So Stacy Tebo wishes to sue the Griffins for Libel!

Let’s Start with the e-mails where Stacy Tebo threatened us with Chapters 836 and 770  relating to Libelous actions of Tort and criminal actions.  Since Ms. Tebo, nor the Town of White Springs, at one time,  apparently did not understand the definition  of “Harassment”, It is uncertain if Ms. Tebo may understand the defenses of Libel.  It is evident when she sued Debary with an accusation that a manager said one thing at one time and made a major issue of it being harassment.

 

I am uncertain whether  Ms. Tebo understands that as a Town Manager she is not only accountable to the Town Council but also to the Citizens of White Springs, or that we have first amendment rights, or that she is a public official, or that we have a right to redress our government per the U.S. Constitution. In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress (Or Government)  from abridging “the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances“.  The right to petition is regarded as fundamental in some republics, such as the United States, as a means of protecting public participation in government.

 Yet although we have tried to reason with The Town of White Springs that the laws and the constitution of the State of FL are not being abided by, nor the Town Charter which in itself is an ordinance nor ordinances pertaining to land development regulations and especially Sunshine Laws, the Town refuses to address these issues by denying any and all citizen’s complaints.  Each of over 150 complaints stipulating where  the laws are not being followed by White Springs; complaints about money being misappropriated; complaints about unnecessary legal fees; as well as specific redress of grievances relating to non transparency and the practice of officials giving special treatment only to special  folks have all been denied.  Furthermore, there is no opportunity to appeal unless one goes to County Court or in some cases Circuit Court.

 

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Stacy Tebo <manager@whitespringsfl.us>
Date: Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: Florida Statute 34.01
To: Joe Griffin <godforjoe@gmail.com>
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Chapters 836 and 770 of the FL Statutes.

Stacy Tebo Town Manager

Please note:

Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communication, including e-mail addresses, to or from the Town regarding town business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.

 

From: Joe Griffin [mailto:godforjoe@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:43 PM
To: Stacy Tebo <manager@whitespringsfl.us>
Subject: Re: Florida Statute 34.01

I look at what I can see and make assumptions and print them. You may not like the First Amendment but I don’t like the fact that you are not enforcing all of the laws, as is required by the charter. Don’t ever tell me to do anything ever again, I am not your employee, thank you Jesus.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Stacy Tebo <manager@whitespringsfl.us> wrote:

Joe, You are incorrect in your assumptions regarding employees’ time off.  Please stop perpetuating misinformation.

Stacy TeboTown Manager

 

First of all, Stacy Tebo breached her employment contract with the Town of White Springs; The Town of White Springs which ultimately must answer to the Citizens of White Springs.

If Ms. Tebo assumes that this is “Libel”, she herself must read the Florida Statutes she referred Joe to.

First of all Helen Miller and the Town knowingly violated our rights with the knowledge that their charges were false and trumped.  Yet, Ms. Tebo is allowed to not follow the law by the Council Members implied permission and obviously with the blessing of the Town’s Attorney.

First of all in order to have an action of libel, the statements which were published on the blog by us would have to be false, and we would have had to have known they were false, and that we caused damages to Ms. Tebo as a result. Yet, it reading most of Ms. Tebo’s statements, it would appear that she alone has caused much of the damages to her own reputation; especially if she loses her recent lawsuit, similar to the refusal to act on her statements by the EEOC,  after all of the allegations and publicity about her case has been published and televised.  Most Importantly is that laws in White Springs are not followed and there is no attempt to provide transparency to its citizens.  Ms. Tebo’s actions are not that of a Town Manager in my opinion or in the opinions of many in White Springs.

Libel means a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation. Yet  in Ms. Tebo’s case, all of her records from DeBary were her own allegations, statements and complaints.  The opinions I, myself, addressed were very similar to the manner in which the Attorney for the City of DeBary answered all her allegations because this is not the first time, I , myself have had to defend such allegations against one of my employers by a litigious employee.  And alas  it is starting again apparently, Ms. Tebo has the need to sue someone else.

