Friday, March 23, 2012

Fourth Brevard County Clerk of Court Debate: Video

MELBOURNE, Florida -- Brevard Times was able to obtain a video of the fourth Clerk of Court debate in Melbourne, Florida, between current Brevard County Clerk of Court Mitch Needelman and former Clerk of Court Scott Ellis.

When asked by the moderator, "What are the first three administrative actions you would take if re-elected?" Ellis replied, "First thing we are going to do is eliminate the extra layer of management. Second thing is to use those savings to put people back as regular employees. Third thing is to rescind pay raises that were unlawfully given."

Mitch Needelman defended his outsourcing of employees and changes he made to the Clerk of Court's office by saying, "I don't live in a fantasy world, I live in a business world .... Republican values do more with less."

 So who would you vote for Brevard County Clerk of Court? Take our viewer poll.

VIDEO CREDIT: Studio B Productions / Barry Plans





RELATED STORIES:

Needelman Calls Ellis A Liar In Brevard County Clerk of Courts Debate

50 comments:

  1. Needelman has my vote. Efficiency is everything.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's tough no matter how you slice it, but the reality is simple. We need to cut down on costs and across the board and Needelman has taken care of that. For the good of the County, is what counts. Thanks Mitch for looking out for Brevardians!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Running for Clerk of Court is a question of economic choice. Hands down Needelman is the best choice. He has handled the budget and the budget cuts from Tallahassee with great skill and business acumen. Since this is a position that deals largely with cash flow and expenditures of tax dollars, I will vote for Mitch Needelman.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All I can say is watch the video. The first four commenters evidently did not. Scott Ells

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, it is so sad to see you crash and burn. At one time maybe you were a fiscal conservative, or at least you said so. But now what are you? Just filled with hate and anger and bitterness. I will pray for you to find your soul again.

      Delete
  5. Watching the body language of the two men in the video it is pretty clear that they don't like each other. But upon closer examination, Needelman appears to be truthful. Ellis shows all the signs of a pathological liar and an unstable personality. This may confirm the rumors of the cocaine abuse and the paranoid delusions. I think the voters need to understand that this is a man who may even believe his own lies which makes him very dangerous. This is something manipulative leaders like Castro, Stalin, Bin Laden and of course the Ellis favorite "Adolf Hitler." Very interesting that someone so obviously mentally ill has been able to influence so many people here in Brevard County.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is Darla Stanton? Click on the name above and you get Tyler Winik, a lobbyist in Talahassee. Pictures of him with every democrat in Florida. Impressive array of far left politicos. Apparently a left winger spreading lies and personal attacks on conservative Republicans like Scott Ellis. Wonder why he endorses Needelman for Clerk?

      Delete
    2. Been told it wasn't Tyler. My sincere apologies. Never rush to judgement. Who was it then?

      Whoever created this false link you better hope they don't handle documents in Needelman's office.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 8:33,

      No, the poster was not me. I had Brevard Times remove the comment as the poster was using my identity and public endorsement of Mr. Ellis as a way by which to play dirty politics for Ms. Stanton's (if that's a real person) chosen candidate.

      I do not play politics that way. Perhaps Mr. Needelman needs to school his campaign supporters in art of campaigning on issues and not subjecting themselves to suits for slander and libel.

      Tyler Winik
      [email protected]

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Given the increase in weight over my term I'd say no cocaine problem, especially since I do no drugs at all. It's good to see all the anonymous minions back in action, missed you guys after closing you out in 2008.

    No doubt I do frighten you, however, given your support of Mr. N. Bye bye to all your great jobs and contracts come 2013.

    Welcome back to Hadleyville

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mitch Needelman out sourced scores of employees from the Clerk's office and robbed them of their pensions and benefits. He then took the money and hired his friends for high paying jobs. Do we really want to elect a Democrat who lies about a deficit after spending our money on his friends?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anoymous and the now deleted fabricated Ms. Stanton spoke of my supposed problems on the Cocaine Train. Quite odd since during my ten years in office I never missed a single day sick, while it only took a year for Mr. Needelman to be out or six weeks with a runny nose. The Lady(s) doth protest too much, methinks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Come on, Scott. Do you really think any of the Needelman idiots ever read Hamlet, much less understand what that quote actually means.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scott, first, you and I both know the letter you would not sign, you clearly marked it up as to how you would like to see it, I then went back upstairs and made the corrections and immediately brought both the before and after copies to show all corrections were made to your satisfaction. You and I both know how the end of year was projected to be in trouble as early as that budget was submitted, I was there....remember?

    You and I both know we had no idea about that extra money that happened to come in way after you left. If you had known, you would have at least informed your finance department.

