Saturday, January 24, 2009
questionable cash flows?
Gorland says that 40+ years after it was opened we still have NO way to know how many utilize the pool and what the revenues from it are. The pool is a cash business and costs us a LOT of money to operate. The golf course is a cash business and also costs us a LOT to run. We know there have been problems with cash revenues at the driving range in the past fluctuating wildly, at the very least. Is it possible that the golf course is NOT reflecting all the revenues actually received? After all, it IS the same management geniuses in charge of both facilities, right? If, after 40+ years they STILL dont know how many use the pool and what the revenues are, is it POSSIBLE that they ALSO have NO IDEA at the golf course? Knowing the problems associated with cash at the driving range, could the same thing be happening at the golf course? They were supposed to break even this year, and instead will LOSE $190,000. Thats a LONG drive from break even! Rumors are that the increase in green fees has caused a big drop in rounds played, no? Could this be ANOTHER management fiasco?
golf course condos?
I voted to buy the golf course to preserve the green space for the next generations and as a place to play for our golfers. I am concerned that the golf course will be taken over little by little, acre by acre, by private developers until there IS no golf course left for either the next generation OR the golfers. The Country Club was given away to a private business and I would NOT put it past the City Manager, Mayor, and Council to try to do the same thing with the golf course. Dr Mel P. Johnson
commentary
The United States lost 2.6 million jobs last year, the most in any single year since World War II. Manufacturing is at a 28-year low and even Obama's economists say unemployment could top 10 percent before the recession ends. One in 10 homeowners are at risk of foreclosure and the dollar continues its slide in value. Fortunately NONE of this has ANY effect on Miami Springs! Ask any one of the Council or the City Manager! We are somehow immune to all the problems that face the rest of the world! Jobs? Shoot, we have so many jobs and money we can afford to give away pool services for pennies on the dollar and pay people to STAY HOME! Foreclosures and tax revenues a problem? No way! We will just raise the taxes and fees on those who still have a job and are making their mortgage payments! We have PLENTY of good paying jobs! For example, if you are a contractor you can expect to bill us for at least 300% or more profits on each and every construction project we undertake! DOZENS of very expensive change orders are virtually GUARANTEED! Afraid the new gym job may finish before the recession ends? Heck, we cant even build a BATHROOM in less than TWO YEARS! So hop on the gravy train! Theres PLENTY of room and plenty of money we havent disappeared yet! ALL ABOARD!
commentary
Flyers are not a problem and are in the works as an educational tool for the residents. Finding a new City Manager may very well be an answer but just because his performance has NOT been in the best interests of the taxpaying residents. Arrogance, deception, secrecy, and fabrications aside, its not personal. HUGE profits of 300%, 400% and more for the contractors are NOT in the best interests of the residents! We need somebody who will protect amd preserve our City and its assets. We do NOT need those who make backroom handshake deals for private businesses that only benefit the private businesses, and leave the residents footing the bill so that those private businesses can prosper at our expense. ENOUGH!
Friday, January 23, 2009
home values plummet
Retirement savings wiped out by crisis
The day of retirement reckoning is here for less happy reasons, too. For the second time in eight years, savers have watched in horror as their 401(k)s, 403(b)s and other retirement savings were hit with sharp declines. This time around, the household wealth destruction is even greater because of the nationwide fall in home prices. For instance, from the last quarter of 2006 through the third quarter of 2008, the real value of homes and household holdings of stocks plummeted by $5.6 trillion, according to a recent report by Hoisington Investment Management Co. in Austin, Texas. It predicts that the wealth loss may exceed $10 trillion when the fourth-quarter figures are calculated. Of course, NONE of this affects MS- we have PLENTY of money! Costly construction- no problem! FORGOT hookups to bathrooms- no problem-you just charge us WHATEVER you want! Cost is irrelevent! Immaterial! 300% profits, 400% ? No problem. We will give you as much of the taxpayers monies as you want! Its NOT like its our personal monies going down the drain, now is it? Dont worry about the well ever going dry either, cause when it does, we just RAISE their taxes and fees! First we CREATE a financial crisis by irresponsible spending, then we solve that crisis by further burdening the residents with additional fees and taxes! Then we pat ourselves collectively on the back as a Council, and give all those who supported our outrageous spending MORE money! The contractors even return some of it in campaign contributions! What a racket! How SWEET it is!
The day of retirement reckoning is here for less happy reasons, too. For the second time in eight years, savers have watched in horror as their 401(k)s, 403(b)s and other retirement savings were hit with sharp declines. This time around, the household wealth destruction is even greater because of the nationwide fall in home prices. For instance, from the last quarter of 2006 through the third quarter of 2008, the real value of homes and household holdings of stocks plummeted by $5.6 trillion, according to a recent report by Hoisington Investment Management Co. in Austin, Texas. It predicts that the wealth loss may exceed $10 trillion when the fourth-quarter figures are calculated. Of course, NONE of this affects MS- we have PLENTY of money! Costly construction- no problem! FORGOT hookups to bathrooms- no problem-you just charge us WHATEVER you want! Cost is irrelevent! Immaterial! 300% profits, 400% ? No problem. We will give you as much of the taxpayers monies as you want! Its NOT like its our personal monies going down the drain, now is it? Dont worry about the well ever going dry either, cause when it does, we just RAISE their taxes and fees! First we CREATE a financial crisis by irresponsible spending, then we solve that crisis by further burdening the residents with additional fees and taxes! Then we pat ourselves collectively on the back as a Council, and give all those who supported our outrageous spending MORE money! The contractors even return some of it in campaign contributions! What a racket! How SWEET it is!
