Search and Categories

Here’s The Scoop…..”HOW THE SAUSAGE WAS MADE”…

August 16, 2008 by Barbara


BCbythesea…hears that some of the M & Ms & Fs…and their beloved cadre of secret bloggers are….spouting their “perspective” hiding behind their “Topix Monikers”….

No problem….here….

As stated at the end of the Sausage Series and the E-Mail ” history”…under categories….

It is up to the readers to decide what passes the “smell test”….

Response so far….

There are so many that came before this writer…so many have seen similar actions…retaliations… tactics…” scorched earth”….by the M & Ms & Fs….that they feel they could have written much of the series themselves….

Facts are facts….and easy to repeat.. because they remain the same…..

It’s the lies….and the revisionist history……”cover-up”…. that always bring them down… the end..

To all who have contacted this writer…..

Sit tight…’s just a matter of time to watch ……those making up the lies……and trying to revise the history … implode….

Seems it is happening already…….

In the CIC….thanks to the Executive Board….being led down a path….by the Chair Cristie Furth/Vice Chair Maureen McIntee….Vice Mayor McIntee…Marc Furth….and Board member #10 John MacMillan….

This writer is not going anywhere….and neither are the facts….or those who were there along side me….who concur…

For the faithful reader ….who told me of the blog series….thanks for the info….but it would have come to light in record time….as those who read it….immediately….LINK TO THIS SITE…….and read the facts….increasing the scope of those who are aware and informed ten-fold…….leading to more e-mails….of the many who know of what I speak….firsthand!….

more to come….

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

Dear Readers…below are a compilation of just a few of the e-mails to back up what has been written in the “Sausage Series”… to show the internal interference…control…by MacMillan and wife…..and their “ruse” of independence the BTSTimes had in the last election….with the CIC ….

The “Sausage Series” has 2 more posts….and this writer will then move on to the present….and the future…

The readers will need to decide what they believe…what passes the “smell test”….and where they want to get their information from as we move forward….

Freedom of speech…freedom of the press….and just plain freedom to write what you want…read what you want….without fearing any consequences whatsoever is what we should all strive for…

As this writer continues on with this site….I hope the growing numbers of faithful readers will stick around and keep in touch….with comments…tips…suggestions….information….

September will be busy with the budget and a whole new makeup of elected officials on the LBTS dais….

which will now include….3 CIC Commissioners…1 Old Guard Commissioner…and 1 Independent Commissioner….

I will continue to cover it all….

more to come…..

