CHESTERFIELD FORUM

This website is not associated with the Chesterfield County Government


E-MAIL US IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT

Editorial Commentary:

Oct.31,2008:
WE SHOULD BE SO PROUD...

Having just returned from an overseas trip, I was impressed with the amount of interest in our election in Europe.
Europeans are also looking for a change of direction in the actions of the United States.
The most embarrassing moment came when some one asked where I lived.
I responded, Chesterfield County Virginia, to which they answered, “Isn’t that where they don’t allow blacks to vote”.
What a proud moment for Chesterfield?
After a long explanation, of what happened, with extra time spent explaining the incompetence of our voter registrar.
Even Europeans couldn’t figure out why he didn’t see the train wreak coming.
Then today as I catch up on the news via the internet.
I discover that I have returned not to a first class Chesterfield ,
but a third world county with election monitors from the Justice Department watching to make sure Chesterfield has a fair election.
Thank you Larry Haake, You make us so proud.
Say hi to Jimmy Carter for us,” Doesn’t he cover all the third world elections?”
Oct.06,2008:
WHO IS AT FAULT? LET THE BLAME GAME BEGIN

The September 10 2008 collapse of a building under construction in Chester has once again placed the Chesterfield inspection department in a precarious position.
This is the second major incident that has occurred under the watch of Chief Building Inspector Bill Dupler.
The previous incident was called the Shrink Swell Soil controversy, that has cost the citizens of Chesterfield over 3.5 million dollars, so far, to repair their homes.
No one was killed in that controversy, but lives were lost just the same.
Families became financially and spiritually broken as they watched their homes be destroyed by the lack of oversight from Chesterfield building inspectors.
Shrink swell soils were not the major cause for the damage,it was the lack of proper construction.
This brings us back to the Chester collapse.
W. Carter Sinclair Jr., an engineer from Virginia Beach was hired to analyze and give an opinion on the collapse.
He faulted the lack of bracing on first-floor walls during construction as a contributing factor in the collapse.
In Sinclair's view, the county is responsible for inspecting and approving permanent, but not temporary, bracing during construction.
"This is a gray area . . . however it is still the ultimate responsibility of the contractor."
It has been rumored that the “Job Superintendent “on the collapsed building, was the son of the contractor, Barney McLaughlin, of McBar Industries.
It has been alleged that the son just graduated from VCU with a degree in history, and has no back ground in engineering.
If this is the case it would explain why there was no bracing.
You have no experience, coupled with lack of oversight by County inspectors leading to a total failure of the structure.
Based on my past experience with the Chesterfield County Building Inspection Department, They will say “Everything was built to Code”"
In reality what they are saying is ”It was built to the minimum standard allowed by law.”
As we have seen in the past, we need more then the minimum. It has now become a matter of what is a life worth?
Mr. Giordano’s family will be asking that question.
What the citizens of Chesterfield need to ask is “Why only the minimum?”
You can always add to the code, and set a higher standard.
We did it with foundations; we now see other items that need to be addressed.
What is the cost of looking the other way Chesterfield?
What is a life worth?
Sept.09,2008:
How many Supervisors does it take to screw up a county?

There seems to be a lot of conversation now on the idea of expanding the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors.
Some have advocated expanding the board to seven members; some have advocated six districts with an at large Board member.
I guess the real question instead of size is “How many Supervisors does it take to screw up a county?”

In Chesterfield it can take as few as two!
In the present Chesterfield County Code, three supervisors constitutes a quorum needed to conduct county business.
A majority of that quorum is two. So under Chesterfield code just two sitting Supervisors can decide the fate of the County?
This has happened in the past, just ask the Branner Station opponents!

If the County were to change to seven districts, it would have the advantage of making the legal quorum four, in order to conduct county business.
At least three members would be required for any majority vote.

As for an at large member, we feel that would be a very bad idea!
Any political party in control of the majority of the board members would just add one more vote to their ranks.
A most likely scenario would be the at large elected member declaring that:
“since they were elected by all of the citizens”, “they should be the Chairman of the Board.”

