow the procedure for calculating the rate that has been taught by the state Department of Revenue for decades. A mathematically-correct rate takes no more and no less from property owners than is required to fund the budget.

If the politicians hold down the cost of government and/or increase non-property tax revenues, the tax rate decreases simply as an operation of the math. Also, if assessed values increase across the county, a correct millage rate returns the benefit of a growing tax base to the property owner in the form of a lower tax rate.

By resolving to adopt a mathematically correct millage rate in 2010, the Commission can ensure that, as staff and the Engage Gwinnett committee cut costs and maximize non-tax revenues, the taxpayer receives the benefit.

There are numerous benefits of this practice. You can learn how the millage rate is supposed to be calculated here.

Time to Act

As I noted earlier, the Commission will pass this tax increase. It is up to you and me to demand that the Commissioners recognize a new era of citizen involvement and greater accountability.

They screwed things up… now we are going to clean up the mess. After all, we will be paying for the cleanup.

Contact the Commission via the contact form here. You are welcome to express your displeasure with the tax increase; however, if you accept my compromise proposal (published at SaveGwinnett.com), be sure to preface your comments with:

“I support `the SaveGwinnett Plan`” or “I support Bob Griggs’ proposal.”

The Commissioners have this proposal in hand– it is up to you to give it value. You do that by contacting them today.

***

[Each of these proposals are described elsewhere in greater detail. If you want to know more about a particular topic, contact me.]

The increase was also going to pay, however, for some pretty important stuff– the equipping and staffing of three new fire stations; 58 new police officers and equipment; the reestablishment of the Quality of Life unit; and several prosecutors and investigators in the District Attorney’s office. (Pictured: Station 30 on Ozora Road in Loganville-Grayson; finished but empty)

Not only are those items in jeopardy, but the rejection of the earlier increase also necessitated additional service cuts beyond those already incorporated into the budget. For example, early retirements and layoffs have cut “back office” functions, like general administration and Planning & Development, to the bone, even after 108 positions had been eliminated in the initial budget. A planned pay raise has been abandoned as well.

The revised proposal will restore most of the cuts in public safety and the courts. In addition, it will fund the 287(g) illegal alien identification and deportation program which began on Monday at the county jail. Equally as important to some, but not all, is funding to restore reductions in library hours and open a new branch in Hamilton Mill; and pay for ballpark lights and field maintenance, expenses that are currently being borne by the county’s youth associations.

You can find a line-by-line accounting of what will and will not be funded by an increase at SaveGwinnett.com . I provide a little more detail here .

The millage increase that will be approved or disapproved on December 1 is not without its concerns. I believe that it can be reduced by as much as 32% (to as low as 1.55 mills from 2.28) by eliminating just two line items. You may oppose the increase in its entirety, but even if you favor the funding for public safety, the courts and recreation, you should question these expenditures.

Solving 2010 Problems With 2009 Tax Dollars

The tax increase includes two items totaling approximately $18.77 million, about one-third of the total hike:

2010 Deficit Reduction: Even with all of the budget cuts imposed earlier in the year; with additional cuts and deferments planned for 2010; and even if funding for public safety and recreation are restored, there remains a deficit of $9.7 million projected for next year. The Commission proposes to “pre-collect” enough revenue with this increase to mitigate or eliminate that shortfall.

Reduction in 2010 Digest: The Net Tax Digest (the value of all taxable property in the county) is projected to suffer another significant decline in 2010. This year, the residential side of the Tax Digest declined by over $1.5 billion in taxable value. In 2010, the weak economy is projected to hit commercial values, with the resulting loss in tax revenue projected to be $9,070,818. The County Commission seeks to compensate for the loss with this millage increase.

To my knowledge, the plan to address future year budget issues of this type with a current year tax increase is unprecedented. In my opinion, it is also unnecessary and ill-advised.

“Engage Gwinnett” Neutered

The “Engage Gwinnett” Committee, of which I am a member, has been charged with examining 2010 service levels and revenue sources, with the goal of helping to formulate a balanced budget that serves the needs of the community in a cost-effective manner. The combined 2010 deficit of $18.77 million is at the core of our committee’s charge. Our success will be measured by the reduction or elimination of this disparity between revenue and expenses.

