Nightmare On Goat Hill--Starring Both of Alabama's Political Parties

We loathe corruption of any kind by either party despite our progressive leanings and we'll go after after our own if they engage in it with as much vigor as we do the crime-ridden Republican machine in Alabama. Sadly, we don't find that to be the case with some of our fellow progressives and we wonder why, especially in Alabama, the mother of all corrupt cesspools, our like-minded outspoken voices won't follow suit and slash and burn their own.

Exposing one half of a rotten onion doesn't mean the other half is fine.

Corruption is a disease that permeates this state like terminal cancer, but strangely enough it doesn't kill the host (the legislators) it kills the legislative process, it sickens the trust of the people, while the host thrives and grows stronger like some weird science fiction or horror movie where everything is upside down from normal.

One example that comes to mind is the unseemly relationship between current 5th Congressional candidate Steve Raby-D (though some yards signs he had printed up call him the Republican candidate) and former Lt. Governor Steve Windom-R, a vocal gambling opponent.

In 2006, this unseemly duo held ownership interest in a Macon County, Alabama bingo operation that was designed to compete with the big dog of Alabama gambling Milton McGregor, who was recently indicted with eleven others in the Department of Justice (DOJ) swoop down on Alabama that has been splashed across newspapers nationwide.

Macon County is one of the few counties in the state authorized by the Legislature to have electronic bingo casinos. Lucky Palace wanted to open a casino that would compete with Milton McGregor’s VictoryLand.

McGregor was one of 11 named in a federal DOJ indictment unsealed Monday. Four political action committees controlled by Raby until March 4 — and thereafter by his nephew from Raby’s Huntsville political consultancy office address — received $200,000 in contributions from Ronnie Gilley, developer of Country Crossing casino in Houston County. Gilley was indicted. Raby’s nephew testified to the grand jury, according to reports, but was not a target and was not indicted.

Testimony by Windom in a deposition last year details his and Raby’s roles, in an unsuccessful effort to allow Lucky Palace an opportunity to compete with McGregor in Macon County.

But Raby and Windom had a problem in the form of the Sheriff of Macon County who used a state statute to give McGregor's VictoryLand exclusivity in the area. The best way to get rid of an elected official is to corrupt the next election and these two cooked up a scheme to run the Sheriff out of office. Raby was charged with "looking after the sheriff's race" at his Lucky Palace partner's Windom's behest.

“I came to it because Windom and I have been friends for a long time. He asked me if I’d look at the sheriff’s race down there, and so I did. I developed a strategy for a race,” Raby said Sept. 30.

Lucky Palace had made numerous attempts to get a license from incumbent Sheriff David Warren, all unsuccessful. The company’s officers suspected McGregor had a hold on him that would make additional efforts futile. That’s when they contacted Windom for an alternative strategy.

The strategy was to oust Warren, and that’s why Windom needed Raby, owner of Huntsville’s Direct Communications.

“Steve (Raby) is a consultant and has great expertise in Democratic politics, particularly on the ground game,” Windom testified. “Getting out votes and ... doing campaigns.”

The first step was to find a candidate to oppose Warren. They interviewed Shorter Police Chief Sandor Maloy, and were satisfied.

“Once we interviewed Chief Maloy,” Windom testified, “we felt like he was a good candidate, had some fire in his belly and wanted to win the race.”

Also critical, he was receptive to another casino entering Macon County.

Maloy “indicated that he was interested in economic development for Macon County beyond having one (gambling) facility,” Windom said.

What Maloy did not have was money. Lucky Palace — using an assortment of PACs controlled by Raby and Mike Echols in Tuscaloosa — funneled about $250,000 into his campaign.

These two utilized the cloaking system of PAC to PAC transfers to cover their scheme and Raby took an additional step of creating the Macon County Citizens for Progress PAC formed under a 501 (c)(4) committee that would shield the monetary shuffling from public view entirely. This is the same man who has stated publicly to media "I haven't represented gambling interests."

When confronted with the sworn testimony of his partner Windom, that was part of the DOJs 19 month long investigation that resulted in the recent indictments, Raby changed his tune and pulled the old trick of wordsmithing that attorneys are so adept in;

“What I’ve told you,” Raby clarified Tuesday, “is that on having a gambling interest as a client — representing those guys before the Legislature or before a court or before anything — no, I’ve never had those.”

Windom sang like a canary and gave up Raby to save his own hide because of a pending federal lawsuit stemming from the DOJ gambling investigation.

The federal lawsuit in which Windom testified is still pending. John Tyson, who has been handling Gov. Bob Riley’s gambling task force, recently asked the judge to unseal various exhibits in the case. The judge refused.

Windom and Raby had another scheme in mind if the "buying of the sheriff's election" did not work--they would take it to court and force the sheriff to issue Lucky Palace a license.

Litigation also was viewed as a way to force Warren to license Lucky Palace. Even before the election, Windom and Raby were looking ahead toward the litigation option.

Before the election, Windom sent an e-mail to Raby.

“We need to watch for every opportunity to catch Milton’s (McGregor) troops — other than your friends, of course — up to things like buying votes and putting cash — non-reported money — and for that matter even large dollars PAC’d out. Anything that would look shady to a jury — not that we would do anything like that, of course. ... Just something to keep in the back of your mind as Milton (McGregor) goes into panic mode.”

The litigation strategy — a last-ditch effort to secure the $1 million success bonus — led to Windom and Raby obtaining an ownership interest in Lucky Palace. Windom, Raby and Jon Gray contributed a combined $50,000 that bought them a small interest in Lucky Palace, Windom testified.

The money was to be used as seed money in a lawsuit against Warren, hoping to force him to license Lucky Palace.

“The three of us (Windom, Raby and Gray) paid $16,666 each, $50,000 total,” Windom testified.

There would have been a $1 million dollar "success bonus" if these three had been successful through litigation to secure a license for Lucky Palace. Raby continued to lie like a rug and feign ignorance of his interest share, meanwhile his partner Windom, was seeing the writing on the wall and quickly transferred his interest to Jon Gray in an attempt to distance himself further from the coming explosion that went off with a bang in the DOJs "October Surprise."

Raby said he does not remember having owned part of Lucky Palace, but said he trusts Windom’s under-oath recollection. Raby said he does not currently own any portion of Lucky Palace. Windom testified when he realized the lawsuit included fraud allegations against McGregor, he transferred his interest to Gray.

Had Raby and Windom succeeded in obtaining a license for Lucky Palace, their contract would have given them a much larger ownership interest in the company.