We should not be enabling the crowning of a political dynasty.
We should remember that this country was formed to defeat one king.
Chesterfield should not be crowning another!
AUGUST 15,2008:
What a Difference a Year Make’s
The Times Dispatch had a short article today (14/08/08) on the first anniversary of Jay Stegmaier as the Chesterfield County administrator.
The story was long on words, but short on details.
There have been many in the communities that have tried to portray the new Board of Supervisors, and the new administration as not having fulfilled the promises of the last election.
Have we stopped all development, no?
Are we going to stop all development, no?
The last election promised change, and change has come.
Probably not as dramatic as some wanted, but things are beginning to improve.
For the first time the board is auditing the budget looking for savings
For the first time, after being dismissed by the previous administration, Chesterfield is on record in support of LEED’S construction of County buildings. The upfront added cost is recouped in 7-10 years.
For the first time the Board is looking at all the master plans, to control growth.
Small steps, which could produce possible huge results.
The County is moving forward, just don’t expect quick changes.
Twenty-five years of entrenchment will take a while to change.
July 28,2008:
Good Governance Means The Ability To Compromise
On Wednesday, July 30, 2008, the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors will consider two zoning issues that will have a major effect on the county for years to come.
One issue is the rezoning for Roseland; the other issue is the new phosphate changes to the Upper Swift Creek Plan.
The first issue on Roseland is an easy decision. This rezoning is the type of residential rezoning that should be a guide for future re-zonings.
The developer has taken many small parcels and developed a master plan for the “New Urbanism” that will hopefully stem the flow of sprawl.
New urbanism is people living close to work, rather then “bed room communities”, with long commutes. Roseland is a no brainer. It should be passed.

The Upper Swift Creek Plan on the other hand is a lot more difficult.
The present runoff requirements are 0.22 pounds per acre per year for residential development and 0.45 for commercial.
The new proposed standard is 0.16 pounds per acre per year for both.
The problem for the Board is a problem of balance.
The citizenry wants the new standard, the builders/developers want the old standard.
At the present time the loading of actual phosphate in the reservoir appears to be level or actually decreasing. There is the Gordian knot of the situation.
The change is to the future, and no one has a crystal ball.

We believe the Board should be proactive, but careful in it’s approach.
If the standard is not changed, the impact is harder to reduce after the damage has occurred.
But, at the same time the change should not be used as a way of controlling growth.
A compromise could be to lower residential to .19 and commercial to .30 pounds per acre per year, for now.
Increase monitoring of the water shed. Require non disturbance buffers on all streams feeding in to the reservoir, and enforce the requirements on the shore line disturbance that has occurred for years on the reservoir.
We believe the answerer lies some where in between the extremes.
Life is a compromise, and good governance should be also.

July 14,2008:
Anyone Watching?
I find it very interesting that there is very little coverage in the local media concerning what is happening in Loudoun, and Gloucester Counties.
The Times-Distress only had two paragraphs on Gloucester, and nothing on the Loudoun Pledge.
I find this lack of coverage very strange.
Especially, when you consider that Lane Ramsey, the former Chesterfield County administrator, could be in the thick of things in the Gloucester case.
According to the Times-Distress Feb.25, 2008 issue, Mr. Ramsey was appointed as interim administrator,for Gloucester county.
The Gloucester grand jury began its investigation March 7th 2008.
Am I the only one who sees’s this? Where is the media?
There have been rumors for years in Chesterfield of similar things happening.
But,as the Virginia Pilot story today says, people in Gloucester had a fear of retribution.
Is that same fear stopping a Chesterfield story? Anyone watching?

July 9,2008:
Need some Arid Extra Dry?

Anyone from Chesterfield government in a cold sweat yet?
With the news coming out of Loudoun, and Gloucester counties, some former supervisors, past and present county employees may want to start looking over their shoulders?
The Chesterfield Forum was started one year ago because of the type of problems that are now under investigation by the US Justice Department, and a Grand Jury in Gloucester.
The problems are the much too cozy relationships that sometimes exist between developers and government officials.
Maybe we were ahead of the curve.
Just recently there was a Letter to the Editor of a local newspaper that chastised this author for daring to bringing up the issue of “conflict of interest” due to campaign contributions.
It seems that with the two stories yesterday there are many others interested in the same subject.
The question was asked during the last campaigns “Are you ready to take the Pledge to not take contributions from Developers?”
How about now Chesterfield? You can lead, follow, or get out of the way! The choice is yours.