Group 3 filing
City Clerk today said that those with advanced degrees cannot run a campaign that discloses their title. That is very curious as others have run using the titles they have earned, and Dr. Johnson ran last time using his title on his signs. Dr. Johnson filed papers today to run for Group 3, which is now occupied by Mr. Garcia. The resident is running as a fiscal conservative - live within your budget, like most Americans do- why not our government? He also believes that the people should be able to vote on the major longterm BIG issues that confront our City. In addition, it is his contention that the Mayor and Council have a right and an obligation to supervise and oversee the City Manager, holding him accountable for his actions, or lack of same. Everybody should be accountable, but if they arent, they need to be looking for a new job.
commentary
The Gazette once again acts as a PR subsidiary of the City, regurgitating the questionable resume word for word, as if it was accurate and confirmed. I ask again, can a variance be requested for a building that doesnt even exist yet? Isnt there a conflict of interest if the Council that decided to build a new gym bill is also the ones deciding whether to grant a variance? When, if ever, is the Council going to do anything close to DUE DILIGENCE with regard to annexation? Perhaps pollution issues, mitigation fees, zoning questions, and the disposition of the FEC properties are not important to the other communities involved, but they ARE to MS residents. Why would we annex polluted properties? One multi-million dollar cleanup would wipe out ANY possible benefits we might receive. Only if the County would stipulate, in writing, that THEY would be responsible for any cleanups needed, would this part of annexation make ANY sense. Dr. Mel Johnson
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Health spending in the U.S. grew 6.1% in 2007
January 22, 2009
What's Happening with Seniors Benefits
Health spending in the U.S. grew 6.1% in 2007 to $2.2 trillion or $7,421 per person.
According to a new report from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), this was the slowest rate of growth since 1998 and 0.6 of a percentage point lower than the growth of 6.7% in 2006. Health care spending, however, continues to outpace overall economic growth, which grew by 4.8% in 2007.
Even as health care spending growth slowed, the health spending share of the nation's Gross Domestic Product continued to climb, reaching 16.2% in 2007, up by 0.2 percentage point from 2006.
Retail prescription drug spending grew 4.9% in 2007, slower than the 8.6% growth in 2006. Prescription drug prices grew 1.4%, much slower than the 3.5% growth the previous year.
Spending for most other health care services grew at about the same rate or faster than in 2006.
Hospital spending, which accounts for about 30% of total health care spending, grew 7.3% in 2007, compared to 6.9% in 2006. Physician and clinical services' spending increased 6.5% in 2007, the same rate of growth as in 2006.
Spending growth for both nursing home and home health services accelerated in 2007.
For nursing homes, spending grew 4.8% in 2007, compared to 4.0% growth in 2006. Spending growth for home health care services increased to 11.3% in 2007.
Total health care spending by public programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, grew 6.4% in 2007, a deceleration from 8.2% growth in 2006. In comparison, health care spending by private sources of funds grew 5.8% in 2007, compared to 5.4% growth in 2006.
Recent growth in public spending is attributable to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Under this legislation, Medicare beneficiaries gained access to Part D prescription drug coverage in 2006, which added expenditures totaling $40.5 billion to the Medicare program.
Medicare spending grew 7.2% in 2007, following the 18.5% growth in 2006 that resulted from the one-time implementation of Medicare Part D. Spending growth for fees for service Medicare slowed significantly to 3.6% in 2007, while Medicare Advantage spending increased 23.3%.
Total Medicaid spending grew 6.4% in 2007, following the first spending decrease in the program's history in 2006 of -0.7 percent. The increase in 2007 marked the return to a more normal growth trend following the one-time impact of the introduction of Part D in 2006, which shifted drug coverage for dual-eligibles from Medicaid into Medicare.
CMS found that overall private health insurance premiums grew 6.0% in 2007, the same rate as in 2006, but much lower than the recent peak of 10.7% in 2002. Over this period, private health insurance benefit payments also slowed, from 9.4% growth in 2002 to 6.6% in 2007.
Out-of-pocket spending grew 5.3% in 2007, an acceleration from 3.3% growth in 2006. This increase was mainly due to prescription drugs, nursing home services, and nondurable medical supplies. Out-of-pocket spending accounted for 12.0% of national health spending in 2007.
This share has been steadily declining. In 1998, it accounted for 14.7% of health spending. In 1968, out-of-pocket spending accounted for 34.8% of all health spending.
At the aggregate level, the shares of financing for health services and supplies by businesses (25%), households (31%), other private sponsors (4%), and governments (40%) remained relatively steady in 2007.
What's Happening with Seniors Benefits
Health spending in the U.S. grew 6.1% in 2007 to $2.2 trillion or $7,421 per person.
According to a new report from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), this was the slowest rate of growth since 1998 and 0.6 of a percentage point lower than the growth of 6.7% in 2006. Health care spending, however, continues to outpace overall economic growth, which grew by 4.8% in 2007.
Even as health care spending growth slowed, the health spending share of the nation's Gross Domestic Product continued to climb, reaching 16.2% in 2007, up by 0.2 percentage point from 2006.
Retail prescription drug spending grew 4.9% in 2007, slower than the 8.6% growth in 2006. Prescription drug prices grew 1.4%, much slower than the 3.5% growth the previous year.
Spending for most other health care services grew at about the same rate or faster than in 2006.
Hospital spending, which accounts for about 30% of total health care spending, grew 7.3% in 2007, compared to 6.9% in 2006. Physician and clinical services' spending increased 6.5% in 2007, the same rate of growth as in 2006.
Spending growth for both nursing home and home health services accelerated in 2007.
For nursing homes, spending grew 4.8% in 2007, compared to 4.0% growth in 2006. Spending growth for home health care services increased to 11.3% in 2007.
Total health care spending by public programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, grew 6.4% in 2007, a deceleration from 8.2% growth in 2006. In comparison, health care spending by private sources of funds grew 5.8% in 2007, compared to 5.4% growth in 2006.
Recent growth in public spending is attributable to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Under this legislation, Medicare beneficiaries gained access to Part D prescription drug coverage in 2006, which added expenditures totaling $40.5 billion to the Medicare program.
Medicare spending grew 7.2% in 2007, following the 18.5% growth in 2006 that resulted from the one-time implementation of Medicare Part D. Spending growth for fees for service Medicare slowed significantly to 3.6% in 2007, while Medicare Advantage spending increased 23.3%.
Total Medicaid spending grew 6.4% in 2007, following the first spending decrease in the program's history in 2006 of -0.7 percent. The increase in 2007 marked the return to a more normal growth trend following the one-time impact of the introduction of Part D in 2006, which shifted drug coverage for dual-eligibles from Medicaid into Medicare.
CMS found that overall private health insurance premiums grew 6.0% in 2007, the same rate as in 2006, but much lower than the recent peak of 10.7% in 2002. Over this period, private health insurance benefit payments also slowed, from 9.4% growth in 2002 to 6.6% in 2007.