What these men did was driven out of greed, it was a calculated move to take advantage of a community of unsophisticated voters (Macon County is poor and 80% black) and the acceptable license to steal that drives all of Alabama's legislative mindset no matter which side of the political spectrum they come from. They're all rotten at their core, it is not just one or the other and Steve Raby is currently for the 5th District.

In our opinion, he has forfeited all rights to be on the ballot, but his progressive supporters refuse to turn on him and are pulling hard for him to defeat his opponent and completely ignoring his sordid history.

So strong is the desire for money of Alabama's politicians that strange bedfellows occur from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, and the forming of unholy alliances between political parties, that are prominently diametrically opposed to each other when it's convenient for them (cameras rolling, microphones on) during election cycles, becomes commonplace.

During the 2006 election cycle, the Alabama Democrats crafted their "Covenant for Alabama" plan of which ethics reform was a core issue. But they never followed through on it and are now asking for a Special Session right before the November election to finally address the issue they could have taken away from the GOP four years ago.

The Republicans are equally as guilty when they point fingers at the Democrats and blame them for the failure of PAC to PAC transfer bills failing each session--the 2008 vote on the bill had every single one of the Republican senators voting "Nay."

Left in Alabama speaks the truth in the following passage on the failure of both parties to do anything effective on ethics reform in Alabama;

Many times over the last few years people at this blog have pointed out that the Republican plan for 2010 was to run against corruption and make hay out of the fact that the Democratic Legislature (primarily the Senate) had failed to ban PAC to PAC transfers, failed to give the Ethics Commission teeth, etc, in addition to making hay out of the whole 2 year college mess.  And we (correctly) pointed out that the best way for Democrats to counter this GOP strategy was to buckle down and pass meaningful ethics legislation and nominate at least a few candidates who would take a hard line on the issue and pledge to seek further reforms.  Neither happened.  Instead the feds blew the top off the cesspool so everyone can see what’s inside.

If one half is rotten then the whole thing is rotten...

It disturbs us that our progressive friends seem to balk and not consistently go after their own with the same ferocity they attack the Republicans with and the Raby story is a prime example of that. That said, we do understand why they set their sights primarily on the GOP because most of the truly dark, high crimes lie with Alabama's Republicans and what they do borders on absolute evil. 

Bodies pile up in the form of "mysterious deaths and suicides" and they have shown they will go to extraordinary lengths to achieve their goals. 

They're like the Freddy Kruger's of Goat Hill and if Hollywood were to do another remake of the Kruger series we suggest they come to Alabama and shoot a film called the "Nightmare On Goat Hill."

*Note-story excerpts from the Decatur Daily "Gambling on Lucky"

Windom video depositions:

transcript 1 

transcript 2

 

House GOP Probes Cost of EPA Air Rules--Inside EPA

This is similar to the current fight over the proposed EPA changes of coal mining policies and it is a parallel battleground issue between Democrats and the big business Republicans--Democrats support stricter oversight by the EPA while the Republicans favor greater congressional oversight, preferably when they are in charge.

Environmentalists and congressional Democrats are expanding their efforts to support the agency’s crackdown on water pollution from Appalachian coal mines from growing election-year attacks by industry and state officials in some of the states most affected by the agency’s policies.

If we have learned nothing else from past administrations we have seen what happens to regulations and rules when the Republicans are in charge--they are weakened and gutted in favor of the industry giants. The Republicans prefer to let the industry "regulate itself" rather than follow the rules of the CAA and CWA.
The EPA is viewed as an antagonistic, bloated agency with too much power who cannot possibly know what is best for big business. They're labeled "anti-economic development and the job killers of the nation" because following the rules means the obscenely wealthy energy giants will have to spend some of that immense wealth coming into compliance with federal laws and in turn, won't be able to hire as many workers.

What these big polluters won't tell you is that advancements in the processes they use to extract their materials rely more and more on technology than they do human labor resulting in less manual labor jobs being available. They also won't tell you that the fat cats at the top and shareholders are a big reason these companies don't want to see even the slightest percentage drop of their bottom lines.

It really has nothing to do with the worker, the average American, you know the one that is so prominent in PR campaigns by these companies as being their major concern and the "unfortunate victim" who is the one who is the most harmed by increased environmental regulations. Next in line would be the American consumer that is struggling hard in the current unsteady economic climate to simply "get by" and increased regulations and compliance "would only burden them even more" according to big business and the Republicans.

It's all one big fat belching lie served up by the industry to maintain their status quo of being monetarily overfed and bloated to ridiculous proportions. We have rules and regulations in place for a reason--the environment is important, clean water is essential and clean air is a right that we all should have and none of those basic elements of a healthy community should be for sale. But they certainly are every election cycle as evidenced by the enormous campaign contributions from the energy industry that pour into the Republicans coffers.

HuffPost found Koch Industries was a top contributor for Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Daniel Coats (R-Ind), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Murray Energy was a top contributor for Carly Fiorina (R-Calif.), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Every one of these Republican candidates for Senate has questioned climate science. (Click on their names for an example.)

Neither company funded a single Democratic candidate for Senate.

In Alaska, the state most coveted by the oil and natural gas industry, Exxon Mobil donated some money to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller and more to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski, who suffered an unexpected defeat to Miller in the Republican primary election.

That mirrors the strategy Exxon Mobil used in the 2008 presidential election when it contributed to both Barack Obama and John McCain. Though McCain would presumably better protect company interests, by donating to both candidates Exxon might hope to curry favor with whoever ultimately won power.

EPA head Lisa Jackson is "sticking to her guns" firing back at them with some hard truth:

“It’s definitely anti-lobbyist rhetoric,” Jackson said. “It’s definitely meant to reflect the fact that, when I go around the country, people want clean air. They are as passionate about clean air and clean water as any of a number of issues; they want protection for their families and their children.”

“I meet with individual businesses all the time, and industry has a huge role to play,” Jackson added. “But I do very much believe that it’s time for us to get past this tired dance, where folks inside this Beltway get paid a lot of money to say things that aren’t true about public health initiatives that this agency is charged by law with undertaking.”

The Republicans have demonstrated their animus of the environment time after time and if we don't pay attention and continue to re-elect the "darlings of big business" we'll lose some of the long overdue (although still falling terribly short) positive forward movement of the EPA to crack down on these big polluters and make them follow the rules that will truly benefit us all.

Published October 14, 2010

Key House Republicans are urging EPA to detail the compliance costs of dozens of pending and recently issued clean air and greenhouse gas (GHG) rules predicted to cost industry billions of dollars, in a possible signal of the EPA regulatory oversight that the GOP is vowing to pursue if it takes over the House or Senate after the midterm elections.