While the Commission’s plan to address 2010 problems with 2009 tax dollars does not alter our process, it does eliminate a potential benefit of our recommendations– allowing the taxpayer to keep more of his money in his pocket. Even worse, the inclusion of these items in the millage increase tends to confirm an unjustified, but very real perception– that the Engage Gwinnett committee is a sham effort designed to give cover to politicians who just want to raise taxes.

The “pre-payment” of property taxes– especially in the current economic and political climate– will be difficult to explain. I cannot stand before the taxpayers next year to tout the committee’s plan to eliminate the 2010 deficit, only to have the taxpayers reply, “It doesn’t matter; we’ve already paid it.”

The inclusion of these items in the 2009 millage increase is no small matter– the proposed increase could be reduced to between 1.55 and 1.75 mills. The owner of a $200,000 home would see his portion of the tax increase lessened by as much as $73.

Speaking of `Political Cover…`

While I understand the desire to address 2010 problems now (there is always comfort in having money in hand), the decision to do so is purely political. The level of the tax rate is set by politicians, elected officials who usually want to be reelected. Sadly, the millage rate often has only a minimal relationship to the actual cost of your government.

Just as the County Commission adopted deficient tax rates for the past four years– contributing to the county’s current financial instability– purely for political gain, the Commission now proposes to OVER-tax you this year, simply to avoid the political ramifications should they have to impose a tax increase two years in a row.

The solution is simple– let’s worry about 2009 problems in 2009, and 2010 problems when– and IF– they arise. Let’s let the Engage Gwinnett citizen committee do its job. Then, if another tax hike is required in 2010, it will come only after the committee has given its best effort.

Your Weekend Assignment

I strongly encourage you to review the budget documentation, especially if you plan to attend the public hearings or contact the Commissioners. A reasoned and educated opinion always carries greater weight than an angry, uninformed rant.

As you might suspect, I have a very strong opinion about what the County Commission should do on December 1, the date of the final public hearing and vote on the millage increase. I plan to share that with you before Monday, November 23, when the first two public hearings will be held.

For the past four years, the County Commission has not raised your property tax rate. Believe it or not, that was a bad thing.

For a couple of decades, Gwinnett benefited financially from being one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. Gwinnett’s explosive growth built fire stations, libraries, a state-of-the-art water reclamation facility and more. A fairly stable millage rate applied to a growing tax base funneled tax dollars into county coffers.

There is, however, a continuing cost associated with the operation of public facilities– staff, maintenance, utilities and the like. Around 2005, the annual increases in the cost of government began to outpace the growth in the Net Tax Digest. The county’s tax base was “maturing” as the inventory of developable land decreased.

This maturation was anticipated by the county’s financial forecasters, but ignored by the County Commission. That year, the Commission under Chairman Charles Bannister embarked on a flawed, politically-driven financial strategy that would hamstring the county’s efforts to respond to the looming crisis.

Citing the stagnating tax base and increases in the cost of government, the finance professionals recommended an increase in the 2005 Maintenance & Operations (M&O) millage from 10.14 to 11.322. Ignoring the staff recommendation, the Commission adopted a deficient M&O tax rate… the previous year’s 10.14 mills. The deficit created by that decision was staggering. The budget called for $258,823,173 in property tax revenue, but the millage rate approved by the Commission generated approximately $27 million less than the budget required.

The Bannister Commission has continued this dangerous practice every year since 2005.

In 2007, the Commission compounded the problem. Absent significant cuts in spending, a tax rate increase was again required to balance the budget. But the Commission inexplicably reduced the total county rate from 11.30 to 11.08, creating a deficit that required taking $19.6 million from the “rainy day fund” to make up the difference.

The Commission’s irresponsible behavior continued into 2008, despite a stern warning from their advisors. According to an AJC article about the November 2007 Commission planning retreat:

“During the three-day retreat, one consultant and several Gwinnett officials warned that the county could pay a heavy price if it continues to rely on reserve funding to cover shortfalls in its proposed budgets.”

Ignoring the warning, the Bannister Commission rolled back the tax rate again– from 11.08 to 10.97– a decision that required a draw on reserves of $36.3 million.

Today, we are paying the heavy price that was so predictable four years ago.

Tax Cuts Gone Terribly Wrong

“But how could a tax cut ever be bad?” you might ask.

