Giving credit where credit is due is fine, but receiving a Pulitzer Prize because you earned it the old-fashioned way is even better: Well-earned Pulitzer Prize to Sun-Sentinel for devastating series by Sally Kestin & John Maines on South Florida's army of out-of-control off-duty cops driving at high speeds; @SallyKestin

Giving credit where credit is due is fine, but receiving a Pulitzer Prize because you earned it the old-fashioned way is even better: Well-earned Pulitzer Prize to Sun-Sentinel for devastating series by Sally Kestin & John Maines on South Florida's army of out-of-control off-duty cops driving at high speeds; @SallyKestin

Excerpt from New York Times article of April 15, 2013: 2013 Journalism Pulitzer Winners

The Pulitzer Prizes were announced on Monday. The list of winners in the journalism categories follows.

PUBLIC SERVICE
THE SUN SENTINEL, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The Sun Sentinel won its first Pulitzer Prize for a three-part series by Sally Kestin, 48, an investigative reporter, and John Maines, 57, a database editor, that examined the driving speeds of off-duty police officers in South Florida. Using data from highway tolls and GPS technology, the reporters found 800 police officers from a dozen different agencies driving at average speeds of 90 to more than 120 miles per hour.

As a result of the series, there was an 84 percent drop in the number of officers driving more than 90 miles per hour and many of the officers faced disciplinary action.

“I think we really ended up saving lives,” Ms. Kestin said.

And these were just the ones they wrote about!
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/speeding-cops/

If only we saw more enterprising reporting like this in South Florida, he said to himself...
http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2013-Public-Service

In late 2010, South Florida Sun-Sentinel reporter Sally B. Kestin wrote the following article as part of a series on questionable government spending, and within an hour of seeing it, I'd sent an email out with a link to it to friends around the state and the country because it was so accurate and fair. 
It was the first piece of hers that brought her to my attention.

(Yes, she's Northwestern Class of 1987, so she was in Evanston at the same time I was living there on the North Shore, when the first McDonald's there, next to the Hotel Orrington, was eat-in only, no take-out.)

It includes spot-on quotes from my friend, longtime Broward County civic activist and truth-teller  Charlotte Greenbarg, regarding South Florida cities continued refusal to bite-the-bullet on runaway Police Union contracts and stop giving away tax dollars in a tough economy thru a program that is more anecdotal than practical or economical.

Given how small the City of Hallandale Beach is, just 4.2 square miles, this problem of take-home cars is a real problem here, where few police officers actually live.
Which means we are spending more than most Broward cities as a percentage. 

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-13/news/fl-sheriff-take-home-car-20101111_1_patrol-cars-cars-home-pbso
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
South Florida deputies get take-home cars — and we pay
by Sally Kestin Sun-Sentinel
November 13, 2010

Sheriff's deputies in South Florida enjoy a perk almost unheard of in most jobs: take-home cars and in some cases unlimited free gas.

Employees of the Broward and Palm Beach County sheriff's offices are permitted not only to drive their department-issued vehicles for personal use but also to and from work, even if they live outside the county. Some log 100 miles or more each day on their commutes.

The rationale for take-home cars is that deputies are always on call, and having marked patrol cars on the roads helps deter crime. But even some managers and non-sworn officers get cars for commuting, and critics say the benefit is a luxury taxpayers can't afford, particularly in tough economic times.

The sheriff's vehicle policies in Broward and Palm Beach counties are more generous than those of other large police agencies in the state, which require employees to live within a certain distance to get a take-home car.

PBSO has 1,538 employees who drive cars home. More than 225 of them live outside the county.

About 2,900 BSO employees get cars, but the sheriff's agency said it cannot determine how many are non-Broward residents.

Charlotte Greenbarg, president of the watchdog group Broward Coalition, said deputies should only be allowed to take cars home if they also live in the county they serve. "We've got terribly tough times, the money's very tight, the budgets are shrinking as our incomes are,'' she said.

The car perk is part of the contracts negotiated by unions representing sheriff's employees. At BSO, union members who are not assigned vehicles instead get a pay supplement of $453 a month, or $5,441 a year.

The sheriff's offices pay for maintenance of the take-home cars, and gas is subsidized by taxpayers.

BSO employees living in Broward pay nothing for the use of their sheriff's vehicle and gas up for free at county pumps. Last year, the sheriff's office began requiring employees who live in Palm Beach or Miami-Dade counties to pay $40 to $55 every two weeks, depending on the distance of their commutes.

"I realize that's a burden on the taxpayers,'' said Broward Sheriff Al Lamberti. "We are now asking them to pay for their gas for commuting so at least they're paying something if they live outside of Broward County.''

PBSO employees pay a fuel charge of $25 every two weeks if they live in the county and $30 for out-of-county residents.

They're allowed to drive the cars not just while on duty but also for personal errands. PBSO employees can use their cars on their days off and while on leave, as long as they remain in Palm Beach County.

BSO's policy says deputies are "encouraged to use their vehicles off duty'' while in Broward.

Taking cars home is a benefit to the public, sheriff's officials said.