Out-of-pocket spending grew 5.3% in 2007, an acceleration from 3.3% growth in 2006. This increase was mainly due to prescription drugs, nursing home services, and nondurable medical supplies. Out-of-pocket spending accounted for 12.0% of national health spending in 2007.
This share has been steadily declining. In 1998, it accounted for 14.7% of health spending. In 1968, out-of-pocket spending accounted for 34.8% of all health spending.
At the aggregate level, the shares of financing for health services and supplies by businesses (25%), households (31%), other private sponsors (4%), and governments (40%) remained relatively steady in 2007.
haters found
Here is where the HATERS of government ignorance, incompetence and/or corruption come to vent their outrage, disappointment, disgust, and disbelief in what their elected officials are doing. Those who HATE HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of their tax dollars disappearing with every construction project undertaken, can commiserate with those who HATE public giveaways by secret handshake deals that cost them a LOT of monies too! Those who HATE the Mayor and Councils lack of fiscal responsibility or any oversight and/or supervision of the City Manager are welcomed here gladly. Those who HATE that the residents havent been allowed to vote on BIG issues involving longterm multimillion dollar projects can find their voice here. Those who HATE that personal legacies have taken precedence over the needs of the residents will always be welcomed here, along with those who HATE the fact that DUE DILIGENCE has NOT been done in either the new gym or annexation issues- they can all voice their displeasure here. Fiscal irresponsibility HATERS can let their voice be heard here, along side haters of arrogance, fabrication, and deception- WELCOME! This IS an exercise in American democracy- no more, no less! With all its warts, democracy is STILL the best system in the world, and its the Internet and blog sites like this that allows these voices to be heard! Dr. Mel Johnson
commentary
The City Manager said he was going to hire a new Rec Director WITHOUT doing any of the usual background checks that are required and mandated for ANY other city employee? And the Council ALLOWED this? They did not require Gym to do ANY background checks? For " the most important job in the city?" NOTHING? It is the Rubber Stamp Regime at work again! Whatever you say, Gym! "Have rubber stamps, will grovel" is their motto. Pathetic is the word that comes to mind.
need all the facts to decide
The chances that SOMETHING happened with those three young ladies is pretty good. Exactly WHAT did happen is the problem. As I have said in the past, a touch on the arm or shoulder, or a pat on the back could be misinterpreted, are mistakes, and should result in a warning at the very least. Any touching of a more personal nature or explicit comments would be clearly out of bounds and DOES require strong action as a deterrent, in my opinion. Until we know ALL the facts its hard to make up ones mind about this. The question is- will we ever know all the facts? I am also concerned that Gym hired somebody without checking him out completely in terms of his actual qualifications and experience, like he said he did. Perhaps, if he had, he might have found something in his background checks and research that could have tipped him off BEFORE he was hired. It is clear that due diligence was NOT done, again, this time by the City Manager. Dr. Mel P. Johnson
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Dade recycling
Q: How can I recycle a perfectly good computer? All parts are working.
• A: Search www.mygreenelectronics.org, a project of the Consumer Electronics Association. In addition, try the Electronic Industries Alliance, which has created E-cycling Central, with resources organized by state for recycling and reusing electronics at www.eiae.org. It also lists places to recycle batteries and electronics, such as LCD monitors, that contain mercury.
Also organized by state is www.earth911.org, which offers resources for recycling a variety of household and business items, including electronics.
You can list reuseable electronics and business equipment at www.recycle.org. The website acts as an exchange, sending the details to nonprofit organizations that need the equipment. Arrangements are worked out between the donor and recipients.
•
• Q: I'm clearing out my shed, which is full of old containers of pesticides, fertilizers, paint, solvents and similar stuff. I don't think any of it belongs in the regular trash, so what should I do with it?
• A: You're right, it doesn't belong in the garbage.
All these items can be dropped of at your county's home chemicals collection site. You may want to confirm before hand the times of opening and whether the site accepts the items you want to bring. (Some take electronics, for example.)
Here are the details:
Miami-Dade County has two home chemical collection sites: 8831 NW 58th Street in West Dade, and 23707 SW 97th Ave., Gate-B in South Dade. They're open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday. Additional information is available at www.miamidade.gov/dswm or by calling 305-594-1500.
Broward County has three household hazardous waste collection sites: 2780 N. Powerline Rd., Pompano Beach, and 5601 W. Hallandale Beach Blvd., Hollywood, which are open from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays; and 5490 Reese Road, Davie, which is open on Saturdays only and accepts a more limited list of items. Learn more at www.broward.org/waste or call 954-765-4999.
• A: Search www.mygreenelectronics.org, a project of the Consumer Electronics Association. In addition, try the Electronic Industries Alliance, which has created E-cycling Central, with resources organized by state for recycling and reusing electronics at www.eiae.org. It also lists places to recycle batteries and electronics, such as LCD monitors, that contain mercury.
Also organized by state is www.earth911.org, which offers resources for recycling a variety of household and business items, including electronics.
You can list reuseable electronics and business equipment at www.recycle.org. The website acts as an exchange, sending the details to nonprofit organizations that need the equipment. Arrangements are worked out between the donor and recipients.
•
• Q: I'm clearing out my shed, which is full of old containers of pesticides, fertilizers, paint, solvents and similar stuff. I don't think any of it belongs in the regular trash, so what should I do with it?
• A: You're right, it doesn't belong in the garbage.
All these items can be dropped of at your county's home chemicals collection site. You may want to confirm before hand the times of opening and whether the site accepts the items you want to bring. (Some take electronics, for example.)
Here are the details:
Miami-Dade County has two home chemical collection sites: 8831 NW 58th Street in West Dade, and 23707 SW 97th Ave., Gate-B in South Dade. They're open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday. Additional information is available at www.miamidade.gov/dswm or by calling 305-594-1500.
Broward County has three household hazardous waste collection sites: 2780 N. Powerline Rd., Pompano Beach, and 5601 W. Hallandale Beach Blvd., Hollywood, which are open from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays; and 5490 Reese Road, Davie, which is open on Saturdays only and accepts a more limited list of items. Learn more at www.broward.org/waste or call 954-765-4999.
White House Solar
Since September 2002, a grid of 167 solar panels on the roof of a maintenance shed has been delivering electricity to the White House grounds. Another solar installation has been helping to provide hot water. Yet another has been heating the water in the presidential pool.