July 2,2008:
Semester Report Card Time
Last week was the beginning of summer.
The New Board has been in office now for six months. It’s time for them to receive their first semester report card.
The first thing is what subjects did they take?
Did they do as usual freshman and take the easy courses?
Or, did they dive head long into some of their “core” classes.
What were their “electives” and how did they fare?
How did they match up to their peers?
What classes did they choose not to take this “semester”?

Here are some of their “core” classes: Development, Taxes, Budget, Roads, General Assembly, Schools
Here are some of their “electives”: Upper Swift Creek Plan, Cloverleaf Mall, Area Master Plan

CHESTERFIELD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORT CARD

SPRING SEMESTER 2008

SUBJECT- CORE GRADE REMARKS
DEVELOPMENT C- Has yet to meet expectations, needs more work
TAXES C+ Some improvement over others ,needs to show creativity
BUDGET C Some improvement over others ,needs to address core issues
ROADS D Not addressing subject,tends to daydream
GENERAL ASSEMBLY C+ Shows improvement from past,could do more, needs to be more forceful
SCHOOLS C- Needs to change how subject is addressed to improve
SUBJECT-ELECTIVE GRADE REMARKS
UPPER SWIFT CREEK C+ Showed willingness to improve, could do more
CLOVERLEAF B Showed marked improvement, showed determination
AREA MASTER PLAN F Countinues to fail to address subject
OVERALL GRADE C- Public wanted new ideas, has yet to show willingness to change
As we see the new Board is not meeting expectations. I doubt they will be attending “summer” school! We can only hope they improve next semester.

June 16,2008:
Chesterfield Should be Van Pooling!
In today’s troubled times concerning fuel costs. It’s time Chesterfield set up or at least help support van pooling to the courthouse.
It could be as simple as providing an exchange of information for employees who live in the same areas.
Assembly points could be established at local shopping areas with the help of local merchants.
At the courthouse the vans could be given preferred parking, so as to encourage use.
There would be no cost to the county if they used a system like VPSI Inc. VPSI
June 16,2008:
Turns out the story about the Hindu Association that showed up on my Google search engine was a two year old story after we confirmed with the web site posting the information

June 11, 2008:
Chesterfield Pay To Play

On any given Sunday many of the Chesterfield schools are being used by various religious groups for church services.
That is not the issue. The issue is “are they paying their fair share?”
With the increasing cost of energy, and the shrinking size of the available Chesterfield budget pie, every tax dollar is stretched to the limit.
The question needs to be asked “are the groups that use Chesterfield Public Schools on the week ends paying the full cost to operate? “

In all fairness to the tax payers of Chesterfield, an audit needs to be conducted at each school to derive a per square foot cost per hour for each facility. At that point each group needs to pay the full cost of operating for the hours used, to include janitorial, energy costs, and any other related costs. Failure to cover the costs is a subsidy to the groups utilizing the faculties.

There is also a hidden increased cost to the mechanical equipment that must be replaced sooner due to being over used, when it was designed to be used five days a week.
We only point out the religious groups, because they are the most visual. All groups that use County Schools during normal off hours need to pay the full ride.

Chesterfield needs to go from a Benevolent Provider to a Pay for Play Provider!

June 6, 2008:
The Chesterfield Saga

As Rodney Dangerfield use to say, ”Hey I Get No Respect”.
The same could be said about Chesterfield. Every day we see more examples of Chesterfield officials, whose actions contribute to the Chesterfield Saga.
One definition of a Saga is ”a long story or novel, or a series of stories or novels, often following the lives of a family or community over several generations”
As illustrated by the article in the June 5th Progress-Index, it seems as though the Haake Chapter of the Saga will never go away, until the source of the controversy is removed.
Once again we are regaled in the print media with the arrogance and lack of respect that Mr. Haake exhibits on a continuous basis concerning persons of authority.
For further examples Google: Larry Haake, Richmond

In the School Board Chapter of the Saga we learned at the last Board meeting that the Chesterfield Schools can’t account for $400,000 dollars spent in the construction of the Cosby High School.
Why is this not at the top of the investigation list of the new Board of Supervisors?
If they don’t feel comfortable, call in the State Police, they will find the money.