"Deputies, even if they're going to and from work, they're still on duty,'' said BSO spokesman Mike Jachles. "It's a deterrent. You don't know how many crimes might have been prevented because that deputy is driving through a neighborhood or a car is in his driveway.''

Off-duty deputies have rescued people trapped underwater in cars, rendered aid at accidents and intervened in crimes, he said.

Deputies can also respond quicker in an emergency, Lamberti said.

"The positive side of it, it provides us the ability to respond when everybody has their own car whether it be a hurricane, Super Bowl, Orange Bowl,'' the sheriff said. "They don't have to go somewhere, get in their vehicle and then respond.''

Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said allowing deputies to take cars home actually saves about $9 million a year in "prep time'' costs the sheriff's office would otherwise have to pay. A federal court ruling said sheriff's deputies were entitled to time and a half pay for getting ready for work, including driving to get their patrol cars and loading their equipment, he said.

"The reality is, in economic times, it's a perception thing. It's like, 'Geez, I don't even have a job, how come they get take-home cars?' '' Bradshaw said. "Come strap on a gun, get involved in what these deputies do, risk your life every night, I'll give you a take-home car. I don't consider it a perk in any way.''

BSO spends about $19 million a year on fuel, maintenance and vehicle replacement, while the budget at PBSO is $14 million. The sheriff's offices can't say how much of those costs are related to taking cars home.

A 2007 audit by the city of West Palm Beach found that more than half the miles logged on its take-home vehicles were for personal commuting by the employees, including one who lived more than 80 miles away. The city restricted take-home cars to police officers living in or near West Palm Beach. About 80 employees lost vehicle privileges, saving the city $700,000 a year.

The savings would be higher at the sheriff's offices, which are much larger.

Many police and sheriff's departments in Florida allow employees to take cars home, but some large agencies are more restrictive.

Employees at the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, for instance, cannot use cars for commuting if they live more than 10 miles outside the county, and the cutoff at the Orange County Sheriff's Office is 20 miles.

In Hillsborough, employees living in other counties pay 50 cents a mile for the distance between the county line and their homes.

The Florida Highway Patrol gives troopers take-home cars, but they must live within 30 miles of the city where they're assigned. They can drive the cars to and from college if they're enrolled or a gym to stay fit, but other personal uses are not allowed.

BSO used to require employees to live in Broward to take cars home until the mid 1990s, Lamberti said. The sheriff's office recently renegotiated the union contract for road deputies but kept the car perk and other benefits.

Deputies at BSO and PBSO make $45,000 to over $100,000 a year, and some take in thousands more in overtime. They get a minimum of seven weeks in vacation, holidays and sick time – more for employees with longer service.

Like many other public agencies, sheriff's offices have been hard hit by plunging tax revenues. BSO recently cut $23 million from its budget, and Lamberti issued an ultimatum to 254 jail deputies – take a pay reduction and a demotion or be fired.

Sgt. Anthony Marciano, head of the union representing Broward jailers, said his members don't get cars to take home.

"I'm glad [road deputies] have that perk,'' he said. "But when you have budget cuts and you're cutting my union members' salaries. . . I don't think it's fair.''

WHAT: Take-home cars for deputies and other sheriff's personnel

COST TO US: Total vehicle budget is $19 million in Broward and $14 million in Palm Beach County; take-home cars represent an undetermined portion of that

-----
@SallyKestin  https://twitter.com/SallyKestin

http://topsy.com/twitter/sallykestin

My coda to "Broward cities need tougher ethics laws, not self-serving pols"; Debby Eisinger's curious fact pattern

This is a logical and necessary follow-up to my earlier post of today titled, Broward cities need tougher ethics laws, not self-serving pols like Gary Resnick & Debby Eisinger, whom we need like more bad restaurants, more ruined-views of the beach... -NOT at all!

http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/broward-cities-need-tougher-ethics-laws.html

I had hoped to incorporate what follows into that last blog post, but for a variety of reasons, came to realize that I'd not be able to do so, so consider this post a bit of a coda to that last post on the question of ethics in Broward County at the municipal level.

Since this blog was first created five years ago this month, I've had certain key anchors or guideposts that have stubbornly remained on it, despite how much space they take up, or how much criticism I have received from others who complained about my keeping them here.

They are there to indicate to first-time readers that this blog, regardless of whatever particular subject matter I'm writing about on that day, or whatever subject may've led the visitor to come here in the first place via a search engine, is committed to certain things.

Stricter, easier to-understand and more-enforceable common sense ethics laws -with teeth!- in state, county and local government is one of those basic elements I support and am personally committed to.

That sentiment is best captured by one anchor in particular that recounts a moment I bore witness to more than three years ago here in Hallandale Beach, and which I re-post here to make the larger point about elected municipal officials aversion to increased public scrutiny and tighter laws that maintain an ethical floor beyond which there is no publicly acceptable conduct and behavior:

"WHY DO THEY NEED THAT IN THE BROWARD COUNTY CHARTER?"

