Now That I Have Responded To Mr. Rackley Perhaps He Will Respond To Me?

I have a few questions I hope you will be kind enough to respond to Mr. Rackley, since you made the commitment to answer any questions about the EDC.

1. Why did the Mr. Speer take two hundred dollars from the EDC funds supplied by taxpayers and give as donations to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts? This is not a question of their value only about the appropriateness of funneling taxpayer money to charitable organizations. Check numbers  4573 & 4583.

2. Is it not a conflict of interest to engage in a financial transaction, where you personally benefit, with the very committee you are chairman of. Are you the Rackley Technologies Inc. that check number 4360 was made out to for $180.00?

3. Is it not a conflict of interest for the committee to be buying insurance from the wife of the Director?

4.Why was a Payroll System by Intuit purchased for $574.00 with the Chase Credit Card in September when there are only two employees.?

5. Why is the August 2011 Board Meeting, where the lunch cost $303.60,  listed separate from the other Board Meetings meals?

6. Why did Mr. Speer make a $1,000.00 taxpayer donation to the Songwriters event, then publicly take credit for the donation while personally receiving special seating and acknowledgements?

I'll offer my appreciation for your attention and response in advance, thank you.  

The Second Part Of Mr. Rackley's Rant

Mr. Rackley goes on in the second part of his rant with the following;

Mr. Rackley, “If there is a commissioner reading this that feels I "insulted the intelligence of every person in the room" as you stated. Please accept my apology. My frustration was directed solely at Mr. Barrett and his false statements that he has posted regarding EDC budget.”

My Response: When you stand before a group of people and tell them you have reduced your budget by over $5,000.00 then turn around in the very next sentence and state that you want them to give you $5,000.00 more than last year what would you call that Mr. Rackley. To me and a number of others it was an insult. It was basically saying you people aren't smart enough to know that if I had really reduced my budget by $5,000.00 I would be asking for $5,000.00 less instead of more. I would also remind Mr. Rackley at the point of his presentation I had not said a word to him or about his proposal. I would suspect his “frustration” stems more from being caught in a fabrication and called on it by Commissioners than anything to do with me, I just happened to be what he apparently considered a safe target.

Mr. Rackley, “Mr. Barrett,last year, when you attacked me and accused me of accessing a voting machine while being non-certified and your blog turned to attack me personally, I emailed and mailed you request to remove these non-related comments. You refused to do so. Now they have again turned personal and attacking my family for no apparent reason. I respectfully ask you to remove these comments.”

My Response: Sir you are not state certified nor have you ever been state certified to open a voting machine. You have a certification as an Election Commissioner but that has nothing to do with opening a voting machine and that is the reason I suspect the State Election Authority ordered you to not open any voting machines. The Election Commission is required to pay a non- resident, uninvolved, independent person to handle any problems with the machines that require opening them.

As for comments on this blog I have stated and restated the guidelines for posting. Personally I find it reprehensible that people, especially anonymous people make personal attacks against private citizens but that is the nature of the beast. If there is to be free speech it must include opposing views. I would remind Mr. Rackley that no one on this blog has been subjected to more cowardly attacks, abuse, lies, rumors and gossip than I have including attacks on my non-involved family members and underage  granddaughter. I have not personally read an attack on your family members nor have I personally attacked you. It seems that you believe anyone holding an opposing view from you and willing to express that view is attacking you, that is simply not true and perhaps you should grow a bit tougher skin if you are planning to continue along your current path.  

Mr. Rackley, “I have no faith that you will do this based on our previous conversation. Therefore, I will state that I have met with an attorney regarding this. Your former opposing counsel. While he told me I had a solid case against you, the problem was you had no assets to acquire. His exact words to me were, "I would have to charge you approximately $10,000 to obtain a judgment. And while his assets are in his wife's name, until he dies or divorces you have nothing and I would hate to take your money just for that, but I will".

My Response, It seems odd that my “former opposing counsel” would know anything about my finances. It would be even less likely that any attorney I have ever retained would be willing to discuss them with you. While it is a very expensive endeavor to bring a lawsuit against another person I would suggest that the real overriding obstacle that has stopped others and I believe will stop you is the fact that you must be examined under oath not only in your interrogatories but also in the depositions and finally on the witness stand. There is also the matter of having all your records subpoenaed and then proving that I have actually damaged you in some way.  So you do what you want but understand I have not published a single word that I cannot back up with published proof.  I will not be bullied.

Claim Number Seven By Mr Rackley

Mr. Rackley states in his seventh claim, "7) "Lavish" Health Insurance Plan - Dan's insurance agent is Elaine Hickman. It is with Blue Cross Blue Shield. His deductible is $1000. It provides NO Dental, NO Vision, NO Life Insurance, No Disability. In my opinion this is far from "lavish".

As you can see taxpayers have been paying more than $900.00 a month on average for this "bare bones" insurance, that has now gone to over a thousand dollars per month. How does this compare with the county and city workers in terms of cost and benefits? Oh, that's right Mr. Speer is neither a county or city employee and is thus able to chose the plan he wants through his wife's insurance agency. Granted there my be another agent who is involved but as you can see at least one check is made out directly to Brenda Speer.

Another questionable expense is the "extra Contribution" to Lincoln Financial Services, Perhaps Mr. Rackley would like to explain that expense in order for folks not to jump to any conclusions about a retirement fund paid for by taxpayers.   