A tax rate reduction is great if it represents the actual cost of government services in a conservative and efficient budget where non-tax revenues are maximized. When politicians control the cost of government services, they can pass the benefit of a growing tax base to their constituents in the form of a lower tax rate.

But an arbitrarily low, deficient tax rate has a terrible hidden cost. Because the deficit must be covered by cash reserves, the interest on those reserves is lost for future years. That loss of non-tax revenue must then be replaced somehow. In a “slow-growth” period like today, the downward spiral of diminishing non-tax revenue continues to the point that only a massive tax increase or draconian cuts in service levels can stop the hemorrhaging.

Further, the recommended practice is to maintain a reserve fund of no less than three months’ operating expenses. Spending down the reserve fund not only jeopardizes the county’s bond rating (which governs the cost of borrowed funds) but also limits our ability to respond to actual emergencies like the recent floods.

Property Tax Deception

Second, artificially lowered tax rates lull the taxpayer into complacency and a false sense of security. As the County Commission lowered the tax rate each year, you probably assumed that all was financially well in your county. You were probably shocked to see the county’s finances go from so good to so bad… so quickly.

A tax increase in 2005 of 1.18 mills (the rejected increase) would have been a wake-up call; an indicator that the county’s financial situation was changing. You would probably have been motivated to demand fiscal accountability from your elected leadership, as you did this summer. Instead, you were deprived of the information that you needed to evaluate your elected officials’ ability to control the cost of government. In essence, the declining state of the county’s financial affairs were hidden from you.

Consider how much better prepared we would have been for this year’s economic downturn had our County Commission reacted four years ago by cutting costs and, if necessary, raising the tax rate.

Flawed Property Tax Law

What Chairman Bannister and the Commission did, although deceptive and highly irresponsible, was not illegal. A flaw in state property tax law allows a County Commission, City Council or School Board to adopt any tax rate that the populace will accept, regardless of the actual cost of government. (Example of an inflated tax rate: Suwanee | The solution)

There is no reason for a politician to adopt a deficient tax rate except to protect his own political rear end. Politicians don’t like tax increases; a rising tax rate can be a reliable indicator of their failure to control spending. For the past four years, Bannister and the County Commission have taken advantage of a flawed tax code to arbitrarily lower the property tax rate to bolster their political resumes… and, in doing so, steered the county into its greatest financial crisis ever.

The decisions of our elected officials have now severely limited our options. A millage rate increase may be the only responsible short-term solution.

When Is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase?

So, if we have essentially been “undertaxed” for four years, is raising the millage rate this year truly a “tax increase”?

Maybe not, if the Commission can justify every expense and has maximized opportunities for non-tax revenue– in that case, the higher tax rate can represent the true cost of our county government in relation to the value of all taxable property within the county.

The 2009 budget included $40 million in cost reductions and “revenue enhancements” (primarily, higher fees). Initially, it also included a pay raise for county employees and $19 million in additional spending including funds to open three new fire stations and hire 58 police officers. Much of the additional spending has been eliminated except for the public safety components, library funding and some recreation expenditures.

Sadly, the 2009 budget isn’t the best that we can do… but it is the best that we can do for now.

The Ox Is In the Ditch

Am I advocating a tax increase? No; I advocate a recognition of the fact that our elected county officials have failed to lead. I accept the reality that our short-term options are limited; and that a tax increase may be necessary to maintain the quality of life to which we have grown accustomed and to give us the breathing room that we need to correct the problem.

Coming up…

Despite my general acceptance of the 2009 budget as proposed, I have significant reservations about specific components of the tax increase. The proposed tax hike is about a third too high and, if passed, will severely limit the ability of the Engage Gwinnett citizen committee to help you keep your hard-earned dollars in your pocket.

Gwinnett taxpayers are in no mood for a tax increase. Little has changed from the summer when hundreds of citizens rallied in Suwanee to denounce it.

Over the next two weeks, I plan to analyze various aspects of the tax hike proposal– how we arrived at this place in time; what is included in the increase and what is not; what is right about it and what is wrong. Please read on.

If you’re totally against a tax increase, you face an uphill battle. The reality is that there are already enough votes to pass the tax hike as proposed. Chairman Bannister has signaled that he will support it, as has Kevin Kenerly, who isn’t running for reelection. Shirley Lasseter is a sure second vote for Bannister; Bert Nasuti is also a lame duck but is open to reason. Only Mike Beaudreau is expected to oppose it.