"Laws and Constitutions go for nothing where the general sentiment is corrupt." -New York Times, September 22, 1851

"Why do they need that in the Broward County charter?"-Hallandale Beach Mayor Joy Cooper at April 2, 2008 HB City Commission meeting in discussing possible inclusion of Broward County Charter Review Commission's proposal for Ethics Commission to deal with Broward County Commission on November 2008 ballot.

Six YEARS after the county's voters had overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the County charter requiring its adoption, the Broward County Commission had yet to live up to its legal responsibility. That's why!

As problematic as Cooper and her regal and all-too-frequently condescending attitude have been and continue to be for concerned taxpayer citizens in Hallandale Beach, it's not just Joy Cooper, of course, who is the problem in Broward when it comes to notions of public accountability and transparency, it's the veritable phalanx of willing elected officials and their friends, acquaintances and family members who are contractors or lobbyists in Broward, who willingly want to make like Gen. George Patton and drive a tank thru any possible weak spots -loopholes- and keep it open for good, that are the problem.

Another elected municipal official in Broward who, like Joy Cooper, has seemingly had her doubts for years about stricter ethics laws and what the public was entitled to expect from people in authority is someone whom I've written about a number of times here, Cooper City Mayor Debby Eisinger.

Eisinger's very visible antipathy towards stricter ethics laws is NOT just a recent thing, nor is it a function of her and her colleagues in Cooper City having been involved in so many disturbing and ethically-questionable situations over the recent past that have made her fodder for local TV and newspaper reporters, who barely had to say much more than tell the basic facts or roll the hidden camera video, before readers and viewers were recoiling at the thought of what she and her pals were doing.

Most notably, the commission's former habit of routinely getting together for drinks at public establishments in the Cooper City area -before scheduled City Commission meetings.

You don't have to be paranoid to understand that serious questions arise about the very appearance of such get-togethers, much less, if you are a legitimate party with an item on their agenda that night or just a regular concerned citizen wishing to speak about that agenda, who reasonably wonders what might have been discussed about that item away from any public scrutiny, in violation of Sunshine Laws, and without you having any means of rebutting what was said, especially something factually inaccurate or intentionally misleading.

And what about the complete lack of any initial apparent remorse on their part when they were caught in 2006 by Channel 4 News/WFOR-TV, and the video of some members the Commission, including Eisinger and some of her acolytes in a bar, was a CBS4 sensation, one that was both self-evident and a jaw-dropping tale of un-democratic notions of privilege and refusing to follow the existing laws, simple as they were.

For me, this point was brought home thru Eisinger's own choice of words and her arguments as a member of the Broward County Charter Review Commission a few years ago, many of whose meetings I attended in-person, including the final meeting that decided what would and would not appear on the November 2008 ballot.

It should not come as a shock to anyone that despite how much I had followed their activities closely, my mouth was often agape at the things I heard and the condescending points-of-view I heard expressed at those meetings among what were said to be a good cross-section of Broward's leading lights. 
Repeatedly.

Consider this exchange from 2007, direct from the Summary Minutes of Discussion, Broward County Charter Review Commission, Administrative Issues/Governance Subcommittee Meeting of Tuesday, August 15, 2007

http://www.broward.org/Charter/Documents/agsc-082307_final.pdf

pp. 6-7

Ms. Eisinger stated that the format of Strong Mayor or Elected Executive is that that Mayor is in charge.  She stated in certain circumstances it could work well, but she can’t support it because you don’t know who is going to be that Mayor, and it is going to be left up to the Electorate.   

She explained that sometimes the voters don’t always know who is the most qualified. She advised that it becomes a popularity contest and who runs the best campaign, and is not necessarily the most qualified. 

As I've stated here on the blog several times previously -and keeping the info above in mind as yet more of the same from her- it should come as no surprise that when push came to shove on the question of whether or not Broward voters could be treated like adults and decide for themselves whether they wanted to have an elected county-wide mayor of Broward County, not continue the charade of county commissioners voting for one another as mayor for one year, Cooper City Mayor Debby Eisinger voted to deny Broward voters that choice.

How does an elected public official justify voting against elections that allow citizens to determine their own form of govt. structure?

Exactly, but that's just what Debby Eisinger did.

Yes, whether as mayor of Cooper City or as the current President of the Broward League of Cities, Eisinger's demonstrated track record of anti-democratic behavior and votes against increased public accountability is clear for all to see.

South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Broward Politics blog

Cooper City Mayor Eisenger to charities: Complain about county ethics law

By Brittany Wallman 

October 10, 2011 02:34 PM

Broward League of Cities President Debby Eisenger sent out an email to non-profit groups in Broward, urging them to complain -- if they so wish-- about the coming new public ethics law.

It was sent to "various non-profits,'' League Executive Director Rhonda Calhoun told her mass e-mail list recipients.