Item Six In Mr. Rackley's List Of Claims

Mr. Rackley states his 6^th item as “6) EDC Lunches - $8 per person is a small amount to pay for each VOLUNTEER member monthly. For most of us that is ALL we get, a free meal, and yes providing a meal does encourage our members to attend regularly. We have discussed cutting this and a motion was made to continue providing this and it passed with one member voting against.”

Several issues arise from this statement, 1^st if the cost is only $8.00 per “VOLUNTEER member monthly” just how many members are involved because according to the records the costs based on the checks written are as follows:

7/31/2011  - Check Number 4374  - July Board – 154.00            

10/3/2011 – Check Number 4417 - Sept. Board - $165.00

11/10/2011 – Check Number 4470 - Lighthouse G - $80.00   

11/10/2011 – Check Number 4470  - Oct. Ex. C  - $176.00        

 12/16/2011 – Check Number 4499 - Nov. Board - $154.00

2/1/2012 – Check  Number 4531 - Jan Board - $176.00              

3/1/2012 – Check Number 4549 - Feb. Board - $176.00

4/1/2012 – Check Number 4587 – March Board - $176.00

Now if the EDC Board is made up of volunteers and restricted from any compensation for their services how is it they justify these meals at taxpayer expense totaling in the thousands of dollars each year?

Mr. Rackley claims that the meals are an encouragement for the volunteers to attend the meetings.  If the volunteers have to be fed as an encouragement to attend the meetings that leaves me with the question why have a Board made up of less than the most enthusiastic of members and if an $8.00 meal can induce members can they really be looking out for the community?    

Mr. Rackley also claims in item 6 that the issue of meals was discussed and the Board voted to continue the free meals. Well, it seems to me that if a Board member can be swayed to attend meetings by a meal they would certainly not vote to discontinue the benefit which obviously has become a compensation in violation of their By Laws.

Item 4 & 5 of Mr. Rackley's Claims

Item 4 from Mr. Rackley concerns the Hillcrest Country Club.

I am glad that the EDC no longer hold a taxpayer funded membership at Hillcrest. I agree with Mr. Rackley that the club is an asset to the community where we disagree is with the idea of funding it with taxpayer money. Mr. Rackley states that “It (Hillcrest) was never used by anyone on our Board for personal use. This raises several questions if it was never used for personal use does that mean that no one when they entertained there ate a meal, played a round of golf or took a dip in the pool or used the tennis courts? If the club is such an asset how many EDC Board members have memberships at the club? If any have club memberships why aren’t people entertained there as guest of that member instead of buying a separate membership?

Item 5 from Mr. Rackley; “Car Wash at $35. Dan has the EDC vehicle cleaned when prospective people come to town and he has to drive them around.”

Since Mr. Speer is using the vehicle as his personal vehicle during times when he is not chauffeuring “prospective people” why are taxpayers paying for cleaning the vehicle when much of the dirt is the result of that personal usage; why isn’t the vehicle run through the car wash for less than ten bucks. Of the past 365 days how many actual days did the vehicle actually contain “prospective people”? It seems that since Mr. Speer has the vehicle at no cost to him, fuel is supplied and maintenance provided it would be a small expectation for him to keep the vehicle clean. 

Answer to Mr Rackley's False Claims On Friday, May 31, 2013 3:43

While I was away Mr. David Rackley posted some very interesting claims in an effort to show that I was less than truthful in my criticisms of the finances for the Economic Development Board of which Mr. Rackley is chairperson. The interesting thing is that Mr. Rackley makes these accusations without supplying any documentation supporting his claims.

I apologize for not having responded to these accusations prior to now but I have not been in town where the internet and my records are.

Mr. Rackley began his post with a complaint about being personally attacked on this blog. I did not write the comments Mr. Rackley referred to and I remind him that he is a public figure administering public funds and as such is open for scrutiny by the public. While I detest involving non- public family members in conversations directed at public figures I equally dislike being threatened. I will leave the comment Mr. Rackley  objected to and remind him that there has been no one who has been subjected to level of vicious lies, rumors and gossip as have I. Stop whining.    

The second issue Mr. Rackley complains about is “You stated the EDC had cable bills of $100 per month. To be exact they are $143.33 for the entire year. A gross overstatement on your part.”

Below are the latest PES Energize bills dated 5/07/13 (these were personally handed to me and commissioners  attending the Budget Committee Meeting by Mr. Rackley).

There are several things to notice 1^st this is a monthy bill not a year end bill.  2^nd While EDC gets a $52.95 (this is a very recent development that may help explain the 3% increase to everyone else’s bill) reduction leaving a subtotal of $13.00 not including taxes and other fees even at this rate it would total $156.00 a year not $143.33 as Mr Rackley so forcefully claimed.

The 3^rd thing to notice is the internet fee of $74.95 a month along with the phone fees of $43.45 and ask yourself is this not part of the cable bill, doe they make out separate checks one for the internet, one for the phone and one for the cable, how do you pay your cable bill? In the strictest sense of the term “cable bill” Mr Rackley is almost right missing it by close to twenty dollars but in the ordinary sense in which I spoke of the cable bill it was this bill I have printed below.

4^th when you look at the phone portion ask yourself what does "UNL PHONE" mean, does that mean the phone is unlisted?

5th If the bill averages $130.00 a month is that not $1,560.00 a year.