Granby01033

As I pointed out above, Granby is legally bound to bring our school buildings up to code once we start tinkering with them. I don’t mean to say that any work done on the schools will trigger bring the buildings completely up to code, but Skanska says,

if these [particular] items were addressed then the entire school would have to be brought up to present day codes and regulations. 

If I read the law correctly (and there’s room for doubt on that), the “construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, addition, change in use or occupancy”  results in bringing the entire building up to code.

The purpose of a feasibility study is to identify the costs associated bringing our school buildings up to code. A feasibility study is a mandatory requirement if a school system wishes to get financial help from the State. Without the completion of the feasibility study all these costs would become the responsibility of Granby.

I’ll continue to work on getting more information and additional sources, though, at this point, you’ve got to be completely paranoid or in denial about the needs of our school buildings. It’s been documented 2 or 3 times now by different companies with no financial interest in the outcome.

Mark

The construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, addition, change in use or occupancy, demolition, removal of all buildings and structures shall comply with 780 CMR.

Granby01033 finally reached 200,000 hits at its granbymass.net home. I had hit 200,000 at the blogspot address a long time ago.

I’ve written a whopping 3,650 posts since starting my blog career three and half years ago.

Mark

There are still some people not associated with The Worst Presidency Ever who believe it was necessary for us to invade Iraq. Sen. John McCain is one. He calls Operation Iraqi Freedom a success. Recently released FBI reports suggest another scenario. The severely weakened Saddam Hussein lived in mortal fear of Iran and supposedly considered some sort of alliance with America. Imagine that. We could have called the shots without sacrificing thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and trillions of dollars.

ThinkProgress reports:

Yesterday, the National Security Archive released declassified FBI reports detailing both the bureau’s interrogations and “casual conversations” with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. According to the documents, Hussein told FBI agent George Piro (one of only a few agents who spoke Arabic) that he let the world believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he feared appearing weak to what he considered his country’s real threat, Iran:

Hussein’s fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. … Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq — which is largely Shiite. [...]

“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”

Yesterday, the National Security Archive released declassified FBI reports detailing both the bureau’s interrogations and “casual conversations” with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. According to the documents, Hussein told FBI agent George Piro (one of only a few agents who spoke Arabic) that he let the world believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he feared appearing weak to what he considered his country’s real threat, Iran:

Hussein’s fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. … Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq — which is largely Shiite. [...]

“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”

Hussein’s fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. … Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq — which is largely Shiite. [...]

“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”

–Mb

From Northampton:

A caller told police about 2:15 a.m. Thursday that someone was continuously cheering somewhere on Market Street. Officers who responded to the neighborhood heard nothing. A second noise complaint was logged about 2:50 a.m., after which officers traced the sounds to a man playing “Tiger Woods PGA Tour” on his Wii video game system. He told the officers he didn’t realize he’d been celebrating his drives and putts so loudly.

–Mb

When negotiations for the last stimulus were taking place, there was money for building schools in one of the drafts. Maine’s Senator Susan Collins, one of the three GOP crossovers to support the bill, insisted school buildings not be part of the package. Economically and practically speaking, excluding school building made no sense. Putting money into school building would put a lot of construction workers to work and provide them with money, which would trickle into the economy. The money might also help communities like Granby better afford to build, renovate, or repair their schools.

Another economic stimulus is possible. States, most, if not all, of which, must offer up a balanced budget every year are in serious need of money. If there is another stimulus, it will be political pressure from governors who provide the impetus. And perhaps, if there is another stimulus, Granby will benefit from money for our school building. That’s a big if, but well within the realm of possibility.

In spite of political spin to the contrary, the stimulus has saved jobs. It was, particularly in the weakened form that Congress eventually offered up, never intended to be a cure-all. And He Who Must Be Read said as much. He’s now bemoaning the fact that his economic colleagues are just now relearning the lessons of Depression economics, and worst of all, they’re getting it wrong.

Here’s Krugman:

All of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied economic policy in the 1930s. Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren’t aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level.

