High Springs Herald

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 8, 2009 5:54 PM:

" I'll look into this candidate. There are a handful of Dems registered as well as some NPA and a few Repubs. I'll get a chance to look into the lot.

I had a chance to speak with E.Arth the other day. Nice guy, intelligent. He happens to be writing a book on democracy (my area - and his book overlaps with many what I have been writing on). He is passionate about many issues including a priority on electoral reform. I was impressed. I may meet with him this weekend at the Democratic Convention (as well as some of the others). Perhaps I'll have a chance to talk with Sink about Smith as well. "

Fran wrote on Oct 8, 2009 12:03 PM:

" his name really is E.Arth!!).

cute, I didn't catch that. Have you read any on his UNICE group / concept? It is too far out there for me to grasp yet some inter elements are note worthy. I think it would be something relentlessly attacked. Khavari the economist (I like that sound)has presented the idea of a Florida Bank and, it has gained national recognition. Have you read any on it? I now understand why people go on the attack with nothing positive to offer up. If Smith runs it may just leave me with the choice to vote against on personal principles. Besides I like the idea of a bumper sticker with SINK with Smith:)btw nice play on words "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 8, 2009 11:21 AM:

" Oops sorry. DAN Bartlett is someone else!! DOYLE Bartlett. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 8, 2009 11:20 AM:

" On the point of McCollum becoming a banking lobbyest (I didn't realize that - but it "makes sense.")

Here is another notorious abuse of power/position and legal/ethical violation of common practice in our public officials/agencies.

McCollum, as a member of the House of Representatives, was a member of the Banking Committee.

Of course he did not represent the PUBLIC interest their but the Banking lobby/corporate interest (which brought must of our current deregulation (and with it scandals) - tied directly to the SBA scandal).

In fact his Chief of Staff, Dan Bartlett, initially left working as an aide to McCollum to become a banking lobbyest then after ten years returned to become his Chief of Staff (and thus the banking lobby had "their man" on the House Banking Committee).

This is how it all "works" (or actually why it DOESN'T WORK) in American politics.

NOTE: Florida is a "big banking interest" state. Always has been. Banks and "development" (speculation) and DE-regulation have always gone hand in hand. How much did McCollum receive from, say, Barnett? SunBank? etc.? for his campaigns? Then he leaves Congress and they give him a nice fat paycheck. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 8, 2009 7:01 AM:

" A note on McCollum's "term limit" hypocrisy.

In 1992 (his 12th year in Congress) I was working on the campaign of a challenger to McCollum (Chuck Kovalesky).

I called McCollum on a local (right) talk radio show. I asked him about the 12 year plan. He went through a whole spiel. Then I asked him if he hadn't been completing his 12th year and thus shouldn't he be stepping down rather than seeking re-election.

His answer: Well Ted Kennedy isn't stepping down. Yes, he said that.

So I responded (a little logic or education): Kennedy is in the Senate (which means that would be a two-term limit) and this is for the House. Kennedy is from Massachussets (not Florida - which was the subject matter of the discussion).

At that McCollum terminated the call. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 8, 2009 6:55 AM:

" This is a CURRENT scandal (impacting all in Florida). But GENERAL SILENCE in the press. And NO ACCOUNTABILITY (all three moving "up" in the political world).

Interesting, I didn't know that candidate was an economist. He has had no campaign activity to date, I have been wondering who some of these candidates were.

One candidate, who has been the most active as far as I can tell, is Michael E. Arth. I just learned of him, you should also take a look.

He is the antithesis of what we seen as the "vision" in Alachua. (And yes, his name really is E.Arth!!).

Take a look at his slum renovation work in Deland. He is willing to challenge the status quo, including the party elite (who have been trying to ensure that there is no intra-party competition and nominate Sink by the smoke-filled-room model). He has done what few dare do and filed rules violations (I did similarly with the DNC in 2004, but they INTEND on breaking the rules, and like in office, see the accountability-vacuum as LICENSE).

He is concerned about democracy, ethics and sustainability. I just now began looking at the alternatives. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 8, 2009 6:47 AM:

" That said, that on the crooked scale, relative to Smith he appears to be "a Saint" (but ain't), I'd be far more comfortable with him in the executive branch than Smith. McCollum knows there are limits (what those are is problematic) Smith does not.

Now for a REAL SCANDAL affecting Crist, McCollum and yes, Alex Sink. It has been only reported by the St. Pete Times and otherwise been kept a secret from most Floridians.

This is AIG, Bernie Maddof, Enron,(all the corporate abuses)all together but with the State Government directly involved.

Each of those three constitute the board of trustees of the SBA (State Board of Administration). It is charged with the State's savings (thus it has all the pension funds money,etc.).

Well, they too were gaming the Wall Street system, with unregulated investments - and lost a bundle.

There have been nearly 40 audits since 2000 and half during the C-M-S administration. They LOST about ONE THIRD of the State's savings (that means your pensions). They had notorious investments in real estate and with Lehman Brothers (went bankrupt). The three "froze" local govts and school boards from withdrawing their money (to safe places). "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 8, 2009 6:37 AM:

" Bill McCollum (Florida Blue Key President, 1968, Florida's own Tammany Hall/Good Ole Boy farm system and system).

One of his biggest campaigns in Congress was 12-year term limits. Of course 20 years after his first election to Congress (in 1980) his Congressional career came to an end (semi-voluntarily), 8-years beyond his 12-year plan.

What brought it to an end? His "leadership" on the efforts to impeach Clinton for his sexual (private) life. [A good example of how the only time "investigations" occur is for "political/partisan" purposes rather than the real ethical and criminal activities of public officials.]

McCollum's AG office recently, to their credit, appeared in a public records case against FSU (which the Courts upheld the law - in a rare moment recently, but then again Crist/McCollum are trying to ride that horse to the next level). This was a notorious area of abuse (UF as well) where the athletic associations are named "private" entities (and the Foundations - $$$) and self-declare their immunity from this law. McCollum's office, however, REFUSES to take any part in the Alachua Sunshine cases.

That said, on the crooked scale, he doesn't compare to Smith (the crook end). "

Fran wrote on Oct 7, 2009 11:37 PM:

" " Oh and Bill McCollum has experience 2001 as a bank lobbyist and, in congress he was involved in Bank over site and, you see where we are. NO THANKS. Please no more Bankers, Lawyers and, former or, aspiring lobbyist in our Government. " "

Fran wrote on Oct 7, 2009 11:26 PM:

" Sink/Smith. Bank of America/Lawyer. Try to say that without gagging. I'm no longer excited with the prospect of history being made with a woman. I'm more concerned about pension funds and, other concerning questions and discrepancies under Sinks current position. And, Smith? Well 200 words would only get me started. I'm no longer considering whom may champion my rights as a gay American or, voting my party line. A career politician will say anything to get further along. I've been reading about an Economist / Farid A. Khavari. Makes sense to me.I'm ready to support kicking the status quo to the curb. "

hello wrote on Oct 7, 2009 8:02 PM:

" "Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession."
George Washington

"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."
famous words of George Washington and very true "

hello wrote on Oct 7, 2009 7:54 PM:

" Wow. The sink hole widens. And the democratic machine rolls on. And I don't say that as a Republican. Corrupt politicians make me sick I don't care what party they are in. I'm positive too. I'm positive this will continue ad nauseum unless we vote all of them out. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 7, 2009 6:38 PM:

" But this is a very good example illustrating the problem - and the REASON that the City of Alachua GETS AWAY with "murder" (so to speak - and there have been allegations it has gone that far, by the way, serious enough to have gone as far as the FDLE - only to have them call Watson and Spencer Mann and ask them if it were true!!!!! That's right, the FDLE gets a "tip" (a pretty serious one, and from a pretty prominent person, a public official), and they call the accused to ask them if they are guilty, then when they say no, the matter is ended. What a system.

Those charged with enforcing the law - enable the criminals (or are the criminals). All in the name/game of "politics" (thus turning that into a four-letter-word.) "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 7, 2009 6:34 PM:

" Good one, "Sink-hole," I like that. Certainly appears to be the case.

As for "expectations." Sadly enough I DO expect different. I do expect more.

I expect ALL public officials to act as PUBLIC officials (public servants), to act ethically, and to act solely with an aim toward the common/public good.

And I treat all officials with the respect of expecting that - until they let me down.

Sadie, unfortunately, has been doing that for quite some time now. I am very disappointed.

I recall the first words she said to me at the Hippodrome the night she won her office were these:"We need to do something about Alachua."

Yes, we did (and still do).The first time she took a step in that direction, the Smith-gang took hold, and forced her to some kind of meeting in Tallahassee (with Jernigan, Watson and perhaps Smith).

Since then she has become one of their primary enablers. Typical, but disappointing.

So you are correct, I "know" not to "expect" different, but I still MAINTAIN THE EXPECTATION (and the subsequent disappointment, otherwise I would become too cynical and give up hope. I am actually an optimist.) "

hello wrote on Oct 7, 2009 6:26 PM:

" Honestly, Mr. G, did you really expect her to do anything other than what happened? The machine is self perpetuating. "

hello wrote on Oct 7, 2009 6:22 PM:

" I think the democrats are digging themselves a Sinkhole. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 7, 2009 5:32 PM:

" The new slogan: Sink Smith in 2010, Let's Put Rod in the Big House (not the State's "White House.") "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 7, 2009 5:18 PM:

" More troubling news on the Sink-Smith campaign (yes, that will be their sign material, and I think it is appropriate. [TELL SINK TO DROP ROD - before its too late].

Sheriff Sadie Darnell today endorsed Dan Aronberg for AG. In the process she commented on ENDORSING Rod Smith for Lt. Governor.