As to her and her office staff’s performances in White Springs, the Citizens have a vested interest in the manner in which jobs are performed and how these performances affect Citizens at large. There is no transparency and Ms Tebo even tried to utilize a 30 day response time for 119’s.

Insofar as what has been done in White Springs, as Joe has mentioned, it is evident.  Stacy is being paid almost $10,000 more than our prior manager, but it is obvious she is not handling the duties as are required of the Town Manager by the Charter alone and affirmed in her employment contract which she, herself, breached.

And the Mayor and Town Council knew, or should have known that she breached her contract and either are afraid that she will sue White Springs like she did Debary, or they are unwilling or unable to do anything about her breach because of the difficulty in securing Town Managers.  Nevertheless, we have a right as citizens of White Springs to call a spade a spade if the Council nor the Mayor are not requiring Stacy Tebo to fulfill her employment contract.

Stacy’s Employment Contract for the second consecutive year stipulates under “HOURS OF WORK”  “The Manager acknowledges the proper performance of the Town Manager’s Duties require the Manager to generally observe normal business hours and will also often require the performance of necessary services outside of th normal business hours.  The Manager agrees to devote additional time as is necessary for the full and proper performance of the Town Manager’s Duties and that the compensation herein provided includes compensation for the performance of all such services……..  Yet Ms. Tebo seems to have a four day week if that, with every Monday spent at her primary residence in Orange City.

Now the argument given me by someone close to the Town was that of course the Council knew that Stacy would have time to spend in Volusia County.  And the reasons cited were the 119 case against DeBary and the subsequent EEOC claim because of how terrible DeBary treated her.  But what she has done in the interim is try to secure town Clerk Jobs in Orange City and another City in Volusia County by reason that she did not wish to be in White Springs and was homesick.   Then when the EEOC does not rule in her favor, she, Ms. Tebo has taken out a discrimination case against DeBary…..and because she has to be right, and she knows defense costs are far more expensive than the actual awards if any, she will probably try to manipulate the Town of White Springs in suing us for libel.  Unfortunately, that is when all the nasty things the Town has done and especially its inability to follow laws will come out in the open.  Alas, the State may finally take over White Springs again.

Under “RESIDENCE: The Manager agrees to maintain her primary residence within a thirty (30) minute response time to the Town throughout the life of this agreement”   Not only was the initial contract breached but the subsequent contract recently signed was also breached.   Stacy Tebo retains her Orange City FL address as her primary residence; Not only that, she recently upgraded her voting privileges in September in Volusia County which logically would mean she has never changed her driver’s license nor her insurance to reflect her work in White Springs.

 

Ms. Tebo continually blames everyone else for her predicaments and her failings in her inability to have sufficient time to complete her work.  Yet she is her own worst enemy by her litigious action without knowing whether the law will actually prevail in her favor.  The EEOC denied any action against DeBary but Ms. Tebo is relentless that she is right. I wish her luck but some of the things which were done have not been professional in the least.  And it would be in Ms. Tebo’s court to prove that such alleged libel is not true and accurate based upon the information provided to us by public records and the internet.  It may be difficult because all the information relating to Ms. Tebo is public record.

Furthermore, in order to recover in a libel or slander suit, Ms. Tebo must show evidence of four elements:  (1) That the Griffins conveyed a defamatory message;  (2)  That the material was published (and seen by more than one person) (3) That Ms. Tebo could be identified to as the person(s) referred to in the defamatory material; and that Ms. Tebo suffered some Injury to her reputation as a result of the communication.