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

Greetings, All,
>As an addendum to Bob Roberts’ excellent summary by precinct of final results (net of provisional ballots) of the January 29 LBTS municipal elections, I have been trying to pull together data on turnout and voting type, and comparing the precinct-by-precinct returns with those from 2006 to see what trends or other notable phenomena I could identify. The data I collected are attached; my tentative conclusions follow.
>The data on results by vote type are interesting in that they do not appear to support the hypothesis that a significant number of early voters were denied an opportunity to vote for mayor. On the contrary, the statistics show that — both town-wide and in three out of four precincts – more early votes were cast for mayor than for either of the two district commissioners. Thus, there seems little basis for a challenge to the election results based on some reports of early-voting machines that did not offer an opportunity to vote for mayor.
>Data on turnout show an impressive 57.3-persent voter turnout in LBTS even net of possible provisional votes still to be posted on the SOE’s website. That is far ahead of Broward County and Statewide averages of only about 38 percent each. It would appear to indicate that LBTS voters were much more interested in their town-commission elections than were average Florida citizens in either property-tax referendum or presidential preference primary.
>One might well take that as an indication that LBTS municipal elections should rather be left in March than, as the old-guard commission favored, being shifted to November in non-presidential election years. March municipal elections will permit the many LBTS voters concerned with local affairs to concentrate on local candidates and issues rather than being distracted by the multitude of state and local candidates and issues which – in addition to congressional elections – have traditionally clogged the November ballot.
>The alternating November-January municipal election scheme proposed by the Old Guard also results in a glaring inequity. One Mayor would serve a term of only 21 months, but the next would serve 27 months, almost one third longer!
>Comparison of precinct voting results of the January 29 election with those of the 2006 elections (data summaries of which are also attached) yields a number of interesting conclusions. CIC-endorsed candidates have always fared best in old-town Precinct Q030 and worst in north-beach ocean-front condo Precinct Q032. This year they did slightly less well in Q030, while Stuart Dodd actually did better in Q032. Unsuccessful candidate Wick did less well in Q030 and much worse in Q032. (See Bob Roberts’ data summary.)
>Given that old-town Q030 contains 40% of the Town’s voters and can be expected to give our candidates the best support, they should certainly not take that area for granted, but should perhaps, as Chris Chiari had advised, give it even greater attention than the other areas. Possible inadequate attention to old-town voters is suggested by the fact that, while voter participation in all parts of town was up sharply this year over 2006, the increase in old town was only 60% as great as in the rest of the town. The precinct with the highest turnout this year was Q031 (Bel Air, palm Club, Terra mar, etc.), where CIC candidates actually fared less well (43.3% and 48.4%) than their counterparts in 2006). That again suggests the need for greater attention to campaigning in old Town.
>The most striking improvement over 2006, and the precinct where CIC candidates appear to have won the election, was Precinct Q033 – primarily the Sea Ranch Club, but also including Starlight Towers. In addition to providing a voter turnout of 57 percent, Q033 gave the CIC commissioner candidates approvals of 60.2% and 56.7% respectively, compared with only 47.6% and 45.8% approval given to McIntee and Silverstone in 2006.
>The high voting for Dodd and Clottey appears due both to the highly successful strategy of publicizing the old-guard’s Palm-Club sewer scheme and the extent to which the cost would be borne by condo unit owners, and the success of Larry McGuinness in alerting Sea Ranch Club residents to the sewer fiasco, and also to the efforts of numerous activists, including CIC members Barbara Cole and Bob & Carol Dickman as well as non-members Marvin and Linda Convissar and Norma Fayer (galvanized at our SRC meet-the-challengers night) to spread the word throughout the three SRC buildings and get those voters to the polls. A similar successful effort was applied at Starlight Towers by Larry Campbell and Hildy Brenner. I am convinced those efforts were critical to our candidates’ success.
>Also worth noting is the fact that Stuart did slightly better than had Jim in Q032 (the north-beach ocean-front condos) while Birute Ann fared worse there than had Jerry. My guess is that may be due to the fact that Stuart made the inequity of the Palm-club Sewer deal a main plank in his campaign, stressing that it was wrong and that condo unit-owners would be paying through the nose, whereas Birute took a more balanced approach, stressing the need first to “get the data” suppressed by Baldwin and Clark’s SBCA before deciding what to do. (That is not a criticism of Birute. Her position was logical and balanced, and no one could be sure in advance – we all had different opinions – which tactic would prove the more successful.)
>Finally, I compared the results of polling on the CIC’s 3-over-1-story-townwide charter-amendment referendum in the March 2006 election (when the amendment passed narrowly) and in November 2006, when Parker’s “anti-town-wide-height-limit was defeated by a more comfortable margin. What is most striking from that comparison is that, while support for 3-over-1 from Old Town remained constant near a comfortable 62.7 percent, voting for the CIC position swing from slightly negative to slightly positive in Q031 (Bel air, etc) and from sharply negative to positive in Q033 (Sea Ranch Club, etc.). And while voting in north-beach ocean-front Precinct Q032 remained negative, as one might have expected, approval of 3-over-1 town-wide nevertheless improved there sharply from 35.8% to 44.0%!
>I believe those swings can only be explained by the growth of the CIC under Chairman McIntee and the efforts of CIC members to spread the word as to the true facts, and also to the publicity given the CIC position, while debunking the great $21-million BJH-claim hoax, in the pages of By-the-Sea Times.
>I hope some addressees may find the above interesting, and that it may be of some value to CIC endorsed candidates in the future


Start with ….scoop….Duplicity…but by whom?….

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

I was initially virtually the only person to argue against my Editor and a commissioner that the Palm-Club sewers issue was a sure winner which should be pushed as a primary campaign issue. I was told it would lose votes for our candidates.

