Jump to content



Photo

Land Fill ( Judgment Day )


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 Debbie

Debbie

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,620 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:22 AM

IM, I am sorry that you are so upset. I answered the questions honestly and to the best of my ability. It is very easy for you to sit in judgement of a person's actions when you can suffer no consequences. I signed the confidentiality agreement that carries substantial penalties if violated. Your screen name implies that Integrity Matters, yet you chastise me for answering questions honestly. In my two years in office I have not mislead or been dishonest in my dealing with anyone. I am on here to keep everyone informed as to the workings of this county, I am not on here to have my integrity questioned. In the real world we deal in facts and I give all the facts I can at the time I can. I assure you I have no hidden agenda.

It is standard procedure for the SBOA to have exit briefings when an audit is completed. All that is in the audit will be released at the discretion of the SBOA. Any speculation about what is contained in the audit is purely that. If anyone says they can tell you what is in the audit they are either breaking the confidentiality agreement or a liar.

Now you have all the facts I can give you about this issue. Once again, I will answer Steve's questions with a "NO".

You have got to be kidding me. What arrogance you have. Let me join in with IM in chastising you. I suggest you read through this thread again. You played games, sir and you know it. You could have answered Mr. Voelker's original post with the first paragraph you (finally) wrote in post 15.

 

Congratulation Mr. Politician, you have now succeeded in making this thread about you rather than the landfill.

 

And whew boy, does that ever stink. 


  • IntegrityMatters likes this

#22 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,993 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:26 AM

Having been an auditor myself for 18 years, I know that exit conferences are standard procedure.  The auditors and the clients "meet" to discuss the audit findings -- that is standard protocol as you say.   Whether you want to call it a "conference", an "outbriefing" or a "meeting", or by any other name, that is a moot point.  It is indeed a gathering of the interested parties to discuss the audit findings.  Mr. Stephenson said, "I must have missed that meeting.  Would love to know what they discussed."   And then later he said, "There were separate briefings as to the findings with Jack and myself a couple weeks ago. Until the audit is made public we did sign a confidentiality statement as to the findings."

 

 I just think this whole charade could have been avoided if he had just answered the original post with that response in the first place.
 


Edited by IntegrityMatters, 24 March 2015 - 10:41 AM.


#23 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:27 AM

You have taken his question out of context. He did not ask if a meeting had occurred. What he asked is, did the SBOA call a secret meeting of both the Clark Co Commissioners and the Floyd Co Commissioners in the basement of the Clark County Court House last Saturday? The honest answer to that was "NO". Second question was, did the Commissioners have to sign that we had read the audit? Answer again "NO". Third question, did the audit show that there were secret meetings in Louisville? Answer again is "NO". Forth question, Was there allegations of conflict of interest? answer again, "NO". The final part says the newspaper should investigate. I would say that the ISP should investigate any and all findings, if any as vigorously as needed.

Again, when "You" sign a confidentiality agreement then "You" can decide what is confidential information. Until that time, I am the one signing it and I will decide what I consider confidential information. I say this not to sound arrogant but to stress the importance I place on giving my word. When the audit is published nothing will be confidential, until then we must wait on the SBOA.

Steve is an honorable man and I did not need an apology from him. If I did offend him or tarnish his reputation then I do apologize.

Edited by RStephenson, 24 March 2015 - 10:34 AM.

  • Oldgoat likes this

#24 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:39 AM

In the first post, Mr Voelker didn't even ask for a commissioner response.  There was no questions in his first post.  It was only after a denial that the questions came about.  He only asked the N&T to look into it.



#25 Debbie

Debbie

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,620 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:43 AM

In the first post, Mr Voelker didn't even ask for a commissioner response.  There was no questions in his first post.  It was only after a denial that the questions came about.  He only asked the N&T to look into it.

Yeah, so? In that case then why did The Politician reply at all? I interpret the first reply as clearly snide as well. If The Politician wanted to reply all he had to do was state what he did in the first paragraph of post 15.



#26 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:46 AM

Yes, light hearted banter. Not intended to agitate anyone.

#27 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,993 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:49 AM

Rick stated:

 I would say that the ISP should investigate any and all findings, if any as vigorously as needed.

Again, when "You" sign a confidentiality agreement then "You" can decide what is confidential information. Until that time, I am the one signing it and I will decide what I consider confidential information. I say this not to sound arrogant but to stress the importance I place on giving my word. When the audit is published nothing will be confidential, until then we must wait on the SBOA."

 

 

 

If this is so "confidential", I think I would hesitate to even mention that the "ISP should investigate any and all findings, if any as vigorously needed."   That statement leads people to believe there may be something worthy of an ISP investigation.   Sometimes it is best to say as little as possible such as you did in post #15. 

 


Edited by IntegrityMatters, 24 March 2015 - 10:50 AM.


#28 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:53 AM

Not my intent at all. Just saying that if there is anything out of order it should be investigated by law enforcement, not just the media. Really no secret meaning in that statement ......


Edited by DonnaK, 24 March 2015 - 11:01 AM.
To remove a member's name


#29 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 12:13 PM

Is this the first audit of the landfill funds since landfill funds were paid to the county road superintendent to supplement his salary?

 

Did they ever find out the name of the commissioner that authorized those additional payments? Last I heard it allegedly was Perkins but I don't recall hearing the final outcome.



#30 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 12:19 PM

I can honestly not answer any of those questions.