 

The Griffins then may have three out of four applicable defenses to libel or slander.  Mainly the first one is applicable.  (1) Truth – The allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense.  The Griffins would not need to verify every detail of the communication, as long as its substance can be established.  (2) Consent –  If Stacy Tebo consented to such publication of the defamatory material by reason that it was a matter of public record or that she e-mailed such information, did not follow laws in writing or threats to us, the defamatory material recovery is banned.  (3) Accident – Accidental publication of a defamatory statement does not constitute publication. (4) Immunity –  Immunity for a small number of persons who are directly involved in the furtherance of the public’s business such as judges, jurors, attorneys, etc who are protected on public policy grounds.  The Town officials were given immunity in our civil rights case and as the judge indicated we each have rights and we can do whatever we wish to each other.   But if the officials would not have received immunity, we would have had a great case of defamation.  I do not believe Ms. Tebo has such a great case because what was said of her do not appear to be false whatsoever.

 

 

And Stacy Tebo is considered a “Public Official” . 4) Persons holding any of these positions in local government: mayor; county or city manager; chief administrative employee or finance director of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision; county or municipal attorney; chief county or municipal building inspector; county or municipal water resources coordinator; county or municipal pollution control director; county or municipal environmental control director; county or municipal administrator with power to grant or deny a land development permit; chief of police; fire chief; municipal clerk; appointed district school superintendent; community college president; district medical examiner; purchasing agent (regardless of title) having the authority

 

We the Citizens have a right to Redress our Grievances and since such Redress is not allowed in White Springs, the Griffins as Political Activists have taken on the task of bringing forth Transparency to all.

 

Karin for the blog

st-augustine-aug-10-13-2013-114

BEDTIME FOR BONZO or WORK HOURS FOR STACY…

No where in the following excerpt from her employment contract does it say she can take Monday’s off. Yet she does. Efforts to get the authority she uses to “Take Mondays Off” via Public Records Request have proven unfruitful. She apparently lies about everything and is enabled by the Town Mayor Rhett Bullard if not the whole Council. Here is the verbatim quote. If you can find any words that say she can have Mondays off, please tell me.

    1. HOURS OF WORK. The Manager acknowledges the proper performance of the Town Manager’s Duties require the Manager to generally observe normal business hours and will also often require the performance of necessary services outside of normal business hours. The Manager agrees to devote additional time as is necessary for the full and proper performance of the Town Manager’s Duties and that the compensation herein provided includes compensation for the performance of all such services. The Manager will devote full time and effort to the performance of the Town Manager’s Duties, and shall remain in the exclusive employ of the Town during the term of this Agreement. The Manager, with the prior consent of the Council, may accept outside professional employment which does not interfere with the Manager performing the Town Manager’s Duties. The term “outside professional employment” means professional services provided to third parties for which the Manager is compensated and which are performed on the Manager’s time off.

Normal Business hours means 8-5 Monday through Friday.

Full time and effort means what it says. It doesn’t say full time four days a week.

TOWN THREATENS GRIFFINS WITH LEGAL ACTION FOR LIBEL.

In a stunning move, even for White Springs, the town has now threatened us, the Griffin’s, with libel. Several thoughts come to mind. The town quoted Florida Statutes 836 and 770. The 836 action is a criminal action that would have to be brought by the State’s attorney. I believe that is a non-starter. I don’t believe Jeff Sigmeister will jump into that tar baby. It’s a Blog for goodness sake. The e-mails are non published. No I don’t believe Sigmeister will want to take that on. The 770 Statute is quoted below:

770.01 Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel or slander.—Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory.

History.—s. 1, ch. 16070, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 7064(1); s. 1, ch. 76-123; s. 1178, ch. 97-102.

770.02 Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper or broadcast station.—

(1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article or broadcast were true; and that, within the period of time specified in subsection (2), a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction was, in the case of a newspaper or periodical, published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said article appeared and in as conspicuous place and type as said original article or, in the case of a broadcast, the correction, apology, or retraction was broadcast at a comparable time, then the plaintiff in such case shall recover only actual damages.

(2) Full and fair correction, apology, or retraction shall be made:

(a) In the case of a broadcast or a daily or weekly newspaper or periodical, within 10 days after service of notice;

(b) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published semimonthly, within 20 days after service of notice;

(c) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published monthly, within 45 days after service of notice; and

(d) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published less frequently than monthly, in the next issue, provided notice is served no later than 45 days prior to such publication.

