Ed Portner Needlessly Costs Taxpayers $$$$
BY BUDDY NEVINS
Thanks Ed Portner.
First you turned Tamarac and your life into a circus by pulling a gun on your daughter.
Now you are costing taxpayers at least $88,000 for a special election.
Facing felony charges for waving a gun at his daughter Broward Mayor Stacy Ritter, Portner canceled his campaign for city mayor Tuesday.
He could have just made an announcement that he was quitting. His name would have stayed on the ballot and the election would have been held in November.
Withdrawing while remaining on the ballot has been done in the past.
But Portner insisted on handing the city clerk a withdrawal letter. He insisted on making the withdrawal formal.
The clerk warned that a formal withdrawal would force the city to schedule a special mayor’s election. Portner was warned a special election would cost up to $88,000.
Portner didn’t care.
He handed in his resignation letter. Here is the Sun-Sentinel story on Portner’s latest antics.
Portner proved once again he has no place in elected office because he doesn’t care about taxpayers.
Mayor Beth Talabisco today will try pick up the pieces. She will be on the phone trying to get the state to call off the special election.
Unless she can clean up Portner’s mess, the taxpayers are on the hook for the special election.
Thanks Ed.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:21 am
Like father, like daughter. Neither of them care how our tax dollars are spent, as long as they somehow can benefit. Paying more for a special election or paying more to hire lobbyists. A long as it generates free publicity or more $$ for hubby and more decorations for her home. There certainly does not seem to be any rules or consequences. That’s why they continue doing business as usual. Disgusting!!!
October 21st, 2009 at 7:01 am
Can’t Brenda Snipes just put a note in the voting booths… a vote for Portner is a vote for Talabisco- or something like that? I’m sure Snipes can figure this out, she has in the past- She needs to advocate against a special election-get creative- don’t waste our money.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:19 am
I realize that Buddy would like to annoint Mayor Beth in a coronation process but the voters have a right to choices in candidates for Mayor. Seems Portner’s actions to withdraw allows other to come forward to challenge Mayor Beth. You got a problem with that Buddy Boy. If you are so concerned with the costs, why not just donate $88,000 to Tamarac. Otherwise I like to see a democratic process.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:43 am
Hey Buddy, quite sucking up to Stacy Ritter. I think you have two brains, one on your shoulders and one in your pants. Seems when you write about Ritter you lower brain takes over.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:04 am
I think it’s a bit unfair to blame a candidate for a law that requires a special election in this case.
If all of the candidates officially withdraw except for one, then it’s pretty clear to me who should win the election.
Perhaps time would be better spent changing such a stupid law.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Mr. Nevins is 180 degrees wrong on this issue. We send our sons and daughters off to war to protect our democracy. We give our treasured blood to do so. But in the case of Portner, Mr. Nevins wants to skip over a democratic process and prevent the voters from having choice. I think Mr. Nevins owes his readers an apology for putting the paultry sum of $88,000 or indeed any dollar value over our democratic rights. Maybe a refresher course in Civics would help Mr. Nevins.
FROM BUDDY:
Thank you very much for your comment.
Ed Portner didn’t have to wait until the last minute to drop out of the race. After all, he was arrested weeks ago. But he did selfishly wait until the last minute.
Anyone interested in running for mayor in Tamarac had a chance earlier this year to qualify for office and run. If they chose not to then, why should they get a second bite at the apple now?
The bottom line is that Tamarac’s rules need to be changed. As it is now a candidate who finds they have no chance to win can quit with the hope another more viable candidate files in a second, special election and wins. That’s not fair.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Mr. Nevins,
Then go after the rules, not Portner.
If your passion on this rules issue is that strong, I would expect you to write on it everyday and use your journalistic persuation to pressure the powers at Tamarac to effect a rules change.
As far as a second bite of the apple, I don’t care if the whole apple is eaten if we end up with the best and brightest to consider in an election for our next mayor.
If your concerns are indeed about the rules why then does it appear you want to shoot the messenger because you don’t like the message or is it that you find the messenger provides you a more appealing commentary then the message.
Unfortunately Mr. Nevins, your explanation rings hollow and lacks any assemblance of sincerity to your now claimed ire as it relates to the “rules” issue.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 am
Now tell us, Cost of Democracy, what the difference is between Commissioner Dressler’s re-election without opposition and Mayor Talabisco’s re-election because the opposition dropped out?
Under your view of democratic rights, somebody should have been required to file against Dressler or the city should have been required to schedule special elections until somebody decided to challenge Dressler.
The law needs to be changed.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
As to the last post you are exactly right. It is the law that needs to be changed. Unfortunately Mr. Nevins blog focused the attention almost squarely on Portner. The attention needs to be on the law. The disease needs to be cured, not the symptom.