#31 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 25 March 2015 - 10:14 AM

So I was pretty much correct: thanks


  • Not Super But Honest Mike likes this

#32 Oldgoat

Oldgoat

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 25 March 2015 - 04:36 PM

It's easy to see why local officials quit trying to be forthcoming.  It seems Mr. Stephenson answered the question AS IT WAS ASKED!  Considering the confidentiality agreement it seems well advised that he not OFFER any information above answering the direct question with a direct answer. The meeting described by Mr Voelker does not appear to remotely resemble the meeting Mr. Stephenson described.  There has been more openness from these Commissioners in two years than from their Democrat predecessors in 40 years.The SBOA report will eventually be released to the public and...if there is ANY wrongdoing Mr. Stephenson is correct in stating that it would likely be investigated by ISP white collar crime officers, as has happened in the past.


  • GrumpyGranny, apirateatheart, Big Bopper and 1 other like this

#33 hillbilly highway

hillbilly highway

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 31 March 2015 - 08:27 PM

I don't believe Steve asked you to disclose confidential information. He asked if a meeting had occurred --- to that, in my opinion, you should have said, "yes, but I can't disclose the details at this time". Instead, you said "no" and he apologized as if he had been told a lie. You then said, "the present commissioners did not meet with the SBOA last Saturday" --- while technically, that is correct I believe you should have disclosed that a meeting had indeed occurred but not on Saturday ("there were separate briefings with Jack and myself a couple weeks ago"). So in my opinion your responses were highly misleading. And you should be the one who apologizes -- not Steve.

Lets not go overboard he did answer his question and then he clarified. No big deal!!!

Edited by hillbilly highway, 31 March 2015 - 08:28 PM.

  • apirateatheart likes this

#34 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:32 PM

Steve's question was specific to meeting in the basement, perhaps a better question is did any commissioner meet anywhere at anytime with the SBOA to discuss an audit of the landfill?


I think this answers it:
http://www.in.gov/sb...orts/B45307.pdf
  • kelley likes this

#35 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:50 PM

The audit story in the paper was a fascinating read, especially in light of some of the discussions here.

Looking forward to having time to put the conversations and story next to each other and having a closer look.

#36 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:59 PM

Here's the thread from when we just had rumors then newspaper stories.

http://clarkcountych...-being-misused/
  • Tina likes this

#37 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 08:35 PM

Here's the thread from when we just had rumors then newspaper stories.
http://clarkcountych...-being-misused/


So, then there's one question that remains for me, and it may just be I missed it happening. Did the county council ever approve the higher salary for Jim or did he stay on at a lower rate?

And he sure is throwing Jack & Rick under the bus!!!

#38 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 08:44 PM

Posted 06 September 2015 - 09:22 AM

The results of the State Board of Accounts Audit of Landfill released. The News and Tribune has this article in today's online version. There are several items I take issue with but for the most part it is accurate. This is exactly why I have been calling for the sale of the landfill. Not only would its sale relieve the citizens of almost $20 million in debt but would eliminate the burden it places on us with monitoring the operations.

Additional findings in this audit were about the ineffective controls that monitor the intake of materials into the landfill. We have entertained creating a position that would place a person at the landfill and installing cameras. All would be costly and could not give us 100% accuracy.

http://www.newsandtr...9.html?mode=jqm

This is the link to the full audit report:

http://www.in.gov/sb...orts/B45307.pdf

Edited by RStephenson, 06 September 2015 - 09:52 AM.


This is the post I made the day the story broke in the News and Tribune. I stand by my statements and hope everyone understands why I could not be clearer in my answers to your questions. It was the conditions of the confidentiality document I had signed.

The audit shows just how business was conducted prior to the current admistration took office. We have addressed the issues stated in the audit and working hard to establish appropriate safeguards of the county resources.

#39 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 08:59 PM

Tina,

The council did not ever approve the raise for Jim. The money given him was from the host fees that the county was suppose to get. The prior administration decided they would just do it from the the Landfill Host Fees. As per the statement from Bob Lee, John Perkins is the one that called and told Bob to increase the amount Jim received from the landfill.

I stand firm in the fact that Jack and I had no idea that Jim was getting extra money diverted from the host fees. We were notified from Mike Harris when we questioned the host fees. We found out on one day and instructed all payments to stop the every next day. No further payments were made after we became aware of them.

I agree with you that he did try to throw Jack and I under the bus. I will tell you exactly what he told Jack and I when we first took office. We both were told by Jim that he worked on contract for the landfill. My exact question to him was, " do you do any of the contract work for the Landfill during his normal work hours?" The answer was "NO". It is common knowledge that he does do backhoe business and other land movement work for others.

Edited by RStephenson, 08 September 2015 - 09:01 PM.


#40 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 09:04 PM

Tina,
I agree with you that he did try to throw Jack and I under the bus. I will tell you exactly what he told Jack and I when we first took office. We both were told by Jim that he worked on contract for the landfill. My exact question to him was, " do you do any of the contract work for the Landfill during his normal work hours?" The answer was "NO". It is common knowledge that he does do backhoe business and other land movement work for others.


So he lied. Or perhaps "mislead".

A leopard simply can't change his spots.

No one is irreplaceable. No one. You may believe he is the best qualified person in the county to do the job he does; that doesn't mean he can't be replaced.

And if he is supervisor, what example has he set for all highway department employees?

So from 2013 through now he has worked at the lower rate (basically took a $14k pay cut to stay?)

He's throwing you all under the bus right before you have to run for re-election. So not surprised!

Edited by Tina, 08 September 2015 - 09:15 PM.

  • IntegrityMatters likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users