The Board of Supervisors Chapter of the Chesterfield Saga continues to grow with last weeks 4-1 vote to over size a water line to feed Magnolia Green.
Many years ago Randy Smith, a reporter for the Times Dispatch, said,”If you want to understand what’s going on in Chesterfield, follow the sewer and water lines.”
One way Chesterfield can control growth is by not subsidizing utilities to areas not presently served.
To subsidize is to enable. When County Staff was questioned they said, ”basically we are following past County policy.”
Wrong answerer! We elected this Board specifically to break from the past.
The County enabling developers chapter of the Chesterfield Saga continues stay tuned!

May 26, 2008:
The Developer Smoke Screen

On May 27, 2008 the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider changes to the proffers for home construction.
As expected the development community is complaining that this will only put affordable housing further out of reach.

Looking at the housing market, it makes absolutely no sense right now for Chesterfield to add even 1 cent to the cost of a new home,
said Warren Wakeland, director of government affairs for the Home Building Association of Richmond.
George Emerson, a prominent Chesterfield developer, said it's a common misconception that proffers are a tax on developers. He said they're more of a burden on homebuyers because the amount is reflected in the cost of new homes. I don't believe proffers are administered fairly in Chesterfield County. In my view, they discriminate against lower-income families,
Emerson said, noting that he would prefer to see the county look toward a new system of fees based on the value of the homes in question. These proffers are driving up the sales price on houses, and first-time and second-time buyers just can't afford to move here anymore, he said.

We would have to agree with Mr. Emerson, up to a point.
Yes, there should be a proffer system based on more than one size fits all.
The point, at which the developer argument fails, is the fact that developers and builders have not built affordable homes for years in Chesterfield to any great degree.
For one reason, and one reason only, it’s not profitable to builders to build Affordable Housing.
Affordable housing, can be defined, as being such that a county employee can afford to live in the county where they work, with out having two incomes.
When builders begin to comply, then we can begin to listen. Otherwise it’s just smoke.

May 20, 2008:
You Can Talk The Talk, But Can You Walk The Walk?,

At the present time both sides of the aisle in the General Assembly are declaring Gov. Kaine’s transportation proposal for the June special session DOA, dead on arrival.
At a community meeting last night Senator John Watkins was asked the question,
How does your grantor’s tax proposed in (SB768) Senate Bill 768 differ from the grantor’s tax proposed by Gov. Kaine?
The answerer was, No difference !
Senator Watkins then went on to say the grantor’s tax would be used for Mass Transportation.
No where in any part of SB 768 Watkins Tax Bill was there mention of ear-marking monies for mass transportation!

When The Watkins Center was zoned, a proposed transportation hub was dropped from the proffered conditions.
When questioned about this Mr. Watkins, long time supporter of regional transportation stated:
I pulled the hub, because as a proffered condition, I could not receive a tax credit for the hub.
Very interesting, the Roseland developers are willing to proffer a transportation hub, But Mr. Regional Transportation will not?
Mr. Regional Transportation will do so only if he can get a tax break.
I believe he already has a 16 MILLION Dollar tax break in the Chesterfield County backed CDA bonds he received for The Watkins Center.

Thus the reason for the title, You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?
As far as Senator Watkins, you be the judge!

April 10, 2008:
They Say Confession is good for the soul,

Larry Haake today on the front page of the Times Distress confesses that he is at fault for the problems of the Chesterfield Primary.
He is a little slow in that realization. This site and many others recognized his arrogance and failure to heed warnings, the day of the election.
To quote Shakespeare, from Hamlet;
Nor do we find him forward to be sounded, But with a crafty madness keeps aloof, when we bring him on to some confession of his true state”.
It appears to us that this confession is a sign that Mr. Haake is trying to make amends for his arrogance.
The only problem is he missed that exit on the highway of public opinion.
When he had the opportunity to speak his case at the State Board of Elections hearing, he chose to say nothing.
Yet, he had no problem making his views known in the hallway outside, and on WRVA.
Mr. Haake does not understand that there is more to this then just this one happenstance.
The new Board of Supervisors has set a new tone for open and accessible government in Chesterfield.
It’s time for a change of personnel at the Voter Registrars office also!
To quote Peter De Vries;
Confession is good for the soul only in the sense that a tweed coat is good for dandruff- it is a palliative rather than a remedy”


March 12, 2008:
Technology is not the answerer to Chesterfield election woes.