The impetus behind implementing the solar roof was that a roof on the White House grounds had to be replaced anyway, and it made economical as well as environmental sense to incorporate solar energy. It was time to replace the roof on what is called "The Pony Shed", a maintenance building that replaced the stable that once housed Macaroni, a pony owned by President Kennedy's daughter, Caroline.
It was actually the National Park Service's decision to utilize a solar energy system on the White House grounds, similar to other solar installations made by the Park Service throughout the country. The Park Service, which is responsible for the building, had already mandated that any refurbishments of its facilities should incorporate environmentally-friendly design whenever possible.
The impetus behind implementing the solar roof was that a roof on the White House grounds had to be replaced anyway, and it made economical as well as environmental sense to incorporate solar energy. It was time to replace the roof on what is called "The Pony Shed", a maintenance building that replaced the stable that once housed Macaroni, a pony owned by President Kennedy's daughter, Caroline.
It was actually the National Park Service's decision to utilize a solar energy system on the White House grounds, similar to other solar installations made by the Park Service throughout the country. The Park Service, which is responsible for the building, had already mandated that any refurbishments of its facilities should incorporate environmentally-friendly design whenever possible.
commentary
Being a competitors news and political site, you could almost expect the Gazette to rip this blog site. ALMOST. Almost because it IS a problem reading some of the posts, in that the Editor is right in some ways - its wrong to defame, degrade, and desecrate people WITHOUT knowing ALL the facts, which are NOT know as of this date. Altho somebody may know all the facts, I certainly dont. I assumed that some of the strongest stuff came from parents and friends of the young ladies involved, from the passion and vitriol that was expressed. Their outrage might be understandable IF all those things that have been accused, really happened like it was said. The problem is we dont HAVE all the facts, even tho some sort of investigation was supposed to have been done. I have mixed feelings- while its not fair to try and convict a guy in a court of public opinion without OVERWHELMING proof beyond reasonable doubt (and this isnt court), its also not right to sweep a possible serious problem under the rug like it never existed. I reserve the right to come to a firm conclusion until I have heard ALL the facts. If all the facts are not forthcoming I will probably wonder Why Not, perhaps in this spot? I, for one, am more concerned with the very questionable resume and the manner in which he was hired - both of which seem to have semi-serious fabrications attached to them (was he actually Rec Director in Wilton Manors and did Gym do the proper background checks and follow the policies before hiring him that he said he did?). For the Gazette to say it is anti-new gym forces behind this makes NO sense, because even if he were gone, Gorland will just take back over without any problem of administrative continuity. The new gym Director has no experience with construction anyway so its not like there would be a void in the construction process, right? The Gazette editor did have at least one other idea that I would like to try- I am signing my name... Dr. Mel P. Johnson
commentary
All of these mishaps, screwups, and fiascos are taking place on the City Managers watch. He is quick to take the credit when something occasionally goes right, but even quicker to shift the blame when the foulups are exposed. The hard-to-believe part is, the COUNCIL allows this, and even aids and abets him in these disasters! "Have rubber stamp, will follow," could easily be their motto. Except for Dotson, none of them seem to know or care what Gym does, or how much it costs the taxpayers. "Clueless and Unconcerned in City Hall", could be another motto. What they DO have is an abundance of ambition and agendas! They seem to be saying, "Sure, we dont have a clue and could care less if it doesnt help us achieve our personal agendas! We have fooled the people so far and if we can JUST fool them a LITTLE longer all of our personal agendas can be realized! Sure, it might bankrupt the City but the building will be there for Decades! Truly a testament to our egos and agendas, at the very least! Dont worry if the next generation will be left to pay the outrageous bills, as we will be LONG gone into a very comfortable retirement by then!" Obama froze all federal salaries today- that would and could be a lesson for OUR government officials. We have no place to go but to get better, from here. We cannot afford any more Unconscious and/or Clueless Councils. The Rubberstamp Regime has to end.
political prognostications
Nope, most of the guys who ran last time are still here. Some have decided to run again, while others are taking different roles. Some new guys are also throwing their hats into the ring and discussing the issues that confront the City- the new gym, annexation, pool operations, fiscal responsibility, etc. You will hear more from them in the coming weeks. It is also likely you will hear about opponent signs missing, smear campaigns, and scare tactics as those are the tools of those who cant, or wont, discuss the issues.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
water saving tips- dishwasher, faucets
Don’t forget the faucet
Next stop on the water conservation journey is the faucet. The EPA estimates that 15 percent of the average household’s indoor water use goes toward running kitchen and bathroom faucets. Standard faucets flow at two gallons per minute. WaterSense-certified faucets reduce that number to 1.5 gallons per minute — savings that add up over time. Find brands that qualify — including Delta and Moen — on the program's Web site.
Like your faucets just the way they are? Install faucet aerators instead (you can find them at your local hardware store). Aerators from companies such as Creative Energy Technologies sell for under $7 and reduce faucet flow to 1.5 gallons per minute while still delivering a strong, powerful spray. The company also offers a model that reduces flow to .5 gallons per minute, which may be preferable for bathroom sinks, where a strong flow isn’t as important. To date, Neoperl is the only aerator brand approved by WaterSense, but you can expect more to qualify as the WaterSense program gains broader recognition.
Upgrade your dishwasher
Your dishwasher may seem like a guilty necessity, but now there’s another reason — besides easy dinner-party cleanup — to love the appliance. A Europe-wide study conducted by scientists at the University of Bonn found that using the latest models of dishwashers saves both energy and water, not to mention time, when compared with washing dishes by hand.
This is one area where it’s actually preferable to take the lazy route. Though high-quality dishwashers can cost as much as $1,000 when you add in perks like adjustable upper racks, hidden controls, sensors and self-cleaning filters, budget-minded environmentalists can still get the grease off their plates with more economical models. A quick visit to EnergyStar.gov will give you an expansive list of dishwasher models that qualify for the Energy Star label. Dishwashers that are Energy Star rated are at least 41 percent more efficient than standard models. Greenerchoices.org is another solid resource for identifying specific models that clean well while utilizing less energy and water.