Reps. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Michael Burgess (R-TX), key GOP members of the Energy & Commerce Committee, sent an Oct. 14 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson raising concerns about the “cumulative impacts” of the regulations and asking her to verify the accuracy of agency cost estimates for 40 known Clean Air Act rules, as well as additional measures that may be in the works.

“We are concerned about the highly accelerated pace at which EPA is issuing complex and expensive regulatory proposals” under the air act, the lawmakers wrote.

Many of the rules identified by the lawmakers are predicted to exceed the $100 million cost threshold that the government uses to describe a regulation as “economically significant,” a threshold that House Republicans have also set for rules that they plan to require Congress to approve before the rules can be implemented.

“If a regulation is so 'significant' and costly that it may harm job creation, Congress should vote on it first,” House GOP lawmakers said in their recently unveiled campaign manifesto, “Pledge To America.”

Barton and Burgess also sent Jackson a chart of 40 proposed or finalized air rules and more than a dozen other rules in the pre-proposal stages. EPA estimates at least eight rules will have costs over $1 billion, including $52 billion costs from its final first-time vehicle GHG rules for light-duty vehicles.

Other rules that the lawmakers highlight include $19 billion to $90 billion annual costs from EPA's proposed tightening of its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS); $9.5 billion in capital expenditures and $2.9 billion in annual costs from its proposed boiler air toxics rule; $3.6 billion by 2020 for its revised nitrogen dioxide NAAQS; and $2.5 billion in capital costs and $1 billion in annual costs from its proposed Clean Air Transport Rule to establish a cap-and-trade program to cut nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants in 31 Eastern states and the District of Columbia.

Barton, the ranking GOP member of the energy committee, and Burgess, the ranking member of the committee's oversight panel, ask Jackson to verify whether the compliance costs in the chart are accurate. They also ask whether there are additional air rules not included in the chart that will impose annual compliance costs of $100 million or more, and also to identify any other air rules that EPA is considering.

GOP Eyes EPA Oversight

The GOP lawmakers' focus on the economic costs of the agency's air rules is the latest signal of the type of agency oversight that Republicans could pursue if they win majorities in the House or Senate following the November elections. Barton and Burgess have already asked House Energy & Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) to hold an oversight hearing to investigate what they claim is the Obama administration's “failure to evaluate job impacts in connection with its significant regulatory initiatives” from EPA and other agencies.

But EPA has rejected past requests by Barton and others to analyze the jobs impacts of its rules. For example, Barton and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) asked whether the agency is complying with section 321 of the Clean Air Act, which requires the administrator to “conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from” EPA rules. Barton and Walden asked EPA to conduct a section 321 analysis of several GHG rules.

EPA air chief Regina McCarthy in response said the provision does not apply broadly to all rules. She said section 321 is designed to address “situations where employers make allegations that environmental regulations will jeopardize employment possibly in order to stimulate union or other public opposition to environmental regulations. The provision was intended to create a mechanism to investigate and resolve those allegations.” EPA says the provision does not apply broadly to all rules under the air act.

Even though EPA defends itself against having to analyze the jobs impacts of rulemakings under section 321, Republicans are vowing oversight -- and votes -- focusing on the economic impacts of EPA regulations.

In the Senate, GOP lawmakers are planning additional oversight and hope that EPA will be less able to delay responding to Republican questions about rules in a more closely divided chamber.

But there is less enthusiasm among senators for a sweeping effort among House lawmakers to dramatically limit agencies’ abilities to write new rules that House Republicans are advocating. The House GOP's “Pledge To America” campaign agenda proposes requiring that Congress approve major rules that cost more than $100 million to implement -- which would capture several of the air rules in the recent Barton and Burgess chart.

The House Republicans' approach could pose a major problem for EPA as several of its pending rules are expected to cost more than $100 million. EPA currently has one economically significant rule under review at the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), to set GHG standards for heavy duty vehicles.

Scope Of EPA's Authority

In addition to cost concerns, Republicans are also weighing oversight into the reach of EPA's regulatory authority. GOP sources on key House committees with jurisdiction over core EPA programs say that although the election is still weeks away, staff are beginning to sketch out their legislative agenda for the possibility that Republicans could be the majority on committees in either chamber during the 112th Congress.

Oversight hearings could give the GOP a prominent venue to argue that EPA is exceeding its authority through rules including pending stormwater runoff controls and efforts to limit mountaintop mining. “The view of some people is that EPA is pushing . . . their jurisdictional authority to do some of this stuff,” a GOP source says.

Meanwhile, House Oversight & Government Reform panel ranking member Darrell Issa (R-CA) is suggesting Congress should take steps to bolster the independence of agency inspector generals (IGs), and recently met with EPA’s IG -- a role Republicans see as a “critical ally” in oversight efforts. -- Anthony Lacey

 

It Takes A Thief

A recent revelation of theft, falsifying records and exorbitant sums of money spent on “cleaning chemicals” by the county jail all serve as clues of an ongoing crime scene in Shelby County, Alabama.

The State of Alabama Auditor’s Office released the results of the Shelby County audit on October 8, 2010. The report reveals theft of county funds by an “unidentified” county employee on 19 separate occasions totaling $15,403.61. Fictitious adjustments to a bank reconciliation were done to help to hide the evidence. A separate finding of the audit  showed that the county jail spent $187,950.00 on “chemical supplies” in a no-bid contact that had expired.

CURRENT FINDINGS
♦ 2009-01 relates to a former employee of the Commission making fictitious adjustments to bank reconciliations and making unauthorized withdrawals from bank accounts.
♦ 2009-02 relates to the Commission’s failure to properly bid purchases in accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975, Section 41-16-50.

Explanations from the county were less than contrite and somewhat non-sensical, as most alibis usually are;

"The account involved was a low volume low dollar balance account."

"The employee in question was a valued member of the department that had been assigned the oversight responsibilities for this particular account."

"As part of those assigned duties the employee also took on the monthly reconciliation function. When the unauthorized activity was discovered County Management took immediate disciplinary action which resulted in termination. Appropriate charges were filed with law enforcement." (Oct 8 Mobile Press-Register, sources attribute these comments to the County Manger, Alex Dudchock)

“It’s a difficult situation when a trusted employee violates their fiduciary duty I think we handled it appropriately upon the discovery of the missing funds. The county has been made whole at this point, and the employee is no longer with us.” said Shelby County Commission Chairman Lindsey Allison (Oct. 12 Birmingham News)

“Valued” and “trusted” are very unusual words to apply to a thief, but we do recall some the same descriptors used in the Enron scandal and we all know how that turned out. If this had been one theft, an isolated incident, then maybe it was a case of a good man gone bad, although that’s a stretch because it is what it is, but this was not an isolated incident--it was 19 separate thefts compounded by a another crime of falsifying records.