Read the rest of the post at:

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2011/10/cooper_city_mayor_eisenger_to.html

And as I mentioned in my last post, given the above, and the unanimous vote in October by the Broward County Commission to have these necessary tougher ethical standards hold sway at local city halls, Eisinger actually has the chutzpah to drop this memorable quote in last Saturday's Ariel Barkhurst article:

South Florida Sun-Sentinel

County ethics law already changing Broward's city governments

By Ariel Barkhurst, Sun Sentinel

11:11 PM EST, December 31, 2011

www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-ethics-ordinance-in-effect-20111231,0,3978237.story

"I've already seen people backing off from being involved in charity," said Cooper City Mayor Debbie Eisinger.

Yeah, I wonder why? 

Hmm-m... perhaps it has to do with your own orchestrated campaign...

It's like Eisinger, after all that she has done, is in such denial that she can't even admit to herself that she was NOT part of the reform effort to fix the longstanding problems, like my friend, Charlotte Greenbarg, president of the Broward Coalition, Eisinger was part of the crony capitalism crew desperately trying to sabotage the effort to give Broward voters what they have been clamoring for for years.

(But then as the only member of the public in all of Broward to actually attend that first meeting of the IG Task Force last year, that later chose John W. Scott, I'm in a position to know what I'm talking about, which is why I can mention that there were no members of the news media present at that first meeting. Surprise!)  

And lest we forget, when she was on the Charter Review Comm. she actually tried to make the lack of funding for an Inspector General's office the problem.

Take note folks, Debby Eisinger never quits trying to sabotage things for the worse for citizens in Broward County who are interested in genuine transparency, accountability and ethical probity.

And from the looks of things, she shows no evidence of losing that condescending attitude and smirk of hers, either.

Citizen'sFree Speech Quashed By Cooper City, FL Commission

http://youtu.be/_bAjj_RMFRs

Related article:

BrowardPalBeach New Times

Daily Pulp blog 

"All of You Deserve to Be Taken Out Behind the Woodshed and Beat the Living Shit Out Of"

By Bob Norman

September 29 2010 at 6:08 AM

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/09/all_of_you_deserve_to_be_taken.php

-----

There's a treasure trove of Debby Eisinger-related stories in the archives of the  BrowardPalmBeach NewTimes 

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/search/index/?keywords=%22Debby+Eisinger%22&x=14&y=8

Of the many there, I commend to you these two Bob Norman-penned pieces from 2010 in particular:

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-05-01/news/muddy-politics/

and http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/09/cooper_city_background_checks.php

Plus, to better understand how insidious the corrupt political culture is here in Broward, take a look at this one on the doings of so-called ethics watchdogs: 

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/07/roy_rogers_rides_again.php

Sad but true.

-----

http://www.browardcoalition.org/

CBS4 News video: Correspondent Carey Codd speaks with Broward's new Inspector General, John W. Scott, on his responsibilities in a county that has seen a tremendous number of corrupt county and municipal elected officials. September 14, 2011. http://broward.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=700

Office of the Broward Inspector General

One North University Drive, Suite 111, Plantation, FL 33324

Tips Hotline at (954) 357-TIPS

http://www.broward.org/InspectorGeneral/Pages/Default.aspx

http://coopercityinsider.blogspot.com/

Broward Coalition is pushing back against Broward municipal officials & cronies efforts to enact looser ethics laws for themselves

Over the weekend my friend Charlotte Greenbarg, President of the Broward Coalition, sent out a pointed email to civic and community activists all over Broward County giving them the latest head's up regarding a recent series of moves by Broward municipal officials -and their deep-pocketed cronies at local law firms, consulting firms and lobbying shops- to bypass the strict ethics rules that the Broward County Commission FINALLY voted for, and instead, enshrine a separate series of ethics laws for Broward municipal elected officials and city employees that amount to nothing less than Swiss cheese.

In light of the overwhelming referendum vote by Broward voters in November of 2008 to instruct the commission to do what they did -or else- we simply aren't going to stand for it.

I, personally, along with lots of people I know here will publicly call out those who attempt to lead that revanchist effort, starting with the Broward League of Cities, an anti-democratic, pro-bureaucracy non-profit group that wields far too much power in this county.

If you didn't know, the new President of the Broward League of Cities is anti-democratic Cooper City mayor Debby Eisinger, whom as I've noted here many times in the past, as a member of the county's Charter Review Comm. in 2008, voted AGAINST allowing Broward County citizens from voting in the November 2008 general election on whether they wanted to have an elected county-wide mayor, one voted upon directly by the voters instead of continuing the failed and ridiculous template in Broward of the title of 'mayor' being given to one of the nine elected County Commissioners by a vote among themselves.

The League's last complete (Action) Minutes for their Board of Directors was Sept. 2nd, 2010

http://www.browardleague.org/legislative/minutes-of-meetings/board-of-directors-meetings/ and for the Education Comm., was also nine months ago,

http://www.browardleague.org/legislative/minutes-of-meetings/education-committee/

Hmm.. has anything of interest happened with the Broward School Board the past nine months?

Oh, that's right, the statewide grand jury bemoaned the fact that they did not have the power to actually abolish the Broward School Board due to its longstanding lack of leadership, lack of accountability and general culture of corruption.

LOL!