Rod said: "I have not made any announcement on this, but certainly when my friends are announcing their support fro other people, it can be assumed that most of them don't think I'm going to be running [for AG]."

Darnell said the following (and I quote): "I'm hoping he's [Smith] going to be the next Lieutenant Governor. Rod is somebody that needs to be in some key position for the state of Florida."

NO SADIE. Rod is somebody that your oath of office REQUIRES you to be investigating and charging with numerous crimes.

STOP PLAYING POLITICS AND BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER - the two are not compatable.

SINK Smith in 2010. Emphasis on the SINK. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 6, 2009 11:16 AM:

" Good one Fran,

Smith has a whole string of such inconsistencies (and real lies).

I will repost,in about a week, the statements Smith made about his involvement with the Watson contract (denying he wrote it) to a crowd of campaign supporters in Tampa during his failed bid for Governor last time.

I will also try and post his EXACT OPPOSITE public statement, at the Alachua City Commission, responding to direct questioning by me, when he wrote another contract for Watson trying to "nuance" the language in an effort to fool the courts and undermine the effort to have Watson's unlawful and undeserved benefits rescinded.

Luckily they were. And even though the City spent a fortune on legal fees(for a private matter for Watson which CONFLICTED with the City's interest),including for Rod Smith to represent him (paid for by the taxpayer), all of Smith's efforts to lie to the several courts have ended in failure and Watson WILL NOT be reinstated.

I will also post the transcript of Smith's most recent arguments to the Courts on behalf of Watson and will point out the plethora of actual lies he made to the Court as an attorney. "

hello wrote on Oct 6, 2009 11:06 AM:

" and NOW you see why I am afraid of the machine. So many times one party, which has a vested interest in the outcome, is so often investigating another party for wrong doing and because they want to control the outcome there is NO investigation or a bad one. Lets say for instance that she did want Mr. Smith for a running mate. Is she then going to investigate him and find him guilty of fraud. Not likely. Too much -way too much-of this goes on all over politics. "

hello wrote on Oct 6, 2009 11:03 AM:

" Thanks for qualifying your remarks about Republicans Mr. G. You almost hurt my feelings. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 6, 2009 11:00 AM:

" I believe it is also currently Alex Sink's job, as Chief Financial Officer, to investigate Smith's role, as well as the matter itself, in the City of Alachua's attempts (successful until I was finally successful in getting SOME State level action) to defraud the State's Pension fund and the Retirement System.

She needs people to make here aware of that issue and that responsibility. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 6, 2009 10:52 AM:

" I also think it is revealing and important to recognize the ASSOCIATION of Smith to certain other actors in the community - and who/where his true support actually lies (and why).

You are an ally and supporter of Smith - in association with the corruption of the City of Alachua. You are a notorious "extremist" right-wing Republican with no ethical standards or conscience. And your agenda is that of the development industry among others.

I don't think this is the base of support Alex Sink will need if she wants to run a successful campaign for Governor and I doubt her current support base would be comfortable with that association.

[Note: my statements are about you, and the "type" of Republican you represent, not about all Republicans or even the Republican Party (which depends on how one defines that entity).] "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 6, 2009 10:48 AM:

" Nice try Calderwood. You decided now to come out from under your rock(as an anonymous poster)and post in your name because you wanted to try and spin an "I gotcha" moment.

No, no LIE.I reported what I was told. Then I reported more details. The story is still ongoing in its development, is of great concern, and I have said what I have to say on it.

I admit when I am MISTAKEN(that is different from being "caught in a lie").And I was partially mistaken here, in that the information I was given, and that I relayed, was partially mistaken. I have also done all I can do to update and correct it.

The fact remains that Smith has higher aspirations. That there is an effort to get him on the ticket. And that the association of him being on the ticket was made at the Democrats' Lawton_Chiles_dinner(where I am sure you were not in attendance). Sink was there. It was made in association with her speech. And she made no efforts to downplay the association.

I think it is of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE that she is informed of Smith and his lack of home-support. "

To Fran wrote on Oct 6, 2009 10:48 AM:

" that was tooo funny! Keep up the good detective work!! "

Fran wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:51 AM:

" Rod Smith: "categorically opposed civil unions and gay adoption" 2000

Rod Smith: 2006 "long standing support for civil unions and gay adoption"?

One has to be a lie. Maybe you can tell me which one Mr. Calderwood. "

Fran wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:18 AM:

" Mr. Calderwood, I don't believe anyone called you. We follow you here and, have seen YOU here just to go after Charlie and, your not even significant enough for it to be for rebuttal. THAT is very pathologically messed up. Speaking of liars. What kind of man would claim to have "successfully prosecuted Danny Rollings when in fact he plead guilty.What kind of man is so self serving that he would take credit from the many law enforcement agencies that were the ones that deserve ALL and any credit? Your boy Rod Smith would. He is all over. No one knows what he will run for. Most likely the easiest one because, otherwise him getting in state government will be due to apathy only. Or attaching himself to someone with high integrity and that is Sink. And, he would do that even to take his chance at her expense. We don't want Wal Marts boys. GO away Hugh. Your a pathological bother. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Oct 6, 2009 8:18 AM:

" A friend called me this morning to tell me that Grapski was caught in another lie. Similar to the lie that the Interim City manager's contract was passed on the concent agenda. When will you people learn to ignore this pathological liar? "

Mmm...Mmm...Mmm wrote on Oct 6, 2009 7:26 AM:

" Isn't it cute how Chuckie does the back pedal dance when caught in a lie. "

hello wrote on Oct 6, 2009 1:15 AM:

" well I certainly don't know who was (is) chosen other than what I read here. Just pay attention because it seems that the party apparatus tends to self promote. they tend to rely on certain people to bring in the votes. Pay attention and voice opposition if you have some. If they dont listen vote for the other side! Good luck Mr. G with your hearing soon. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 5, 2009 8:38 PM:

" I see Tony Jones is now at the head of GPD. I think this is a step in the right direction. I hope his leadership will mean a new approach and a new vision for GPD. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 5, 2009 8:26 PM:

" I don't think the intention was to announce a choice at this time (too early). Unfortunately what I am now getting is a different version from people who were there (although a number of people were very concerned about the association made of Smith as Lt. Governor).

From what I am now piecing together it was something like this. Sink was introduced by Smith. Smith was introduced (by whom? I would guess Jon Reiskind). And apparently Smith was introduced as the next Lt. Governor, then introduced Sink. Sink did not dismiss the "rumor." I think it is essential that she hear the concerns before it becomes more than this. "

Fran wrote on Oct 5, 2009 8:00 PM:

" There is a link on her web site for a Gainesville.com article on the dinner but, it appears to have been removed / is unavailable. Anyone else able to open the article? This a a chance for history to be made. Disappointed it potentially will be ruined by this terrible rumored choice for Lt. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 5, 2009 6:56 PM:

" I also think it is essential for Sink to hear feedback from those who would have concerns about Rod Smith being on the ticket. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 5, 2009 6:52 PM:

" I stand corrected (although there now seems to be a lot of confusion on who said what). Now it is uncertain WHO actually introduced Smith. But what apparently WAS said was, in his introduction, that Smith was to be the next "Lt. Governor of Florida" with, at the very least, Alex Sink right there.

I am trying to get more information and further clarification. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 5, 2009 6:21 PM:

" One further point, related to the issue here of possible "back room" politics. The Florida Democratic Party does not even pretend to follow its rules (this trend started with the DNC four years ago wanting to decide the Kerry nomination without the actual primary process (the DNC deciding for the rank-and-file voters rather than the way the reforms were supposed to work).

In my inquiries into the Smith Lt. Governorship several factors stand out. First, recall that Smith threw his hat into the ring for Attorney General, and was prepared to make a fight of it, but the State party had other plans. Smith "gracefully" backed out. Normally this does not come for free.

Second, the State Party has tried to decide the nomination of Sink without the primaries and has been doing all it can to negate the rules for the nomination process. They have been seeking to keep challenging candidates out of the process (there are about 5 other Democrats registered).

One candidate I have learned, the aptly named Michael E. Arth from Deland, has filed a challenge within the party for rules violations. He has, however, I am told qualified for the televised debates. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 5, 2009 6:04 PM:

" Also, just a "critical" reflection on the "official" line as it doesn't sound plausible (although I would not say there was no possibility it happened that way).

But Sink was INTRODUCING Smith to the audience. This would mean that, in the midst of her Intro, someone in the audience stood up, interrupted her, and yelled that line (with no apparent word on the subject coming out of Sink's mouth).

I just don't see that series of events happening that way. Not impossible but not how such dinner speakers tend to be received.

And I don't believe it was just a random "voice" in the crowd at some point when Sink was not speaking either (another scenario that might fit the official story).

This is certainly very, very different from what was conveyed to me. (Not impossible, but it doesn't seem to fit). "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 5, 2009 5:59 PM:

" I wasn't there. The story conveyed to me was from someone who was there. It is not at all, from what I am currently being told, what Sink's people have conveyed to you. Two details are significantly different.

I do know that since this morning Sink has been getting a number of messages of concern coming from Smith's Alachua County/North Florida base.

