Letters to the Editor

Posted on 18 April 2012 by LeslieM

RE: DB Commission responds to citizen comment

Dear Editor:

In a recent [Letter, 4-12-12, Observer] by the  , they claimed they do not routinely respond to comments made by a resident during a commission meeting.

A resident? They were referring to the former Mayor JeanRobb, and they claimed that her comments were so outrageousthat they had to respond. Yet, there are much moreimportant issues that have been brought before the commission that have yet to see the light of day:

A) A resident was the victim of a hit-and-run at anintersection where the lighting is inadequate. The CRArecently purchased a [circuit board] in The Cove ShoppingCenter to light up a Christmas tree. Isn’t it more importantto light the area where the young person was killed, especiallywhen the cost for such a project would be $3,000 to$5,000?

B) Ignoring the savings of $50,000 by refusing to movethe municipal election to November 2012 from March 2013.Are they afraid of a bigger turnout that just might cost themtheir seats? The commission has refused to put it on theagenda for a vote, so the voters can see just which commissionersdon’t care about saving the taxpayers money.

C) And who on the commission wrote the full-page letter?And which of the commissioners were part of this retaliatoryaction? Was their getting together to put the letter togetheran obvious violation of the Sunshine law? Time will tell when the state attorney is made aware of the circumstancessurrounding the creation of this full-page letter.

Steve Krevoy

Deerfield Beach

Dear Editor:

A recent letter from the Deerfield commission referred to citizen comment. Those comments were made by me, former mayor Jean M. Robb.

The commission chose to dismiss my claim that Carl Pete rhad been brought to Deerfield Beach by former manager Larry Deetjen and was supposed to retire at age 62 after five years. I verified the accuracy of that statement with a call to Larry Deetjen. He knew Carl from Grand Rapids, Michigan and had encouraged him to come to Deerfield for five years.Former mayor Al Capellini disclosed his conversation with Mike Mahaney over the hiring of Charles DaBrusco as anAsst. Engineer in 2007. Capellini was told that Carl was soon to retire and DaBrusco would become the Chief Engineer.

When the city lost the mediation after the firing of 106workers, my question was: ‘why didn’t the Human Services person follow the Employees’ Rules and Regulation Handbook?’The city’s reply was he was only onboard for two weeks prior to the mass firing. Wasn’t that enough time for him to read the book? Instead of being terminated, the person responsible for the debacle was given a $40,000raise.My assertion was that the CRA director who was hired should ethically not have taken another position with the same municipality.

My assertion was based on conversations with the CRA directors in a number of counties.

I also stated that in the 13 years I served as mayor, I had four different city managers, none of whom had assistants.The city claims Deerfield was smaller then. Yes, we had40,000 compared to the present 75,000, but we did not have50 percent of our budget being handled by BSO. So why do we need a manager, an assistant city manager, an executive to the city manager and an administrative support specialist?

The city’s reply is that the city manager is still responsible for overseeing law enforcement and fire-rescue operations.I thought that is what Sheriff Lamberti, Chief De Jesus and Chief Sudler were being paid to do.

The city claims that the article [which appeared in another local newspaper] stating that the city wanted to squeeze more money from city employees was inaccurate and incomplete.The commission [also] said that without economic concessions, the city could not have been able to reduce the millage rate by 1 mill. Wasn’t that the reasoning they gave us behind the passage of the utility tax? Which is it?

It is difficult to keep track of all the information this commission has fed us. We were told that the city would save $2 million with the BSO merger. They have now changed that figure to $1.5 million.

The city was doing the merger to get out of the pension business. Yet 100 firefighters chose to stay with Deerfield’s system so the city will be out of the pension business in the next 60 to 70 years.

As to why the BSO merger had to take place so fast,without public input, it was because six firefighters who were in the DROP plan would have had to retire. With the BSO merger, those six could remain and eventually dip into the BSO plan.

The commission seems to think I no longer support the merger. That is simply not true, but the contract does have some stipulations that should have been more thoroughly debated before passage, in particular, the DROP plan recipient.

Permit me to comment on the vice mayor’s performance at the public hearing of the PMSA appeal. It was like watching someone pull the wings off a fly, and no one on the dais had the good sense to say “Enough is Enough.”

It disturbs me that whoever wrote the recently-published city response did not have the courtesy to refer to me as the former mayor, not just as the resident. It is a title I earned after 13 years of service, and not using it shows a real lack of class.

Jean Robb

Deerfield Beach

Comments are closed.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here