Since municipal taxpayers actually pay for the dues their cities pay the League, IF as they claim, they're all about educating the public, why won't they join the 21st Century and maintain accurate, transparent and TIMELY information on their public website?
Just wondering.

----------

Pressure's being put on the Commission to allow "ethics lite" for the cities. We need to do a full court press to tell the Commission to hold the cities to the same standards as the County is and the VOTERS approved. EMAIL THE COMMISSION NOW!

The League of Cities doesn’t like the strong ethics requirements that an overwhelming majority of Broward voters approved. One commissioner actually said that he couldn’t even accept a bottle of water. That’s right. That’s exactly what we meant when we voted to approve the requirements. Don’t ask, don’t take.

Follow the admirable example of Oakland Park Mayor Suzanne Boisvenue, who wants no part of what I’m going to label “ethics lite.”

Get on with it, County Commissioners, and accept it, municipal elected officials. We’ve had quite enough of the fun and games that have gone on far too long in Broward County.

One of our members, Orval Pintuff, expressed our position so well. This is what he wrote:

“Dear Madam Mayor and fellow County Commissioners:

There should be no tweaking for allowing a current city commissioner/politician to work as a lobbyist for issues that may come before the commission or their city government. If these elected officials believe that their lobbying would be more profitable then they need to move on and let someone else get on with the job of running the city government.

If they must resign to pursue a better income, so be it. There is too much potential and tendency to help a bill or law to pass for the benefit of a favored son or friend.

If accepting a bottle of water or soda at a fund raiser or implied political/business event, would appear as conduct unbecoming, then bring your own drinks. This goes for the offer of a lunch or dinner from a person who may or does business with the city or county government. If you cannot afford the lunch ticket, don't go.

There is no excuse for not saying no to a lunch or dinner offer, as well as tickets to a concert or sporting events.

It is time for our elected leaders to lead and quit using their positions for self-adulation. It is time to make honest men and women of our elected leaders and give them an ethics code to work by.

I find it disgusting that we really have to tell someone what is ethical and what is not. There is always the adage "When in Doubt, Don't Do It."

These elected city and county jobs do not always pay a lot, but there are other options, get another job.

It is time to stand up and be counted, please don't wait any longer to get this law started.

Thank you

Orval Pintuff

Margate FL”

Member Broward Coalition

The Broward Coalition has been in the forefront of reform for years. It’s part of our mission; to work for the best interests of our members on the local, state and national levels.

We sat through the Ethics Commission meetings, gave our input, encouraged the members to stand strong for strong ethics, and advocated for a “yes” vote.

We’ve come too far to be betrayed by timidity or political connections, and we’re urging our County Commissioners to get it done now.

--------------------

http://www.browardcoalition.org/

The Broward Coalition is hosting a free "Condominium Wellness Checkup" in Hallandale Beach on Wednesday March 30th

The Broward Coalition Invites You for a....

Condominium Wellness Checkup!

“Is Your Association Struggling With Collections, Board Governance, and Solvency? Discover Ways to Stop the Bleeding….

Alliance, CAS and Association Services of Florida

Invites you to hear SOLUTIONS!

The Broward Coalition is hosting a meeting in Hallandale’s “neck of the woods”!

PLEASE Join us for this FREE educational and neighborly community association meeting!

LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED

Special Welcome by Hallandale Beach City

Commissioner Keith S. London

Hallandale Beach Cultural Center

410 S.E. 3^rd Street

Hallandale Beach

11 a.m. – 2 p.m. March 30, 2011

RSVP Mary Macfie Laundry333@aol.com

SPRING FORWARD WITH THE BROWARD COALITION!

The Hallandale Beach Cultural Center is east of S. Federal Hwy., across from Gulfstream Park Race Track, directly behind the HB City Hall.

South Florida news media acts like they are STILL the Belle of the Ball. Nope!; Charlotte Greenbarg's contributions to South Florida

Much more so than I would've ever imagined when I first started this blog of mine four years ago -many years after I should've started it while living up in the D.C. area- I've been spending a lot more time thinking and writing about my perspective on the inherent problems of an incurious news media, a crew that in South Florida, at least, often seems more inclined to RUN FROM from news stories, than to them, and attempt to explain what happened and why to curious readers or viewers.

That regressive attitude towards traditional norms of news-gathering by local South Florida reporters, editors, producers and news executives, has very serious negative consequences for the larger society in South Florida, where many of the sorts of resources that other American communities take for granted, simply DONT exist here, like an All-News radio station or a Local News cable TV channel.

Yes, media outlets that would offer daily or weekly forums for the community to talk about current events or news in an informed environment, and not merely parrot what one has heard or seen in print elsewhere, whether liberal or conservative.
But South Florida has neither of them.

In this sort of environment, lots of selfless people in the community who expend a great deal of their energy and time to make a positive difference for it, get ignored, or, at least, see their positive contributions greatly marginalized, especially compared to the sort of public profile they might enjoy in other parts of the country with more traditional views of news reporting.