So have we failed to learn from history, and are we, therefore, doomed to repeat it? Not necessarily — but it’s up to the president and his economic team to ensure that things are different this time. President Obama and his officials need to ramp up their efforts, starting with a plan to make the stimulus bigger.

Just to be clear, I’m well aware of how difficult it will be to get such a plan enacted.

There won’t be any cooperation from Republican leaders, who have settled on a strategy of total opposition, unconstrained by facts or logic. Indeed, these leaders responded to the latest job numbers by proclaiming the failure of the Obama economic plan. That’s ludicrous, of course. The administration warned from the beginning that it would be several quarters before the plan had any major positive effects. But that didn’t stop the chairman of the Republican Study Committee from issuing a statement demanding: “Where are the jobs?”

It’s also not clear whether the administration will get much help from Senate “centrists,” who partially eviscerated the original stimulus plan by demanding cuts in aid to state and local governments — aid that, as we’re now seeing, was desperately needed. I’d like to think that some of these centrists are feeling remorse, but if they are, I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.

And as an economist, I’d add that many members of my profession are playing a distinctly unhelpful role.

It has been a rude shock to see so many economists with good reputations recycling old fallacies — like the claim that any rise in government spending automatically displaces an equal amount of private spending, even when there is mass unemployment — and lending their names to grossly exaggerated claims about the evils of short-run budget deficits. (Right now the risks associated with additional debt are much less than the risks associated with failing to give the economy adequate support.)

Also, as in the 1930s, the opponents of action are peddling scare stories about inflation even as deflation looms.

So getting another round of stimulus will be difficult. But it’s essential.

With help, I’ve finally located some of the laws that pertain to our school buildings deficiencies. As a section of the Massachusetts General Laws, it’s not easy reading. You really need to be an expert to understand the process. When I’m done with my research, I hope to be educated enough to understand the experts. If you want to read about Granby’s building deficiencies, here’s my post on that.

The statute that covers the Department of Environmental Protection authority to fine people (the actually refer to businesses, schools, everyone that might own or operate a building as a person) is MGL Chapter 21A Section 16. I’m not including the building code regulations themselves. You can find that in my earlier post. What follows here is the law with some highlighting and deleting on my part. It’s long and hard to read, and it doesn’t tell us if the DEP will fine the town for its building code violations/deficiencies. Anyway, here it is:

The department may assess a civil administrative penalty on a person who fails to comply with any provision of any regulation, order, license or approval issued or adopted by the department, or of any law which the department has the authority or responsibility to enforce; provided, however, that such noncompliance occurred after the department had given such person written notice of such noncompliance, and after reasonable time, as determined by the department and stated in said notice, had elapsed for coming into compliance;

and provided, further, that the department may assess such penalty without providing such written notice if such failure to comply:

(1)   was part of a pattern of noncompliance and not an isolated instance, or

(2)   was willful and not the result of error, or

(3)   resulted in significant impact on public health, safety, welfare or the environment, or

(4)   consisted of failure to promptly report to the department

(a)    any unauthorized disposal of hazardous waste, as is defined by chapter twenty-one C

(b)   any unauthorized release or discharge of oil or hazardous material into the environment

(5)   consisted of failure to maintain a permanent solution or a remedy operation status

(6) consisted of failure to comply with the terms of an activity and use limitation pursuant to section 6 of said chapter 21E or consisted of knowingly making, or causing any person to make, a false, inaccurate, incomplete or misleading statement in a document submitted to or required to be kept by the department. [Read more →]

When it comes to Gov. Deval Patrick, I’ve had to hold my nose a lot.

Politically speaking, Patrick’s a walking disaster. From his curtains and Cadillac to leaving casino supporters in the lurch while he signed a book deal. 

In spite of his frequent missteps and occasional self-centeredness, I’ve always thought he was generally well-meaning and trying to deal with reality. His 19 cent gas tax was a political loser, but it was, in my opinion, it reflected his trying to deal honestly with the Commonwealth’s dire economic straits.  (Something the state legislature has never bothered to be). To his credit, Patrick has presented budgets that reflect the reality of our situation since he started.