Any good CPA will tell you that “low volume, low dollar” accounts are just what they imply and theft from these types of accounts is much easier to detect. Who was asleep at the switch and what reason do we have to believe this is the only creative accounting that has occurred, or is occurring in the county?

Note that Ms. Horton (the previously unidentified employee) withdrew an odd amount ($15403.61).  That tells us that she was making exact payments for something.  If an employee was taking money just for "mad money" the amounts withdrawn would have been even and neat and tidy ($500, $1200, etc.)  The extra $3.00 and the extra 61 cents seems to suggest that there were specific payments for specific things.

If we had to guess, the withdrawals were most likely to an identifiable person or entity (as opposed to a cash withdrawal). Ms. Horton could have made the checks out to herself or to a third party. She may have been paying for a specific bill (plasma tv or repair bill, for example), either directly to the third party or as a reimbursement to herself.

As a general rule, checks require two signatures. There could have been one signer, but most likely the other one is a supervisor of some sort. The requirement of two signatures is a typical internal control device.  If two signatures weren't required, it's a sign of weak internal control. If two signatures were required, who was the other person? Bank reconciliation and check writing functions should always be assigned to two different people. One person should never do both--this is a sign of terrible internal control.

Shelby County should already know this--it's been standard procedure for years.

With taxpayer's money involved and the commission of a first degree theft in this incident (as defined by Alabama Code) the checks should be produced showing what they were specifically written for and to whom they were written.

The projected county revenues for 2011 are $81.7 million which leaves a lot of room to be “creative” with the numbers, and fiddle with the books. If the county can mishandle their accounts to this extent, and not have the most basic accountability controls in place to prevent this type of crime, what faith does is demonstrate to the public that this will not happen again with some other accounts or, more interestingly, that this is an isolated incident?

The county maintains they have "fixed the system." Systems are only as good as the people who set them up and maintain them. The county may have fired the thief, but there is no change in the rest of the personnel and supervisors who implemented this faulty system in the first place. That's not reassuring on any level and it does little to restore the tarnished trust of the public perception of the county's abilities to institute proper checks and balances in the management of their accounts.

If this former employee (thief) had the financial means to repay the money then why steal it in the first place? Was it paid back all at once or is there an arrangement for restitution in place that the public is not privy to? After all, there are some things that they aren’t privy to because the name of the employee was not released until 3:56 pm Oct 12, four days after the release of the audit and when the story first appeared in print, in the Press-Register. And even then, it was only after the story was published that the county DA and prosecutors decided to release the information, which they may not have ever done if there wasn’t some media pressure applied.

Which brings up another point--why did a newspaper over 220 miles away from the scene of the crime break the story first? Did the Birmingham News and Shelby County Reporter, the two newspaper outlets closest to the chalk outline, shut down for the Columbus Day weekend? Nope, that’s not it. Was there only one reporter at the Birmingham News who could have covered the story? No to that too.

There seems to be a collusive and concerted effort to protect this person (and perhaps others) and the county by everyone involved including the press, with the honorable exception of the Press-Register. If they had not broken the story, it very well may have never been exposed to the bright light of public attention.

The county knew they were required to have no-bid contracts in securing a vendor, but chose to ignore Alabama Code and hire whoever they wanted however they wanted.

What is missing from any of these stories is more probative questioning on the $188,000.00 (rounded) spent by the county jail for cleaning supplies. That’s a compelling clue to what may be larger crimes that has gone uninvestigated.

Let’s do the math;
$188,000.00 divided by 365 days = $515 per day.

Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to hire a janitorial service to do the cleaning? We did some checking with some local companies who do that and no one gave us a figure anywhere close to what the jail is spending now on just the cleaning supplies (they have plenty of cheap labor at their disposal.) It would be interesting to compare what they spend per day on the inmate’s nutrition to the cost of the really expensive Pine Sol.

Shelby County is spending more on soap and mops for the jailhouse than they spend on their entire Storm Water Management Program for which they budget a measly $45,000 In a county with 167 industrial sites and booming development “two part-time employees and an annual budget of $45,000” is woefully inadequate to the task at hand and a pretty obvious case of neglect by underfunding

It’s comforting to know the county has its priorities straight. Not.

The Birmingham News article on October 12 states that “County Finance Manger Butch Burbage said Monday he was advised by county’s legal staff that he would have to defer to the Shelby County DA’s office on any release of the employee’s name.” The story describes that particular Monday was Columbus Day, the DA’s office was closed and “efforts to reach prosecutors for comment were unsuccessful.”

What DID happen on that Monday (when most county and city offices are closed in observance of the holiday) is that the Shelby County Commission met and elected a new chairman. Lindsey Allison was out and Corley Ellis was in. The chairman’s term is for one year, and Ms. Allison has served three of the last four years as chairman.

The timing of this leadership change seems odd to us, as does the fact that it occurred on a national holiday. Did the news coverage of the audit play a part? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to presume that the public would not come to this meeting because most people would assume the commission wouldn’t meet on a holiday?

The county couldn’t make the DA or prosecutors available to the press on an important story of public interest, but they could hold a commission meeting and replace their chairman and vice-chairman?

The state Attorney General usually steps into these types of cases when the judge, prosecutors and other local legal authoritative figures know the perpetrator. Justice becomes blind when there is familiarity. Since this wrong-doer was a long term fixture in the county’s employ, chances are high that anyone involved with prosecuting and hearing this case knew the offender.

That may account for the county wanting to handle this “in system” and it is cause for scrutiny by the state’s chief law enforcement officer. The county has shown how maladroit it is at handling things and the public should be outraged about this.

We don’t think there is any doubt that some of these funds were from citizen revenues (mostly in tax form) and the public does not take kindly to elected officials or their employees stealing from them. Anyone who does this should not be protected in any way and this case should have been referred to the state AG’s office immediately upon discovery, in our opinion.

It took the release of the state audit and the Press-Register to bring it to light.

The county thinks they’re slick and using the language of “the county’s been made whole” serves another purpose. According to the website of the Department of the Examiners Board if the money has not been accounted for or recovered “the audits are certified to the Attorney General or District Attorney and presented to the next Grand Jury.” That invites much more scrutiny and would certainly kick things up a notch or two.

What we would like to know is this: why would the county not want it to happen? Public opinion would be overwhelmingly in support of the harshest examination and punishment possible for this crime, and the questionable high expenditures of their money.

