Comments on: Rah, rah, TAD boom-bah! (Peaceful commission meeting invaded by cheerleaders)

By: Candy

Candy — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:57:47 +0000

Hey i like it!!!

By: Taxpayer

Taxpayer — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:51:14 +0000

You should look into that “booster club” of Elaine’s that Sembler donated to. She has promoted it as a nonprofit group, but it is not registered with the Sec. of State’s office as a nonprofit — or as anything at all. It was just a made-up group that Elaine concocted to receive the money from Sembler and bully the principal and coaches at Lakeside into doing what she wanted. There’s much more here than just a donation from a developer. Promoting a group as a nonprofit when it isn’t even a legitimate booster club is VERY questionable. I wish someone would do a little digging into Elaine’s fake booster club and some of her other antics. She is not all that she would like people to think that she is.

By: Vernon always gets what he wants

Vernon always gets what he wants — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:36:05 +0000

Vernon gets big financial campaign contributions from Mel Sembler, and Sember consultant Angie Fuster is also a Vernon campaign consultant. Vernon wanted Sembler to get their TAD, and they got their TAD.
Vernon wanted his preferred vendors to get big money from the county, and they sure did (link below).
Vernon is just smarter than the rest of us, and always finagles his way to get exactly what he wants.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2007/12/13/dekaudit_1214.html

The purchasing problems came to light after the county Finance Department asked KPMG to inspect the spending as part of the firm’s audit of 2006 county finances. In a letter summarizing its findings, KPMG said DeKalb frequently skirted its own procurement policies and warned of numerous purchases that posed a “significant deficiency” in financial controls.

An internal review by the county Finance Department was even harsher. The review, conducted under the supervision of finance director Mike Bell, noted a “substantial pattern of splitting” purchase orders into amounts small enough to “circumvent” county policies requiring competitive bids and, in some cases, County Commission approval. “It was obvious that there were intentional violation of those guidelines,” the review said.