In the 3/12/08 edition of the Times Dispatch, the editorial staff believes the answerer to Chesterfield’s election snafu is to throw technology at the problem.
At best they are naive; at worst they are totally ignorant to the workings of the Chesterfield election system.
Chesterfield already has the best foolproof equipment available, the optical scanner.
It leaves a paper trail, as we have seen in this election, it can be recounted.
I have worked as a chief election official in Chesterfield in the past.
I volunteered for that position to gather a better understanding of how the system works.
The problems that were seen in the past election can be attributed to three major items.

1) There was a lack of proper training of election personnel.
2) The requirement at each precinct for only one poll book per party slowed down the entire system.
I was the first voter in the Salisbury precinct. I immediately saw that the problem began where the voter hit the first station,
not at the end where you feed the ballot into the scanner.
There was no need for separate Republican and Democratic Poll books.
When the person voted you could put a D or, an R beside their name instead of a check. Then you sort the books later.
3) There was a failure to communicate through out the day with all the precincts, in order to solve the problems as they began to occur.
Rather, then trying to argue that you “knew” your system better than anyone else.
To fix the “problems” Chesterfield needs to address the personnel in charge not new machines or laws.

March 8, 2008:
Time To Go, Enough Is Enough

While we have linked to stories concerning the past election problems.
We have purposely stayed out of the controversy concerning Chesterfield voter registrar Larry Haake, until all the facts were presented.
However there comes a time, enough is enough!
While Chesterfield has become the butt of editorial cartoons that is not the reason we are asking for the removal of Mr. Haake.
With the public comments that Mr. Haake made in the Times Dispatch, and on WRVA radio, he has broken the cardinal rule of ethics.
If you expect to keep your job you shouldn’t publicly try to embarrass your boss.
The problem is Mr. Haake forgot that his boss is the State Board of Elections.
If Mr. Haake is not removed, then he will be the boss, and the Local and State Boards will be working for him.
Chesterfield, if he is not removed, can look forward to coverage of our next election by ex-president Carter and the ACLU.
The only way to avoid further embarrassment is for Mr. Haake to resign, or be removed.
He will not likely resign, since he seems to crave publicity. For the good of the system, and Chesterfield we need to have this farce end.

March 1, 2008:
See Through the Smoke Screen

A lot has happened this week affecting Chesterfield.
First the Watkins Tax Bill was deferred to the 2009 session of the General Assembly.
Then, The Virginia Supreme Court declares the transportation authorities set up in northern Virginia and Hampton Roads unconstitutional.
How will these change things?
It resets the stage for the ultimate show down with the developers/homebuilders(HBA).
The home builders have been in the driver’s seat for years. Through the millions of dollars worth of contributions, they have for years been able to buy access to any politician they needed.
This began to change last year as the citizens began to ask for more funding for over crowded roads. After the last election the developers/homebuilders realized they were losing control of the situation.
What would they try next?
The answerer to that was the Watkins Tax Bill, also known as SB 768.
HBA believes they now have the upper hand because of the Supreme Court ruling.
But, if you read the case the only aspect the Court over turned concerned the non-elected authority spending tax dollars. Not the concept of impact fees.
There-fore Chesterfield should have no problem with it’s present system of impact transportation districts.
The smoke screen the HBA, and John Watkins will try to produce is connecting the Court case to SB 768.
While this is on everyone’s mind, they will make an attempt to stop the county from instituting is impact fee districts.
My source believes it will be done by adding an amendment to House Bill 111.
The HBA wants to turn back the clock on the impact fee bill authorized last year.
It was the HBA that filed the Supreme Court case.
Look through the smoke Chesterfield, and put both hands on your wallets.

FEB 11, 2008:
WHERE HAVE I HEARD THIS BEFORE!

In the February 9th edition of the TD the Board of Supervisors Chairman, Art Warren, is quoted concerning the SB 768 Watkins Tax Bill,
if made law, it would force the county to drastically curtail residential growth. Chesterfield estimates it would have lost almost $150 million of its $200 million in cash-proffer revenue in 2007 if the capped impact fees were in place at the time.
In the mean time, Senator Watkins is quote as saying the time was now, commenting that we can work the bugs out of the system next year.
Where have we heard this type of comment before?
Could it have been another Republican who stated just give me the authorization to go to war, we will work out the details later?
In this type of legislation the devil is always in the details. They need to be worked out before a bill is passed not after.
Mr. Watkins is sounding less like a Senator, and more like a used car salesman!