Reaction throughout the Town — including many north-beach condos — has proven me correct. “Success has a thousand parents; failure is an orphan!”

I now feel it would be a serious mistake to hold the Palm Club itself up to ridicule on the cover of the special issue. I have spoken with Stuart, who strongly agrees.

It would be seen as a gratuitous slap in the face to the owners of the Palm Club, who are not the culprits in this proposed travesty of fiduciary relationships. The culprits are Cooney, Clark, Baldwin and the old guard. They should be the only ones ridiculed and attacked, not the Palm-Clubbers themselves.

The candidates need a happy, positive picture like the one used two years ago, that will make readers feel good about our guys and gal — not one that can be interpreted as mean-spirited, and with which I would not want to be in any way associated.



Start with…scoop….Duplicity…but by whom?…….

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

My opinion, ….last nights meeting was a premeditated election agenda, (I fairly certain Cindy and Ollie worked it up) they have and they will make an impact with the “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”. That was such a glowing report that I am very confident that Geesey will front page it. They will damage every item (VFD) sewers and whatever by this report. The truth of the report is, that it is like what you send to the IRS in that it has not been audited (Forensic Audit) or have we forgot about that. Some one is going to have to write in less then 500 words a direct hit at the useless report. I believe it to be imperative. If Geesey does a good job and it’s not countered at the same time we could be talking as much as 500 votes.




Now please excuse my loud script, but I firmly believe you want all voters to be focused on the need for a Forensic Audit when they enter the booth.

Let me hear from you, what you are going to do, it is still possible to put a loud short article in the special edition, as well as the insert, both would be best.


Start with…scoop….Duplicity…but by whom?…..

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

I suggest it would be imperative to have as many friends at the
meeting tonight as visually it will mean a lot. jmac

Start with…scoop….Duplicity….but by whom?…….

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

As there seems to be some confusion with regard to advertising in BTST, I am going to summarize for everyone what is required from our side, if you wish to advertise in BTST as indicated previously.

We understand you each want to do a ½ page color ad in each of the three issues: Dec. 14, Jan. 4, Jan. 18. Marc wants to provide the artwork for Birute and Stu; Peanuts’ ads are being created by Eric. We are able to offer each of you the 6-issue color rate of $375 per ad (see price list attached), so the total cost for the three issues per candidate would be $1,125. We have received a deposit check for $500 from Birute thus far.

To get a special election issue together for Jan. 25 all of you and possibly the CIC could participate and share in the cost. The special election issue should be totally confidential and will be a surprise to your opposition (as they will not be expecting any more of our issues prior to the election).

We charged Jerry and Jim $1,300 each for a special issue which was an assortment of 12 color pages, all election/candidate material, including a sample ballot, which some of the voters even brought to the polls with them. Each page was properly disclosed as paid political advertising. (We have copies here at the office, if you want to peruse them.)

As discussed previously with Stuart and Peanuts, we could plan to have the special issue ready on the Thursday, the 24th of January, so it could also be hand-delivered to homes and do double-duty as a mailer to the condos (if you have the envelopes ready to go) and would reach the voters on Friday, Saturday or Monday, just prior to the vote.

Please let us know as soon as possible, if you want to do the special issue; how many pages you want to do, and how you want to distribute the cost, vis a vis the candidates and/or the CIC. This will enable us to begin planning the issue and accumulating the content to make it a powerful tool.


Start with…..scoop..Duplicity…but by whom?….

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

Hello everyone,

As you are aware, for sometime now there has been some confusion going on with-in the CIC and its direction with regard to the By The Sea Times Inc., the MacMillans and the McIntees.

With regard to Jerry, although the CIC will deal with him as they see fit; we have noticed and are concerned that some people’s comments made in public can and are being interpreted as slights to say the least, and as members of the CIC we feel it important to go on record as suggesting the following comments at meetings from now on, or something like this: “Mr. McIntee has fought a long tough battle, a battle that very few could withstand against Parker’s cruel and underhanded ways, and he is continuing to fight a tough battle, for it is not over. The CIC and anyone endorsed by the CIC will remain eternally grateful he came along when he did, and we all look forward to gentler times working with Commissioner McIntee on the dais once the ‘old guard’ has been removed”.