    You and I both know what you did to me in front of two witnesses when I resigned and you refused to accept my resignation, right?

    You and I both know the frequency of how many paychecks were given to you early, we are not talking one or two either, right?

    You and I both know what was said and done in your information systems department, in fact, you intentionally brought me to one specific meeting when you chewed them out for non-performance, but later on your exact statement was that you would leave it for Mitch to clean up.

    You and I both know how you bitterly complained about how county finance was being run, but you claimed they were so set in there way, that even you could not change things even after numerous complaints.

    And Scott, you and I both know I will not lie when asked a question, even if it means losing my job, but I will not compromise my ethics.

    Mike McDaniel

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. McDaniel,

    Instead of Ms. Price requesting an independent investigation into my exit interview, perhaps your office ought to investigate the claims you've now leveraged against Mr. Ellis.

    It's odd that these claims are now coming out some fifteen months later. You've been awfully silent until now. Yet you've been very public in your support for Mr. Needelman.

    Also, you may want to back that train of gravy you just unleashed up. What insinuations are you attempting to make by informing the general public about Mr. Ellis' paychecks? Speak plainly and clear: if you're going to enter the arena of politics, don't dance around a subject. Attack.

    Political rule 101.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And another thing, Mr. McDaniel.

    You were told by the Clerk that you were to fire one very publicly recognizable member of your staff. And so when you were told this, that member of the staff was moved.

    You didn't sound any whistle blower noise then, so put the whistle down now. If you're going to preach on ethics, be ethical on EVERY issue, not that which favors your candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr Winik, thank you for your confirmations by not denying any of my statements. But, however, I do believe this post was directed to Scott.

    I made NO allegations concerning your gravy train, I made a statement so that Mr. Ellis could see that I was NOT hiding behind some fake name.

    Thanks though!

    Mike McDaniel

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike, Mike, Mike. I retooled my comment to make it more applicable to your comments.

    No one invited you to offer a comment, and therefore, I do not need an invitation to respond to you. Likewise, I didn't address all of your allegations because I am not the individual who would need to refute them--do not consider my being "mum" on them as accepting them as truth, particularly from you.

    Second, you risk opening a Pandora's box every time you publicly speak about the knowledge you have as the Clerk and County Finance Director. Instead of speaking as a private citizen with concerns, you routinely speak from your position of power. You put your office on the line every time with having to provide thousands of dollars in taxpayer money on research and copies for items YOU reference in allegations.

    So keep them coming, Mike.

    P.S. You failed to refute my claim that the current Clerk told you that you were to fire a specific employee under your control before he even took office because of her political preferences and ties. Your failure to deny the same is tantamount to an admission thereof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I specifically deny your allegation.

      I am speaking as a private person, from home, on my own time, on my own computer.

      One thing you are right about though......you do not deserve anymore answers from me!

      Thanks, have a great evening!!

      Delete
  18. Well, Mike, if you 'immediately brought it back to me, how come the signature blocks disappeared? Why did the letter change in context? You and Mitch wrote BOTH letters, one the 30th, the other I do not know when, and your comments here completely match what I have said where I did not agree with the first letter nor would I have the second (had it existed). The second letter after the fact claims to have been prepared in consultation with me. Since all three of us agree I did not agree, why is the second letter written as if I do/did? You likewise know full well the first meeting was impromptu, I was interrupted as I prepared to leave for Parkway to say goodbye to those employees, and no such second meeting ever occurred. While you’re putting this version together, do you still claim you had tried to schedule this meeting for three days? After all, I worked the entire week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lie number 1: Scott, you know full and well that both letters were indeed presented on the same day. As everyone knows, anything that Scott says must be true to Scott, but when you are ready to man up and admit the truth, we will go with my version.

      Delete
  19. Let us continue. I never claimed I knew about the extra money when I left December 31st. I know for a fact you and Mitch did know about it in February, 2011, (I have a copy of the letter from the FACC) before you did the outsourcing. You even spoke of it in the meeting. You only confirm my point here, $587,000 literally fell out of the sky completely unbudgeted, not through any particular brilliance of the new clerk. You also know we were projecting a $300,000 return to the state (I have the last Excess Fees report from November 30th), so with an extra $600,000 you all were able to return $200,000. Now that is pretty brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lie number 2: Yes we were projecting, emphasis on projecting, without consideration of the fourth quarter true up. Yes, we did talk about the $587k in the meeting, but you fail to see, or choose to fail to see, that the Legislature had NOT finished the session and we had to act or face a possible shutdown, a discussion we had many times before.

