• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

BCC Decision on Awarding Bids

New posts
...and I also have a true love for Morrison Springs, but that shouldn't stand in the way of conducting business by the rules which they create, rather than misleading the public. As I stated, this deal may be as clean as they come, but the County awarding the bid to the second lowest bidder makes many people rightfully question gov't and political connections. Again, Scott stated during the BCC mtg that the second lowest bidder was awarded the project because they were local and they were experienced in this type of project. In the article, the writer states that Carr had just completed a similar project, so if that is true, Scott's second part of the explanation is irrelevant. Scott's statement really sounded as though Carr had no experience, by not even addressing the low bidder.

For the record, I'm not sure that anyone who had a true love for Morrison Springs would build such a park as the one the County has planned. This particular project as I understand it, is only the first phase of many to come. Of course everyone has different opinions and mine may not be any more correct that Scott's.
 
It's not exactly a hardship for a Sowaller to know half the names on the list when anyone can see when folks, their spouse, their relatives, and their company w/ their last name give $ when listed alphabetically.

Start researching the parties in any listed corp or llc and the names pop up even more frequently. :roll:

Add Google into the mix and you'll also pick up all his election law violations, but not the many contributions of $99.99!

I want election laws so that EVERY donation, regardless of amount shows up! :angry: That's not just directed at him, I want full transparency at all levels.
 
Last edited:
Post all the links you want, even I'm not naive, drunk, or stupid enough to believe that all the contributions are actually listed.

Those are just official campaign contributions, they don't cover those less than $100 non-campaign freebies, meals, drinks, and "meetings" that don't require disclosure because less than 1 commissioner was involved so Sunshine laws don't apply!
 
scooterbug44 said:
Add Google into the mix and you'll also pick up all his election law violations, but not the many contributions of $99.99!

I want election laws so that EVERY donation, regardless of amount shows up! :angry: That's not just directed at him, I want full transparency at all levels.
Click to expand...

All contributions have to be reported. Including those for $99.99. The difference is those under $100 for election laws in effect at that time do not require employment information. This has since been revised to $50. Anything over has to by check. The maximum contribution for these elections is $500 per person or entity. Bundling does occur. Bundling is when someone who owns several corporations gives $500 from each. It was not unusual at fundraisers at the State level this last time for you to have to bring 10 $500 checks to attend.

Now all of this is based on my knowledge of election law. I may be wrong on some of this and have missed something that you know about. If so, please point me to the statute cause currently I am reporting everything.
 
Campaign contributions have to be reported. "Gifts" under $100 don't. All those free meals, drinks, and heavily subsidized rounds of golf can add up fast and should count IMO ;-).
 
scooterbug44 said:
Post all the links you want, even I'm not naive, drunk, or stupid enough to believe that all the contributions are actually listed.

Those are just official campaign contributions, they don't cover those less than $100 non-campaign freebies, meals, drinks, and "meetings" that don't require disclosure because less than 1 commissioner was involved so Sunshine laws don't apply!
Click to expand...


What in the world do sunshine laws have to do with running for office?
 
Under current sunshine laws, if you meet with just 1 County Commissioner at a time, no matter how many times you do it, or what deals you work out behind closed doors, your meetings are private.

I think that any meeting about official business should be public record (especially if $ is getting passed under the table).

Sort of ran the two rants together. Oddly something I posted at midnight wasn't 100% clear :funn:
 
Last edited:
WaltonGOP said:
What in the world do sunshine laws have to do with running for office?
Click to expand...

just about everything in Florida about how one conducts oneself once in elected office......and so it shouldhave some bearing on decisions one makes about running.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter









Share this page




                               
Back
Top