There seems to be a concerted effort in downplaying this offense, omitting information and it says "Let’s just make this go away as fast as possible."

An additional note is that when the story finally ran within the county’s only newspaper it did so with no mention of the jail’s cleaning supplies expenditures.

We wrote in an earlier posting (entitled the “The Kingfishers of Alabama’s Mainstream Newspapers”) that news organizations have an obligation to their readers to present the news fairly and accurately without hidden agendas and special interests influencing (or omitting) their coverage.

The evidence speaks for itself in this case;

• A crime was committed repeatedly and not caught until it racked up 19 incidents.

• The thief was not named until long after the fact.

• The issue is being downplayed by county officials.

• Newspapers that should have run the story first... did not.

• Successive stories have omitted the jail expenditures (the local area paper did not mention it at all.)

• Legal representatives for the county have not made any statements to the press.

• An expired no-bid contract was in place for the jail expenditures (which is against Alabama Code.)

• The county has adopted a “circle the wagons" defensive posture.

• Serious financial oversight issues have been exposed and the county’s judgment is subsequently called into question.

It’s theft of more than just money--it’s a theft of the public’s trust and it raises some real issues about the county’s ability to properly acknowledge the seriousness of the crime to the public.

Their attitude seems to be "Never you mind, it's okay now, we took care of it and fixed the system."

Well, we don’t buy it for a minute and we think that with some proper, unbiased authorities investigating this, what eventually will be revealed is that sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief.

 

New High Court FOIA Suit May Limit Access To Industry Data At EPA --From Inside EPA

This is not good news because of the sheer political strength of who's appealing this and will be something to follow very closely. The coal industry and utility giants are behind this one because they like to claim "proprietary information" in response to any scrutiny of their coal ash ponds and sludge holding areas.

This is a huge problem in Alabama with Southern Company, the parent of Alabama Power Company (BARD member), and we went into great detail about two plants in Alabama, E. C. Gaston & Gorgas, that refuse public release of any information on this issue in two previous postings.
Alabama Power Shareholders  Vote Against EPA Regulations
Alabama Power Gorgas Plant Rattlesnake Dam


The withholding of this information serves no public good, in fact, it is the antithesis of it. If the high court rules in favor of the energy giants on this issue we would be foolish to not expect a lot more secrecy in the future from this big polluter gang--that's the last thing that needs to happen given the high level of secrecy already in place.

October 4, 2010

The Supreme Court has agreed to review an appellate decision that, if upheld, could bar public access to industry data held by EPA and other federal agencies under claims that corporations can be shielded from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure rules because they have a right to "personal privacy" akin to that afforded to individuals, public interest groups say.

In briefs urging the high court to back the Obama administration's request to overturn the ruling, a coalition of groups cite several examples where they would be unable to obtain data on industry's pollution releases, including a pending request seeking EPA data on Dow Chemical Co. releases in Michigan, as well as data entities may seek on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Massey coal mining accident in West Virginia.

An attorney for one of the public interest groups says a ruling favoring corporations could have a significant effect on EPA documents because whenever companies cite information from enforcement records as embarrassing -- for instance that they polluted -- they could then claim a privacy interest, seeking to bar disclosure of those documents.

While courts would likely hold that the rights of the public trump a corporation's privacy interest in such cases, the effect of upholding the appellate decision would still have a "chilling effect" on the federal government's release of information, the attorney says, likely resulting in the government deferring release in order to avoid such suits.

The high court Sept. 28 agreed to review Federal Communications Commission (FCC), et al. v. AT&T Inc., et al., a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit that barred the FCC from turning over results of an investigation into "irregularities" in the company's billings to a Connecticut school under a special telecommunications access program.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case. Kagan was the U.S. solicitor general who submitted the petition to the court in April.

In its brief urging the court to review the case, the Obama administration argued that the lower court ruling is the first in the law's 35-year history in which a court of appeals has held corporations enjoy "personal privacy" under the statute's Exemption 7(c), which allows agencies to withhold law enforcement records if their disclosure would result in an invasion of personal privacy. "That unprecedented decision creates a new and amorphous privacy concept that finds no support either in FOIA's text or the uniform body of case law and commentary that -- until this case -- instructed that FOIA's 'personal privacy' provisions protect only the interests of individuals," the government's brief says.

AT&T, however, argues that the contention that the 3rd Circuit decision "will wreak havoc with the administration of FOIA is tenuous at best." It points out that the ruling "requires only that agencies consider the privacy interests of corporations in the balancing analysis set forth in Exemption 7(c)." Further, it argues that the ruling was correct, noting that person is defined in statute to include corporations, and Congress' choice to use the adjective "personal . . . must be understood to refer to that definition."

The ruling is the second FOIA case the high court has agreed to hear in its upcoming term: Earlier this year, the court agreed to review Glen Milner v. U.S. Department of the Navy, a case that could decide the reach of an increasingly used exemption from FOIA disclosure requirements that courts have determined allows EPA and other federal agencies to withhold documents that parties can use to circumvent agency regulations.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments in Milner Dec. 1. The Supreme Court convenes its new term next week.

'Personal Privacy' Exemption

In its September 2009 ruling, the appellate court held that because FOIA defines "persons" to include corporations, they should also qualify for the "personal privacy" exemption that the law applies to law enforcement records, known as the 7(c) exemption.

Exemption 7(c) waives from mandatory disclosure records compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent the production of those records "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

AT&T argues that the plain text of [the law enforcement exemption] indicates that it applies to corporations. After all, 'personal' is the adjectival form of 'person,' and FOIA defines 'person' to include a corporation. We agree. It would be very odd indeed for an adjectival form of a defined term not to refer back to that defined term," the 3rd Circuit said.

But the federal government and open government groups say the ruling could have broad repercussions for public disclosure of government records.

The Obama administration argued in its petition seeking high court review of the case that letting the lower court ruling stand "threatens to revolutionize the manner in which the federal government must process hundreds of thousands of FOIA requests each year."

"Federal agencies have for decades processed FOIA requests under the previously settled understanding that corporations and other non-human entities have no interest in 'personal privacy' protected by FOIA," the government says in its petition asking the court to review the case. If the lower court ruling stands, it also "threatens to impose barriers to the public disclosure of government records concerning corporate malfeasance in government programs that the public has a right to review," the administration's petition says.

In their brief supporting the administration, the coalition of groups -- including Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press -- raises special concerns about the exemption limiting access to pollution data.

For example, the brief notes that upholding the 3rd Circuit's ruling could limit public access to major environmental and health and safety data, including the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Massey coal mining accident. "Recent events of national importance show how records obtained or created during government investigations into corporate activities can contain information that is crucial for the public to know," the brief says.