It would be interesting to know what others "there" saw/heard. "

Ronald Dupont Jr. wrote on Oct 5, 2009 4:21 PM:

" Hello:
Maybe somebody knows differently but we called Alex Sink's office, and they said she never said that. They said that somebody stood up and said, "Wouldn't Smith make a nice lt. governor?" If anybody heard differently, let us know.
Ronald Dupont Jr.
Editor "

HELLO wrote on Oct 5, 2009 10:48 AM:

" Yes it is obvious that Mr. Watson must have NO political opinions at all-in my opinion. He just joins up with which ever party he thinks can propel him the farthest. This is a dangerous kind of politican. You can never count on them for anything except serving self interests. I know of other instances of people getting high risk retirement and never spending ONE MINUTE in a patrol car. Even in mayberry they know you can't be the mayor and the sheriff too. "

hello wrote on Oct 5, 2009 10:43 AM:

" For a long time the voters have been asleep at the switch. When that happens most politicans just conduct business as usual-aligning themselves with anyone who is part of the machine and can deliver the votes of the stooges. With everyone else asleep at the switch the drones go and pull the right lever (or punch the right chad or WHATEVER). She has chosen part of the machine and must believe that he is more powerful than YOU THE VOTERS. Once the machine is in place it is VERY DIFFICULT to get it off track. Just ask Mr. G. The key to this is mobiling those are are asleep and get them out to vote. "

Fran wrote on Oct 5, 2009 7:53 AM:

" 2006 Watson attacks the Democrats and switches parties. CODE RED and a Blog spot "the truth about Alachua" in which in my opinion shows how corrupt they are in the manner they went after you Charles. Oh and, paid for by Republicans. Now Watson switched party again and, is an officer for the Democratic Black Caucus. We all know about those that carry no loyalty except a self serving one. How they think he will carry any mission statement forward is crazy. Florida losses again. Rod Smith running makes me sick. Alex Sink just trashed her career. Running mates DO matter. What was she thinking? Or is it who took her political aspirations hostage? "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 11:36 PM:

" A break in the topic for the moment because there is some serious (and seriously bad) news for the State of Florida, and particularly the Democrats.

First, my prediction as of this moment, the next Governor will be Bill McCollum as much as that turns my stomach.

But second, my pledge, is that I will do everything I can to ensure the defeat of the Democrat Alex Sink (and pray for a third alternative to arise).

Sink did what I feared today and has chosen one of Florida's most CORRUPT and INAPPROPRIATE persons to be her running mate. Alachua's Rod Smith.

As much as I oppose Bill McCollum I could stomach his victory more than the advancement of a CRIMINAL into the executive branch of government.

Sink should be kicked in the head if she thinks that Smith is going to deliver North Florida to her and will be an electoral asset (her team's logic in the deal).

Just think of Smith's activities with Clovis Watson and the City of Alachua - and then watch him in action on October 28th at the law school.

Sad news. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 11:07 PM:

" Lord Preston:

if the public want these CCTV camerasand my ad hoc experience is that that is truewhat is the correct response that those of us in public life, not least the Government, should give? Should we say, "If it is what they want, then it is what they ought to have even though it is not backed by any evidence at all"? Or is it our duty to educate them and tell them that they are wrong? [...] I certainly believe that if all CCTV cameras do is reassure you when you should not regard them as doing so, then someone ought to say to you, "Why don't you think about it a little bit and realise that you are mistaken?". "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 11:06 PM:

" Doing a little research and some brief conversations with some friends across the pond I think I have identified the core issue that is likely associated with the BBC broadcast you referenced.

There has been a National CCTV Strategy adopted by the Labour Government (again, as I said, they retain the name - but are anything but what that party, and their rank-and-file, are associated with. Gordon Brown may have taken over but it is still Tony Blair's "New" (Americanized) Labour ... just a power-seeking entity.)

It has not been implemented although as I said there have been "experiments" and some localized expansions/abuses. It has a large number of people very, very worried and although the "industry" has done a lot to "sell" the idea, as over here, there are fundamental differences to UK society that I am concerned we don't have here any longer.

For example, the criticism of the UK being the "surveillance society" comes from a politician, a member of the House of Lords (Lord Preston), who has been central to this debate.

Take a look at his statement that I will post separately and think about if this were the US instead. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:55 PM:

" Here is a link to one of the major organization fighting the idea of spreading the CCTV presence in the UK.

http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/

They have been quite vocal and tend to have wide support.

There have been increases in some "expansion" tactics in local and small town areas where there is less publicity - but again it tends to come under heavy fire when it is exposed (and this tends to bring it under a greater degree of control). I believe one of the real issues has been the willingness to install traffic cameras which, as I said earlier, almost always get "expanded" to broader surveillance (and are a bad idea generally).

The public attention to this issue has perhaps given the impression that the fears are about current abuses rather than predicted future abuses.

But even among the police and government there are a number of STRONG OPPONENTS in the UK (again something you would not likely see here).

Here are two good BBC articles on the topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6673579.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm

What is going on there is a healthy debate on the subject. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:44 PM:

" The one caveat to my statement (and my experience) is that it was all pre-2001. Although England, and particularly London, have been no strangers to terrorism - I know that in the wake of 9/11 there were again increased efforts to renew the police/public CCTV installation ideas.

I suspect that there were a greater number of experimental deployments of these since then. But I know that the public criticism and reaction to the idea is generally unfavorable and the public tends to be very guarded about increasing police-state-type powers.

I'll ask my ex-girlfriend next time I talk with her about any recent changes.

I think the key point, however, is how in the UK (even without a written Bill of Rights or Constitution), the abuses of rights tend to be far less widespread as happens here.

This is not to say that there are not individual cases of abuse. My reference is to the more "subtle" (and thus more pervasive) generalization that goes on here and tends to grow without anyone noticing it until its HUGE (and then nearly impossible to curtail or eliminate). "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:38 PM:

" Fran,

I don't take any of it when given seriously as anything but constructive and contributions to the discourse.

I appreciate your points. I don't intend my points to be taken as anything but that as well. And I am more than willing to recognize when I am wrong.

I am not sure what the BBC documentary was about. The issue of CCTV has been a hot one in England for a long time. It was going when I was there particularly as that was when the rise of the private cameras was taking a role in many high profile cases.

In general most of the instances of the UK and the camera usage has been from private CCTV cameras. As I said, however, this does not mean that the government (no matter the party) is not often quick to try and hop on those bandwagons.

There have been attempts to institute them publicly on a wide scale but when I was there that had not happened and I don't think it has become that widespread to date. There have been experiments. But also a great deal of opposition widely in the public. "

Hey Dupont wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:16 PM:

" You should start a charge by the word site here. "

sockpuppet here wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:13 PM:

" I go away for awhile and look what happens. Chuckie you are unbelievable. Must assemble the troll team and get back to work. Be prepared. "

helloq wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:09 PM:

" in today's world in HS or Gainesville or almost all places a cop cannot survive without the car. It carries tons of supplies, tools, weapons, ammo, communications equipment, non lethal weapons, medical items, and a safe containment for an arrestee. Unfortunatley there is no way to revert to the foot patrol other than leaving the car to chat with local opne busiess owners or check door at night. the vehicle can itself sometimes provide protection for the officer...I urge everyone that can to ride along with deputies at the sheriff's office and HSPD if they allow. Knowledge of what they do will empower you to make good decisions. CG has some very wise ideas about how to overhaul the pay system. there is currently an ongoing investigation of sorts that will hopefully solve the dilema about the chief. There are both good and bad points to kepping your dept. or letting it go and haveing the so take over. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:46 PM:

" Actually Charles I got my camera info from a documentary from the BBC and, the cameras were police. Not private. And, it was not a propaganda piece to promote cameras here as you suggest. I've been abroad too:) You have some very good points but, way too many for instances about so and so that you have slights with that have nothing to do with High Springs and our CURRENT police issues. I hope you take this as a friendly suggestion or however you have said similar before. Have a great week. "

Observant wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:31 PM:

" Ha! I think you are really out of touch with the obvious and what the rest of us here see from the posts and the behavior of the posters. That you don't seem to get it is the real concern. There have been such great discussions but for some reason you can't resist the urge to return to your obsession.

Seriously the point about the deputies and how many are in the unicorporated area or Newberry at any time is accurate. "

hehehe wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:15 PM:

" It should be obvious to everyone that Chuckie has NPD. The question is does he answer himself on these boards or are there enablers who feed into his NPD? Ask yourself, is this person crying out for desperate attention to satisfy something missing in his life? Is he hoping for a bigger stage to vent this pent up negativity. He has been relegated to this small town paper's online web page that has such a small audience. Certainly beneath his aspirations. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:11 PM:

" The Sheriff's office is responsible for county-wide law enforcement. Even in municipalities with their own police forces.

Now, for example, with Gainesville this really becomes an irrational system. First the centrality of Gainesville to the County and to the Sheriff's office; then with the size of the GPD and the "overlap" with ACSO. The paying twice for the same service.

Then comes the disparities with regard to the outlying regions, particularly the unincorporated areas.

Then of course you have Oelrich's boondoggle and abuses with overriding the COunty Commission and its budget (a power only existing because of the Constitutional vs. Charter nature of the office), which - although he made it an art - transfers, by the nature of these bureaucratic growth tendencies, to anyone who becomes Sheriff (including presently).

But remember that Oelrich based his arguments for the bigger budgets on his county-wide "responsibility," arguing it didn't matter what GPD had, he was responsible for patrolling the same area.

And then there is the related issue of Gainesville residents paying twice for police services.

Its a real nightmare currently and very irrational. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:05 PM:

" As such there are FAR FEWER invasions of privacy and liberties than here - which seems ironic and counter-intuitive (although it is exactly what James Madison feared when the Bill of Rights issue came up in association with ratification of the Constitution - the eventual/inevitable misunderstanding of rights in general and the misperception of what the Bill of Rights actually was (as if it were a limiting document)).

There would be chaos in the streets in England if the "state" expanded its Big Brother powers. Not that governments, including Blair's Labour government (again ironic - except that Blair turned it into merely a "professional" (not principled) party on the American model), haven't made the proposals.