Jan.30 2008:
STAY AWAKE CHESTERFIELD!

On Friday January 18, 2008, when State Senators John Watkins and Frank Hall introduced Senate Bill 768,
the Chesterfield public had no idea the impact it could have on existing home owners.
The details’ concerning the cost to existing home owners was buried in twenty pages or more of a very detailed bill.
A Virginia Pilot story, on January 18, 2008, stated
That Watkins did not specify what the fee amount would be but said every city and county would be eligible to collect impact fees.
Was Senator Watkins trying to miss-lead the public?
It would appear he was. He knew that the fee (insert tax) of 20 cents per hundred dollar value on the sale of their existing home was a cost to home owners.
According to a story January 30, 2008, in the Free Lance Star,
Representatives from the homebuilders association told Senate Local Government Committee, they’ve worked on the bill for months,
and that they've talked to local government representatives, who they acknowledged don't like the bill.
In the Times Dispatch today a story, by Jeff Shapiro was quoted,
In a state Senate committee yesterday, the increase in the so-called grantor's tax was peeled from legislation sponsored by Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan.
Watkins said the tax would spread the cost of services now largely financed with cash proffers on new development and paid by builders.
Despite the setback in the Senate Local Government Committee, Watkins signaled he will continue fighting for the tax.
So Chesterfield we have a Senator, who after the grantor's tax was stripped from the bill,
Basically threatened the citizens of Chesterfield that he will do what ever it takes to tax the home owners, while he protects his fellow developers.
Where was OUR County Staff? My sources tell me that Mary Ann Curtin, the Director, Intergovernmental Relations for Chesterfield,knew of the bill in December.
When was she going to inform the new board?
With this bill, and Senator Watkins veiled threat “It’s a long day on March 8th”,
There is no doubt that Senator Watkins is no longer looking out for the interests of the home owners of Chesterfield,
but is more interested in protecting the interests of developers.
What happened to the old Chesterfield Republican saying “Development pays for itself.” ( Faye Palmer Election year 1995)

Jan.22 2008:
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE……

On Friday January 18, 2008 Virginia State Senators John Watkins and Frank Hall declared war on the home owners of Virginia.
The Senators placed for consideration Senate Bill 768. The bill concerns the further definition of impact fees in the state of Virginia.
The bill in its’ present form would do away with cash proffers and shift some of the cost of new development from the developer to the existing home seller.
Presently in Chesterfield the going rate under proffers is $17,000 per house.
Under Senate Bill 768, Developers would have their impact fee cost per home capped at $5,000 per lot, and only $2,500 per apartment.
Do apartment kids cost less to educate then kids that live in a single family dwelling?
Meanwhile, the existing average home seller would now, under this bill, have to pay a Real Property Tax Relief Fee (insert tax) of 20 cents per hundred dollar value on the sale of their existing home. The only party getting Relief is the developers.
The adage used to be Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
The 2008 version is Beware of State Senators supported by Home Builders.

Jan.18 2008:
THE NO ACCOUNT POLITICAL PARTIES

I guess there is just no accounting for taste, or Political Parties!
One of the reasons I started this web site was to open the closed doors of campaigns. That included, campaign finance and accountability.
As usual as it got closer to Election Day the dirty tricks and campaign mud slinging increased. It was probably the hope of the campaigns that it would help, with no time for rebuttal or accounting.
Except, this year we were watching.
There were a number of mailings that were sent by the Virginia State Republican Party,
For the benefit of, but not authorized by Don Sowder.
When I called the voter registrar’s office to see if the candidate had filed a form accounting for the contribution value,
I was told he didn’t have to file because it was an independent expenditure by the State Party.
I would have to wait until Jan 15 2008, which was the next required filing by a PAC.
You can imagine my surprise when I checked the 15th filings to see they didn’t file anything but dollar amounts, with the explanation Campaign Mailings.
There would be no accounting, because of a legal loop hole big enough to drive an elephant through.
It seems the State Parties only have to account for the type of expenditure, not who it will benefit.
There-fore the public will never know the true cost of an election.
And people wonder why we hate Politicians!

Reader Commentary:

Read and add your own comments about the site

Cartoons:

Return to main page