There is, however, plenty about this proposal to criticize. As I will explain, the increase could be reduced by 32% and still fund the full restoration of service levels for this year.

Our best bet, then, may be a reasonable compromise, which may not be a bad thing. For example, the increase will fund 58 police officers at a time when the headlines speak of drug cartels and home invasion robberies. I am ambivalent, on the other hand, about whether the recreation items should be restored; ballfield lights aren’t “essential” except, maybe, for ensuring Kevin Kenerly’s support of a compromise.

The first public hearings on the tax hike proposal are planned for November 23 with a vote scheduled for December 1. We have a couple of weeks to begin steering this in the right direction, but it can only happen with your involvement.

Do this now: forward this article to your neighbors or send your Gwinnett contacts a quick email referring them to the subscription form at www.bobg.biz/u/subscribe . This series of articles will likely be the only source of detailed info on the increase that isn’t published by the county. You and I have influenced the Commission to do the right thing in the past, and we can do it again.

Myths and Misconceptions

Since I tend to be a bit long-winded, I plan to break this topic into several digestible chunks. The first chunk– dispelling several misconceptions about county finances, taxes and spending that tend to prevent intelligent conversation from occurring.

`The Stadium Helped to Put Us in this Hole`

Actually, the Gwinnett Braves’ stadium has virtually no relationship to this millage increase proposal. The stadium’s construction was financed from three funding sources– a draw on the Recreation Fund balance (reserves); a draw on the General Fund balance (reserves); and the sale of bonds to generate additional capital.

Further, the stadium essentially pays for itself through the lease by the Braves, parking, a rental car tax and more. No property tax dollars have been used to support the stadium.

`My Taxes Keep Going Up`

It may be true that your property tax bill has increased over recent years, but it isn’t because of the county property tax. The county portion of the total millage rate has actually decreased every year since 2003, a net total of 3.98 mills since 1996. In 2008, the county tax rate was the lowest it has ever been.

“But my assessed value keeps rising,” you might counter. On your primary residence, however, a higher assessed value has no impact on your tax bill. The Value Offset Exemption (VoE) increases each year by the same amount that your assessed value increases. In other words, you are paying county taxes on the same assessed value as the year when you bought your home, unless you have improved it.

If your tax bill has increased over the past five years, it is most likely because the VOE does not apply to your assessed value for school, city or state property taxes or because your city tax rate has increased (if you live in a city).

Also, for this year the state did not fund the Homeowners Tax Relief Grant which, in years past has decreased your total tax bill by $250 to $300.

`The Sanitation Dispute`

The county’s fumbling on the sanitation plan, while unfortunate and maybe even evidence of incompetence, has no bearing on the proposed tax increase.

`The Commission Has Wasted Tax Money on Unnecessary Land Buys at Inflated Prices`

The Commission has generated controversy recently regarding several recent land deals to the point that a special Grand Jury has been authorized to investigate.

The purchases were made not with property tax dollars, however, but with money from the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) fund which can be used for such purposes. There is no direct connection between this tax hike and the recent land buys.

`The Budget Is Full of Pork… Cut More!`

Contrary to popular perception, Gwinnett County has an exceptionally lean budget for a county of its size. Over the past year, drastic cuts have been made in anticipation of difficult economic times.

`Back office` staffs (administration) has been cut to the bone. Subsidies to non-profit community organizations represent a miniscule fraction of the total budget. The county has fewer employees per capita than most comparable counties in the Atlanta area and beyond.

As a side note, the Commissioners’ salary ($50K for the Chairman, $25K for District Commissioners) represents 0.00016808606 of the 2009 operating budget. If the Commissioners were to forego their salary this year, you would save a whopping forty-one cents on your property tax bill.

There may be ways to trim costs and the Engage Gwinnett committee (of which I am a member) will be looking at those closely over the next five months. For 2009, however, the budget is as lean as it can be. The task now is figuring out how to pay for it.

`Chairman Bannister’s Incompetence Has Created This Crisis`

That isn’t a myth; that is true, in my opinion. The County Commission under Bannister could have easily mitigated the current financial crisis. However, focusing on the causes doesn’t solve today’s problem.

Your Homework Assignment

Our county government has put an incredible amount of information online about the budget and tax hike proposal. You will find much of it linked from the “Resources” page at www.savegwinnett.com. The web site for the Engage Gwinnett committee (www.engagegwinnett.com) takes you to additional info.