      Delete
  20. Next story. I did not accept your resignation. You neglect the reason for the discussion. I was still the Clerk and you had been pressured by Mitch Needelman to declare Dana Blickley as your most surplus employee, even though only a few months before you had requested she remain in your department when I was going to move her back to Land Records. As I further told you, Renee, and Carlene in that meeting: I had worked for someone like Mitch before, I saw the pressure exerted on others, I had lost my job there, and I knew the pressure you would not only be under but were already under as Mitch was directing staff before taking the office - the source of your conflict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lie number 3: You did not ask me if I needed an extra employee, you moved her there. You made no such attempt to move her back, again I say, man-up Scott, tell the truth just a few times.

      Delete
  21. As we go on. I had taken an early paycheck at times before 2006. I have never denied this. I granted this many time to many people. The check came one week after the period worked, and our only requirement was the receiver have enough leave in the bank if they were sooner than the week prior.
    That said, YOU were NOT privy to that information. The request went through Personnel and then to Payroll. Neither were under your direction. You in your position would not know when anyone requested and received an early paycheck, you and your department were not responsible for issuing them.
    Since we have seen the letter from Bonnie Roberts (volunteering in the Clerk’s Office) referencing the check we already know how well your ethics have held up. She could only know if someone in personnel broached confidentiality to her, or you. Reading above you certainly have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lie number 4: Yes I was privy to that information, where do you think the bank reconciliations are done? Who do you think sees the postings in SAP as irregular? Come on Scott, you can do better!

      Delete
  22. Yes, I did take you to the Information Systems meeting where we were trying to sort out the mandatory purchases for the fiscal year. This was late in 2011, I believe. You are correct in I said it was up to Mitch to deal with as I was not going to start shifting seats over there with only a few months remaining. You also know from being at the meeting we finally got the list of recurring mandatory costs and projected non-mandatory (but necessary) capital outlays. Rather than take the time to learn Information Systems and make decisions, Mitch (and now perhaps you) terminated the Director, Network Administrator, and Administrative Assistant in one day, with no plan at all what to do next . When ‘next’ involved a crash of the communications to Parkway, getting off the TWC connections, and worst of all the loss of the online images now for almost a year, you all were completely unprepared. Duties and positions need to be changed more than people and skills. Mitch was involved in our monthly Information Systems meetings, he certainly had the opportunity for plenty of input had he desired it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lie number 5: Late in 2011?? You were not the Clerk, were you?? Typo I'm sure, right?

      Lie number 6: You know full and well when you started moaning about your fiasco in IS and the trouble it was causing to get proper projections, and NO WE NEVER GOT A FINAL COPY!

      Lie number 7: I must very influential to all those people in one day, WOW, impressive, huh?

      Delete
  23. Moving along, There had been no complaints about County Finance’s work output. I had tried for years to change their relationships, which is not the same as terminating everyone, to better open up the department. The County’s Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was produced timely and correctly. Accounts Payable in their overstructured environment (I thought) continued to properly check each county expenditure. Now the end result of the mass terminations in County Finance is the CAFR is abbreviated and incomplete, most likely with more comments coming from the external auditors. Even just throwing the CAFR over the fence in its crippled form required you to borrow back from the County the Assistant County Finance Director who left after you cut her pay over $20,000. In Accounts Payable the Board invoices and vendors are no longer properly vetted due to staffing shortfalls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lie number 8: I did not say anything about their work output. You did complain how old and anitiquated the reporting setup was up there where you had one person reporting to another. This was your great idea of flattening the organization, right? Man-up Scott.

      Lie number 9: The CAFR did just fine this year exceeding last year's reporting date, and the findings were certainly manageable.

      Lie number 10: Yes, we did borrow the previous Assistant Finance Director from the County, but wait a minute, don't I recall you doing the same darn thing, bringing in extra help to get you out of a jam, when you hired a hiring firm plus your friend to get FACTS caught back up. So, who is really telling all of the truth and not being hypocritical?

      Delete
  24. Seems to me like Mr. Ellis ran the office into the ground and now that Needelman has it running in the black, Ellis wants his old job back. The fact is that Ellis is a quitter and worse then that a bitter quitter. Enough with Ellis people of Brevard. His time has come and gone--lets move on. VOTE FOR NEEDELMAN.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "He's bitter and a quitter,
    now his career is in the _________"

    Fill in the blank, you get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Removed by author.......must have really let the truth slip on this one huh?