The most affordable dishwasher for Lazy Environmentalists is the Whirlpool DU1055XTS(Q) available from Best Buy ($350) and numerous stores across the country. The washer is 43 percent more energy efficient than standard dishwashers and uses just six gallons of water per load (remember, the less water you use, the less energy you’ll burn to heat it). The DU1055XTS(Q) features five wash cycles, a delay start, adjustable tines, a sani-rinse option and a self-cleaning filter.
The one downside to all this eco-affordability is noise. This particular Whirlpool model lacks the sound insulation available in more premium-priced models. If you’re comfortable springing for a bit more, the Bosch SHE33M02UC ($549 at Homeverything.com) is 80 percent more energy efficient than standard dishwashers, utilizes just five gallons of water per load, and is considerably quieter than the Whirlpool DU1055XTS(Q). The Bosch also features a stainless-steel tub, adjustable tines and an adjustable upper rack. And like all Bosch dishwashers, this model uses heat from the wash cycle to dry dishes — yet another way to save energy.
Next stop on the water conservation journey is the faucet. The EPA estimates that 15 percent of the average household’s indoor water use goes toward running kitchen and bathroom faucets. Standard faucets flow at two gallons per minute. WaterSense-certified faucets reduce that number to 1.5 gallons per minute — savings that add up over time. Find brands that qualify — including Delta and Moen — on the program's Web site.
Like your faucets just the way they are? Install faucet aerators instead (you can find them at your local hardware store). Aerators from companies such as Creative Energy Technologies sell for under $7 and reduce faucet flow to 1.5 gallons per minute while still delivering a strong, powerful spray. The company also offers a model that reduces flow to .5 gallons per minute, which may be preferable for bathroom sinks, where a strong flow isn’t as important. To date, Neoperl is the only aerator brand approved by WaterSense, but you can expect more to qualify as the WaterSense program gains broader recognition.
Upgrade your dishwasher
Your dishwasher may seem like a guilty necessity, but now there’s another reason — besides easy dinner-party cleanup — to love the appliance. A Europe-wide study conducted by scientists at the University of Bonn found that using the latest models of dishwashers saves both energy and water, not to mention time, when compared with washing dishes by hand.
This is one area where it’s actually preferable to take the lazy route. Though high-quality dishwashers can cost as much as $1,000 when you add in perks like adjustable upper racks, hidden controls, sensors and self-cleaning filters, budget-minded environmentalists can still get the grease off their plates with more economical models. A quick visit to EnergyStar.gov will give you an expansive list of dishwasher models that qualify for the Energy Star label. Dishwashers that are Energy Star rated are at least 41 percent more efficient than standard models. Greenerchoices.org is another solid resource for identifying specific models that clean well while utilizing less energy and water.
The most affordable dishwasher for Lazy Environmentalists is the Whirlpool DU1055XTS(Q) available from Best Buy ($350) and numerous stores across the country. The washer is 43 percent more energy efficient than standard dishwashers and uses just six gallons of water per load (remember, the less water you use, the less energy you’ll burn to heat it). The DU1055XTS(Q) features five wash cycles, a delay start, adjustable tines, a sani-rinse option and a self-cleaning filter.
The one downside to all this eco-affordability is noise. This particular Whirlpool model lacks the sound insulation available in more premium-priced models. If you’re comfortable springing for a bit more, the Bosch SHE33M02UC ($549 at Homeverything.com) is 80 percent more energy efficient than standard dishwashers, utilizes just five gallons of water per load, and is considerably quieter than the Whirlpool DU1055XTS(Q). The Bosch also features a stainless-steel tub, adjustable tines and an adjustable upper rack. And like all Bosch dishwashers, this model uses heat from the wash cycle to dry dishes — yet another way to save energy.
water saving tips - shower
by Josh Dorfman
TODAY
updated 4:35 p.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 14, 2008
Fresh drinking water makes up just one percent of the Earth — a tiny number when you consider that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the average American household of four uses about 146,000 gallons of water annually (that's the equivalent of 100 gallons per day per person).
And a recent government study cited by the EPA reveals that at least 36 states anticipate water shortages on a local, regional, or statewide level by 2013. Any way you pour it, water is a big deal, but there’s good news for Lazy Environmentalists. A few simple and affordable changes can dramatically reduce consumption levels. You can also save money as you save water. The EPA estimates that simple conservation techniques can help the average household reduce its yearly water and sewer bills by $170.
Start with the shower
Your daily eight-minute shower uses about 20 gallons of water. Take a shower once a day and it adds up to 7,300 gallons per year. With that much water, a typical family of four could fill its own medium-size swimming pool, wash 4,152 loads of laundry, or make 166,115 pots of Campbell’s soup.
Thankfully, you don’t have to sacrifice your hygiene to conserve water in the shower. A strategic showerhead is all it takes. WaterPik — creator of the original massage showerhead — recently introduced the Ecoflow. The low-flow showerhead utilizes the company’s patented optiFLOW technology to deliver a spray that’s comparable to most standard showerheads, yet uses 40 percent less water. Ecoflow uses 1.5 gallons per minute, while the standard showerhead gushes out a whopping 2.5 gallons per minute. The showerhead also features a water pause switch so you can prevent waste when waiting for the hot water to kick in or while lathering up. Waterpik-store.com's fixed-mount Ecoflow models start at $19.99 and a handheld version is available on the site for $29.99.
Evolve has designed a series of water-saving showerheads that run cold water until the temperature reaches 95 degrees and then stops the flow to a trickle. This way hot water doesn’t release until you actually step into the shower and turn the valve to release the flow.
So you can shave, make the bed, bake cupcakes and catch the end of “Oprah” without wasting gallons of water and all the energy required to heat it. Multiple showerhead styles are available, including the Roadrunner low-flow showerhead, delivering strong water pressure with just 1.59 gallons per minute ($39.95, Evolveshowerheads.com). The company estimates that the Roadrunner saves eight gallons of water for every five-minute shower when compared to standard showerhead models.
TODAY
updated 4:35 p.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 14, 2008
Fresh drinking water makes up just one percent of the Earth — a tiny number when you consider that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the average American household of four uses about 146,000 gallons of water annually (that's the equivalent of 100 gallons per day per person).
And a recent government study cited by the EPA reveals that at least 36 states anticipate water shortages on a local, regional, or statewide level by 2013. Any way you pour it, water is a big deal, but there’s good news for Lazy Environmentalists. A few simple and affordable changes can dramatically reduce consumption levels. You can also save money as you save water. The EPA estimates that simple conservation techniques can help the average household reduce its yearly water and sewer bills by $170.
