The purpose of this blog is to provide the author, Jay Moreno, with an outlet to comment upon items of socio-political and socio-economic import in Camden County, Georgia and to generally satisfy a daily compulsion to write.
HISTORIC WATERFRONT, ST. MARYS, GA.
I did not coin the phrase. I was quoting No Conflict Bird from the article. I don't think he was the first one to use it regarding this issue,though. It would appear that now, from the perspective of the proponents, the only thing between the current status and the "point of no return" is the agreement of the FAA to fund the new airport. Bird, Kearns, the Green eco-weenies, et al, are still hoping to queer the deal by pretending to be deeply concerned with the plight aof a few amphibians and reptiles that may have to move to the next wetlands over.
The term "point of no return" regarding the airport was first used by Council Member Deborah Hase in an e-mail to RS&H, the mayor elect and the city manager about a month ago. I read the e-mail on Kingsland Topix. I don't know what she exactly meant so I won't presume to interpret her words.
"Here is another one for all of you watching the comedy that passes for government in St Marys. Monday night the City Council will appoint two members to the airport authority. I have it from a good source that councilwoman Haze will nominate and support her friend Jeff Sanford for the position. Sanford runs the F.B.O. at the airport on contract with the airport authority. If he is appointed, Sanford will be a member of an authority that administers a contract with and regulations which govern the company which he owns. Sanford is the one who, along with Haze, accused councilman Bird of conflict of interest. Apparently they think conflict of interest does not apply to them."
First of all, the man's name is Jeff Stanford,not "Sanford." Sanford is Feller's real first name.
If this is true, perhaps this is Hase' rather ingenious counter stroke to Bird and those who obstinately pretend not to see his clear conflict of interest.
Given the current make-up of council and the fact that Stanford supports moving the airport, if she makes the motion, you can bet it will pass.
First there is that old adage that two wrongs do not make a right. Ms. Hase is on record stating that her concern about Mr. Bird's alleged conflict of interest had nothing to do with personality or the airport issue. She said that she was simply in favor of honesty in government. I don't see how she can now change her mind and support it.
I always thought it was a stretch accusing Mr. Bird of conflict since he was isolated from the city by dealing with the Airport Authority concerning his business interests at the airport. Had there been any evidence that he used his position as council member to enhance himself with the Authority, it would have been a different matter. But, there was somewhat of an appearance of conflict.
In the case of Mr. Stanford potentially being a member of the Authority, the conflict is clear. He has several leases and contracts with the Authority. The Authority rules govern his operation at the airport and establish lease rates. The Authority is charged with enforcement of rules and contracts and has the potential of recourse against Mr. Stanford. If Mr. Stanford desires to change or enlarge his business, he needs Authority approval. The Authority must approve or refuse the application of potential competitors to Mr. Stanford on the airport.
This is a clear and blatant instance of conflict of interest. In contract, the case against Mr. Bird was nebulous and evidently without enough merit to stand up under challenge.
But does it make it right just because they have he votes to pass it. He should'nt be allowed to serve in this capacity. Hase is providing that she is as unethical as they come.
Calm down, folks.Go back and parse my statement. You will find that the endorsement y'all read into it is not there.
I was just chuckling at the delicious irony of it all. I did not say it smelled like a rose.
However, I would point out that Stanford is not vying for an elected position and is not subject to the State Ethics Commission's opinion - only the extant by laws of the airport commission and public opinion.
It is ironic and it is fun to watch. Incidentally, I believe that all elected and appointed officials are subject to ethics review and regulation. Even if Airport Authority members are not, it may be possible that the council members would have to face a challenge for knowingly appointing someone who has a proven conflict of interest. Its an interesting question to which we may, unfortunately, learn the answer.
66 y/o male, college grad. Bachelor of General Studies with minor in political science, Armstrong Atlantic State University; post-baccalaureate teacher certification program, AASU; Georgia state certified teacher: Middle Grades; Middle Grades Social Studies; Middle Grades Language Arts; Political Science (6-12); and Economics (6-12). Currently pursuing bachelor of Science in Public Administration from College of Coastal Georgia. Navy and Vietnam veteran (Hospital Corpsman, NEC 8404). Former HMC, USNR-R. Various Navy Leadership and Management schools. Disabled, and in a wheelchair since April, 2004, A/C Guillain-Barre syndrome. Eclectic interests.
17 comments:
Jay,
What is the "point of no return" vis-a-vis the airport?