That is to say, parts of the country unlike South Florida where reporters don't have to be begged to attend public meetings that they'd have covered 10, 20 or 25 years ago -without even being asked or contacted.

Rather incongruously given the actual facts-on-the-ground, and the clear appetite for MORE not LESS local news coverage among local media consumers, at least those of my acquaintance, the local South Florida news media acts like they are STILL the Belle of the Ball, overly-picky and choosy about just whom they are seen with.

The negative results of such wrong-headed thinking are all around us in South Florida -and my city of Hallandale Beach- with crooked or inept government officials getting away with things because there's nobody covering them and their city or agency.

They don't use "legacy media" as a pejorative for nothing.

Do you remember my words here recently about posting video about longstanding problems or issues myself, and to STOP waiting for the local news media to, well, first, wake-up, and then to show-up?
If you do, good.
This post of mine today is just a reminder of why I plan on doing just that.

In the future, I'm going to try to do a better job of mentioning people I know or at least am fairly familiar with, whom I believe to be deserving of more attention for their efforts to make a positive difference in the community.

After reading the following, the next time you see my friend Charlotte Greenbarg's name, whether it's mentioned in print or you see her on a local TV newscast, you'll understand that she's someone who's not only NOT new to the fight for meaningful educational reform, but rather was someone who was fighting hard for students years ago against the system, and was NOT willing to salute mediocrity and pretend that it was genuine merit or success.

This description of here is from the BrowardPalmBeach New Times,
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/bestof/2009/award/best-political-activist-845585/ which voted Charlotte their Best Political Activist - 2009

Charlotte Greenbarg

You don't have to agree with Greenbarg's politics or her stance on every issue — but you better give Charlotte her respect. Because when it comes to activists and political watchdogs in Broward County, there's not one who is more vigilant than Greenbarg, president of the nonprofit Broward Coalition. She keeps an eye not only on her home city of Hollywood but on the construction department at the Broward County School Board, where she sits on the audit committee. There, Greenbarg holds the often buffoonish officials' feet to the fire with her no-nonsense questions. She has been at the forefront of ending the "Pay first, ask questions later" mode of business at the district and has given much-needed moral support to School Board auditor Dave Rhodes, a man who has the fortitude to tell the truth in that house of lies and who actually tries to keep waste and corruption down to a low roar. Greenbarg is one of the good ones — and Lord knows Broward needs all of those it can get.

Her education reform group's website is www.ivbe.org.
The Broward Coalition is at http://www.browardcoalition.org/

---

THE INDEPENDENT VOICES FOR BETTER EDUCATION STORY

By Charlotte Greenbarg, Vice-President and Founding Member

We are one of the state’s first groups advocating education reform and accountability at the grassroots level. In 1990 seven people, veterans all of the public school system wars, sat around a table at a Coral Gables restaurant (Marshall Major’s). One was an attorney who worked for ESE children’s rights. A Dade School Board member muttered as he listened to the attorney explain how the system was depriving the students of their rights, but had to cut short his presentation to make a flight, “I hope someone puts a bomb on it.” Others were savaged by the bureaucracy when they went public with health hazards in schools, Sunshine Law violations, fraud in ESE student numbers, lack of achievement by poor and minority students, asking for public participation on all advisory committees and exposing the corrupt teachers’ union.

I was the deepest insider, president of the Dade County PTA/PTSA, and I saw it all in the belly of the beast. PTA had a free office in the administration building, use of staff for all functions, use of the printing and public relations offices, phones and complete access to anything needed. I helped the billion-dollar bond issue for construction pass, and saw it poured down a well of corruption and incompetence. I asked questions I knew the answers for and was lied to. I even had the audacity to ask for parent participation in negotiations with the unions.

We learned that working from within was futile. The print media was so co-opted they would use the public relations pieces handed to them by the system flacks almost verbatim.

We did our research and publicized our findings. The longer poor and minority children stayed in the system, the worse they did. The more money poured into the system, the lower the scores went. The board rewarded the lobbyists who raised thousands for their re-election campaigns with huge contracts from the fourth largest system in the country. We documented the overruns in construction by using the system’s own agenda items that not too many people bothered to read. Board members called us “loose with the truth” and shut off the public television station’s broadcasts of the public input portion of the meetings. Even the print media couldn’t stomach that, and the Board reversed the decision.

We were asked by the Center for Education Reform to provide our data showing that as the tax dollars went up, the scores went down. What we advocated became the basis for the current education code. Now each School Advisory Council must have majority non-employee membership, schools are held accountable for student performance.

We work by networking with others who spread our message to the groups to which they belong. Most of our communication is done over the Internet and in the media, which has over the years, realized we were right. We invite you to join us. All donations are fully tax deductible under the IRS rules for 501 (c)(3) organizations. Our website is www.ivbe.org.

Please contact me through the website or call 954-927-9902. We welcome your participation!

IVBE is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.

All donations are tax-exempt to the full extent allowed by IRS rules

IVBE NURSERY RHYME

By Grandma Charlotte Goose

Rock-a-bye, children, on the money-tree top,

Billions misdirected, watch the scores drop!