Although we are not always fans of some of Jerry’s somewhat abrupt ways, we appreciate that he “gets the job done”, and we have always found it appropriate to be direct and address our issues with Jerry face-to-face or within the small setting of our pizza group, but we do not need to dwell on this; Jerry is quite capable of speaking for himself.

With regard to the CIC and its handling of the Internet site, which has been a troubling issue to us at By The Sea Times, we have been saying all along the following, and will repeat it in writing to prevent misinterpretations:

The CIC is free to advertise where and with whom it chooses. We make no restrictions on whatever the CIC does as long as the membership majority approves. As members we reserve the right to object to anything it does and make our views known to the membership should we feel it necessary to do so.

In the last 7 days we have been approached on at least three separate occasions about what is or is not acceptable on the CIC Internet site. For example, Marc Furth phoned to suggest some idea about donating his photos as prizes, I asked him to drop by with his ideas, and he has yet to do that, so I don’t know the status at present. Meanwhile Christie Furth asked us at last night’s commission meeting for a decision about what would or would not be included in the CIC’s ad, I told her I would think on it. Later I spoke with Chairman Stu Dodd and suggested to him that the best way to handle items between the CIC and the Times was to see what all the CIC directors want and then we (the chairperson and I) can have a meeting and come up with agreeable solutions for both sides. He agreed.

We welcome everyone to give us ideas and their input; we enjoy you dropping in at our office with ideas and stories.

But if it has to do with the CIC don’t expect us to commit to answer until we deal with the Chairperson of the CIC, as anything less is subject to misinterpretations. You might recall last year when the CIC only had around 45 to 50 members and there was little direction, I suggested that we form a “Pizza Group” to meet every two weeks to better get things done and be on the same page. This worked extremely well up until August when a splinter group formed that did not include the McIntees and MacMillans and since then there has been a fair amount of conflict erupting; conflict is normal now and then; however, I believe it would be wise for the original “Pizza Group” to restart and move on with assurances of trust toward each other and get on and win this election.

Also Stu and I had a meeting at 11 am Oct 24 and we went over the points we felt were important in an effort to work together. To simplify the working relationship and to rebuild trust I suggested that he (Stu) and Barbara Cole and the Furth’s assure me in writing that now and in the future the CIC’s Internet site or the email addresses they acquire will not be used as a “news service”. He gave assurances that this should not be a problem.


In this scenario, I could see running the ad in the Times for people interested in joining the CIC to go to the that website, provided there is a clear message on that CIC site that the By The Sea Times is the official newspaper of LBTS, and we would reinstate the link to our paper. Also, Eva would agree to continue to let the CIC use her slogan, “Working toward progress while respecting tradition”.

I also sadly noticed that Stu appeared tired and a little frustrated of late, but willing to cooperate, so I suggest the following to those reading this email for consideration. (Sorry to speak about you in the third person here, Stu.)

We all know that Stu works during the day and has some health issues and his plate is very full. It is my opinion that Stu should step down as Chairman of the CIC and concentrate on getting elected and his health and get out of and stay out of the internal fray a bit more; this is not a good time for him to be a catalyst. Consider the easy ride that Peanuts is having by just having to concentrate on his bid for mayor. Due to the hard efforts of the past few years of us all, Stu is in great shape to win and he should be concentrating mainly on that.

I also believe that Peanuts and Beirute or Bob Eckblad stand a very good chance. Although Jerry got elected while being the chairman of the CIC, we have outgrown the necessity for this; the CIC should continue to mature into a more professional appearing organization. It could easily be perceived as a conflict or deterrent to outsiders for a candidate to be calling for applications from others who may want to run for his same seat.

Barbara Cole could easily step up as Chairperson and give Stu more breathing room. If Barbara does not want to be chair then maybe Marc or Christie Furth could carry the mantle of chairmanship for a while.

As chair, Stu is leaving himself open for attacks from the other side on many fronts; taking the high road of resigning to run in the election, uplifts him as well as the appearance of the CIC.

Best regards, jwm

Start with…scoop….Duplicity…but by whom?….