I did not coin the phrase. I was quoting No Conflict Bird from the article. I don't think he was the first one to use it regarding this issue,though. It would appear that now, from the perspective of the proponents, the only thing between the current status and the "point of no return" is the agreement of the FAA to fund the new airport. Bird, Kearns, the Green eco-weenies, et al, are still hoping to queer the deal by pretending to be deeply concerned with the plight aof a few amphibians and reptiles that may have to move to the next wetlands over.
The term "point of no return" regarding the airport was first used by Council Member Deborah Hase in an e-mail to RS&H, the mayor elect and the city manager about a month ago. I read the e-mail on Kingsland Topix. I don't know what she exactly meant so I won't presume to interpret her words.
Yes, you're right, now that you mention it.
And now this from Kingsland Topix:
"Here is another one for all of you watching the comedy that passes for government in St Marys. Monday night the City Council will appoint two members to the airport authority. I have it from a good source that councilwoman Haze will nominate and support her friend Jeff Sanford for the position. Sanford runs the F.B.O. at the airport on contract with the airport authority. If he is appointed, Sanford will be a member of an authority that administers a contract with and regulations which govern the company which he owns. Sanford is the one who, along with Haze, accused councilman Bird of conflict of interest. Apparently they think conflict of interest does not apply to them."
First of all, the man's name is Jeff Stanford,not "Sanford." Sanford is Feller's real first name.
If this is true, perhaps this is Hase' rather ingenious counter stroke to Bird and those who obstinately pretend not to see his clear conflict of interest.
Given the current make-up of council and the fact that Stanford supports moving the airport, if she makes the motion, you can bet it will pass.
Jay,
First there is that old adage that two wrongs do not make a right. Ms. Hase is on record stating that her concern about Mr. Bird's alleged conflict of interest had nothing to do with personality or the airport issue. She said that she was simply in favor of honesty in government. I don't see how she can now change her mind and support it.
I always thought it was a stretch accusing Mr. Bird of conflict since he was isolated from the city by dealing with the Airport Authority concerning his business interests at the airport. Had there been any evidence that he used his position as council member to enhance himself with the Authority, it would have been a different matter. But, there was somewhat of an appearance of conflict.
In the case of Mr. Stanford potentially being a member of the Authority, the conflict is clear. He has several leases and contracts with the Authority. The Authority rules govern his operation at the airport and establish lease rates. The Authority is charged with enforcement of rules and contracts and has the potential of recourse against Mr. Stanford. If Mr. Stanford desires to change or enlarge his business, he needs Authority approval. The Authority must approve or refuse the application of potential competitors to Mr. Stanford on the airport.
This is a clear and blatant instance of conflict of interest. In contract, the case against Mr. Bird was nebulous and evidently without enough merit to stand up under challenge.
But does it make it right just because they have he votes to pass it. He should'nt be allowed to serve in this capacity. Hase is providing that she is as unethical as they come.
Calm down, folks.Go back and parse my statement. You will find that the endorsement y'all read into it is not there.
I was just chuckling at the delicious irony of it all. I did not say it smelled like a rose.
However, I would point out that Stanford is not vying for an elected position and is not subject to the State Ethics Commission's opinion - only the extant by laws of the airport commission and public opinion.
So is this how we start off the new century in St. Marys. With balant corruption and misdeeds!!
Hase should consult her bible. The very one she refers to when there is a vote on anything alcohol related.
Do tell?
Seriously, tell is who did what when and how you know they did?
Where is your proof?
Will you be coming to the council meeting tonight to make these accusations to the faces of the "guilty?"
"It's obvious we have more than enough support to move on," Hase said.
Deb Hase? or Nancy Pelosi? Same thought process....different issue.
Who cares what the people want....ram it through!!!!!
Sad..........very sad.
Oh,yes: give me a moment.
There is a Hase in St Marys and it needs to blow away.
Jay,
It is ironic and it is fun to watch. Incidentally, I believe that all elected and appointed officials are subject to ethics review and regulation. Even if Airport Authority members are not, it may be possible that the council members would have to face a challenge for knowingly appointing someone who has a proven conflict of interest. Its an interesting question to which we may, unfortunately, learn the answer.
Buzzard
"Hase," "blow away": clever.
Yeah, and someday we might address the issue of whether U.S. citizenship is a prerequisite to being appointed to a city board or authority.
Post a Comment