What she filed is bereft of any real information as to her qualifications or experience. Little wonder that it was handled politically before the Personnel Office could proceed to vet it as a personnel matter.
The Shadow’s evaluation of what she filed falls way short of making a case that she should be hired. Make your own evaluation of her qualifications. Here is how we read her previous applications for appointment to the Board (Click Link to read 2008 , 2010 and 2011 applications):
FIRST note in the applications from 2008 and 2010 the references include Doug Hodson, Steve Dennis, and Robert Lott as you might suppose. Interesting how these people all hang together and flock to locations and groups where they can spend somebody else's money. SECONDLY, she was only the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the Fortis Group, which dissolved after less than a year and which had no Federal Tax Number (e.g., never registered with the IRS); she has never been the CFO of the Galleria Di Vetro that we can find as that corporation does not appear in Florida Secretary of State [Sunbiz.org] website; we did find her listed under another corporation, but only as CEO, Lotus Development, Inc. (Click LINK to read Sunbiz document). Her claimed “marketing” experience is with the Fortis Group on Flagler and the Flagler Hospitality Group. Not much experience to justify any advertising job, much less one for over $110,000 (not including a whopping $8000 + a month in health care benefits) in New Smyrna Beach where the median personal income is around $28,000. It does however go a long way to show experience in funding things for your friends, as the Flagler Hospitality Group was the recipient of extensive SVAA funding during her tenure on the board. So we have a woman who is set to supervise the vote for all of their stuff.
She also has been the Treasurer of the SVAA for quite some time and during that tenure, based on responses from the previous director Boyd, issued checks in advance of events in direct contravention to SVAA Board policy. This less than acceptable behavior does not suggest that she should be appointed to the chief job. The specific rule she violated is:
In addition, a report is required after the event, that evaluates the number of heads put in beds, before money is paid. According to Debra Boyd, before she was fired (or resigned depending on whose story you believe), no post event evaluation statement had ever been filed during her long tenure. And that in spite of Board requirement that one be received by the Board BEFORE ANY MONEY IS DISTRIBUTED.
As treasurer Nicole Carni would have approved everyone of these payouts, all of which were improper as none were in compliance with the established SVAA Board Rules. This is the very essence of fiduciary responsibility, for which the County Council is holding the bag.
Mr. Dinneen and Mr. Bruno, the ball is now in your court and the Shadow suggests you go back to the beginning and start over with a compliant and open application process that looks beyond Volusia County. In our opinion, Ms. Carni has done nothing to warrant appointment to the job except to take care of her friends.
2.THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: LOUSY MANAGMENT AND GIVING TAXPAYER MONEY TO YOUR FRIENDS. ABOLISH IT NOW.
The Shadow now sees the problem of the malfunctioning Community Redevelopment Agency as a refusal of the County Council to take any corrective action to end the greed of the CRA Board to supply money to their friends. The fact of the matter is that they are lining the pockets of their friends by increasing the bottom line of businesses they favor, particularly the Flagler Avenue bars. This at the expense of not only the City taxpayers but of those taxpayers in the County who give them half of the money. And the Shadow thought that the County Council was in place to protect the taxpayer.
Get real. The total of the subsidized functions on Flagler cost the taxpayers up to $70,000 in 2011 and more next year (and that does not include money from the SVAA headed by Nicole Carni, a Flagler Avenue merchant herself). Yet the CRA has no study of any kind that shows an increase in traffic on Flagler or more specifically “ a reduction of blight” as a result of any of their expenditures. The best they have for “data” is anecdotal claims by the same people who get the money and most of that would not meet the laugh test on the Howdy Doody show. And half of that is from County taxpayers. The County Council certainly has the authority to audit how its own money is spent.
Councilman Hayman requested such an audit and obviously could not command three other votes. The City objected, as one would expect, but it is a fellow tortfeasor. If the County Manager does not like the idea, ask the Governor to make the State’s Inspector General investigate. Certainly when you look at the list below, the Shadow hopes that at least four Council members will say enough is a enough and stop this fiasco dead in its tracks.
Henry Frederick clearly made a case for the problems associated with the Flagler Avenue bar hopping parties funded by the CRA. Here is a section of his story as it appeared on NSBNEW.NET with a link to the full story and videos:
Check this list:
A. Under the table they gave the CRA Director a $10,000 raise, claiming he has two jobs. Does anyone really believe that a City employee raking in $90,000 a year is doing two jobs and worth another $10,000. They do not even have the guts to admit it is nothing but a pay raise. Did your boss give you a 12% raise this year? Tony Otte got one!
Did one Commissioner object? Heck no; hello Mr. Hathaway, where were you on this issue?
B. Hire (contract paid for by the CRA) a chiropractor as a public relations employee for $60,000. A chiropractor!! The Shadow wonders who she knows high on the City payroll. This selection is so fishy that the County Council on this issue alone should order an investigation. Again, one half of this money is County money and the CRA just throws it away;
C. $300,000 for a seawall for Esther Street. They need to spend the money, but how about projects that are of some benefit to the taxpayer. We have suggested underground wiring. The next time you do not have electric service, think of Esther Street;
D. Give money to your friends which in no way decreases blight in the district. We could find a bunch, like Richford’s restaurant, the Gnarly Bar, or That’s Amore, but the grant to the Heath Health shop is the poster child. The outdoor eating pavilion is lovely, but that grant of taxpayer money has done nothing to eliminate blight. It just made a private piece of property more valuable;
E. Giving money to your friends as a profitable sideline. Chad Schilsky and That’s Amore represents a perfectly legal yet sleazy use of CRA money. Do they sell room deodorant by the barrel? A $20,000 grant for a $40,000 job and no-bid construction contract to Barringer Construction;
F. Paying money to advertise for charities not connected to the City, much less the CRA district. Try “Friends of Canaveral”. Last year $10,000, and with no evidence that it generated anything or was effective, $15,000 this year;
G. Grants to a private company of merchants on Flagler annually to spend on other businesses, such as the SEV Observer newspaper;
H. Claiming that the money spent for the fireworks display on New Year’s on Flagler in 2010 brought about 1200 rentals in town. Have you stopped laughing yet? And we thought they were snowbirds coming down for the winter. Stupid us, they drove a thousand miles maybe just to watch the fireworks and since it was late, stayed over for three or four months.
I. Spend all of the CRA print advertising money with the Observer or Hometown News. After all, someone has to support Mr. Lott.
As an aside, the Shadow does not believe that the Observer is a paper of general circulation as required in order to run government notices and ads. See the definition in the Mississippi Newspaper Association or Oklahoma Newspaper Association; its in the Florida law but we can find no definition here. This definition, in part says, that
If such a newspaper stops publishing for any period of time, it must then again be published for at least a year in order to requalify itself for these notices.
Since the Observer stopped publishing for a period last year, one can conclude that all of the legal notices published on behalf of the City from the date of stopping, through one year after starting up again, do not qualify under the law and none of the resulting actions associated with those notices may be legal. When queried, the City stated they had no intention of checking on whether the Observer was a newspaper of general circulation. The paper claimed to be one and that was good enough for the City.
J. Finally, the following email documents a presentation that was made to the County Council last Thursday. We will report later what they did.