Start with the shower
Your daily eight-minute shower uses about 20 gallons of water. Take a shower once a day and it adds up to 7,300 gallons per year. With that much water, a typical family of four could fill its own medium-size swimming pool, wash 4,152 loads of laundry, or make 166,115 pots of Campbell’s soup.
Thankfully, you don’t have to sacrifice your hygiene to conserve water in the shower. A strategic showerhead is all it takes. WaterPik — creator of the original massage showerhead — recently introduced the Ecoflow. The low-flow showerhead utilizes the company’s patented optiFLOW technology to deliver a spray that’s comparable to most standard showerheads, yet uses 40 percent less water. Ecoflow uses 1.5 gallons per minute, while the standard showerhead gushes out a whopping 2.5 gallons per minute. The showerhead also features a water pause switch so you can prevent waste when waiting for the hot water to kick in or while lathering up. Waterpik-store.com's fixed-mount Ecoflow models start at $19.99 and a handheld version is available on the site for $29.99.
Evolve has designed a series of water-saving showerheads that run cold water until the temperature reaches 95 degrees and then stops the flow to a trickle. This way hot water doesn’t release until you actually step into the shower and turn the valve to release the flow.
So you can shave, make the bed, bake cupcakes and catch the end of “Oprah” without wasting gallons of water and all the energy required to heat it. Multiple showerhead styles are available, including the Roadrunner low-flow showerhead, delivering strong water pressure with just 1.59 gallons per minute ($39.95, Evolveshowerheads.com). The company estimates that the Roadrunner saves eight gallons of water for every five-minute shower when compared to standard showerhead models.
water saving tips
Trade in your toilet
Sit down on some great water savings by opting for a high-efficiency toilet (HET). According to the EPA, toilet flushing accounts for about 30 percent of all indoor residential water use, requiring more water than any other activity in our homes.
But the right toilet can change those statistics for the better. In response to rising water demand and looming water shortages, the EPA developed WaterSense, a program that makes it easy for consumers to quickly identify water-efficient products. Toilets that carry the WaterSense label are third-party certified to be at least 20 percent more efficient than today’s standard toilets, which reduce flow per flush from an average 1.6 gallons to 1.28 (but toilets installed in your home before 1994 still use 3.5 gallons or more per flush). Visit the program’s Web site to find qualifying products plus a list of participating retailers like Vidavici.com, offering one of the widest selections of WaterSense–rated toilets available on the Internet.
You can save even more money by taking advantage of rebates for water-efficient toilets that are sponsored by local city governments throughout North America. For example, residents of Albuquerque, N.M., can receive a $125 rebate when replacing a standard toilet model with a water-efficient model. In Sioux Falls, S.D., residents are eligible for a $75 rebate when making the switch. Visit Toiletrebate.com to see what incentives may be available to you.
www.vivavi.com
The AQUS system saves fresh water by reusing wastewater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why send perfectly clean drinking water down the toilet? An AQUS System reuses the water from your bathroom sink for all of your flushing needs. Developed by Water Saver Technologies, the AQUS is a small, simple system that uses a 5 1/2–gallon container inside your sink’s vanity (or behind the wall or underneath the floorboards) to capture and filter water as it comes down the sink’s drain. The water is run from the container to your toilet’s tank with a small tube. Install the AQUS, and you’ll be a hero of the planet though you’ll barely notice that the device is there. Two people sharing an AQUS-equipped bathroom are estimated to save about 14 gallons of water per day, or 5,000 gallons over the course of a year. The system is available for $295 plus installation. Depending upon your local water and sewage rates, Water Saver Technologies estimates that it usually pays for itself within four to five years. You can find a distributor at Watersavertech.com. There is another toilet type that allows you to push one handle if there is only liquid waste, an another for solid waste, saving 40% on your water bill.
CONTINUED : A new way to water your plants, plus more
Sit down on some great water savings by opting for a high-efficiency toilet (HET). According to the EPA, toilet flushing accounts for about 30 percent of all indoor residential water use, requiring more water than any other activity in our homes.
But the right toilet can change those statistics for the better. In response to rising water demand and looming water shortages, the EPA developed WaterSense, a program that makes it easy for consumers to quickly identify water-efficient products. Toilets that carry the WaterSense label are third-party certified to be at least 20 percent more efficient than today’s standard toilets, which reduce flow per flush from an average 1.6 gallons to 1.28 (but toilets installed in your home before 1994 still use 3.5 gallons or more per flush). Visit the program’s Web site to find qualifying products plus a list of participating retailers like Vidavici.com, offering one of the widest selections of WaterSense–rated toilets available on the Internet.
You can save even more money by taking advantage of rebates for water-efficient toilets that are sponsored by local city governments throughout North America. For example, residents of Albuquerque, N.M., can receive a $125 rebate when replacing a standard toilet model with a water-efficient model. In Sioux Falls, S.D., residents are eligible for a $75 rebate when making the switch. Visit Toiletrebate.com to see what incentives may be available to you.
www.vivavi.com
The AQUS system saves fresh water by reusing wastewater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why send perfectly clean drinking water down the toilet? An AQUS System reuses the water from your bathroom sink for all of your flushing needs. Developed by Water Saver Technologies, the AQUS is a small, simple system that uses a 5 1/2–gallon container inside your sink’s vanity (or behind the wall or underneath the floorboards) to capture and filter water as it comes down the sink’s drain. The water is run from the container to your toilet’s tank with a small tube. Install the AQUS, and you’ll be a hero of the planet though you’ll barely notice that the device is there. Two people sharing an AQUS-equipped bathroom are estimated to save about 14 gallons of water per day, or 5,000 gallons over the course of a year. The system is available for $295 plus installation. Depending upon your local water and sewage rates, Water Saver Technologies estimates that it usually pays for itself within four to five years. You can find a distributor at Watersavertech.com. There is another toilet type that allows you to push one handle if there is only liquid waste, an another for solid waste, saving 40% on your water bill.