Patrick is a political neophyte. He’s been learning, but it’s fair to say he still doesn’t get it. His gas tax proposal was politically unwise, a non-starter with a legislature that runs over him at will, and a lead balloon that fell and landed back on him. After last year’s gas price surge, the last thing people want to consider is a gas tax. If the Governor’s budget were a term paper, it might have received a good grade. Theory is one thing, reality another.

Now Patrick has proposed to take over 30 underperforming schools in Massachusetts. He will suspend or ignore certain aspects of union contracts to do so. I object to this take over for two reasons: 1) it won’t significantly improve academic achievement in those schools 2) it erodes collective bargaining rights. Anti-union people can rejoice; they have a Governor who supports their position. Personally, I’d like to see the state bureaucrats run these schools; maybe they’d learn something. In the Governor’s case, it probably wouldn’t matter. He’s a pretty slow learner. 

Mark

Man beaten when teens mistakenly think

screams during sex were calls for help

–The Republican

This is a long post with God knows how many proofreading errors. I’ve done my best to present our building problems without raising undue alarm. I like to know everything I can before offering my opinion. Right now, I’m frustrated because I can’t find the Department of Environmental Protection regulations, and I haven’t found the Massachusetts General Laws that govern when renovations require everything in a building to be brought up to code.

In the run up to the override vote, I left out the what if’s associated with not going forward. Why? People don’t want to here about what could happen. They want things to be definite. Nay sayers tend to latch on negative possibilities as threats and chicken littlism. When the public isn’t up to speed on an issue, they tend to fall back on feelings and prejudices. Anyway, I could have published something about potential fines Granby could experience, but I didn’t want to confuse the issue.

I’ve received emails from people asking, what next? What can happen if we don’t do something with the schools? Paul Kneedler sent me this list (30 minutes before he emailed to say that Skanska, which hasn’t received any money for its work for us, can’t do anymore without actually being paid; they were working for free pending being hired for a feasibility study).

Whether or not Granby is fined depends on three things: 1) the type and number of deficiencies our school buildings have 2) the DEP deciding to fine us 3) Granby addressing our building deficiencies to the satisfaction of the DEP.

Before I talk about the building deficiencies, one thing you should know: our school building deficiencies don’t result from lack of maintenance, preventative or otherwise. Our schools have actually been well-maintained. Unfortunately, there are TWO problems: 1) things wear out and become obsolete 2) building codes have changed.  

According to Paul Kneedler, Granby is violating Department of Environmental Protection (DEP/DWP) codes. How do he know? As part of the school building process, Granby was required to do studies to document the building conditions. These studies, by the way, were conducted by a completely different company, not Skanska.

The DEP deficiencies include:

1. System Staffing Plan (I think it has to do with septic system issues).
2. Emergency Response Plan (Seems to involve water contamination and waste water emergencies).
3. Nonconforming well location (Seems pretty clear to me).
4. School related work within the current well’s Zone I recharge area (Actually found this one. See p. 4).
5. Current storage tanks (I think this means school septic tanks. I don’t think we have any other tanks that receive waste water).
6. Boiler Room drain discharge to the septic system (I guess you’re not supposed to do that).

Having turned down the feasibility study, Granby is not be eligible for monies from the MSBA to research and remedy these code deficiencies.  Aside from paying for these fixes, Granby could be on the hook for fines going back to February 2009 when the town agreed to have funding in place for this related work. (There could conceivably be non-school building grants available for some of these deficiencies, but that’s only speculation). Even without retroactive fines, the daily fines for the code deficiencies and violations can add up. Here are the current daily fines for DEP deficiencies/violations :

1. 1^st 30 days = $100 per day per violation (Is that $600 a day?)
2. 31-90 days = $250 per day per violation (Is that $1500 a day?)
3. 91+ days =  $500 per day per violation (Get the picture?)