Be sure to check out the presentations by county Finance Director Aaron Bovos and Director of Economic Analysis Alfie Meek linked at www.engagegwinnett.com/topics.htm . If you can muster the energy, watch the video of the presentations as well.

Finally, watch the video from the presentations by various department heads to the county’s Budget Committee . Pay particular attention to the presentations by the District Attorney and other law enforcement and court officials.

While you’re at it, follow SaveGwinnett on Twitter (www.twitter.com/savegwinnett) or find SaveGwinnett on Facebook. Be sure to bookmark TalkGwinnett.net and TalkGwinnett.com.

Your Feedback Needed

You are invited to send your questions and comments to me at bobg@talkgwinnett.com.  You can also submit questions through SaveGwinnett.com or to questions@savegwinnett.com . You can contact the Commissioners through SaveGwinnett.com as well. This and future articles will also be published at SaveGwinnett.com where you can register for a free user account and post your comments.

A draft of the treaty can be read here.

Page 18: Section 38 of the “Share vision for long-term cooperation action plan” contains the text for forming the new government.

Page 40: Section 46 Subsection H of the “Objectives, scope, and guiding principles” contains the text for enforcement and establishment of the rule of law.

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

[Via Minnesota Majority ; related at BuzzBrockway.com: 'The Copenhagen Shakedown']

The middle schools were abuzz with the rumors… did her boyfriend make her drop it because she was receiving too many direct messages from hormonally-enraged teenaged boys? Had she developed a heretofore unknown disease of the thumbs?

Actually, she (very maturely, I think) realized that `Twittering`– which for the uninformed is utilizing a web service to send 140-character messages to other Twits, usually from a cell phone and about blowing your nose or watching TV– was controlling her very life.

I can personally attest to Miley’s obsession. No, I didn’t `follow` the girl but my 14-year-old did. Katie had Miley’s tweets forwarded to her cell phone, and Katie has one of those ring tones for text alerts that lasts about 30 seconds. Hearing that obnoxious little tune every four or five minutes was driving me insane.

Yo, Miley, I’m with you, girlfriend. Twitter can be addictive. There’s a 16-year-old cousin in the family who started having difficulty putting together sentences more than 140 characters long. Now she’s quit speaking altogether… she just wiggles her thumbs…

In case you have difficulty deciphering a little `white girl rap,` here are the lyrics:

Yeah, the rumors are true, I deleted my Twitter. Can you believe it? I got to two million. Then I said adios. I had to say goodbye and this little rap is to tell my fans why.

No it wasn’t because my friend told me to. Ya’ll know very well what you say I don’t do. And the reasons are simple, I started tweeting about pimples. I stopped living for moments and started living for people. Yeah you write what you’re doing, but who really cares, if I’m playing with Noah or just doing my hair.

Everything that I type and everything that I do, all those lame gossip sites take it and they make it news. I want my private life private. I’m done trying to please. I ain’t livin’ for tabloids. I’m living for me. No more emo quotes and no more fake feuds with Demi. I’m done with all that and the truth is I’m too busy.

Yeah, I gotta admit, I miss Dane Cooks tweets and I really like looking at Katy Perry and Britney. I might have some withdrawals, I was a little obsessed, but I’m peacing out and I’m leaving with this. Goodbye.

The members of this gang are extremely violent and have been known to cut the ears off children or burn them with hot irons to get what they want, Bright said. The gang is operating in at least five states, but most of its members are foreign nationals.

The targeting of cartel drug houses by competing gangs is a natural progression; a “maturing” of the cycle of crime involving drugs and organized crime. The next steps in this lifecycle are just as predictable.

I pray that I am wrong—but it is only a matter of time before an innocent bystander, a child playing on the street, is killed by a stray bullet from a shootout between gang members. Or we will soon read about the torture or death of an innocent family, their home mistakenly targeted by gangsters trying to take down another cartel stash house.

On that day, will we understand that our elected officials had done all that they could to avoid such a tragedy? Or will we question why, even with ample warning of potential disaster, our County Commissioners cut police services including “quality of life” code enforcement officers and failed to do all that they could to reduce the numbers of illegal aliens in our county?

Street gangs poach cash, drugs from Mexican cartels  | ajc.com