CONTINUED : A new way to water your plants, plus more
Coal plants not the solution
Fiddling While the Coal Burns
Bill McKibbon
Updated: 1/20/2009 1:01:39 PM
Given the sheer number of candidates for "worst legacy of the Bush years," it may seem perverse to pick the hundreds of coal-fired power plants that have opened across China during his administration. But given their cumulative effect -- quite possibly the concrete block that broke the climate-camel's already straining back -- I think they may be what history someday seizes on. And they are emblematic of George W. Bush's utter failure to help the world rein in carbon emissions at what may have been the last possible moment.
When Bush first took office, China (and really India as well) were right at the bottom of their energy takeoff. China had actually become steadily more energy efficient over the previous decade, as absurd state industries began to shut down. But both countries were poised, thanks to the creation of the World Trade Organization, for the true explosion of their export economies, and for the subsequent rapid migration of rural residents to the factory cities that became the largest exodus in human history.
The obvious, easy, and cheap candidate to power that boom was always going to be coal: China has its own vast stockpiles and the kind of labor force and rail links to make exploiting it relatively easy. But by 2000 we already knew enough to conclude just how dangerous it would be if China went whole-hog into the coal business. George W., remember, had pledged during the 2000 campaign that he would enact a "four-pollutant bill" for America's own coal-fired power plants, forcing them to start reducing carbon dioxide.
But Bush abandoned that plan within weeks of taking office, kneecapping Christine Todd Whitman, his EPA chief, just before her first foreign trip. She grinned and took it, and the rest of the world winced and took it. From that day forward there was no real chance that the world would make substantive progress against carbon during the Bush years.
For one thing, the lack of U.S. action provided everybody else who didn't want to change with a perfect scapegoat, an unbeatable excuse for doing nothing. The Chinese, for instance, could say with perfect justice that they certainly shouldn't have to take the lead -- because they've been burning fossil fuel only a short time, it will be decades before they're as responsible for global warming as the U.S., never mind their much higher population. (Not only that, of course, but a huge percentage of the Chinese emissions come from building stuff for us, now that we've gutted our manufacturing economy.)
And so the Chinese took the path of least resistance. Anyone who has visited there in recent years knows the result: cities choked in coal haze, shiny new high-tension lines draping every ridge and valley in the same hypnotic swoop and fall as the Great Wall itself. And anyone who reads the rising carbon numbers from the instruments on the side of Mauna Loa knows the larger consequence: The world is now above even the bleakest "business as usual" paths laid out just a few years ago by climate policy experts.
But even for those -- Europe and Japan -- that wanted to do something about climate, the U.S. refusal to engage meant that nothing much could happen. Yes, the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified -- somewhat miraculously, since without our participation it required virtually every other developed nation to sign on. But because of America's recalcitrance (right back to the Clinton years) they were never strong enough to do much in any event. The eight Bush years turned into an international interregnum on climate policy. The American delegations sabotaged international meetings, slowed down any proposal to actually change, and in general served as the anchor thrown off the back of the caboose.
It's not entirely clear that even the most well-intentioned president could have headed off the China coal binge. It would have taken a shrewd mix of diplomacy, technology-sharing, and moral pressure to head them in a different direction. But even subtle nudges in their trajectory in the early years of the decade would have resulted in far less damage than we see today. And, of course, we'll never know since Bush didn't try. If anything, his team cheered on the Chinese.
As a result of all this planned malfeasance, Bush leaves Obama in the worst possible place to do anything substantial about carbon. For one thing, the Chinese now have all those coal-fired power plants and so, just like us, an enormous problem with sunk costs if they ever try to shut them down. (And shut them down is what Jim Hansen has told us must happen; if the earth is not done burning coal by 2030, then 350 parts per million CO2 goes forever by the board.) And because the Chinese are now producing as much CO2 as we are, our own coal lobby has a powerful rhetorical argument to use against any real action close to home. You can hear it anytime you want on C-Span -- some coal-state Republican or another announcing piously that it "will do no good for America to reign in its carbon emissions until China does the same."
Negotiating away the results of these eight years will be Obama's biggest environmental task, bigger even than figuring out how to limit our own emissions. By Copenhagen next December, the Americans and the Chinese will need to have rechoreographed entirely the poisonous dance they've spent the last decade perfecting. If they can't, the possibility of a breakthrough agreement is nil.
Oh, and since the most important element of that breakthrough will doubtless be finding some way to partially compensate China (still an overwhelmingly poor nation) for the cost of switching to more expensive fuel sources, the recession that Bush leaves us with is yet one more obstacle. If he'd set out to purposefully screw up the chances for dealing with global warming, it's unlikely Bush could have done a better job. (But the purposeful party was no doubt Dick Cheney.)
Bill McKibben, a Grist board member, is a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org.
Bill McKibbon
Updated: 1/20/2009 1:01:39 PM
Given the sheer number of candidates for "worst legacy of the Bush years," it may seem perverse to pick the hundreds of coal-fired power plants that have opened across China during his administration. But given their cumulative effect -- quite possibly the concrete block that broke the climate-camel's already straining back -- I think they may be what history someday seizes on. And they are emblematic of George W. Bush's utter failure to help the world rein in carbon emissions at what may have been the last possible moment.
When Bush first took office, China (and really India as well) were right at the bottom of their energy takeoff. China had actually become steadily more energy efficient over the previous decade, as absurd state industries began to shut down. But both countries were poised, thanks to the creation of the World Trade Organization, for the true explosion of their export economies, and for the subsequent rapid migration of rural residents to the factory cities that became the largest exodus in human history.
The obvious, easy, and cheap candidate to power that boom was always going to be coal: China has its own vast stockpiles and the kind of labor force and rail links to make exploiting it relatively easy. But by 2000 we already knew enough to conclude just how dangerous it would be if China went whole-hog into the coal business. George W., remember, had pledged during the 2000 campaign that he would enact a "four-pollutant bill" for America's own coal-fired power plants, forcing them to start reducing carbon dioxide.
But Bush abandoned that plan within weeks of taking office, kneecapping Christine Todd Whitman, his EPA chief, just before her first foreign trip. She grinned and took it, and the rest of the world winced and took it. From that day forward there was no real chance that the world would make substantive progress against carbon during the Bush years.
For one thing, the lack of U.S. action provided everybody else who didn't want to change with a perfect scapegoat, an unbeatable excuse for doing nothing. The Chinese, for instance, could say with perfect justice that they certainly shouldn't have to take the lead -- because they've been burning fossil fuel only a short time, it will be decades before they're as responsible for global warming as the U.S., never mind their much higher population. (Not only that, of course, but a huge percentage of the Chinese emissions come from building stuff for us, now that we've gutted our manufacturing economy.)