There are also  additional requirements for school upgrades/renovations. Unfortunately, I don’t know what they are. According to Paul Kneedler, there are items requiring repair along side the DEP deficiencies to maintain present school conditions. All costs for these required upgrades will fall on the town’s shoulders.

The next big if is whether or not the combined cost of these two items meet or exceed code requirements mandating each school buildings affected be brought up to present day codes and regulations? I’ve written about this since 2007. According to Massachusetts law, a certain amount of renovation requires ALL of a building to be brought up to code. If this happens, Granby will be on the hook for figuring out solutions to these additional code deficiencies brought on by the DEP and required upgrade work. Given the number of studies we’ve done in the last 10 years, we know that engineering and such doesn’t come cheap.

Another issue to consider: the economics of operating Granby schools in their present state of affairs. We all know the meaning of the phrase “penny wise, pound foolish.”  Will it cost us more money to run our old, worn out schools or to build new ones? I don’t know the answer, but my guess is that a new building would be less expensive to run.

School accreditation is done by the NEASC. After a school studies itself and produces a series of reports, a team from the NEASC comes in and checks things out. South Hadley High School lost accreditation for a while. I don’t know how bad Granby school buildings would have to be before Granby lost accreditation. It’s a possibility, but have no idea how the building conditions would have to be to lose accreditation.

Mark

Although I think a successful override yesterday would have been the best outcome, I don’t find myself blaming the voters. Since being elected selectman, my “theory” of democracy and the role of elected officials has grown. Without knowing how things should work, it’s hard to evaluate why things fail. My theory has the following beliefs:

1. The outcome of a vote is neither right or wrong. It simply is.

2. Aside from managerial work, the role of elected officials is to lead the town in setting the agenda; in simple terms, our job is to decide what needs to be decided.

3. Educating and informing voters on an issue is 80-90% of an elected officials work. The remaining 10-20% of work on an issue should be advocacy.

As selectman, my biggest concern with yesterday’s override vote is whether or not our town government gave voters the information they needed to make a good decision.

The Finance Committee pressed for this vote and did so, in my opinion, before understanding the process. A town-wide ballot was certainly in order, in fact, no school project could go forward without it (according to MSBA rules as well as the necessities of town finance; however, this override vote came at the wrong time in the process.

The Select Board was responsible for putting approval for an override vote on the town meeting ballot. I don’t think I was in on approving this vote, but I was so new that it could have happened without my understanding. I haven’t check the select board minutes, but my guess is that there was little discussion of the implications of having an override vote on the feasibility study.

The over-arching problem, however, is a problem particular to our town government: failing to keep voters informed and leaving the town behind in setting the agenda. I don’t blame our school building committee for this failure because no one has established a process for educating people about issues confronting our town. Aside from news stories and televised meetings, there was a failure to communicate with our citizens. Minus the St. Hyacinth’s controversy, we’ve gone through the same process that produced the municipal complex designed for the end of North Street.

So what’s next? Long term, we need to develop a communication process that informs and educates voters. The town website will help with this, but it is not enough. In any informational process, timing is crucial. People need time to understand what’s going on, to digest information, and then decide for themselves what’s best. Until we establish such a process, we’re doomed to repeat our past mistakes.

Short term, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Friends of the Granby Public Schools brought forward a petition to put the feasibility study on the August 29 town meeting warrant. Town meeting could authorize the use of stabilization funds to pay for the feasibility study, but it will take a 2/3 majority to do so. If a town meeting is scheduled, 100 signatures on a petition can an article on a town meeting ballot.

Mark

I’ll leave the analysis for tomorrow. The responsibility for this override vote rests squarely on the shoulders of the Finance Committee, which could have recommended taking the money for the feasibility study out of the stabilization fund. But decided to ask for an override, which, in spite of a lot of communication on my part and theirs, still makes no sense to me.

What does the override mean? Does it mean no school project, no way, no how? Are they confused about the cost? Does it mean people didn’t know what exactly the feasibility study actually meant? Does it mean they would have preferred we take the money out of savings rather than going for an override? Ask the Finance Committee. The ovrerride vote was their idea.