History.—s. 2, ch. 16070, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 7064(2); s. 1, ch. 76-123; s. 233, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 80-34.

770.03 Civil liability of broadcasting stations.—The owner, lessee, licensee, or operator of a broadcasting station shall have the right, except when prohibited by federal law or regulation, but shall not be compelled, to require the submission of a written copy of any statement intended to be broadcast over such station 24 hours before the time of the intended broadcast thereof. When such owner, lessee, licensee, or operator has so required the submission of such copy, such owner, lessee, licensee, or operator shall not be liable in damages for any libelous or slanderous utterance made by or for the person or party submitting a copy of such proposed broadcast which is not contained in such copy. This section shall not be construed to relieve the person or party or the agents or servants of such person or party making any such libelous or slanderous utterance from liability therefor.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 19616, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 7064 Supp. 7064(4); s. 1, ch. 20869; s. 1, ch. 76-123.

770.04 Civil liability of radio or television broadcasting stations; care to prevent publication or utterance required.—The owner, licensee, or operator of a radio or television broadcasting station, and the agents or employees of any such owner, licensee or operator, shall not be liable for any damages for any defamatory statement published or uttered in or as a part of a radio or television broadcast, by one other than such owner, licensee or operator, or general agent or employees thereof, unless it shall be alleged and proved by the complaining party, that such owner, licensee, operator, general agent or employee, has failed to exercise due care to prevent the publication or utterance of such statement in such broadcasts, provided, however, the exercise of due care shall be construed to include the bona fide compliance with any federal law or the regulation of any federal regulatory agency.

History.—s. 1, ch. 23802, 1947; s. 1, ch. 25278, 1949.

770.05 Limitation of choice of venue.—No person shall have more than one choice of venue for damages for libel or slander, invasion of privacy, or any other tort founded upon any single publication, exhibition, or utterance, such as any one edition of a newspaper, book, or magazine, any one presentation to an audience, any one broadcast over radio or television, or any one exhibition of a motion picture. Recovery in any action shall include all damages for any such tort suffered by the plaintiff in all jurisdictions.

History.—s. 1, ch. 67-52.

770.06 Adverse judgment in any jurisdiction a bar to additional action.—A judgment in any jurisdiction for or against the plaintiff upon the substantive merits of any action for damages founded upon a single publication or exhibition or utterance as described in s. 770.05 shall bar any other action for damages by the same plaintiff against the same defendant founded upon the same publication or exhibition or utterance.

History.—s. 2, ch. 67-52.

770.07 Cause of action, time of accrual.—The cause of action for damages founded upon a single publication or exhibition or utterance, as described in s. 770.05, shall be deemed to have accrued at the time of the first publication or exhibition or utterance thereof in this state.

History.—s. 3, ch. 67-52.

770.08 Limitation on recovery of damages.—No person shall have more than one choice of venue for damages for libel founded upon a single publication or exhibition or utterance, as described in s. 770.05, and upon his or her election in any one of his or her choices of venue, then the person shall be bound to recover there all damages allowed him or her.

History.—s. 4, ch. 67-52; s. 1179, ch. 97-102.

 

I, for the life of me, don’t know what the Council was thinking. I’ve asked for the paperwork that shows I committed Libel and the town has yet to respond. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Do you really think that the town wants to devote the money it would cost the taxpayers just because their feelings got hurt. The only thing I’ve ever threatened them with is Legal Action.

But it was nice hearing from Fred Koberlein today, even if it was a different subject.

 

 

 

I KNEW IT WAS THERE… THE CHARTER CLEARLY DEFINES THAT TEBO HAS TO ENFORCE TOWN ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS.