And so the Chinese took the path of least resistance. Anyone who has visited there in recent years knows the result: cities choked in coal haze, shiny new high-tension lines draping every ridge and valley in the same hypnotic swoop and fall as the Great Wall itself. And anyone who reads the rising carbon numbers from the instruments on the side of Mauna Loa knows the larger consequence: The world is now above even the bleakest "business as usual" paths laid out just a few years ago by climate policy experts.
But even for those -- Europe and Japan -- that wanted to do something about climate, the U.S. refusal to engage meant that nothing much could happen. Yes, the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified -- somewhat miraculously, since without our participation it required virtually every other developed nation to sign on. But because of America's recalcitrance (right back to the Clinton years) they were never strong enough to do much in any event. The eight Bush years turned into an international interregnum on climate policy. The American delegations sabotaged international meetings, slowed down any proposal to actually change, and in general served as the anchor thrown off the back of the caboose.
It's not entirely clear that even the most well-intentioned president could have headed off the China coal binge. It would have taken a shrewd mix of diplomacy, technology-sharing, and moral pressure to head them in a different direction. But even subtle nudges in their trajectory in the early years of the decade would have resulted in far less damage than we see today. And, of course, we'll never know since Bush didn't try. If anything, his team cheered on the Chinese.
As a result of all this planned malfeasance, Bush leaves Obama in the worst possible place to do anything substantial about carbon. For one thing, the Chinese now have all those coal-fired power plants and so, just like us, an enormous problem with sunk costs if they ever try to shut them down. (And shut them down is what Jim Hansen has told us must happen; if the earth is not done burning coal by 2030, then 350 parts per million CO2 goes forever by the board.) And because the Chinese are now producing as much CO2 as we are, our own coal lobby has a powerful rhetorical argument to use against any real action close to home. You can hear it anytime you want on C-Span -- some coal-state Republican or another announcing piously that it "will do no good for America to reign in its carbon emissions until China does the same."
Negotiating away the results of these eight years will be Obama's biggest environmental task, bigger even than figuring out how to limit our own emissions. By Copenhagen next December, the Americans and the Chinese will need to have rechoreographed entirely the poisonous dance they've spent the last decade perfecting. If they can't, the possibility of a breakthrough agreement is nil.
Oh, and since the most important element of that breakthrough will doubtless be finding some way to partially compensate China (still an overwhelmingly poor nation) for the cost of switching to more expensive fuel sources, the recession that Bush leaves us with is yet one more obstacle. If he'd set out to purposefully screw up the chances for dealing with global warming, it's unlikely Bush could have done a better job. (But the purposeful party was no doubt Dick Cheney.)
Bill McKibben, a Grist board member, is a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org.
Green facts
Did you know?
$210: Money saved in one year of energy bills by switching to a new refrigerator and clothes washer.
$82: Money saved in one year by switching to eco-friendly cleaning products such as white vinegar, baking soda, lemon juice and olive oil.
$135: Money saved in one year by a family of four when they recycle one bottle or can per day.
$210: Money saved in one year of energy bills by switching to a new refrigerator and clothes washer.
$82: Money saved in one year by switching to eco-friendly cleaning products such as white vinegar, baking soda, lemon juice and olive oil.
$135: Money saved in one year by a family of four when they recycle one bottle or can per day.
peanut butter facts
- The average American will have eaten 1,500 PB & J sandwiches before graduating from high school
- Grape jelly is the most popular fruit spread for PB & J sandwiches, according to a nationwide survey. Strawberry is a close second
- Creamy vs. crunchy peanut butter? 62% of adults prefer creamy. More men than women like crunchy.
- 96% of adults eat their PB & J with the crust on
- 62% od adults favor white bread for PB & J. Wheat bread is preferred by 27%, and 11 % like multigrain
Personally, I LOVE PB & J sandwiches !
- Grape jelly is the most popular fruit spread for PB & J sandwiches, according to a nationwide survey. Strawberry is a close second
- Creamy vs. crunchy peanut butter? 62% of adults prefer creamy. More men than women like crunchy.
- 96% of adults eat their PB & J with the crust on
- 62% od adults favor white bread for PB & J. Wheat bread is preferred by 27%, and 11 % like multigrain
Personally, I LOVE PB & J sandwiches !
Monday, January 19, 2009
comments
Whatever happened to the sidewalk lawsuit against the City? Was that ever resolved? If so, what was the final disposition? Anybody know? We have a couple traffic circles on the east side of town, and if properly designed and landscaped, are not an eyesore. They DO seem to slow the traffic down some. Its a public safety issue. Guess its cheaper to make a circle than to put a light in, rumble strips, or a stop sign. Still, no doubt that teachers salaries are important too, just more expensive to implement. Teachers ARE grooming the leaders of tomorrow. A perfect example of a case where City priorities and County priorities dont agree, and the County takes precedence over the City. It could easily happen again with annexation, if we dont have the proper zoning and legal safeguards in place.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
let us pay to NOT work for us?
What are the chances the City winds up paying the new Rec Director a LARGE lump sum to go away and NOT sue us? Of course, if he had been checked out properly in the FIRST place, this might very well NOT be an issue, right? Just ANOTHER expensive case of mismanagement- will they EVER end?
commentary
After six tough weeks of work, the new Rec Director gats administrative leave? Thats where he gets paid to do nothing, right? Who would authorize administrative leaves? Could the City Manager authorize administrative leaves without, at LEAST, informing the Council? Wouldnt the Mayor and Council have to approve such a leave? Or is this ANOTHER secret handshake deal between the City Manager and the new Rec Director? Wouldnt an administrative leave have to be documented somewhere? A memo? Something? Cops and other city employees can be put on administrative leave pending an investigation, and its results- is THIS whats happening? This whole situation is very peculiar. Why isnt the Mayor or Council telling us whats happening? We need, want, and deserve to know if we are paying a Dept head to do nothing- or not! If its true, on what basis was that decision made? IF its another handshake deal, on what basis was that deal made, and what IS the deal?? This may be an internal personnel decision, but it has direct affects on the taxpayers and the services we are paying to provide, or not provide, in this case. We need some facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)