The brief also notes that if the 3rd Circuit's ruling were upheld, they would likely have been unable to receive documents that "shed light" on EPA's oversight of a Dow Chemical plant polluting the Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron.

The group received voluminous documents related to EPA's actions, some casting "a negative light on Dow," the brief says. "If exemption 7(c) covered corporations' 'personal privacy,' the agency likely would have withheld many of these important records."

The attorney says the ruling opens the door to companies arguing that disclosure of documents related to pollution would be embarrassing and therefore should be withheld.

The coalition of groups say that such arguments are at odds with the statute, which the groups say grants privacy protections only to "'valid governmental and individual interests in confidentiality." But the groups' brief notes that if the court upholds the argument, "then each time a request is made for records concerning newsworthy topics like the economic downturn, oil spill, and mine explosion, delay and withholding could result." Suzanne Yohannan

 

Corruption Alabama Style

What happened in Phenix City, Alabama decades ago was not entirely due to gambling--it was largely the result of crooked politicians and law enforcement who became so entangled with the gamblers there was no discernment between the two. So, what was the real problem--the gamblers or the corruption of the local officials that created a favorable environment for these ne'er do wells to thrive in? Things aren't so different in Alabama today thanks to eight years of Governor Riley and the fight over gambling and its big money is still being waged in Alabama today..

In the 1940s, Phenix City increasingly came under the control of organized crime bosses who ran gambling, narcotics, and prostitution operations, rigged local and state elections and held important leadership positions in every aspect of the city and county life.

With thousands of young soldiers stationed at nearby Fort Benning, the illegal activities thrived as never before. The young soldiers would cross the river, partake of the drugs, gambling or prostitution, and if they couldn’t pay up, they might end up in the Chattahoochee instead of the army base. The search of the river for evidence in Albert Patterson murder turned up many bodies officials were unable to identify.

Bob Martin of the Montgomery Independent slams Governor Riley for using ex Governor John Patterson,  who was the son of the slain unopposed Democratic nominee for Attorney General (from the above video) that was killed by the mob and corrupt politicians just weeks before the general election, in his ongoing current campaign against bingo and gambling;

Riley has gone about the state attempting to make a comparison of the owners and operators of first-class gaming facilities in Alabama to the thugs and corrupt politicians who ran Phenix City. I am told he has bragged about bringing Governor Patterson, who at 88 is recovering from recent heart surgery at his Goldville farm, into the fray.

Riley then found an organization called “Citizens for a Better Alabama” to purchase ads in most state newspapers, which contained the former governor’s letter accompanied with a photo of his father’s murderer, Albert Fuller, pointing to his father’s blood on the sidewalk where Fuller had shot him.

The organization, Citizens for a Better Alabama, operates out of the same office as Birmingham lawyer Eric Johnston at Suite 107, 1200 Corporate Drive in Birmingham. Johnston is also listed as president and general counsel of the Southeast Law Institute.

I can only speak for myself, but I believe these are despicable acts on the part of Riley.

In modern day Alabama, the war on bingo (electronic gambling) has resulted in Alabama once again becoming national news for the wrong reasons. In-between these two stories is a long list of many others that are equally damning in the portrait of Alabama to the national audience as an illustration of ingrained and pervasive collusion and legislative smoke and mirror tricks that all go back to the same core issue--corruption and greed.

When we cover environmental issues what's usually at the core of those stories? Corruption and greed. Along with undue influence by lobbyists and their special interest clients with legislators and the legislative process in combination with their "takeover" in our elections from vast sums of PAC money.

One recent editorial called the influence of PAC to PAC transfers a catalyst for an "evil shadow government" system because of it's ability to hide money in layers of transfers creating in effect a "legal money laundering scheme." Unless you are able to spend an exorbitant amount of time tracing the convoluted rabbit trails it's almost impossible to trace exactly where the money originally came from.

Which is precisely the point--they don't want you to know where and who it comes from. It's "legal bribery." Candidates who take these large suns of money as campaign contributions know damn well that one day their donors will come calling for their "paybacks."

Dr. Robert Bentley, the Republican candidate for Governor, dismissed anything untoward about the huge campaign contributions he has taken from the same special interests who were against him in the Republican runoff election. When asked specifically about this during a radio interview he said, "Well, we had to get our message out there to the people of Alabama and that takes money. We know who all these people are and we have been very careful with our PACs. I'm not ashamed of any of them, they're fine organizations."

When asked specifically about the very large and frequent BARD contributions by local radio show host Richard Dixon recently Bentley's response was "Never heard of them."

Sure you haven't, Doc.Will that also be your answer when they come calling for favors? Probably not.

Grinning "Mule" Bentley

What do you think happens almost every morning at candidate's campaign headquarters? "How much came in yesterday? Good." That's what the candidate says. "And here's the list of names you need to send thank-you cards to." That's what the campaign assistant says. It  happens every day and these candidates know that is precisely how it works--they're just hoping the rest of us don't.

This elaborate scheme of PAC to PAC transfers, albeit legal in current Alabama law, was the crux of the latest black eye on Alabama in the federal indictments of eleven legislators, lobbyists and casino owners and there will be more coming. But this also has roots in a long and bitter vendetta between Governor Riley and certain interests who dared to defy King Riley. Our friends over at Legal Schnauzer have written about this extensively and we invite you to please visit the site for some compelling coverage on this issue.
*(2nd link repaired, sorry for the inconvenience)

The point we would like to make is that it's all about the corruption that has held this state for years and years and it will not lessen anytime soon it seems. A friend of ours once said that it seems "Alabama politicians have more balls than brains because they are so brazen and arrogant about everything" and he was right on point with that analogy.

Riley would be the lead mule in the barn on that because he says one thing about gambling and protects the Indian gambling interests of Alabama from any competition in the same breath and he honestly thinks no one notices the great hypocrisy that is Governor Riley. (Riley received large campaign contribution from Indian gaming interests in both of his gubernatorial campaigns.)



In a current Mobile Press-Register story Riley condemns gambling as a "cancer that has metastasized all over the state" and he goes on to to say that "The potential for corruption is just enhanced, it's enhanced by just the sheer amount of money that was being used all over the state." The very same could be said of the PAC to PAC transfers that fill campaign coffers every election cycle, but he will only apply the potential for corruption from big money to gambling because that is what he is at "war" with.

He opens the door for some very pointed questioning from the reporters who pin him down and create a very uncomfortable situation for him towards the end of the video that appears at the end of this post.

Riley   "...and when you get to the point that you have that amount of money, that can be used to influence the legislative process, that needs to be frightening to anyone."

