The State Sued Tinsley in 1995
He apologized
and would prefer you just forgive him
and move on.
As a member of the Fayette County Board of Education, Kirk Tinsley voted to increase property taxes in Fayette County in 2009.
Good. He should have.
Property taxes are how the state of Kentucky decided to fund its public schools. As expectations have skyrocketed and more is expected of the schools, good stewardship demands that the schools be adequately funded to achieve their purposes. That is a major part of a board member's job.
When he cast his vote, I'm sure Tinsley expected that taxpayers would respond by following the law, and doing their part as good citizens.
But when political shenanigans or a lack of personal integrity derails that process, and people fail to pay their fair share, school children lose. Suddenly school districts lack the resources they need to do their job.
Perhaps no one knows the potential damage better than the Herald Leader. In a series of stories from November 12 to December 15, 1989, printed under the banner, "Cheating Our Children," the Lexington Herald-Leader outlined the numerous ways some Kentuckians were beating the system for their own personal gain while withholding resources to the schools. That same year, and the one before, Kirk Tinsley did not pay his property taxes.
The twelve-part series generated more reader response than anything previously published by the Herald Leader and described tax giveaways, payroll padding, the persecution of teachers, nepotism, and many other affronts to good education. Some of the titles included: How Politicians Win and Schools Lose; Cabinet Member Admitted Falsifying Property Tax Records; Politics and Neglect Bring Tax System to its Knees...
It was troubling to learn that Tinsley, a current FCPS Board member, has a long history of problems paying his taxes in a timely fashion.
Tinsley admitted his slow-pay problems to Herald-Leader reporter Jim Warren. He'd like the voters to forgive and forget something most people are learning for the first time in today's paper.
"I ask people to judge me on my present, not my past," [Tinsley] said. "I'm apologizing for things I've done in the past; it's the things that I do in the present that make a difference."
Is it really that easy? Or, is past performance the best indicator of future performance?
Warren reports,
...Tinsley's late payments of his property taxes in several years since the late 1980s. The state sued Tinsley in Fayette Circuit Court over unpaid property taxes in 1995 — the suit was dismissed after the taxes were paid — and records at the Fayette circuit clerk's office show that he's been late paying taxes a number of times since then.
Property taxes are the backbone of public school funding, generating roughly 60 percent of the local revenue Fayette County Schools receives each year. Tinsley acknowledged the late payments but stressed that the taxes ultimately were paid.
KSN&C received detailed information (not independently confirmed) related to Tinsley's tax history. The data seem to go along with today's report in the Herald-Leader which I'm quite certain is confirmed.
1988 Tinsley did not pay his property taxes.1989 Tinsley did not pay his property taxes.1990 Tinsley did not pay his property taxes.1992 Tinsley did not pay his property taxes.1993 Tinsley did not pay his property taxes.1994 Tinsley did not pay his property taxes.1995 Tinsley was sued by the state of Kentucky for failure to pay his taxes (Fayette County Circuit Court case No. 95-CI-1137). He agreed to a civil judgment against him in the amount of $3,601.18, plus interest for 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995.2005 property tax bill (#87768) - paid June 19, 2008.2006 property tax bill (#89965) - paid July 29, 2008.2007 property tax bill (#92118) - paid June 19, 2008.November 2008, Tinsley was appointed to the Fayette County Board of Education2008 property tax bill (#93491) - paid August 21, 2009.
Tinsley was appointed to his seat, so the voters in District 2 have not yet weighed in on whether this is a problem in their minds. Warren says this is a potential problem for Tinsley's campaign. At least. I would find it to be a disqualifying factor.
Will Tinsley's tax troubles cost FCPS Superintendent Stu Silberman a reliable vote?
Watch taped candidate forums on Fayette Schools Channel 13, sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the 16th District PTA Council. The District 2 forum will be broadcast at 8 p.m. Oct. 11 and 18; the District 4 forum will be broadcast at 8 p.m. Oct. 13 and 20.
6 comments:
Is Dr. Silberman standing behind Mr. Tinsley? I think this is a disgrace.
I think that Tinsley's failure to pay his taxes shows a serious character flaw. It's pathetic. Further, even if we were to judge him on his "present" and not his past, what good could we say? He can barely read a board resolution. In all honesty, a sixth grader could likely do a better job. It appears he simply votes the way he is told to, not an independent or rational thinker. He appears to be a lost ball in high weeds. His comments and questions are so off the mark. We definitely need someone who will truly do what's best for kids and not be a bobblehead, "yes man." With Sagan gone and Tinsley on the ropes, we might actually soon have a board that has the respect of the staff!! Get out and vote!!
This is more than a disgrace. This is absolutely reprehensible! I have to pay my taxes, why can't he? This is more than a mere oversight. This is a pattern of behavior.
I think this relegates Tinsley to a distant third place finish. My prediction is Barnett wins with about 50 to 55% of the vote, Duncan finishes second with about 30% (the whole Tubby Smith thing in the paper made no sense to me) and Tinsley brings up the rear where he belongs. What do you think?
Another question for you Richard --assuming Barnett wins, what do you think the future holds for Stu and the FCPS? Just from what I've read here and seen elsewhere, Barnett stikes me as a no-nonsense guy who beats to his own drum and appears to be genuine. I don't think he or Duncan will be Stu bobbleheads. I think he has proven that he isn't afraid to take a position. I can't vote for him, although I wish I could.
October 9, 2010 7:01 PM: I'm sure Silberman has a rooting interest in the outcome, but I doubt he has made any move to influence anything. The risks outweigh the rewards.