This count is unofficial, but probably correct.

Number of voters: 910.

Yes: 403.      44%

No: 507.       56%

When I voted today at 12:30, 250 people had voted. That’s not a lot. I expect a lot more people have voted since they started getting out of work.

I don’t have a crystal ball, but a low turnout is probably means the vote will go in favor of the override. The “Yes” side is organized, and in my opinion, includes people who might vote no on other spending items.

I’ll be at the polls by 8 PM and I’ll post results as soon as I can get to my computer.

Mark

Governor Deval Patrick wielded his red pen to veto a host of line items in the state budget, lopping $364 million from the budget the legislature sent him. The State House News Service reports:

The budget’s $27.046 billion bottom line is 3 percent lower than the one Patrick signed last year, spending that was reduced during this fiscal year as state revenues have tanked.  If pending fiscal 2010 supplemental appropriations are factored in, spending in the fiscal year that starts Wednesday will rise to $27.316 billion, or just less than 1 percent less than projected fiscal 2009 spending.

One percent doesn’t sound like much until you realize that the budget is $27 billion, and 1 percent is, if my arithmetic is correct, $270 million. The average inflation rate in 2008 was 3.85%, and since January, the United States has actually experienced slight deflation, but costs, such as health insurance, are still rising for cities and towns. Part of these cuts will be used to cover supplemental expenditures the governor has proposed. There’s no indication how many of these vetoes will be overridden by the legislature.

Aside from cuts in state services, cities and towns lose local aid. In the last round of cuts, we made out pretty well. We ought to know by the end of the week what the state’s FY 2010 budget means for Granby. 

Stay tuned.

–Mb

The $60-80 million estimate was based on the escalated construction costs for the original, now defunct, school design.

Our project manager Paul Kneedler of Skanska posted the answer to the following question on our project manager’s website, which originally appeared on Granby’s Masslive forum:

 18. Is the $60 to $80 million figure based on the original school complex design, and if not, why is it being used?  What options will the feasibility study address?

 The $60 to $80 million figure is a budget cost showing escalation for construction over the past 6 to 7 years.  This was based off the school complex in the original feasibility study. This is addressed in more detail within Question #14 on this website.  These amounts were used as a reference by the finance committee in past discussion and presentation for a baseline when looking at the school complex option.

 However, it is important to realize that these amounts are obsolete as the new feasibility study will reexamine all the schools to determine what the best option will be for Granby and the school system today.  The original school complex as the preferred direction is no longer viable, as the new feasibility study required by the State may reveal a completely new approach to the schools.  As stated previously, there is no way to determine what direction anything will go until the feasibility study is conducted.  ALL options are on the table at this point.

 Remember, the purpose of the study is to determine the best option for the schools and the community that meets present and future requirements and financials.  This includes, but not limited to, a school system that the community can afford to build and maintain while providing the best educational environment for your children.

–Mb

…we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

–Paul Krugman

 There’s always been an undercurrent of voluntary stupidity in America, one we’ve often been proud of. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing. Know nothingism on global warming and climate change, however, is something we can’t afford to ignore. It’s real, and the future is more grim than scientists previously thought.  We ignore it at our peril.

He Who Must Be Read writes:

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events….

if you watched the debate on [the Waxman-Markey bill] Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

–Mb

I’ll be at the polls tonight to get the results of today’s override. Polls close at 8 PM. I hope to have the results posted by 8:30 PM.

Go vote.

Mark

Average cost to tax payers: $35 a year for 5 years

If you’ve been following my blog posts, you’ve read about the school building process and the feasibility study. I’ve read through the MSBA website including the Massachusetts regulations. I also read through our project manager’s site, where people can post questions and receive answers. I’ve also spoken with other town officials on the finances and the school building. I’ve literally spent hours on the phone. (If you’re interested on reading more, scroll down the right-hand column, click on CATEGORIES, and go to Town Buildings).