      Delete
  27. Lastly, the statement on ethics and lying. The ethics issue has been addressed above. You and many members of the new Executive team will do whatever you think is necessary to save your newfound power and income. It’s unfortunate, but I had warned you before I left how people may be corrupted unwillingly. Sadly also willingly.
    The lying issue is now blatantly obvious. Both you and I (and a few others) know the meeting on my final day was completely unscheduled, had not been requested by myself, and no attempts had been made to schedule it all week. I did keep a public calendar, as you know.
    You also know this letter I was truly presented, no matter what kind of end of year financial statement you and Mitch may claim it to be, is not a financial statement. You know we covered our last monthly statement on November 30th, with Mitch present, and in the report we detail all expenses and revenue to date, as well as projected revenue and expenses through the end of the FISCAL (not calendar) year. There are no financial statements due for end of calendar year on December 31st. NONE.
    My own column in the Fall employee newsletter clearly gives my thoughts in my own (not someone else’s) words and writing. The fourth quarter funding algorithm by the Legislature was screwed up and I fully expected them to fix in the Spring of 2011 by not enforcing it (and they did fix it). Odd you overlook both the new $600,000 in revenue as well as the Legislature behaving exactly as I, and 66 other County Clerks, predicted. Brevard County claimed a $2.5 million deficit and outsourced 140 people after laying off 20. Since the funding formula was statewide why did no other county dramatically slash their workforce? You as Finance Director also know in a Courts budgets spending $3.6 million per quarter, with only four months left ($4.8 million) the only way to really balance a $2.5 million deficit if it existed was to lay off completely well over half of the staff. What you all did was so cost effective you ended up returning less than we had planned in late November, even with the state giving you better than full funding with their funds and the $600,000.
    Financial statements do not include conjecture about the actions the incoming clerk would have taken were he in charge (since removed), and why in the world would a financial statement on the status of the office (were this one) be addressed to Scott Ellis, the outgoing clerk (since removed)?
    The real letter to me had three signature blocks. The fake one (passed off as the original in the Needleman political literature) has none (since removed). A new fake-fake has since been contrived with a February 28th ‘certification’. You know the letter used for the certified copy was not printed on December 30th, there is no time stamp and we keep no hardcopy file of memos. The new fake fake now has your signature, which the old fake (allegedly real) did not. Most likely the original used for the certified copy was hot off your printer the morning of February 28th, signed by you, and the copy made.
    The effort to present this February 28th ‘certified copy’ as a copy of the original letter allegedly presented me on December 30th clearly puts your honesty on display for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are so many inconsistencies in here, I'm out of time, but Scott I urge you, PLEASE start telling the truth, act like a man with some kind of decency and honesty. You already threatened me that "when you came back, I would see, so you better tell me now". Ask Carlene and Renee, they heard it too.

      Gotta go!

      Delete
    2. One more thing as I am sure it will come up, I am at home, on my computer, on my time, speaking as a citizen not a representative of the Clerk's Office.

      Delete
  28. As a long term employee of the Clerk's Office I can say that I wasn't thrilled bout the outsourcing. But now I see that it has saved a lot of jobs around here in the Clerk's Office. Although I'm no fan of Needelman I would rather have him then have Scott Ellis back. Scott is an overbearing control freak who has no idea how to control the office or his budget. His meetings are a joke. It is just Scott holding court talking nonstop and not letting anyone else get a word in edgewise. That and he acts like a coked out drug addict.
    No more Ellis, I'll take my chances with Needelman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous Apr 2, 2012 11:19 AM,

      Are you one of the clerk employees who was outsourced? And I'm assuming today was your day off, because we all know Needelman wouldn't want any employee of his to be doing his dirty work on the taxpayers dime!!

      Delete
  29. As an alleged long term employee you'd not have been outsourced, but again, if you were a long term employee you'd be 'taking a chance' on Needleman - you'd already be working for the man. This is your third posting on my alleged cocaine issue, and I have to wonder since I was not a day sick in 10 years and your 'chance' just took off six weeks with a runny nose if you have somehow crosse up your allegations? Welcome back, Minion, sounds just like a 2008 blog posting except for the drug 'issue'.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ahh, with the level of political discourse in here it's easy to see why Brevard County is having so much trouble economically.

    You folks ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
    Stick to the issues...maybe that's why none of you will ever get the hell out of this podunk little town.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You two sound like two bitches fighting on a playground Scott and Mike. Honestly, sounds like neither one of you belongs on the county payroll considering the level of immaturity I've seen here.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well if ya'll feel we need a psychic in the Clerk's Office by all means vote for Needleman.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The debate clearly shows Scott the winner.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Life has clearly shown Scott as a loser.

    ReplyDelete

FOLLOW BREVARD TIMES FOR UPDATES:
Google+