Reporter   "Governor does it surprise you that two such high profile contract lobbyists would engage in apparent explicit quid pro quo?" (he's referring to Robert "Bob" Geddie and Jarrod Massey who the Guv knows very well.)

Riley   "I'm not going to comment on any one thing, I know that--"  (reporter cuts him off after he has done a lot of commenting on "any one things.")

Reporter  "I mean do you think that's how the legislative process works in most issues in Montgomery?"

Zing. Bang. Pop. Slap. He had the Governor cornered on those points and Riley knew it because he hangs his head, says nothing and looks like he's beginning to get really teed off with this upstart reporter who dares to question him, Mr. Omnipotent.

Great job by the reporters and the Press-Register newspaper who goes after Riley more so than most. Maybe we need to hand them the reins in a long overdue investigation of the governor and Goat Hill on a whole slew of issues.

Alabama was once considered the "King of Cotton" because everywhere you looked in most of the state there were cotton fields and Alabama was one of the largest producers in the south, hence the name "Land of Cotton." Today, we are the largest producers of something else--what you spread on your fields before you plant and it "ain't lily white" by any stretch of the imagination.

We still have "thugs and corrupt politicians" running Alabama and sometimes "questionable" deaths occur under "mysterious circumstances" just like they did in Phenix City years ago, but in a much more subtle fashion. This is what Alabama is at its core, the former cotton capital of the South and the land of home-grown skulduggery and corruption that refuses to die.

Bob Riley responds to bingo-related arrests

*Editor's note--Some of the gamblers and Dixie Mafia crowd from Phenix City made their way to McNairy County, Tennessee once they were run out of Alabama and their criminal enterprise became the basis of the story of Sheriff  Buford Pusser in the popular film "Walking Tall."
*Ricky Thomason Editorial (Huntsville Times) on what Montgomery (Goat Hill) really needs. 
One of the best editorials we have ever read! Bravo Mr. Thomason!
Excerpt:

This is a case of lie to everyone. Montgomery doesn't need ethics reform; it needs ethics - period. If it weren't for Huey Long and the boil of corruption that is Louisiana, Alabama would be number one in something besides football and bigotry with flag-wrapped crosses, yet unlit, thinly disguised as political movements.

Were the truth to somehow make a break for it, jump the fence and miraculously escape Goat Hill, Ryder doesn't have enough trucks or Greyhound enough buses to deliver the needed indictments and haul away the guilty.

 

Secretariat--Super Horse

At a time when the nation was torn from the Watergate Scandal and the Vietnam War this super horse gave the whole country something to believe in and galloped his way into our troubled hearts and the annals of history forever.

Go see the movie and find out why. It's a story like no other, a horse that is unparalleled in racing history even today and the likes of something we will never see again in our lifetime and perhaps forever.

This is a step away from our usual topics but even we have to interject some lightness into seriousness sometimes.

Secretariat's win of the 1973 Triple Crown, capped off by his thirty-one-length victory at the Belmont Stakes, captured the imagination of Americans still focused on the ongoing war in Vietnam. 

He appeared on the covers of Sports Illustrated and Time; in Newsweek, sports columnist Pete Axthelm wrote that "Secretariat generates a crackling tension wherever he goes … [His] muscular build identifies him immediately, his glowing reddish coat is a banner of health and rippling power. Magnificent enough at rest … when he accelerates … he produces a breathtaking explosion that leaves novices and hardened horsemen alike convinced that, for one of those moments that seldom occur in any sport, they have witnessed genuine greatness."
Courtesy of Secretariat.com and Time Magazine

 

Former "Unidentified" Shelby County Commission Employee Fired For Taxpayer $$ Theft--County Jail Spends $188,000 on "Cleaning Products"

**Updated October 12, 2010 (name released--Mia Horton)

An article in the October 8, 2010 Mobile Press-Register, which is conveniently a long way from Shelby County, Alabama reports that an "unidentified" SCC employee "initiated unauthorized withdrawals totaling $15,403 from the commission’s bank accounts on 19 different occasions" during an audit conducted by the state.


We're shocked. (No, not really.)


The "unidentified" employee paid back the pilfered funds and police are investigating the matter. 19 withdrawals before they were caught? Ridiculous and illustrative of no oversight or close supervision of who has access to the money--how many more county accounts have that problem?

Here's the county's response essentially downplaying the whole thing (note the "valued member" descriptor);

"The account involved was a low volume low dollar balance account," the county said in its response to the audit. "The employee in question was a valued member of the department that had been assigned the oversight responsibilities for this particular account."

If this had not been caught in a state audit would that "valued member" still be employed?

Outrageous, but not at all surprising considering this all white, all republican viper pit of corruption.

The audit also reports problems in the County jail who must not have learned that shopping at discount stores really does save a lot of money;

State auditors also questioned about $188,000 in spending by the county jail for products purchased outside the bid system. County officials said that the purchases in question were of cleaning products for the jail and that jail employees were using an outdated vendor list for such purchases. The purchase system reportedly has been changed.

"Let's blame it on the vendor you guys." (nods of agreement) 
"We'll just say we changed something to improve what we're doing."
"We did that with the newspaper and look how well that worked out." (vigorous nods of more approval)


In this county "change" is code-speak for "hiding something."

Deputies question Dudchock appointment BhamNews Dec 2009 reader comments are telling.

Who are they trying to kid? That outrageous figure for "cleaning products" was for cleaning alright--but probably not of the Pine Sol nature.
SunshineReview.org Shelby County
ShelbyCountyAlabamaAudit

*Update-The Birmingham News has finally run this story in their Local Section pp. 1C & 3C. We might add their story appears four days after ours and the original Press-Register article.

Excerpts:

The employee, whose name was not included in the fiscal 2009 audit, made the withdrawals on 19 occasions and made fictitious adjustments to a bank reconciliation, according to a corrective action plan developed by the county. 

"It's always a difficult situation when a trusted employee violates their fiduciary duty," Shelby County Commission Chairwoman Lindsey Allison said Monday. "I think we handled it appropriately upon the discovery of missing funds. The county has been made whole at this point, and the employee is no longer with us." 

County Finance Manager Butch Burbage said Monday he was advised by county's legal staff that he would have to defer to the Shelby County district attorney's office on any release of the employee's name. The district attorney's office was closed Monday for Columbus Day, and efforts to reach prosecutors for comment were unsuccessful. 

