I Love a Good Debate

I had something entirely different planned today, but something happened yesterday that got me fired up, so we are going there.

I was basically accused by someone yesterday that I am intentionally only showing one side of issues to make people look bad. They said basically that it appeared my mission in life was to put things out there that made someone look bad, yet not offer solutions.

This began a 40 minute or so discussion.

First things first. I often offer solutions. I am involved. I show up to just about every meeting and I talk at just about every meeting... and the commissioners love is (probably not). I send emails. I have phone conversations with them on occasion. I have talked to four of the five in person somewhat recently. The fifth refuses to have anything to do with me. Ok all good.

And yes, for the record I have conversations with them. I do not pretend to be a journalist. I do not sit on the sidelines and write what I see. Yes, I report things going on and all of that... but EVERYONE knows that I am actively involved. I do not hide that. Commissioners get an earful from me all the time. Go read the emails I send them. Good stuff.

Pro tip for everyone... I have learned that commissioners HATE to be surprised by things at the dais because they are helpless to do anything or respond. I have found it most effective to send an email a few days before a BOCC meeting with what I will be bringing up so that they can then have conversations with staff about that issue or research on their own. I can then bring it up at the meeting for the public to see. This goes for opinions about upcoming votes to questions about things.

So for this person to say that I am not offering solutions, must not be paying attention. That doesn't mean my solution is the best. That doesn't mean anyone actually listens to it. But I am out there offering solutions. I have been told several times by them that I make them think and they appreciate it.

Library article yesterday for instance. The Quasi-Judicial stuff. Cell phone texting policy. Dispensary ban. Comp Plan update. Sales tax.

And if I am not offering solutions, I am asking them to follow proper processes. 491, airport, texting, bank contracts, heliplex, administrative regulations... and so on.

I explained that it is not too difficult for everyone to follow proper procedures. If they did all that, I have nothing to write about and I go away.

So to say I am not offering solutions blows my mind. Not sure why I need to defend that.. but there it is.

As for reporting on one side or reporting to make people look bad. I am just putting out there what I find.

The airport and Right Rudder were mentioned as an example. I was told that I only covered it from the Right Rudder is getting thrown to the wolves angle and putting out all the texts/emails that I found that support that angle. I was told I neglected to report the other side of it.

So what is that side?

He is not longer partnered with Mesa Airlines. He has a few prior lawsuits. One was for failure to return deposits for an airline purchase. Another was for a mechanic issue on a plane he was repairing. Another was a former business partner.

There was an accident after a community fundraising event on the airport property. The person was drunk, drove through a gate and down the runway, damaging lights and other things. Andy was blamed for it because the event took place at the airport (his contract required him to be cooperative with hosting community events). Then there was an airbnb issue with him hosting an RV and had issues with a client.

But I mentioned those things.

I have been told by a couple of commissioners that he was not running a profitable business. Not sure how they would know that as he is not required to disclose his financials (a point of contention with them by the way), but let us assume that is true.

How does any of that lead to an effort to get rid of his company, which the emails and text messages show? Does having lawsuits against your company mean you violated your lease? I guess you can make that argument if those terms appear in the contract (they don't). The lawsuit contract termination letter does not reference any of those things.

I did not see any communications mentioning his financial issues. I did not see any communications mentioning the lawsuits. One commissioner messaged Steve Howard that Mesa left the airport, but that was the only reference to that.

What am I missing? What side did I not show properly? The texts and emails speak for themselves. I am not ignoring them to paint some narrative.

Next thing I apparently got only one side of was the Crystal River City Manager potential firing. I was told that I only supported the Audra version of events and not the full story.

But again, I challenged this person to tell me the full story I am missing. I said I had the evaluations and read them. I did records requests based on them and found that every single conversation council members and the mayor referenced was anonymous. There were anonymous emails bashing Audra that they referenced.

I asked for all call logs and text messages between council members and anyone who would have complained about Audra and was told there were none, except for two anonymous phone calls. All conversations were in person.

The mayor told me he spoke to Audra and suggested corrections to her, but when I asked for personnel file, there were no such reports of that conversation... which are required to be filed per the HR policy.

So I asked this person to tell me what I was missing. They told me they themselves had heard directly from people about problems and that I should have called them... however, this person is not directly involved with the city nor were they mentioned in any conversations regarding this... so how am I to know to reach out to this person if their name never came up. Am I supposed to call the entire county to get their opinions or go where the data tells me to go?

I asked this person to tell me the issues and who they were with but they refused stating they were confidential conversations.

My point exactly.

I am supposed to report these were all confidential sources and anonymous complaints to elected officials and treat them as fact? Just trust them? There was plenty of time for anyone to reach out to me and tell me their story. Even the council members could have called me. "Hey CJ.. I spoke to this person and this person... it is legit." Plenty of opportunity for that. I can keep their name out of it. But I cannot do the "just trust me... it has happened"

But if no one provides that information, how am I supposed to report that? The data I have shows none of that. So tell me where I am wrong and I will include that.

The 491 issue. Another one sided reporting. But again, I explained I had all the emails and text messages. I showed them publicly. Tell me what I am missing. Those things happened.

I never said anyone broke any laws, although I said Steve Howard may have perjured himself with the document he signed. It is not illegal to file the funding request they way they did it.... just not proper process.. and it all happened behind the scenes.

Tell me again what I am missing from the other side.

To that point, I know of at least two ethics complaints that have been filed against Ruthie that have been elevated to the investigation stage. These were in regards to lobbying her former board within 6 years of getting out of office. That is not nothing.

The Brannen Bank issue was another topic I only did one side on. I outed the mayor for wanting to move to Brannen Bank. I have the emails (some of which I have not shown yet, which will be part of another article).. I have the videos from meetings where he said "I am biased". I showed his business banking relationship with the bank. I have all of that.

What did I miss?

I said that it may be a better deal for the city. I said I had no issue with them switching banks. I said nothing illegal was happening. They can piggyback contracts.

I just said it does not follow the proper procurement process the city has set to remove issues like biases.

That was it. I called out the process issues and suggested that they follow the proper processes.

I have also been accused by this person before for playing favorites. "You are only picking on certain people".

That is the furthest thing from the truth. I have over 40k combined county emails. They are from every single commissioner. I have asked for text messages from every single one of them. I have asked for call logs. I have asked for personnel files. I have asked for employee contracts and pay stubs.

You do not see most of it because there is nothing to see.

While these may seem like "gotcha" stories and what not, as I have been accused of doing recently by someone else in this space, they are intentionally showing people what is happening that they do not see. I am spending the time that others are not willing to spend to give you a behind the scenes look at your government. That is important. What are your government officials doing that you do not see?

I have NEVER accused anyone of breaking laws. I have NEVER accused anyone of being a bad person. I have NEVER accused anyone of taking bribes or doing ANYTHING of that nature. I have stated time and time again, my issues are generally process issues.

The truth is I am starting to shine a light where a light has never been shined before. It is starting to make people uncomfortable. I have been told this by MANY people over the past few months... people who you would be shocked if I mentioned their names. In fact, one prominent person told me yesterday that they appreciated me looking and doing work that no one was willing to do before.

Want the proof? I guess you just have to believe me when I say it 😄