Will we wake up, or will cradles all fall?

And down will come country, Educrats and all.

This little ditty was published along with a letter to the editor in the Florida Journal, Wall Street Journal, in l994. We pointed out that Blueprint 2000 was an illusion created by the education establishment to make the public believe that some kind of real reform was going to take place. We included documentation from the Florida Auditor General as well as letters from then-Senator Jack Gordon and then-Representative Art Simon. Senator Gordon told us that “…nothing much had changed (from existing laws)”, and Representative Simon said, “I call it the ‘non-accountability bill’ “. Time has proven both them and us correct. In the l998-99 session of the Florida Legislature, all references to the Florida Commission on Reform and Accountability, created by the B-2000 legislation, were removed, along with all the funding.

Federal appellate court victory for free speech: Court strikes down Disclosure Laws imposed upon Colorado neighbors opposed to local political issue

Below is an email I sent out this afternoon to a few dozen well-informed citizens, elected officials, reporters and columnists throughout Florida and parts beyond the Sunshine State.

-----

The press release below was forwarded to me by my friend, Charlotte Greenbarg, President of the Broward Coalition, to whom I am, as always, very appreciative. http://www.browardcoalition.org/

Just so there is no confusion on this point, I'm specifically sending it because of the Sampson v. Buescher case.

I guess I hardly need tell you that despite how important this story is. it has NOT appeared in the Miami Herald or the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, which, sadly, things being the way they are down here, also means that it has NOT been mentioned on local Miami TV newscasts, and given a local perspective.

For more information on the case and to see the legal brief, see:
http://makenolaw.org/blog/6-ballotissues/120-campaign-finance-red-tape-in-colorado and http://www.campaignfreedom.org/legal_center/detail/sampson-v-buescher-10th-cir and http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/11/09/tenth-circuit-strikes-down-disclosure-requirements-for-small-ballot-measure-campaigns/ and http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020101109081.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

Speaking of free speech, later this week, I'm making a Public Records Request to the City of Hallandale Beach about one of their many ridiculous or unconstitutional ordinances, which I wrote about on the blog last year in a post titled, Unconstitutional Power Grab: Hallandale Beach Considers Taxing Political Candidates for Free Speech
http://hallandalebeachblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/unconstitutional-power-grab-hallandale.html

This particular one requires anyone in this city posting a political campaign sign in public, whether for an individual candidate or an issue or referendum, to place a deposit of hundreds of dollars at HB City Hall.
To me, that sounds like regulating free speech.

I'm going to find out which of the dozens of candidates who have run in August and November for judicial and legislative races, both local, county-wide and statewide, complied and who didn't. And what attempts, if any, City Hall has made to collect their (illegal) $$$ from candidates and political committees, and or any fines.

Given how very poorly run this city is, I think you can well imagine what my low expectations are about this, which causes you to wonder why it was foisted upon this city in the first place, doesn't it?

Part of that law also would've initially given the unelected City Manager the sole authority to intentionally place campaign materials on city property if HE determined it would be in the public interest, NOT the elected City Commission.

Try to think of another city in Florida besides Hallandale Beach that would propose something so clearly preposterous and anti-democratic?

Not that the city's separate common sense rules for the legal placement of campaign signs, which city candidates are given when filing their paperwork, was followed, as this photo I snapped below -on Election Day- illustrates.

Above: Not just against common sense and city rules but gauche, to boot: Alexander Lewy.

This may be allowed in your city, but it is NOT in this one, and Alexander Lewy already knew it. Lewy doesn't care.

Even after I personally warned him two weeks before the election after seeing his signs illegally placed on City Hall property that was forbidden, even after the city's Code Compliance Dept. subsequently removed several of his campaign signs clearly on HB City Hall property where they were NOT permitted, Alexander Lewy would NOT obey the city's own rules.
In a few days, he'll be a HB City Commissioner.

Perhaps we'll see in a few months how lax the city's Code Compliance Dept. is when there are campaign signs advocating the recall of some sitting HB city commissioners.

I have a strange feeling they will suddenly become rather zealous in their enforcement, rather than simply look the other way, as is the case now with so many other self-evident code problems that remain problematic for weeks, months and years in this city.
Especially when the guilty party is the city itself.

Call it a hunch or simply call it past experience watching how things get done here.
Or don't.
Insert your own variation of the Goose: Gander maxim here.

If you didn't receive my email about it yesterday, please check out this interesting resource, which references a recent conference in Boca Raton focused on -really- municipal ethics with an emphasis on ethics in land use.
http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/readers-invited-to-access-culture-of-corruption-materials/


---------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

November 9, 2010

Major Legal Victory for Free Speech

Federal Court Strikes Down Disclosure Laws

Imposed upon Colorado Neighbors

Arlington, Va.—A federal appellate court today held that six neighbors in the tiny subdivision of Parker North, Colo., should not have been forced to register with the government and comply with burdensome campaign finance laws simply for opposing a ballot issue involving the annexation of their neighborhood.