But the public reactions/receptions have always been swift and forceful. Just think of the poll tax riots in Thatcher's 70's.

On the point of the response time. You are certainly correct on your point. I don't think the point raised was meant to challenge that.

But the poster is correct, under our current ACSO-local system, that the number of "assigned" deputies does not equate to faster responses and is not a guarantee that the particular deputy is in that area. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:00 PM:

" Fran,

I know the issue of cameras in London/England has gotten a lot of press here in the U.S. - particularly by the "interests"/lobby to get them here.

But there is a general misperception of the cameras in England.

Those are PRIVATE CCTV cameras NOT police surveillance.

What happens is that when a particular crime is committed, the police tend to go to local businesses, and obtain the footage from their private security cameras which are aimed at the business frontage itself. From that they have often been quite successful in identifying crimes and criminals (or even in finding someone's innocence).

There is a fine line and a real debate. One thing about England though, they have no written Constitution and no written Bill of Rights, YET if the police attempted to MISUSE these cameras (even if the police obtained them - although I am not here speaking of traffic cameras [which also notoriously get promoted for traffic control and get "transformed" into Big Brother]) what is different than in the US is that the people actually DEFEND (VERY STRONGLY) their rights. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:31 PM:

" Again, a good ratio does not equal a good response time. Everyone knowing what they are responsible for and, actually making the best of a shift with the staff on duty does and, in reality not just theory covering the area. If your bunched together playing rambo at concerts for example or, just gathered to visit on the corner with each other then that can only mean an area is not covered while another feels intimidated. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:22 PM:

" Don't forget London has cameras everywhere. It is as bad as being "tailed" for no reason by a cruiser. I wonder how much of our force actually has a walking beat. Bikes even. Some Large cities have less than 2 police per population. Ours is too large for what gets done. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:00 PM:

" One more point, from experience, having lived in another country. It was England and I lived in a BIG CITY(London).

One thing that I noticed, beyond the fact that the typical officer is not "armed" AND tends to be "respected" (even by those breaking a law!!) is that I never "felt" a police presence. Even police officers I know don't like that feeling in their private lives. Whereas here it is nearly inescapable unless one is secluded in the privacy of one's own home. Police seem to be EVERYWHERE. (Yet this does not result in less crime, another fact about England and London - was I never, EVER, felt unsafe and there was very LITTLE crime relative to, say, even HS or Alachua).

When police WERE around, they tended to be "on the beat/street." They didn't look at the public as if they were potential suspects and were affable, approachable, and well-demeanored at all times.

SELDOM did one see a police car "patrolling."

Most of the time you did not have any awareness of police presence.

BUT I can assure you, when needed, they appeared as if out of nowhere (and at times HEAVILY armed). "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:46 PM:

" Not sure if the "it prioritizes" was clear. The "it" being the fact of the car-based design. That fact has effects in and of itself which tend to create "priorities" which might not be the rational or desirable priorities. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:44 PM:

" One point on the car point just raised.

First, I do not advocate eliminating ALL cars. Of course not.

But the reason the car has become the office is not in the nature of policing but in the way we have structured or police forces and the way we have prioritized them (and the way "it" prioritizes as well).

But there should be less LARGE stations (like the boondoggle built in Alachua (not that the old station was acceptable as it was)) and more small, locally based, "offices."

We also need to take all of this into consideration when we allow these commissions to "permit" how things "grow." DESIGNING a community cannot happen in this current "haphazard" (from a community-design standard - it is actually dictated by what is the way to squeeze the most profit out of a resource (and also squeezes it dry - eliminating all of its value which is then taken away)).

This is why I say its not as easy an answer as just get rid of the municipal force or just have one sheriff. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:39 PM:

" That said, one last point: We have grown too DEPENDENT upon law enforcement/police powers as a nation. We have had a tendency to increase powers while reducing rights and liberties. (This benefits neither the people nor the (honest) police officers). We have weak-minded and weak-willed politicians that jump first to "make a law" to "prohibit" something, to "make it a crime," to "impose a penalty." As such we have STOPPED learning to live with each other, and as a result there is MORE CRIME and CRIMINALITY not less.

We need to redesign our local law enforcement structure but also to rethink more generally the role and powers of police and "the state."

We need to take more responsibility for our lives as individuals and communities and stop the knee-jerk, "easy" quick fix, of making a law and giving the power to arrest, jail, fine, etc.

A "good" community NEEDS less police "FORCE." And "good" police (treated as and expected to be "professional" in the sense of a "profession") need less power, less "men," less "equiptment"(like APCs),etc.

To answer the original question:HS as elsewhere has too much; but its not as simple as just use the sheriff. "

Hello wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:37 PM:

" I have read everyone's comments with great interest. Great points have been made. Just don't forget these few things. A police officer's car is his/her office. Due to lots of things I won't go into here the current cop is required to carry a TON of equipment which needs to be at his immediate disposal. Hence the need for patrolling by car. And yes-I believe more cops in town does equal a much faster response time but don't forget response time is determined by 1) the high or low priority of the call 2) the amount of other calls holding 3) the driving distance to the call. You might find that having a deputy assigned to the city does not mean the deputy is in the city 24/7. Check into this. And CG is absolutely right. Two law enforcement jobs being fairly equal the applicant will go with the higher paying job-thats just common sense. It is great that everyone is getting involved now. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:31 PM:

" 9) Which brings back a "universal" scope benefit - that much of the equiptment is REDUNDANT. Furthermore one purchaser has more power to use limited financial resources more efficiently as well as effectively than multiple independent actors. This is particularly true with regard to agencies getting caught up in the bureaucratic/power growth/expansion game - and while local control tends to more accountability in most areas, this is one area where there are accountability benefits for the consolidated aspect.

10) Communication & Cooperation - another "universal" aspect that benefits from a more consolidated entity.

So there are benefits to both possible forms of agency. What I would argue is ideal would be a consolidated force, under the sheriff (placed under the Charter and appointed by the County Commission with strong public oversight/accountability mechanisms), with a general administration county-wide. BUT with regional sub-divisions, with local control (additional mechanisms linked to the local municipalities and populations), and with a RANGE (within the universal scope - and "fitting" with it) of local autonomy ... so as to ensure that the particulars do not get overlooked/lost in the generalization and the particular actors are linked more directly to the people themselves. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:25 PM:

" However, given that important aspect of local-based (municipal level), there is another fundamental benefit to the general/universal based (county level). [First we already have it, can't get rid of it, and thus HAVE to pay for it ... its already there from the start so that isn't even an option to do away with.]

Services that are universal (the same need everywhere) are naturally best administered universally. Thus law-enforcement, from the general sense, would be best consolidated into one county-wide entity.

But with the competing issue, above, that local (particular) agencies are closer to the people, more responsive, more informed, more accountable, and "fit" those aspects of a particular sub-community that are not uniform across the county (general).

OK, put that aside for a moment, and let me move to

8) Back to the question on appropriate size. 20 beat cops might be good in a well-run, highly professional municipal area the size of HS. 20 officers, under the current "scheme," is OVERKILL. Look to Alachua to see "the police business gone wild." Particularly when you add the equiptment costs. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:17 PM:

" That would enable the taming of that overgrown agency and growth/money hog. (It is the largest portion of the County budget and grows incredibly every year).

It would also enable more accountability to the citizens and thus a better department and better law enforcement.

It would also be necessary to really begin to incorporate this agency with local municipalities.

6) To elect or not to elect. It is highly unwise to elect offices which require particular "skills" or "expertise" to properly fulfill. It is naive to think that this is "democratic" (electing them) or required for democracy and it is a fiction that this makes the office more accountable to the people. In fact it tends to politicize the office and thus the department (and thus law enforcement) and despite the official/technical "non-partisan" nature of the elections these offices then become part of the party-game and their business gets conflated with party-gamesmanship. This also needs to be addressed at the Sheriff level.

7) Local vs. Consolidated. This is a big topic. First,in general, the CLOSER the entity to the people it serves, THE BETTER. More accountable, more known, more connected, more informed (both ways), more controllable,... "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:09 PM:

" A good example of the ridiculousness that comes from the last is Gainesville several years ago requesting/getting APCs (Armored Personnel Carriers), helicopters, etc. This was treating a police department like a domestic military force and is a VERY BAD IDEA.

5) Should we have local police departments, just the sheriff, or both?

Many issues here: First (A) we must recognize that Florida law requires the existence of a Sheriff. That is not an option. It is mandated that each county will have one. (B) What is an option, and what Alachua County has been remiss in not taking action upon, is converting the Constitutional-officer with a Charter-officer. The former is a vestige of when counties were really not highly organized entities. The Constitutional officer requirement is in order to ensure that there are county-based agents (in several categories i.e. elections, taxes, property) that will be "linked" to the State mechanisms. But the Constitution provides that a County, once organized (having a modern charter), can convert this to an office under the County Government overseen by the County Commission and directly accountable to the County's residents.

The recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Cmte was to convert. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:02 PM:

" Here is what I would say with regard to the points raised at 4:18 (before our troll returned):

1) With regard to cameras. I oppose them, period, as not only a giant waste of money but as well both unnecessary, just waiting to be abused (and more so over time - as it becomes a "norm"), and thus a real threat to privacy and liberty. Good policing doesn't need this kind of Big Brother surveillance and it conflicts with the basic tenets of America and American life.

2) A focus on a higher quality (which can be achieved with better pay for officers and public accountability) will lead to the need for LESS officers to do the same job.

3) Police officers, today, tend to be car-based rather than community-based (beat cops), tend to have their departments assign them to the wrong tasks (wrong priorities), and tend to encourage the assumption of guilt. A force should be based upon the need to have officers "on the street corner" not "riding the streets."