  1. See that all the laws, provisions of this Charter and acts of the Town Council, subject to enforcement by the Town Manager or by officers subject to the Manager’s direction and supervision, are faithfully executed;

THIS IS THE KEY TO ME BEING ABLE TO TAKE THE CITY TO COUNTY COURT. BY REQUIREMENT OF THE CHARTER, THE MANAGER IS REQUIRED ENFORCE ALL LAWS. TEBO, WHO IS PERHAPS THE MOST INEFFECTIVE TOWN MANAGER WE HAVE EVER HAD IS NOT ENFORCING THE LAWS, THE CHARTER OR ACTS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. SHE IS REQUIRED, BY THIS REQUIREMENT TO OBEY ALL CHARTER AND TOWN COUNCIL DIRECTIVE, INCLUDING CONTRACTS, SUCH AS HER HIRING CONTRACT.

FLORIDA STATUTE 34.01, WHY THE TOWN IS FULL OF CRAP….

Florida Statute 34.01

Joe Griffin <godforjoe@gmail.com>

7:25 PM (1 hour ago)

to Stacy, fred, Rhett
TWO OTHER POSTS HAVE DEALT WITH THIS SAME ISSUE TONIGHT. WHERE TO FILE AN APPEAL OF A COUNCIL DECISION? THE TOWN, IN ITS UNINFORMED AND TOTALLY REJECTED OPINION SAYS IT IS THE CIRCUIT COURT. I SUSPECT MAINLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW, AT LEAST THE IDIOT KOBERLEIN KNOWS, I AM PROHIBITED FROM FILING AN ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY. BUT THERE IS NO SUCH PROHIBIT LANGUAGE ON ME FILING IN COUNTY COURT.
 
I WOULD HAVE AGREED TO A REHEARING OF THE COMPLAINT IN A QUASI JUDICIAL SETTING BUT IF THEY THINK I NEED TO GO TO COURT THEN GO TO COURT WE WILL GO. HOW DUMB IS OUR COUNCIL AND OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF?
 
FLORIDA STATUTE 34.01 RIDES TO THE RESCUE.  OF COURSE NOW I HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES OR CODES I WISH TO FILE ACTION AGAINST.
WOULD IT BE THE ZONING CODE THAT THE TOWN IS NOT ENFORCING AND HASN’T ENFORCED IN THE 17 YEARS I’VE LIVED IN TOWN? WOULD IT BE THE TOWN CHARTER PROVISION THAT SAYS THE COUNCIL WILL ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? IF SO THAT OPENS UP A HOST OF POSSIBILITES SUCH AS FLORIDA STATUTE 119 VIOLATIONS, 286.011 VIOLATIONS, VIOLATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. OR WOULD IT BE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES? 150 CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND NOT A ONE OF THEM HAS ANY VALIDITY. I THINK THAT IS THE ONE I’LL GO AFTER.
 
IT IS A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE/POLICY  TO DENY ANY COMPLAINT MADE BY MYSELF. YES, I THINK THAT IS IT.
 
ANYWAY, THIS IS THE WORDING, THE EXACT WORDING, OF FLORIDA STATUTE 34.01 WHICH ALLOWS ME TO BRING MY ACTION IN COUNTY COURT.
 

34.01 Jurisdiction of county court.—

(1) County courts shall have original jurisdiction:

(a) In all misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the circuit courts;

(b) Of all violations of municipal and county ordinances;

(c) Of all actions at law in which the matter in controversy does not exceed the sum of $15,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, except those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit courts; and
(d) Of disputes occurring in the homeowners’ associations as described in s. 720.311(2)(a), which shall be concurrent with jurisdiction of the circuit courts.

UTTERLY AMAZING…

45 minutes after I put the story about the town not knowing where to file an appeal of its decisions Stacy, that crook, comes up with an answer. Her answer, allegedly from the Town Attorney Firm, is that I must use Circuit Court. But this decision is less than $15000, in fact  it is less than $100 dollars. County Court it is.

