Buddy Johnson in “The Corrections”
May 12th, 2008 by Wayne Garcia in Issues & Wonky Shit, People, Politics, Tampa Bay Politics
Buddy Johnson recently addressing Plant High School students in Tampa, doubtless seeking an answer to the question: What do I do for a living?
Jeff Testerman at the St. Petersburg Times has been hammering away at the Hillsborough elections chief Buddy Johnson for months now, revealing all kinds of unsavory details, from Johnson’s multiple mortgages, his attempt to get greenbelt exemption for his land that is grazed by a handful of rent-a-cows, and his failure to pay property taxes in a timely manner.
This weekend, the latest one-two punch: Process servers say Johnson ducked them for 18 days in a case involving his official duties as supervisor of elections, and depositions in two court cases seem to show that Johnson has, at best, a passing familiarity with the machinations of his County Center operations:
He was unable to describe details of the voter registration process and unwilling to respond to routine questions, including the degrees he held and where he lived. Johnson complained that an NAACP lawyer treated him with condescension, and he briefly donned a football helmet before beginning the second day of testimony.
“I don’t like these (questions),” Johnson told the NAACP attorney at one point. “You have no idea. That language is really bothersome to me, really is offensive, I’ll be honest with you.”
Then there is this gem from the depositions that didn’t make it into the Times, with NAACP lawyer Thomas Abt of New York trying to find out if Johnson’s office allowed people to correct faulty voter registration applications in 2004 after the close of books for the election (by law, 29 days before balloting):
Q. No. My question is simply between the close of books and
election day, did your office allow voters who submitted a
correction after the close of books to make corrections?
A. Well, if they submitted a correction, that would have been
the correction — the correction wouldn’t have been to allow a
correction. So to answer your question, I would say no.
Q. So your answer is no?
A. As I understand your question, the answer is no,
but there were corrections made by virtue of a voter sending in
information directly. That would be the correction.
I’m guessing the real problem here is a failure to communicate between that nosy big-city lawyer and the simple, God-fearing values of Plant City as instilled in Supervisor Johnson.
(Full disclosure: as a political consultant in 1996-98, I worked for Johnson’s opponent in this year’s election, Phyllis Busanksy, on two occasions.)
Send to a friend:
May 12th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Mr. Johnson’s answer to the first question gave me a headache.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Buddy is no doubt frustrating and has numerous ethical challenges.
But are quesitons about his college education and his residence all that relevant?
It sounds as if the NAACP lawyer had his own agenda and was accumulating other information that was irrelevant to the particualr matter at hand.
Save it for the pulpit, not the courtroom.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Yes, questions about his education and residence are entirely relevant. It is the responsibility of public officials to be open and honest about their history (I know, haha).
They have a duty to be open about what may be considered private or sensitive information for most citizens because they have chosen to serve the public, and we deserve to know about who is running our government. It’s the media’s job and the community’s job to hold them accountable.
Questions relating to his multiple mortgages seem entirely relevant, as they could reveal his use of public office for personal gain. And while information about his education may not have direct bearing, it’s a simple question–why not answer it?
May 13th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
lol, is the question about is residency relevant?… funny stuff reality czech.