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

Dear Stu, thank you for your concern but we don’t understand your confusion…

  1. Obviously our gentle comments to Marc were not resolved which is not a big deal, we are not interested in making any demands.
  2. We are not interested in Scoops back and forth nor do we have the time to debate such a thing, everyone is free to do as they please and should let their conscience be their guide, we of course reserve the right to let our conscience guide us.
  3. Our goal has always been to help provide (what we believe) better government in LBTS and provide a newsservice to the general public to let them know what is going on as they were never aware in the past.
  4. A few years ago and regularly since then, we made it very clear to Barbara Cole in particular, but also others that a news type of web site for the CIC would seriously interfere with our effectiveness. What is so hard to understand? How ever we recognize that the CIC (and all) are free to do as they please and we encourage it, but to maintain our effectiveness we now have to pull away from such behavior.

First of all we are not upset, (I suppose we should be as the Times is an extension of our livelihood as apposed to a hobby) we have asked for a few considerations and they were not followed up on, really not a big deal.

We certainly believe in freedom of the press and encourage the CIC to pursue its newsservice, but just as the publisher at the Sun-Sentinel was not interested in helping us with the boxes, we of course are not interested in helping the CIC newservice.

I suppose we should be upset at the insensitive attitude it takes for some to climb on the hard work of others and insert themselves cheaply in front of these hard efforts, clamoring for some kind of fame. We are not upset, indeed we are amused. We simply do not have the time to tell others (nor should we, nor do we want to be so arrogant) how to behave.

Best regards, jwm

Start with….scoop…Duplicity…but by whom?…..

Post Division


August 11, 2008 by Barbara

John and Eva;
We are writing as individuals and not as representatives of the CIC.
It would have been our preference to deal with your concerns face to face to clear up some of these misconceptions. But since you have decided to bring others into this we feel the need to answer to you in this forum. During a little gathering in July, which you attended, the topic of creating a CIC website was discussed. The concept was met with great enthusiam as a timely idea. Another idea that also met with great enthusiasm by everyone in the room was putting a section on the website called “What’s the Scoop”; putting out an up-to-the-minute item to keep viewers returning to the website. You did not register a complaint at that time. Everyone then went on vacation for August and that was when we put together the website. The first comment from you about “scoops” came a couple of weeks ago when I visited your office. Regarding your concern, I came up with an instant suggestion…that we could make the CIC scoop page look like it was actually the website for the BTST or that it could be linked to the BTST website and you could host the scoops page yourselves. When I left, we had no resolution as yet because you were still considering it, but we never heard back from you.. While waiting for your response we had actually stopped writing scoops out of respect since the BTST is now sending out important newsflashes after a long absence which was the original intent of “scoops” in the first place. So, your comment about us not following through on the suggested remedies is incorrect. We were waiting for you to follow-through.
Regarding mailing out news items from your competitors; we are very busy people and don’t have time to scour the Sun-Sentinenel, Miami Herald, or Palm Beach Post on a daily basis. We have always appreciated Barbara Cole making our life easier and keeping us up to date by sending us area news articles that may impact our quality of life. We decided to expand this exclusively to our membership as a way of keeping them informed and have received a very positive response. This was never intended to usurp your paper in anyway and we personally believe this decision is the perrogative of the CIC.
Regarding your comments about members of the CIC dividing the original group efforts we also disagree. We, as well as the CIC and the BTST all have the same goals….to promote a change on the dais in January. Everyone has their own part to play in this shared goal. The CIC website as well as the CIC ads placed in your newspaper are intended to promote our reputation and gain respect throughout the Town so that when the CIC democratically endorsed candidates are announced , residents will pay attention.
In the spirit of cooperation and this shared goal we, as well as many other members of the CIC, have contributed generously in many ways to the BTST over the years. As a matter of fact, in the last edition we, personally, contributed 5 submissions including the centerfold which you asked us to create at the 11th hour, and we did. We also contributed an article and numerous photographs for this week’s edition So, to disregard us in this manner is very disappointing to us.
Marc and Cristie
Start with…scoop ….Duplicity …but by whom?….
Post Division
Older Posts »