4) Bad public administration/policy tends to have "agencies" with a "growth" focus. Thus more, more, more. More officers, cars, equiptment, powers, etc. Irrational/undesirable. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 6:53 PM:

" well, I was accused of hiccups and there you have them in my last post and, while I own error in spelling, I have no clue how the other happened:) "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 6:37 PM:

" A good Police ratio per population does not equate better response time or protection and, ours appears to be overly inflated. A good ratio also does not define a good department and, ours is a mess. Though it can always speak to budget issues and, hopefully it is a consideration in the present economic climate.. High Springs needs its own department but, city leadership can not allow unions and underlings to run the show. Support the choice for chief made and, lets get on with it. His resume was all over and, I believe the paper covered him and, there was public forum. I no longer believe the survey reflects any sincere concern for this city. Big changes for the good have have been implimented and, it appears to require some to actually have to work now. That is what the whine appears to be . It reminds me of a bunch of old dogs marking the same spot spot. That kind of contest where no one wins. "

hehehe wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:44 PM:

" 103- I can't keep ahaed of the MAN! "

hehehe wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:43 PM:

" Folks we have a new record. 100 I and me and it is only 4:16. Chuckie is on a roll and Los Vegas is only giving even odds that he will set a NEW WORLD RECORD! "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:39 PM:

" I do have some points I would raise in response to that excellent point but I will hold them until later to give others the opportunity to reflect on it and the rest. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:31 PM:

" That is a VERY VALID point and position. "

and digest this wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:18 PM:

" I agree with your last post completely.
The question I think this town is dealing with is the size or need for a PD. Do we need 8 officers and a Chief. 20 officers, two Chiefs, 5 dogs, cameras and more. Or should this town be like Newberry and have the county in charge. Remember our population is just around 4000. More questions than this one issue of a contract for compensation. But thanks for your concern and support. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:16 PM:

" GENERAL PROPOSAL

1) Determine the national average for police pay.
2) Compare your local to the national. Then declare that as a matter of policy your City will take the lead and pay far more.
3) Set the salary at a "professional" level.
4) Establish (and be proud) the HIGHEST standards.
5) Have PUBLIC-based accountability/enforcement mechanisms.
6) Find the means to pay that amount (and and actually hold to that standard on both ends).

You cannot wait for the national rates to go up first, because they won't, and will never reach sufficiency/appropriateness through gradualism, because the historical root is established too low.

Thus for it to change ANYWHERE it has to change in one place first (setting a new norm). A leader would take that step.

It cannot be achieved without that kind of commitment (and leadership).

Furthermore, despite the budget issues of all public entities, whenever an item is deemed "politically" necessary it always miraculously finds the money to pay for it.

Thus you have to MAKE THIS a public policy and public commitment, to take the lead and establish a new norm, in order for it to happen. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:09 PM:

" Now for my last offer here for people to digest I will do as Fran requested but summarize my earlier post.

I believe in GOOD policing. I do not believe in OVER policing (expanding the powers of the State) or MIS-policing (abusing the very serious powers/responsibilities given to officers).

I believe you "get what you pay for". I believe police officers (and other public servants such as fire and teachers) should be treated as PROFESSIONS. I believe that they should be PAID thus AS professions. I believe that they should be EXPECTED to be of the HIGHEST standard and HELD ACCOUNTABLE as such. I believe it should be the PUBLIC that holds them such.

I also state that the "norm" in America is to pay these professions less-than-professionally (and that is true disrespect) because it is "the norm" and they can. I also believe it will not change without real POLITICAL LEADERSHIP. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:02 PM:

" I will also go on record regarding my "positions" with regard to the issues pertaining HSPD.

1) I do not know the "merits" of their complaint regarding the Chief. What I DO know, however, suggests that this problem was predictable and could/should have been avoided. I make no claims to know what good/bad Troiano is doing or attempting to do within the department. I do know that he was demoted and then left the ACSO based upon being deemed, by that agency, to be unfit for leadership position. I take no position on the validity of that point other than to raise the issue that it should have been a BIG_ISSUE in hiring him and openly discussed rather than overlooked. I also know that when 12 officers, 75% of the department, and 100% of those surveyed (whether a valid survey or not),state they want him removed there is a PROBLEM of a very serious nature.

2) I do not know the issues, grievances, or proposals of detail in this contract. I make no statement that one side is right or wrong. I do state that NATIONWIDE police officers are underpaid and agencies lack proper public accountability. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 3:54 PM:

" Now let me relate a non-APD encounter with the local FOP.

When I was working on the issue of a citizens review board for Gainesville I participated in several of the Public Safety Committee meetings.

Initially the FOP was "represented" by two, what I can only say looked like "thugs" (and were reminiscent of my days in NY), who really had no EXPERTISE to offer at the table. So why were they chosen to be there?

The two of them lied, consistently and continuously, about the laws and other matters of that nature in those meetings. Unfortunately they were not prepared for my involvement, as I came in mid-way, having just come back from London.

I thoroughly challenged all of their claims and the union later had to bring a "lawyer" in to try and salvage what they did. He too attempted to "mislead" but was not willing to outright lie as the others had (and so had to concede to the points when I put them back on the table to counter his claims).

This hardly represented police officers in a good light and did not speak well for the union leadership. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 3:48 PM:

" You are welcome to forward any of my posts to anyone including the president of the FOP.

I think the president of the FOP, and the membership, should be VERY CONCERNED about the experiences that I relate here.

For example, can you "justify" (from the "interests" of honest law enforcement officers) Jeff McAdams' public statements (and written ones) and actions on behalf of Clovis Watson and Rod Smith (who I believe used to be the legal representative for the FOP - another unethical actor associated therewith) to USE the State's retirement system as a way to fraudulently get money to "pay off" Watson for his "political loyalty," how he could justify Watson getting "special risk benefits" as a City Manager and on a City Manager's salary (and with the fraud in reporting the amount), and with having the the APD and the City (including its new Manager) fraudulently report to the FDLE that Watson was NOT City Manager but a "full time law enforcement officer" in order to carry out the fraud?

If the President finds this representative of his union and the interests of its members then there is a real problem. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 3:43 PM:

" I also want to go back to "Holly's" original post, as upon reflection, I think I may not have gotten one point that had more merit than I at first thought.

This was about the "spin" comment. I still maintain that "Holly" misunderstood the point of the person who posted that (one of the problems with the anonymity factor is it was unclear whether the two were the same, I don't think they were). This was an ATTACK on the Herald, plain and simple, and it was by a notorious poster here.

"Holly" stated that they didn't think it was in reference to "pay" but to the fact that the Commission voted and later learned about the Union vote.

I pointed out that the pay issue was never raised here in reference to the spin comment.

But,with this further discussion, I think I now see the point "Holly" was trying to make. That they speculated that the post was a reference to how the Herald "might spin" that discrepancy. I don't think they would.

But I didn't get that point from the post until now. I apologize if that poster took offense at my retort. "

oh really wrote on Oct 4, 2009 3:38 PM:

" would you mind forwarding that last post to:

president@floridastatefop.org "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 3:15 PM:

" I will also say this. I think is speaks volumes of High Springs and their Department that they choose to be represented by the PBA rather than the FOP.

In my numerous dealings with the FOP I have had nothing but awful experiences of dishonesty, back-room dealings, (what appeared to be NY/NJ mob representatives (and I am half Italian and from NY), misrepresentations of fact, representation of interests other than that of either the officers or the community, and primary political machinations.

I think the example of the FOP's activities and statements, particularly of the well-known political actor Jeff McAdams, in the City of Alachua speak volumes for the DIFFERENCES in how the HS experience and the activities of its PBA (however much criticized) compare to that in other parts of the County.

In my experiences with the FOP the very kind of back-room deals and behind the scenes "agreements" to "fix" votes of Commissions is the norm. Perhaps the mistake here was ASSUMING the same applied here and with this union. My hats off to the officers of HS for sticking to their guns (so to speak). "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 2:59 PM:

" Let me also say the following to clarify before anyone tries to twist my words.

I have taken no position on any member of the HS_Commission or the City Manager or the voting members of the PBA.

My point is that while certain elements of the collective bargaining process are exempt from Florida's open meetings laws - there is a reason for only taking a FORMAL/OFFICIAL vote of any REPRESENTATIVE BODY, rather than the "word" (given behind closed doors) of any one or particular member(s) of an organization, as an OFFICIAL "agreement."

It is very problematic that the City would have gone ahead without having FIRST received the FORMAL action of the Union endorsing the proposal, rather than assuming it, and all too often it is such assumption-based-votes that serve to pressure the voting members and undermine the democratic procedures that are supposed to be guaranteed.

Back room chit-chat and "deal-making" are not the basis of good policy making nor ethical governance.

I don't know how or who was mislead at the City level. But I would, in general matters of this nature, have suspicions and would start with the aberrant vote as a clue. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 2:47 PM:

" The question on the agreement and contract are good ones though and will, I assume, become clearer when a full story is written.

From this brief it appears that the City Manager and the Commission went and voted WITHOUT an actual (formal) agreement and were assuming that one existed.

This is always a mistake and is very problematic.

What the article also says is that the Manager LATER (after the Commission vote) learned that an OFFICIAL VOTE was taken (the only "agreement" that can be considered such) and overwhelmingly rejected it.

If I were to speculate I would say that this is an example of typical politics (back room deals) that didn't pan out as expected. It appears that a "deal" was made, behind the scenes, with certain INDIVIDUALS who promised to "deliver" their organization (and the votes).