In Sampson v. Buescher, Judge Harris L. Hartz of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing for a unanimous court, recognized the severe burden Colorado’s campaign finance laws imposed on grassroots political activists. In his opinion, he wrote, “The average citizen cannot be expected to master on his or her own the many campaign financial-disclosure requirements set forth in Colorado’s constitution, the Campaign Act, and the Secretary of State’s Rules Concerning Campaign and Political Finance.”

IJ client Karen Sampson said, “This ruling is a complete vindication of what we’ve said all along. Campaign regulations and red tape serve no purpose in local ballot issue elections other than to make political participation more difficult for ordinary citizens.”

For a brief and funny video discussing this lawsuit, visit: http://www.ij.org/2504

Sampson and her neighbors first learned about Colorado’s campaign finance laws when they organized to oppose the annexation of their neighborhood into the adjacent town of Parker. The group talked to neighbors, circulated postcards and planted yard signs. But in Colorado and other states, when two or more people spend more than $200 to speak out about a ballot issue, they must register with the state as an “issue committee” and comply with rules and regulations that rival the tax laws in their complexity. Issue committees must appoint a registered agent, open separate bank accounts, and disclose all contributions and expenditures of more than $20 for such things as yard signs and fliers. Because Sampson and the others failed to register with the government before speaking, the principal proponents of the annexation used Colorado’s campaign finance laws to sue them.

“This ruling means that grassroots political activists in Colorado and the other states that compose the 10th Circuit can speak freely without fear of being sued by their political opponents,” said Steve Simpson, an Institute for Justice senior attorney who represents the neighbors in Parker North. “The Court recognized that the states have little or no interest in requiring groups that simply wish to speak out for and against ballot issues to register and comply with complicated disclosure rules.”

A recent study by campaign finance expert Dr. Jeffrey Milyo of the University of Missouri asked 255 people to comply with the registration and disclosure laws, and not one participant managed to do so correctly. The average correct score was just 41 percent. Each person could have been subject to fines and penalties in real life. Like those in Parker North, participants found the red tape was, “Worse than the IRS!” and said it would make them less likely to get involved in politics.

This is yet another important victory in the Institute for Justice’s efforts to protect free speech from government-imposed restrictions in the guise of so-called campaign finance “reforms.”

In March of this year, the Institute for Justice, working together with the Center for Competitive Politics, scored an important legal victory in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of SpeechNow.org, a group of individuals who wanted to pool their money to run independent political ads for or against candidates based on their support for the First Amendment. The ruling struck down federal campaign finance laws that made it practically impossible for new and independent groups of individuals to join together, raise money and advocate for the election or defeat of political candidates.

In May 2009, the Institute for Justice scored another important victory for free speech when a federal court struck down Florida’s “electioneering communications” law—the broadest regulation of political speech in the nation. The ruling freed community groups and educational non-profits across Florida and the nation to speak about candidates and issues on the Florida ballot without registering with the government and navigating bureaucratic red tape.

And on November 23, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to accept the Institute for Justice’s challenge to Arizona’s so-called “Clean Elections” system. That system funnels “matching funds” to government-funded political candidates and punishes those politicians who reject taxpayer money for their campaigns and instead raise money as most politicians have for the history of our nation—through private, voluntary contributions.

Plaintiff Becky Cornwell, who had to comply with Colorado’s laws for the Parker North group, said, “Individuals should not have to comply with complicated rules just to speak. As the group’s registered agent, I was constantly worried about making a small error that would lead to another lawsuit and possibly fines. Thanks to this ruling, I finally feel like my neighbors and I can join together to speak out about the issues we care about.”

In its ruling, the court also rejected the idea that Colorado’s disclosure laws for ballot issues could be supported by an “informational interest,” noting that such disclosure facilitated “ad hominem arguments.” Said the court, “When many complain about the deterioration of public discourse—in particular, the inability or unwillingness of citizens to listen to proposals made by particular people or by members of particular groups—one could wonder about the utility of ad hominem arguments in evaluating ballot issues. Nondisclosure could require the debate to actually be about the merits of the proposition on the ballot.”

Steve Simpson said, “Freedom of speech means that citizens, not government, get to decide whether to disclose their identities when they speak out about ballot issues. For those who don’t trust anonymous speech, the solution is not to listen to it.”

And indeed, research shows that most people do not use such information anyway. IJ Director of Strategic Research Dr. Dick Carpenter surveyed views on disclosure of ballot issue contributors in six states, including Colorado, and found that most people—about 60 percent—do not even know where to find contributor information, nor do they seek it out before voting.

“This is yet another example of an important judicial trend the Institute for Justice has advocated since our founding—that of judicial engagement,” said Institute for Justice President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. “Judges are becoming rightfully more engaged in defending vital rights and striking down laws that exceed constitutionally enshrined limits on legislative powers.”

Milyo’s study, “Campaign Finance Red Tape,” is available at: http://www.ij.org/1620. Carpenter’s research, “Disclosure Costs,” is available at http://www.ij.org/1530 and http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_04_6_carpenter.pdf.

# # #