October 9, 2010 11:13 PM: I started watching the board debates for district 2 the other night but had to stop and get back to some work. But I will follow up. I must confess, I was struck by what appear to be some educational deficits on Tinsley's part. He would seem to only have a passing acquaintance with the English language - yet I don't get the impression that he's incapable.
Paid My Taxes: I agree that a pattern of unacceptable behavior has been established but I don't have a good feel for how the second district is likely to vote.
I'm still trying to figure out what Barnett brings to the table. Like I said, I want to watch again. One of his ideas seemed pretty shallow to me...but I'm reserving judgment for now.
Barnett may be a no-nonsense guy - I don't know - but he also has an unusual interpersonal affect. In the little bit of the debate I saw, I picked up on (what appeared to be) a good degree of self-satisfaction. I wonder how people will respond to him. I do think he will question and challenge Stu on some issues. I'd like to know that his heart is in the right place.
If he were to win...I guess Stu would have a 3-2 board at times.
That's kind of a shame. Since Amanda Ferguson spoke up on the legal outsourcing issue she has been clearly marginalized by other board members. That's petty, short-sighted and not terribly savvy. The majority may come to need her on some issue but they can't seem to find her phone number anymore.
Right now, Stu really needs Terry Holliday to appoint a Sagan replacement who is supportive. Otherwise board voting could get ugly for him.
Finally, I spiked two comments this morning. Both essentially wanted to name-call, accusing Tinsley of criminality, while adding nothing. The fact is that the state claim has been satisfied and Mr Tinsley is not under any investigations I'm aware of. According to the authorities, he has settled up. If that changes we will report it.
October 9, 2010 7:01 PM: I'm sure Silberman has a rooting interest in the outcome, but I doubt he has made any move to influence anything. The risks outweigh the rewards.
October 9, 2010 11:13 PM: I started watching the board debates for district 2 the other night but had to stop and get back to some work. But I will follow up. I must confess, I was struck by what appear to be some educational deficits on Tinsley's part. He would seem to only have a passing acquaintance with the English language - yet I don't get the impression that he's incapable.
Paid My Taxes: I agree that a pattern of unacceptable behavior has been established but I don't have a good feel for how the second district is likely to vote.
I'm still trying to figure out what Barnett brings to the table. Like I said, I want to watch again. One of his ideas seemed pretty shallow to me...but I'm reserving judgment for now.
Barnett may be a no-nonsense guy - I don't know - but he also has an unusual interpersonal affect. In the little bit of the debate I saw, I picked up on (what appeared to be) a good degree of self-satisfaction. I wonder how people will respond to him. I do think he will question and challenge Stu on some issues. I'd like to know that his heart is in the right place.
If he were to win...I guess Stu would have a 3-2 board at times.
That's kind of a shame. Since Amanda Ferguson spoke up on the legal outsourcing issue she has been clearly marginalized by other board members. That's petty, short-sighted and not terribly savvy. The majority may come to need her on some issue but they can't seem to find her phone number anymore.
Right now, Stu really needs Terry Holliday to appoint a Sagan replacement who is supportive. Otherwise board voting could get ugly for him.
Finally, I spiked two comments this morning. Both essentially wanted to name-call, accusing Tinsley of criminality, while adding nothing. The fact is that the state claim has been satisfied and Mr Tinsley is not under any investigations I'm aware of. According to the authorities, he has settled up. If that changes we will report it.
I watched the forum and agree with partly agree with you. I was also shocked at how not articulate Tinsley was. Public speaking does not appear to be an area of strength for him. His rant about plumbers was pure comedy! I think his tax issues disqualify him from service on the board, so I admit that I kinda dismissed him from the start.
I thought Duncan did OK with respect to presentation. He came across as a father-figure to me. He is correct about the performance at BSHS. I also liked his comments about vocational education. However, he lost me with his demands to replace the principal because he has no authority to do that. He also has no idea about the problems concerning special ed in FCPS because all is not fine there. His statement that he only cares about the schools in district 2 also bothered me. Duncan struck me as somebody who wanted to go back to the pre-KERA days. I'm not sure how that's going to play.
Barnett interested me the most. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "a good degree of self-satisfaction." I thought that his presentation was a bit stiff and, for lack of a better description, he acted like too much like a lawyer! I thought he was a little overconfident at times, a little frustrated at times, a little nervous at times and a little idealistic at times. Regardless, he did look like he did his homework about the state of the schools in the area, though. He had stats and numbers to back himself up with.
I liked most of his ideas. I'm curious to know which idea you find to be pretty shallow? I think his idea to provide basic school supplies free to all students is wonderful from an equity and financial standpoint. I, and a lot of parents, would love to see that implemented because this business of purchasing "community" supplies is for the birds. I also liked what he said about rotating the board meetings among the schools and going out to neighborhood meetings to foster support for the schools. I'd probably attend a meeting if I didn't have to drive downtown to do it. I found him dead-on about how neighborhoods and schools need to support each other. I wish he would have talked about attendance boundaries and the in-house lawyer issue some because those were the issues he's commented on here in the past.
I'm don't know him, but it seemed to me that Barnett was sincere about his ideas. He sounded like he wants to make things better and speak for the kids rather than the best interests of Stu. I'm not sure that is happening now. I didn't have any question about his heart being in the right place.
I also didn't hear any specific ideas from either Duncan or Tinsley.
This is going to be an interesting election.
Post a Comment