There are only TWO reasons to vote no tomorrow: 1) you’re completely against any increase in taxes 2) you are either so mis-informed or under-informed that you believe the problems with our school buildings are minor and can be dealt without help from the state. While I don’t agree with the first reason, it’s logical. The second reason is a matter of voluntary ignorance.

Those are two reason to vote no. Why vote yes? Until we have a feasibility study, we cannot make an informed decision about what to do with our schools. The feasibility study, a requirement for any state reimbursement, is NOT a rubber stamp of the plans previously developed under the former school building process. The study will evaluate the costs of renovating West Street School, Granby High School, and building some sort of educational complex. It is NOT a commitment to the design that has been on display for the last 5 or 6 years.

As our project manager says,

The purpose of the study is to determine the best option for the schools and the community that meets present and future requirements and financials. This includes, but not limited to, a school system that the community can afford to build and maintain while providing the best educational environment for your children.

It makes little sense to stop the project before we know our options. Vote yes on Monday, June 29. That’s tomorrow.

Mark

Robert Reich writes:

A new president — even one as talented and well-motivated as Obama — can’t get a thing done in Washington unless the public is actively behind him. As FDR said in the reelection campaign of 1936 when a lady insisted that if she were to vote for him he must commit to a long list of objectives, “Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me.”

We must make Obama do the right things. Email, write, and phone the White House. Do the same with your members of Congress. Round up others to do so. Also: Find friends and family members in red states who agree with you, and get them fired up to do the same. For example, if you happen to have a good friend or family member in Montana, you might ask him or her to write Max Baucus and tell him they want a public option included in any healthcare bill.

–Mb

This isn’t a party problem. It’s not exactly a political problem since the guy only used to be in office. Call it just plain weird.  From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

A former mayor found sitting naked and holding a beer at a Rabun County campsite told police he wasn’t the same naked man seen walking around earlier.

Mark Musselwhite, 43, said he was hot and had been in the creek, according to a Georgia Department of Natural Resources incident report. He apparently didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.

Musselwhite, of Gainesville, was arrested last weekend after being confronted by state DNR authorities. He was charged with public indecency.

“He told me he was the ex-mayor of the city Gainesville and he was a very political person,” DNR Ranger Brandon Walls wrote in the report.

Walls and a deputy sheriff went to the campsite Saturday evening after a complaint of a man walking naked in Earls Ford Road, according to the report. Musselwhite appeared to be intoxicated, and several alcoholic beverages were at the campsite, Walls said.

Walls said he had spoken to Musselwhite earlier in the day regarding an ATV the former mayor was driving.

“He looked at us and said hello,” according to the report.

Musselwhite then asked why he was being visited.

“I said the complainant had specifically said his campsite, and the fact that he was still nude made me think it was him,” Walls wrote.

Musselwhite denied that he was the nude man identified in the complaint.

–Mb

Unless you’re dead set against raising your taxes for any reason, you should vote for the override on Monday, June 29. Don’t be confused if the ballot requires a vote for $900,000. We are guaranteed a minimum reimbursement of 59.1%. Our project managers think the cost of the feasibility study will come in below the $900,000 price tag (it goes out to bid).

The legislature passed a bill raising the sales tax to 6.25%. This increase won’t come close to solving our budget problems. Tax revenues aren’t expected to rise much, if at all, this fiscal year. I’m predicting mid-year cuts again this year.  It’s too early to know what those cuts will be.

Work on the public safety complex is progressing. The size of the hole is impressive. Completion is slated for next summer.

Boston magazine has a long article on the ethically-challenged, indicted, former House Speaker Sal DiMasi.

This news cycle is pretty frustrating. We started off the week with a good ol’ scandal when Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) disappeared to spend the week with his Argentinian mistress. He was quickly knocked off the front page by the death of Farrah Fawcett, whose pre-mortality documentary on her life with cancer, provided fans with the opportunity to mourn her passing, which was obscured by the death of King of Pop (and the tabloids) Michael Jackson. Oh, I forgot to mention Jon and Kate split up.