I am not saying this is a fact, but in such circumstances, I would first look to the ONE vote from the union as a clue to who may have been negotiating with officials operating outside of the Sunshine and in violation of Florida's laws. Laws meant to prevent these very "confusions." "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 2:38 PM:

" Fran, that was quoting me. It was a reference to the first two posts on this thread calling the officers "comedy central" and "keystone cops" and saying they were "unprofessional" and should be fired because they use their strength in collective bargaining through their union. "

Observant wrote on Oct 4, 2009 2:38 PM:

" He doesn't appear to just try and make fun of people from what I see. But he also doesn't waste the opprtunities you give him to demonstrate the stupidity of your posts. You intended on making a fool out of yourself just like you intended getting caught last week lying about how many years you were married and the week before about being a truck driving woman.

I agree with his portrayal of you as a dummy and his pleas to let us get back to the serious issues we would like to discuss without your endless nonsense postings. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 2:22 PM:

" How are they being attacked for exercising a collective bargaining right? Also, was there actually an agreement and, then a change of heart and, refusal of the contract? "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:59 PM:

" He is a professor. That is what they do. Anyone with any inspiration to be a better communicator person would appreciate the fact he does. I do:) "

the monitor wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:58 PM:

" Can we now get back to the issue of the police officers, their contract, their compensation, and their being attacked for exercising their collective bargaining rights in an effort to seek fairness and equity in compensation? " "

to Charles and all wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:52 PM:

" I put write in place of right to see if you wood do what you just did. I encourage all others to do the same thing from time to time. He can't stop himself. Right? "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:46 PM:

" Yes Fran (and indeed that "moment" in AARP history may be the confusion point), the AARP "leadership" made a major blunder a few years back when it became used, for a brief period, for the pharamaceutical industry lobby in one of its many efforts to prevent real health care reform, and real affordable health care, and to continue and its government subsidization.

I believe it was at that point in time that the 40+ measure was adopted.

There was a widespread revolt among members of the AARP at the time and there were alternative organizations started.

I believe that in the backlash the organization regained control over the leadership and has righted many of those wrongs. It may not have continued the 40+ campaign at that point but I am not sure. Or that might have been part of the things that were done in the wake of the damage of that fiasco. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:37 PM:

" Are we shocked that there are attempts to insult by making ageist remarks? I quit contemplating joining AARP when United Health Care was being looked at for mis conduct and, some illegal doings. Even though I think I read they made it right. You would think there would be a better group insurance discount with them being such a large organization. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:35 PM:

" Also, you may be "writing" ("I am write" - which is not grammatical) but you are "wrong" (not "right").

Can we now get back to the issue of the police officers, their contract, their compensation, and their being attacked for exercising their collective bargaining rights in an effort to seek fairness and equity in compensation? "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:32 PM:

" Thanks for admitting that you are one and the same person under many pseudonyms.

I didn't get "my jab" at the person "writing" the 50, I think you meant the person who was "quoted" (in writing) in the article.

It wasn't meant as a jab. It was merely meant to point out that the AARP, several years ago (I believe in an effort to "grow" their membership in the future - and thus strengthen their organization's lobbying power), opened itself up, quite consciously, to communicating directly to those in their forties. As I had just posted before your attempts at "spin" were posted. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:31 PM:

" I just said I know Sheriff Darnel will be in town and, that I am going to personally bring to her attention the FACT someone is claiming to be a witness to a hate crime. That does not necessarily make me a senior. I just want you to be sure whom you are threatening. I'll have on a pink ribbon just for you. And, BTW, I am OUT and, really FRAN in my community you coward. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:28 PM:

" Just to be accurate (I began receiving their literature in the mail when I turned 40) I am not certain about all the criteria or classes of AARP membership.

I understand that 50 is still the membership (regular member I guess) age-criterion. But, for example, I believe they opened their insurance opportunities up to the 40+ crowd. I think in part to encourage further membership growth in addition to a larger insurance pool. "

to charles again wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:28 PM:

" But you did get your jab (I am write and they might be wrong) at the person inviting 50 and over people. "

to Charles wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:25 PM:

" you are fast, your post beat mine. "

to Charles wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:24 PM:

" Read this paste from the AARP article:

"The meeting is open to anyone over 50 years old. The meeting will include the election of officers for the new year and will conclude with a covered dish luncheon."

Not 45. But you will probably have an answer that proves "I am right" (another I or me) and the AARP person that wrote it is wrong or stupid. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:24 PM:

" Yes the anonymous trolls are in force (just ignore them, they can't help it) today. I think they have a phone tree.

Also note that the article you derived that information from says that the meeting is open to anyone over 50. (Although I wonder if they realize the AARP has broadened its membership criteria?). And that it is designed for anyone over 50.

I didn't realize that "retired" and "senior" were synonymous (its the aaRp not aaSp) nor that being 50 or over (or 40 or over) placed one in the senior citizen category. "

wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:19 PM:

" Does Fran have a mullet? "

to Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:19 PM:

" And why are you posting the hate crime issue on the police contract issue. oops. Another senior moment? "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:19 PM:

" Wow was that a threat!? I think Fran has hardly fallen into the category of pretending to be anybody but Fran. By the way the AARP, many years ago, incorporated forty-year olds into their membership. I doubt Fran will shy away from communicating with the Sheriff as she stated because of your veiled threat. Maybe you will reveal yourself though? "

to Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:14 PM:

" Understand that Sadie is coming to AARP meeting. Look forward to being there when you hand that to her. Must be a senior then, hey...everyone please come and join her as the real Fran is revealed. "

Yes wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:05 PM:

" Yes we all know your Sesame Street broacast has been brought to us by the number 13 and the letter "A".

Now can you let the adults have their forum back. We have adult things to talk about.

I also found Charles's suggestions with reading and hope they haven't been overlooked because of the "little ones" in the room. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:05 PM:

" hehehe, I copied the whole thread where someone claimed to be a witness to the hate crime referenced in an article in the herald. Shefiff Darnell will be in High Springs this Thursday and, I will be giving her a copy of it. I'm just saying. "

Have you wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:01 PM:

" To crime solved wrote on Oct 4, 2009 12:46 PM:
" Have you come forward as a witness for the investigation? "

" Crime Solved wrote on Oct 3, 2009 5:48 PM:
" I was there... " "

hehehe wrote on Oct 4, 2009 12:45 PM:

" Thirteen "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 12:44 PM:

" Charles, I tired to paste your "Here is what I would propose" comments but, it kept rejecting as being over the word count. I really liked them and, they are worth a re post. Excellent thoughts on your part. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 11:47 AM:

" Fran it is indeed frightening to learn that there are medical and legal "professionals" (that's the point - these people are not at all professional but are abusing such positions) who are really just political (in the negative connotation of that word) actors and are willing to toss all of their professional ethics out the window to get ahead.

DSM is the Diagnostic Statistic Manual and ICD is the International Classification of Diseases.

I think the poster below hit the nail on the head though that if a serious diagnosis were made it would be these anonymous posts that would fall into the "disease" or "disorder" category.

I also agree that what is even more frightening is that this individual (or these few individuals) are very much associated with our state and local government. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:55 AM:

" I had to Google to see if in fact those were actual manuals hehehe was referring to and, was SHOCKED. He obviously has knowledge in some manner. Maybe it is a cry for help? "

Psicko catcher wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:26 AM:

" Fran the only things those diagnostics manuals would support are diagnoses of these anonymous posters. Reading through the posts they tend to support homophobic violence and other antisocial behavior, shows signs of delusion, show an inability to remain focused on the task at hand (the topic of the thread), tend to infantile behavior, and seem to reveal obsessive behavior as the only posts that attempt to turn the discussion off topic and onto Mr. Grapski. I would be very concerned if I had any reason to believe this individual, as it appears they all derive from the same individual, were a medical professional. What does concern me is the association of this individual with a government entity. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:21 AM:

" There is also that matter of professional ethics. If in fact you are a professional. Obviously you are not. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 10:14 AM:

" hehehe wrote on Oct 3, 2009 10:20 PM:
" If someone were to peruse the ICD and DSM manuals how many times would Chuckie fit a definition with 89 references to himself? More work for me. "

More work as in harassing here or, more work meaning you are a medical professional? Do you realize you have crossed more than just decency boundaries? If someone here did have some type of condition and, you intentionally attack it is a hate crime. "

good morning wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:31 AM:

" whats up. see you all get up early.. "

HA HA HA wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:30 AM:

" Alert to Dupont!!!!! Need to set up another server!!! Chuckie states, and I quote: "I received an email this morning asking me to post a synopsis of my posts...". Server will crash cause we all know Chuckie's synopsis will be oh, let's see maybe 204 "me's", 189 "my's" and 312 "I's". Let 'er roll! "

hehehe wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:22 AM:

" Up to eleven and it is only 8:39! "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:39 AM:

" That was meant to be "no" basis below with reference to the allegation of spin. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:21 AM:

" As you can see my point is again amply demonstrated. Unfortunately these childish actors are "empowered" (more in their own minds - as long as readers do not allow their posts to discourage further reading and participation in a discussion) by the shield of anonymity which prevents direct accountability and association to the actual person making the posts (often persons of high public profile and holding public positions).

Please ignore the "trolls" as the previous poster suggested and I encourage you to read this story critically, read the posts critically (and ignore the childish troll posts), and think about the issue and/or contribute to the discussion in a civil and adult manner. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:18 AM:

" Now back to the story:

The comments started out with a partisan of the group who opposes the police officers and the efforts of their union to address their serious and valid contractual concerns regarding adequate compensation, etc.. Those anonymous posters also attacked the Herald claiming that it would "spin" this story (presumably in favor of the officers and their union activities). This was followed up by a poster (perhaps the same one, but clearly associated) who outright attacked the officers calling them "unprofessional" because of their exercise of their rights at collective bargaining and their concerns over the fairness/justness of their compensation.

