SHOAR lawyered up.
SHOAR can't handle the truth.
Good article by Jared Keever, but no followup by Jim Sutton.
Wonder why?
Sutton has NEVER written any editorial even remotely critical of SHOAR.
Wonder why?
- drove intoxicated on Anastasia Island at 3 AM under the influence of AMBIEN and alcohol,
- ran over a mailbox,
- had a man on our automobile windshield,
- was charged only with reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident, and
- benefitted from a sorry plea bargain allowing Sheriff DAVID SHOAR and State's Attorney RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA to own St. Augustine Record Opinion Editor Jim Sutton's soul.
http://www.staugustine.com/article/20140523/NEWS/305239950
A recovering Republican and scion son of a sorry adulterous state legislator whom he outed in one of his best-ever columns, Jim Sutton often writes excellent editorials. Some are prize-worthy.
Jim Sutton often prints my letters and columns -- as long as they don't criticize Sheriff DAVID SHOAR's handling of the Michelle O'Connell case, in which case they are spiked.
SHOAR, who legally changed his name from "HOAR" in 1994, is a Sacred Cow. He's the political boss of St. Johns County.
Who's afraid of DAVID SHOAR f/k/a HOAR?
Jim Sutton, who owes SHOAR his freedom.
From the St. Augustine Record:
Shoar singles out Johns, Smith in training center spat
By Jared Keever
Posted Apr 3, 2019 at 2:01 AM
Updated Apr 4, 2019 at 6:13 AM
St. Augustine Record
Two weeks after county commissioners raised concerns about work done in preparation for the construction of a new training center for the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff David Shoar pushed back on the questions they raised and raised a few questions of his own, making clear that he is preparing for a longer fight over the project.
In an April 2 letter addressed to Board of County Commissioners Chairman Paul Waldron and sent to the other four members of the board, Shoar singled out commissioners Jimmy Johns and Jeb Smith as the two who “spoke the most” during closing comments of their March 19 meeting when Johns raised the topic.
That was a move that Shoar took issue with because he, or a representative from his office, was not present to respond to their questions.
“Rather than respond in kind, I am hereby committing my thoughts to writing so that these two Commissioners won’t be caught unaware during a public meeting (or should I say ‘sandbagged’),” he wrote.
At the heart of the concerns raised by commissioners is approximately $700,000 worth of work that the Sheriff’s Office paid to have done, out of its own budget, at the site off Agricultural Center Drive to prepare it for construction of the training center. Much of that work, which was discussed in October when Shoar presented his last overview of the training center to commissioners, happened before commissioners approved the final $15 million funding for the project.
But the work came up again during the commissioners’ last March meeting because Johns said he had been approached by Jacksonville-based engineering firm, RAM Professional Services, with concerns that they were possibly going to be ineligible to participate in further work at the site because they had participated in an early phase of the project.
After a roughly 15-minute conversation in which Johns asked about approval for that early work and Smith questioned what happened to money from timber sales from the site, the commissioners voted unanimously to have the county attorney ask the Inspector General at the St. Johns County Clerk of Court & Comptroller’s Office to review the matter.
County Attorney Patrick McCormack did that on March 29 with a letter sent to the Clerk’s Office.
Shoar, who was sent a copy of that letter, responded on April 1 suggesting that the scope of what McCormack requested to be reviewed extended beyond what was discussed in the meeting and said he would not cooperate with the review.
“When were these concerns voiced by your client?” Shoar wrote to McCormack, saying that McCormack “certainly could not have gleaned them” from the meeting comments.
While he allowed that it “might be appropriate” if the concerns came out of private meetings with the commissioners (his “client”), Shoar told McCormack that “in order to avoid the appearance of ‘backroom politics and deal making’ your directions to the Clerk of the Court in my opinion should have been based on what was discussed in the ‘sunshine’” during the March 19 meeting.
“In summary, I reject the substance of your letter and I will not participate,” Shoar wrote. “If the Board of County Commissioners, an individual commissioner, or you has an allegation or reasonable belief that waste, fraud, abuse or misconduct has or is occurring regarding this project, I urge you and your clients to be very specific and to memorialise those concerns in writing. Then and only then, will the Office of the Sheriff participate in any form of review by the Board of County Commissioners.”
He concluded the letter by directing McCormack to send copies of “any documents” produced by the county or the board regarding the training center to the The Liles Firm, a Jacksonville- and Tallhassee-based law firm.
Shoar’s letter to Waldron touches on similar themes as that April 1 letter and says that Smith and Johns “especially Commissioner Smith, have been obstructionists from the very beginning of their involvement with this project.”
“Interestingly, Commissioner Johns inexplicably voted against the project but in a subsequent meeting he voted in favor of the project’s funding,” he wrote. (Smith voted against the project and against the final funding measure.)
He also levels a question directly at Johns, asking at one point “Why is an executive-level, policy making elected official who is a Professional Engineer inserting himself into the minutiae of engineering firm selection for a particular government project?”
Many of the concerns raised by the commissioners, Shoar wrote, have already been addressed in previous meetings, but instead of “simply doing their homework, the Commissioners chose to use innuendo and to ask questions that have been answered many times.”
Earlier in the letter he says that what Smith and Johns “seem to be concerned about is their inability to exercise discretion over the funds budgeted to the Sheriff’s Office.”
“They should know by now that once the local legislative body approves the budget of a constitutionally- and independently-elected official, in this case the Office of the Sheriff, that official has full autonomy and discretion to expend the funds as he or she sees fit,” he wrote.
Shoar says he believes Smith and Johns both should have praised the county employees who helped get the project “shovel ready” ahead of the last two votes.
“Instead, these dedicated employees have to listen to quibbling by two Commissioners, one who didn’t get his way in the final project vote and the other who seems perpetually confused,” he wrote.
He closed the letter by saying that the “scrutiny and attention” from the two commissioners “has caused us to exercise scrutiny and attention in regard to their conduct, behavior and potential motivations during their involvement with this project.”
“Some of our preliminary findings are causing us some significant concern, but that is an ongoing endeavor, and it is far too premature to address in this letter,” he wrote.
It was unclear if the commissioners had seen Shoar’s letter prior to their Tuesday meeting.
They did not bring it up during their closing comments, but Johns did disclose at the end of the meeting that an employee of his had previously worked at RAM.
That was something that he said he had not been aware of “weeks ago,” but that he brought it to the attention of the County Attorney as soon as he found out.
McCormack said there didn’t appear to be any conflict of interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment