Home > The Press > Opinion (page 56)

Category Archives: Opinion

So now we will ‘reclibrate?’

Re-calibrate?

That’s the word an official of Florida’s Department of Education used to characterize what the state’s Board of Education did last week when FCAT writing exam scores for 4th, 8th and 10 graders were released and did a free-fall. Only about a third got the minimum passing grade.

I think what he meant was the board “dumbed down” the score so the results weren’t as dismal. That’s certainly what most of the nation believed when the “re-calibration” was announced.

Never underestimate academia’s penchant for snatching words like “re-calibrate” to describe what happened. Obfuscation of the language is what they do best.

Baker County students, incidentally, were right there with counterparts in Florida’s remaining 66 counties. The “passing” percentage here went up when the numbers were “re-calibrated.”

So now, what they’re telling us is the reading portion of FCAT was made more difficult, but made so too swiftly. What tripped up students was the new emphasis on punctuation, spelling and grammar.

What?

Read More »

Board’s fine reduction ‘nonsense’

Dear Editor:

Having read your column (Code board pushed under the bus) in last week’s Press, I am stunned. This is just nonsense.

My husband was the Baker County code enforcement officer until his death in December of 2009. He worked very hard documenting and attempting to get violators back into compliance with the rules of the code enforcement department. He often told me some violators did not know or did not care, but since he was a former LAPD officer, he was able to get them to see he had his job and they had their job, that is bring their property up to code.

He had a lot of respect for other employees at the building and zoning department, and they worked together as a team. Many violators heeded the letter of the law and his notices advising them to conform, and others brought their property up to code. Some were given more time and some were not. That is where the investigation and due diligence came in.

I live down the road from someone who received a hardship exemption that my husband argued heartily against. He and I both knew there was no hardship, yet the property owner claimed to be taking care of an ailing parent.

Set a precedent and that bell cannot be unrung.

Read More »

Code board pushed under the bus

The Baker County Commission printed out a road map last week on how to beat a fine by the Baker County Code Enforcement Board for non-compliance.

Wait until an election year and plead hardship.

In a textbook example of how to set a horrible precedent, the county board reduced a non-compliance fine from $1410 down to $187.84, the lower amount equal to what the county zoning department spent processing the case plus a $50 fine.

The code board, at its April meeting, cut the original $2820 fine owed by Roger Harvey for non-skirting of a mobile home in half (by a 5-2 vote) and the defendant, as he has the right to do, appealed it to the commission.

Mr. Harvey, who showed up at the code board meeting with a bit of an attitude, had no credible defense as to why he ignored the initial complaint in 2010, why he did not attend a hearing on the case or why he let the fine accumulate during the maximum 180 days.

Read More »

Decline to be lobbied

My guess is that county commissioners have already figured out that part of the reason opposition to the medical waste incinerator east of Macclenny grew legs so swiftly is be­­­cause of the perception that the wheeling and dealing had taken place out of the sunshine.

That’s not to diminish the environmental concerns held by opponents, but that perception of “good ole’ boy” deal making didn’t help matters for the proponents of the plan.

First some background.

Yes, officials of Integrated Waste Management Systems [IWMS], along with Darryl Register, director of the both Chamber of Commerce and Baker County Development Commission, lobbied individual commissioners before the plan surfaced two months ago.

Others, including yours truly, were aware the company was seeking support, both financially and otherwise, to locate the incinerator at Enterprise East. The plan had been floated the better part of one year.

Mr. Register, in fact, sought to delay the initial press coverage of the initiative for a brief period, citing fear of losing state funding for infrastructure. That was the week the legal notices for public hearings on the company’s development agreement were scheduled to publish. We declined the request and published the initial article that ignited a storm of protest.

Many yelled that there was a Sunshine Law violation lurking somewhere in that incinerator plan because it was obvious officials, both city and county, were aware of it.

Read More »

Scroll To Top