I posted that (1) there was basis to accuse the Herald of "spin." (2) These posters are also those who are regularly here screaming that officers "put their lives on the line" whenever there is a critical comment on a particular abuse. (3) That this is hypocrisy, mere rhetorical use to win arguments, and indicates they actually do not have any care for the officers themselves. (4) I then offered a suggestion of how to approach this issue in general.

This led to the barrage of childish posts. "

hehehe wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:17 AM:

" Make that eight, Whew, I need to get some substance to keep me going. "

hehehe wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:14 AM:

" Seven I and me by 8 AM. An average start to Chuckie's day. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:12 AM:

" Let me also add that while these attempts at trying to "label" me as having a psychological disorder are not new (and are foundationless) I do agree that IF one of these posters actually WERE to be a psychological professional, or were being "coached" by one, that this would be of extreme concern to the community as it would indeed constitute a professional/ethical abuse and would indicate that there are one or more persons practicing in the community who are unable to separate their professional and private lives and particularly their political views, agenda, or activities from their medical activities and that this would be of extreme significance to "root out," expose, and eliminate. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:09 AM:

" I received an email this morning asking me to post a synopsis of my posts on particular articles that have generated the numbers of other comments.

The person suggested a theory as to why there are so many useless anonymous posts. That theory was that 1) the goal of the posters was to try and "bury" the actual posts of merit/substance at the bottom of the page on the theory that many readers will not bother to go to the bottom; and 2) the purpose of trying to distort what I have said and give the impression that the posts are "all about me" is to further discourage a reader from reading to the bottom and getting to those posts and their substance.

The objective, to summarize it, was to prevent/discourage people from seeing the truth by blinding them with fiction.

This makes a great deal of sense and I will do as that person suggested. I also agree that a good way to deal with these childish behaviors is to identify them as "trolls"(a blogging term)and to encourage people to ignore them.

I thank all those thoughtful readers and posters who seek a meaningful discussion. "

Observant wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:09 AM:

" I also agree with the recent posts on the abuses of anonimity. I believe Mr. Dupont that when a poster here claims to reveal themselves as being bound by legal, professional and ethical obligations that their posts would constitute a violation of that you have an obligation to investigate the matter, report it to the proper authorities, and sanction that individual by revealing their identity and revoking the cloak of anonimty via your posting of the abuser's ip address for the public to see. Violation of medical ethics by a local practitioner is a serious matter. "

Observant wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:02 AM:

" "more work for ME" so by your own posts you fit the definition of self-obsessed don't you. Not to mention pretending to be a psychologist. Or didn't you realize if you were a psychologist your post here would violate the professional and ethical standards. If you really are a mental health professional perhaps someone ought to alert the authorities to conduct an imvestigation to find the local practitioner that needs to have their license revoked. Some who read and post here just happen to be real practitioners and take those ethical obligations and professional standards seriously. "

Morning Coffee Troll Alert wrote on Oct 4, 2009 6:38 AM:

" Troll Alert:

Ignore the troll. They just want to distract us.

Thank you Mr. Grapski for your thoughtful comments. "

hehehe wrote on Oct 3, 2009 10:20 PM:

" If someone were to peruse the ICD and DSM manuals how many times would Chuckie fit a definition with 89 references to himself? More work for me. "

just maybe wrote on Oct 3, 2009 9:41 PM:

" Maybe it's just chuckie making posts to himself in multiple personalities. "

Observant wrote on Oct 3, 2009 8:35 PM:

" Do you think anyone listens to you other than yourself posing as multiple identities?

How many times do you say I or me? How many posts do you make about Grapski? More to the point how many posts do you make that aren't at the level of a grade school kid?

You are obsessed. And you make yourself look like an idiot. "

hehehe wrote on Oct 3, 2009 8:11 PM:

" I must be obsessed. I wasted my time counting the number of times Chuckie said I or me today on this post alone. Want to guess how many? 89! And the day isn't over. "

HA HA HA wrote on Oct 3, 2009 6:03 PM:

" Chuckie makes 17 posts, mostly about me, me, me and you think everyone else is pathetically obsessed? Yeah, you're right. "

Tee Hee Hee wrote on Oct 3, 2009 3:52 PM:

" You all are pathetically obsessed. Thanks Mr G for the thoughtful comments below. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 3:37 PM:

" Yes I keep coming back. And yes obviously that is what I meant. Do you have any comments on the story to offer the public or are you just obsessed with me? "

did you mean to say wrote on Oct 3, 2009 2:47 PM:

" To he who is so perfect and so quick to correct a question. Did you mean complement or compliment? "

Chucky the movie wrote on Oct 3, 2009 2:41 PM:

" This stuff is like that movie "Chucky". That doll just would not go away. Kept coming back and back. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 2:28 PM:

" I welcome/encourage all to read the bottom of the thread and the original three posts I made about the issue of police pay, the issue of the criticism of the officers for exercising their rights to seek better pay and to act through their union, and the hypocrisy of those who posted prior to my posts. They often get lost by those who want to focus upon trying to use this forum to attack me rather than discuss a substantive matter of public significance. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 2:23 PM:

" Oh another informative, substantive post by our anonymous visitor. Of course he once again makes it about me (but complains when posts are about me).

But then again keep posting. The one you discredit is not me but yourself.

Thank you for the complement though. I admire Barack Obama. I am flattered to be compared to him. Thanks. "

hehehe wrote on Oct 3, 2009 2:20 PM:

" Chuckie the white Obama "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 2:20 PM:

" Sorry Ha Ha Ha.

The only thing that is ALWAYS about me are your posts. And I did not make these about me either. My posts here are on the subject matter of the article. If you could read you would find that out.

The posts that I responded to made comments "about me."

In fact, in my posts, I say it is NOT about me.

TRY AGAIN you babbling idiot. "

HA HA HA wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:53 PM:

" Anyone notice it's always about Chuckie? No matter what the article or news is about, it always comes back to Chuckie "if you learned anything about me" spin and his me, me, me, me posts. Gotta love it when he comes back and denies it with more me, me, me. While we're talking about Chuckie, how's the hair looking? "

Observant wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:42 AM:

" You beat me to it Charlie. Perhaps if this person didn't feel the need each time to add one of the well worn talking point attacks against you at the end if the comment they might have succeeded in portraying themself as some kind of victim with hurt feelings. And you even went out of your way to deal with all this nonsense politely when if someone attacked me in those ways I would fire back without mercy. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:37 AM:

" I'd also like to make on point in general (and not directly addressed to anyone).

If you make an anonymous post and someone attacks it - whether substantively or rhetorically or even offensively - how can you seriously take offense? What is there to be offended about?

This is one reason I don't like anonymous forums like this. At best what I would require is a sign-in so that a particular IDENTITY (if even anonymity is preserved) is guaranteed to be ONE particular person each time. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:33 AM:

" Again, and of course how is anyone supposed to know who you are (either in real life or here - when you post anonymously and with many monikers), what have I said to attack you (particularly YOU (the person))?

If you disagree with any of my actual criticisms of points you raised then feel free to address those.

But don't you actually reveal yourself (and if not - then what, exactly, is your point and how are you not the target of your own points of criticism?) when you make that last parting shot (which of course has no merit) about so-called "medications"? "

youd be surprised wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:10 AM:

" I know of you and have followed your issues for years. I have spoken to some poeple very close to you. But we have never met. Some people say you are a really a nice guy at heart. So post a few dozen more in response to this one. Good luck in your case with Joe Little it is an important issue. So from this day forward the name CG is off my radar. Never...ever make a comment or rebuttal again for or against you. What a mistake that was..I have better things to do. Please take our medication as required. God luv ya man.. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:06 AM:

" It doesn't bother me but thanks. I try and treat everyone respectfully when they are sincerely giving their input. But I also will openly criticize points and do not view that as a personal insult or attack (and open my points up to the same kind of critical scrutiny). But I also make sure that the "spin" can't work by THOROUGHLY rebutting all the possible efforts at it.

The most they have been able to come up with, that is a factual criticism, is on the number of my posts. Which is not really a criticism at all (in the sense of weakening any of my points). "

Observant wrote on Oct 3, 2009 10:41 AM:

" Don't let it bother you Grapski. I think it's obviouus that crappy Holly is just one of the gang trying to spin on you. First they try and say you cry about mistreatment when that's a known fact and we never see you making posts just to cry about it. Then they tried to downplay your great points on the critcs of the rank and file officers which really hit them hard. Then they try and imply you always attack the police and question why now you are on their side. When none of that worked they went back to trying to spin you as an elitst. Keep writing. I know lots of us like and I really enjoy watching how it frustrates and pisses them off. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Two other points (I know you think this is "ad nauseum" whereas I think it is being THOROUGH):

1) Note how in my most significant point on your logical error on the "spin" comment I conclude, after merely pointing it out (I don't call you "stupid"), by saying "I hope you can see that." That was meant to stress the "friendly" (constructive criticism) aspect of the comment [under the assumption, whether right or wrong, that your post was made in a "sincere" manner.].

2) Back to the Holly issue. When you "name" yourself "Holly crap" I have a hard time thinking you are named "Holly" and want to associated your name with "crap." It appears, on its face, to be a typing error trying to write "Holy crap" - which would be consistent with the rest of the tone of your post (on the "publicist" criticism - which doesn't address the substance of my points but attempts to focus on ME (and imply a motive/interest)). BUT unlike you apparent "offense" at my way of responding to you, I didn't just make that assumption, but INQUIRED as to whether the Holly was intentional. " "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 10:01 AM:

" By the way, before you get "offended" by my quoting you on "miss treatment" [assuming you are sincere in your previous post and not one of the "usual suspects" here] I did this to make a point (to POINT OUT a point).