P.S. I also asked, in my reply to the ignorant one where her decision was written. Under what rule or statute is said “Circuit Court” as the place to file an appeal of a Council Decision, made. Forgive me but I don’t trust their word for it, I want to see it in black and white. Is that too much to ask for? I guess so.

Why does it take a story on the blog to get the town’s attention? I wish I knew.

Joe

HOW DOES ONE APPEAL A COUNCIL DECISION ???

Who died and made them GOD? I asked for three weeks ago for the Municipal Policy that would tell me how to appeal a Council decision. In every announcement of pending meetings of the Council they say that “If a person wants to appeal any decision made by the Council that the person would need a verbatim transcript of the meeting.” Yet they have no procedure for appealing. What’s up with that?

Of course they are in violation of Florida Statute 286.0105 but this is White Springs, lying thieving crooks all, especially Rhett and Willie.

They were going to “Check with the Attorney” who is mighty silent when it comes to placing the Town in Harms way. 3 weeks is more than enough time for Megan Standard or Fred Koberlein to make a decision or form a legal opinion.

I gave them two options, #1 was a rehearing and #2 was County Court. But the Egotistical Town Council won’t hear of it. No wonder they are getting Ethics complaints and Criminal Complaints against them. Just like Willie, they are Cowards all.

JOE

WILLIE IS A COWARD, HE WOULDN’T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE MY INVITATION….

I asked Willie Jefferson to meet with me Thursday morning at Fat Bellies. I ask him to respond if, for what ever reasons, he couldn’t or didn’t want to make it.

Since he didn’t show and didn’t leave word that he wasn’t going to make it, I’m telling you “WILLIE JEFFERSON IS A COWARD.” No more will I tolerate that he doesn’t feel comfortable dealing with me. HE IS A COWARD.  For all his size and his misplaced bravado he is a Coward. Just like Rhett, Helen, Walter, and Willie’s side kick in the most intelligent members of the Town Council, Tanja Brown, the “I’m like Einstein in intelligence” of Willie is a feast to behold.

Imagine, your enemy wanting to sit down a talk in a neutral place, and you not having the courage to do so. What, I’m gonna beat him up right there in Fat Bellies? Not likely.

And what did I want to talk about this morning? Why lower sewer rates of course, but the Coward wouldn’t show.

COWARD, COWARD, COWARD, COWARD, COWARD

MORE PROOF THAT STACY TEBO LIVES IN ORANGE CITY AS HER PRIMARY RESIDENCE…

This is an excerpt of the letter Stacy wrote when she was applying for a town clerk position closer to home. Here is what she said:

Where’s the Love White Springs-Stacy Tebo’s reason for leaving

In Stacy Tebo’s cover letter addressed to the City of Orange City, she referenced her time at White Springs as follows:

 

“Since September of 2015, I have been employed as the town manager for the Town of White Springs in North Florida.  I work there during the week and return to Orange City on the weekends.  My son is graduating from University High School later this month, so Orange City is still my home.  White Springs is a small organization and I wear many hats. I oversee all aspects of town services so the work is never ending.  However, I prefer being a city clerk over being a town manager.  I’m also quite homesick and would like to return to Orange City full-time.  I would love to meet with you and discuss the knowledge and experience I could bring to your organization.  I would also appreciate the opportunity to explain the reason for my exit from the City of DeBary”.

I APOLOGIZE CAUSE I WASN’T ABLE TO GET YOU A REDUCTION IN YOUR SEWER AND WATER BILL….

In the last two budget cycles we got meager reductions in the Sewer and Water Bill. Not so this year. Next year’s sewer bill apparently will be the same as this year’s bills, completely unreasonable.

Who do you have to blame for this travesty of highway robbery? Why none other than Willie Jefferson and Tanja Brown, that’s who. Had they fought for a decrease they would have gotten one but these two public servants (self-interested flakes) wouldn’t stand up to the Council and demand lower sewer rates.

Not my fault but I apologize anyway. Whatever I propose is automatically rejected by these two flakes, even if it would give the poor citizens a break.

We deserve the government we got.