They are STILL downplaying this theft and refusing to release the perpetrator's name. This is wrong, theft is a criminal act and this is not how a county should operate that takes in revenues from public citizens.
We have checked many other stories in different parts of the country of this same kind of crime and in most cases, almost all of them in fact, the criminal (yes, that's what they are) is identified and usually winds up serving some jail time for their crime.
Why is this county protecting this person and making great effort to hide behind their county District Attorney (Robert Owens) and county lawyers (Butch Ellis)?
Lindsey Allison has been replaced by Corley Ellis as the new chair of the Shelby County Commission by commission election Monday Oct. 11 in another Bham News article from the October 12 edition of the paper.
Are these two incidents related? If they are, expect the county to explain the change as "routine." The DA was unavailable on Columbus Day as were the "prosecutors" yet, the SCC could meet for business on a holiday and vote on a new chairman?
Something very fishy (and criminal) is going on in Shelby County. Where are the outside authorities?

 

Federal Government Lied About "Disappearing Oil" (And So Did ADEM)

Video Description:  
It is believed that the amount of oil that spewed into the Gulf of Mexico during the BP oil crisis was grossly underestimated.  
It’s a sobering "I told you so" from many environmentalists.

Watch at Tampa Bay Online

We'll not hold our breaths waiting for ADEM to admit their lies to Alabama's citizens about the "mysterious disappearing" oil and reckless claims of "the water's fine, the seafood is fine."

Of course, the state powers will blame 100% of it on Obama and the feds (which do bear some responsibility admittedly) and not take any modicum of responsibility for throwing caution to the wind in their rush to keep those tourism dollars rolling in. Alabama also bears some responsibility by claiming "everything's safe" and opening Moblie Bay to shrimping quickly, to the surprise of many, and likely basing some of that on estimation from scientific models that some call "psuedo science" and "playing Russian roulette with fisheries."

The season was originally delayed after state officials conducting shrimp surveys in late May pulled up submerged oil on their nets at every location they sampled. State biologists have conducted repeated trawls in Mobile Bay but have yet to report oil on their nets there, officials have said. 

The date of that excerpt was July 22. In a little under two months it went from "oil on their nets at every location" to "no oil?" Does that really sound plausible considering we now know much of the oil is submerged and sank to the bottoms of water bodies?

We don't think most people would consider seafood swimming around in water above layers of oil and dispersant "safe" to consume.

Some more from ADEMs point man Bruce Freeman July 22, 2010:

DAPHNE, Ala. -- Alabama's oil response leaders address a wide variety of issues each day and a top problem is "staying ahead of misconceptions and rumors," according to Bruce Freeman, chief of the office of emergency response at the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

One of those misconceptions is that the fish and shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico and Mobile Bay are not safe to eat, Freeman told about 30 people who gathered Tuesday evening at a town hall-style meeting at Daphne City Hall.

"The fish are fine, you can eat them. We've found no problems whatsoever," Freeman said. "We go to Mississippi Sound and offshore ..." 

A woman in the audience, Daphne artist Jean-Marie McDonnell, interrupted Freeman.

"I don't believe it," she said.

This rush to open waters to fishing happened after the Exxon Valdez spill too and had very bad results.

But...

The state claims they had their own "experts" and did extensive testing and monitoring which resulted in "no detectable oil."  

Oops.

More from Pro Publica's Marian Wang:

BP and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as we've noted, have recently taken to local schools to "dispel myths" about dispersants and subsurface oil.

A rosy government report from August asserting that most of the spilled oil was gone -- was oversold.

Even though both NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco and White House energy adviser Carol Browner said the August report was peer reviewed, yesterday's report noted that it wasn't:

The criticism that the Oil Budget was not a peer-reviewed scientific report was accurate….
Certain statements by administration officials to the effect that the Oil Budget was a "peer-review[ed]" scientific report, and that it concluded 75% of the oil was "gone," were inaccurate and led to news reports that were misleading. In fact, the Oil Budget was a rough operational tool, and its findings were neither as clear nor as reassuring as the initial rollout suggested.

The heads of NOAA and the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a joint statement responding to the yesterday's reports.

"The federal government response was full force and immediate, and the response focused on state and local plans and evolved when needed," the statement read.

Federal officials and BP executives have both maintained that the low-balled flow rate estimates did not influence the response effort. (But in a generic response plan BP filed before the blowout, BP had said determining a spill's size and volume was "critical to initiating and sustaining an effective response.")

The commission concluded that despite these assertions, initial optimism about the spill "may have affected the scale and speed with which national resources were brought to bear."

It gets better.

The state of Alabama is suing BP for failing to live up to it's responsibilities in the oil spill, but here we have ADEM giving very short public notice of BPs intent to start another well in state waters.

The Governor's office would have known of these plans by BP to start a new well.

Could this be a possible explanation for the public spat between Alabama Attorney General Troy King and Governor Riley? AG King has been annihilated in certain state newspapers and also from the Governor's office for moving forward with the state lawsuit against BP.

Maybe now we may possibly understand why; 

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

GULF OF MEXICO

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR A REVIEW OF A CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR AN ACTIVITY REQUIRING A FEDERAL LICENSE OR PERMIT

Notice is hereby given this October 6, 2010, by authorization of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

 

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) hereby gives notice that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has requested, in accordance with 15 CFR 930, a review of an applicant’s coastal consistency certification, pursuant to ADEM Administrative Code division 335-8, for a project subject to the Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. applied to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for approval of a Supplemental Development Operations Coordinations Document which would authorize drilling, well completion, installation of a sub-sea wellhead, a lease term pipeline, and commencement of production associated with sub-sea wells A-5 and A-6 in Mississippi Canyon Area Block 429. 

The applicant has certified that the proposed activity complies with the state of Alabama’s Coastal Zone Management Program.

Any person wishing to make comments or provide additional information relative to the proposed project’s consistency with the Coastal Area Management Program rules must submit such comments or information in writing to ADEM at the address below within fifteen (15) calendar days following the publication date of this notice. 

Only those comments which address issues within the Department’s scope of authority can be considered. 

All correspondence regarding this proposal should reference application number 2010-252-MMS.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management

4171 Commanders Drive

Mobile, Alabama 36615

Copies of all information submitted are available for public inspection, by appointment, at the ADEM office located at the above address Monday – Friday (except legal holidays), 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Arrangements for copying should be made in advance. The ADEM division 335-8 rules and this Public Notice are available on the internet at adem.alabama.gov.

After consideration of all written comments and consideration of the requirements of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Act and ADEM Coastal Program rules, the Department will make a final determination. 

The Department’s determination, associated documents and all comments received during the public comment period will be available for inspection at the ADEM office located at the above address during normal working hours. 

Notice of the final permit decision will be sent to any person who requests such notice, in writing, during this comment period.