You MISTAKENLY viewed my first response to you as "making fun" of you (attacking your "intelligence" by attacking your spelling).

I did not (certainly did not intend to do so - if you felt that way it was a MIS-perception on your part).

IF my point was to "make fun of you" by criticizing your spelling WHY would I have focused on "Holly" and not "miss treatment"? Holly is a valid word (the latter is not). As I stated - I wasn't sure if calling you Holly was appropriate or if it was a TYPING error (happens all the time - especially in this format) of hitting the "l" twice. So, if you actually look at it, I was treating you WITH RESPECT. I was ADDRESSING your comments DIRECTLY and I was attempting to properly IDENTIFY you.

As for the "miss treatment" I also would assume this was a typing not spelling error. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 9:51 AM:

" And pointing out errors is not an attack. I very respectfully, although forcefully (logically), "deconstructed" your point on the "spin" comment (which was meant as an anonymous attack by a notorious anonymous (attack) poster - against the Herald.

I hope you recognize that your original post shows you to be merely making a "partisan" comment (not a substantive one) when you are attempting to be critical of my arguments by claiming I am acting as a "publicist for the union." I speak FOR MYSELF (AS MYSELF) in the interests of the public/common good as I see it (and am willing to have publicly criticized in public discourse - in order to LEARN from participation with others). What it conveys is that you OPPOSE the union (and its position) and are IN FAVOR of the Chief (thus the "partisanship" reference). That's there in your post (did you intend that?)

I did not attack you as a person (how could I even do so when no one can tell WHO you ARE?). I challenged your comments.

And you WERE "defending" the anonymous "spin" attacker. Who had no point or merit in that comment. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 9:46 AM:

" Holly,Let me CORRECT you. I did not criticize you for spelling Holy vs. Holly. I INQUIRED as to whether my calling you "Holly" was correct or not.

Furthermore, if you post anonymously, it is hard for people to treat you with full respect. One cannot tell if you are just one of the many who come here to be merely abusive.

As for "ad nauseum" I am sorry if you feel that way. In my view if someone has something to say and says it that is a good thing particularly when what they say makes a point or has merit.

What I also "corrected" you on was YOUR "attacking" post with reference to me. What I said was IF YOU HAD BOTHERED to learn something about me it would not SURPRISE you to learn that this is my position since it always has been.

So now that you know something about me (because I dare to speak in my own name),let's look at your post.

Doesn't it fall into exactly what you are complaining about with mine?

What was your point about my "miss treatment" and your critical "publicist" comment? "

Holly says you win wrote on Oct 3, 2009 9:34 AM:

" I might not be as articulate, smart or educated a person like you are. Or spell as well. I post a few times. I find some thingsvery informative. But you do write to a point of ad nauseum.
And I want to thank you for my leesons in spelling, smartness and for looking down on another person who may "just ever so slightly disagree with you. I now understand a little more of what I have heard of Charles Grapski. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 8:38 AM:

" Perhaps I go "on and on and on." But you seem to post quite often. The only difference - you don't say anything useful, meaningful, of substance and I do.

Why do you feel the need to complain about how often I post? Does it harm you? Do you lose sleep over it? Are you obsessed? Or are you just upset that I am able to articulate points that you would prefer remained silent? "

wrote on Oct 3, 2009 8:09 AM:

" Charlie is like a giant wind-up toy. Turn his key and he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 2:09 AM:

" Oh and of course I left out the most obvious inconsistency between your "interpretation" of the spin comment and the text of the spin comment.

Your interpretation presumes that the spin is contained herein ... in THIS article.

But that is simply not the case as the poster refers to spin in reference to what the Herald WILL/MIGHT do IN THE FUTURE (when it fully reports the story - rather than puts in a last minute brief because of the last minute nature of the news).

I hope you can see that. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:54 AM:

" Well Holly (did you mean Holy) or is your name Holly?

If you bothered to learn anything about me, and my "ad nauseum" public statements over an "ad nauseum" number of years - you would have learned that I have ALWAYS and CONSISTENTLY made and maintained the points I put forward here.

Yes, I have been the victim of police abuses. I have NEVER, EVER claimed that ALL police are corrupt. Pointing out that such things exist, and documenting the particulars, is not the equivalent of a generalization about "all Xs are Y" (you too need a lesson in logic).

If that is what you think the "spin" comment was about (did you write it?) then it befuddles me how you can gather that out of that statement.

First I never said the "spin" was ABOUT pay. There is no reference to the spin other than accusing the Herald of "spinning" on this topic.

But to say it refers to reporting that the Commission voted and later learned the vote of the Union - and the Herald only learned it before going to print - makes no sense. How is that "spin"? Its straightforward fact. "

need an update wrote on Oct 2, 2009 11:43 PM:

" Whatever happened to that dog we hired? Has he earned his keep and found any dope lately? Don't see any cameras on the lights by Hardees or Great Outdoors. We were baboosled and battered that if we did not have these that crashes would be occurring on a daily basis. Well?
And the income derived from those $100 plus tickets would be rolling in. Well, whatsup chief? Did we get told that we would not generate enough to pay for them? "

Holly crap wrote on Oct 2, 2009 11:31 PM:

" Charles, who rattled your cage on this one. The guy who has been miss treated according to all his posts has now become an advocate for the police officers of High Springs...did you get a part time job here as publicist for the union?? You certainly have a nack at writing to a point of nausium..

I think the spin idea was not about pay but the fact that the paper and the City Manager state they have an agreement, then find out the vote is 8-1 against an agreement. "

hello wrote on Oct 2, 2009 9:50 PM:

" Some very astute observations Mr. G. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 2, 2009 5:05 PM:

" Here is what I WOULD propose if I were responsible for public policy in ANY municipality.

First,determine the NATIONAL "standard" or average for police pay and benefits.

Second,COMPARE your city to that. If it is at or below the average propose to become a REAL LEADER. Propose to go AHEAD of all other police departments of similar nature. Pay them MORE than ANY other (as I said be a LEADER).

How much more?Begin to do some RESEARCH. How much do lawyers get paid (a "profession"). Determine what a REASONABLE amount to pay a lawyer, for example, would be (the reasonable pay for PROFESSIONS).

Then review your STANDARDS for hiring/employment. STRENGTHEN those to be "the best," have the HIGHEST standards and expectations, PUBLICIZE it, be proud of it.

Then ensure PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY processes to ensure those standards.

THEN - and only then - FIND a way to pay for it. Declare it is a NECESSARY expense (all other "necessities" are always FINDING the resources to pay for it).

But you have to COMMIT to that standard is the point. (You do get what you pay for). Then look to the other PROFESSIONS (fire,teachers,...) "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 2, 2009 4:51 PM:

" You do get what you pay for. Pay police WELL and THEN expect PROFESSIONALISM (or removal). EXPECT the HIGHEST standards but ALSO be WILLING to pay properly for compensating them for the professional job expected.

Police officers are NOTORIOUSLY underpaid(not referring to "top brass").

Yet when they demand a just compensation they are unprofessional and ought to be out of a job, etc. All because they EXERCISED the rights PROTECTED for them in our system.

What hypocrites you ignorant people are. And then you whine how they put their lives on the line when one among them does something wrong (and thus shouldn't be criticized).

Well if you paid them as a profession, and treated them as such (that is the TRUE RESPECT that is needed and systematically DENIED (even by the normal knee-jerk "defender" who merely uses that rhetoric to "win" support for arguments), then you could and should expect no less than the best.

But please recognize your hypocrisy. And please spare us in the future the "posturing" as somehow the defender of those who "risk their lives" for our safety. Because you don't really give a damn about them. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 2, 2009 4:44 PM:

" Its amazing the inconsistencies.

First, why assume the Herald puts "spin" on it in the first place?

But in all other circumstances, if this were not the employees vs. management, but just "cops" - all those who are criticizing here would be saying, how dare anyone criticize "cops" and "they put their life on the line," etc.

But simply by this being WITHIN the police force - and it being a management vs. labor issue - all of a sudden the "cop on the beat" is the bad guy, are "unprofessional," and are to blame.

Why? Because they are unhappy with how they are being paid. Talk about the hypocrisy (not of the officers - but of their critics here - who in all other circumstances would have "knee-jerk" defenses of anything said about them that challenged their position.

But when it comes to how they are treated, how they are paid, how they are protected and compensated, whether or not they are considered a "profession" (rather than mere hired hands) all of a sudden they are the target of criticism. "

Dean wrote on Oct 2, 2009 4:41 PM:

" Free up some money by getting rid of that crazy Chief!! "

hello wrote on Oct 2, 2009 3:32 PM:

" You get what you pay for. this is not pizza delivery. If you want "professionals" it's going to cost you. When it comes to me and my kids I'll pony up for the best care I can afford-doctors, hospitals, EMTS and Paramedics and cops are NOT the place to budget cut. Same for fire fighters. Plant less flowers at city hall and put a freeze on all desk jobs and raises for paper pushers. You DONT want to cut on emergency services. In exchange for this, you have the right to expect good service and good behavior. Professionalism will result from good leadership, training and more training, and paying people for the demmands of the job. "

oops again again wrote on Oct 2, 2009 1:09 PM:

" More like the keystone cops. Throw out the whole force and let Troiano get some professionals who actualy care about our city and understand their need to help out in these tight budget times. "

oops again wrote on Oct 1, 2009 9:08 PM:

" Comedy central. Can't wait to hear the spin the Herald puts on this one. "