ED TAYLOR

If one remembers the answer to a question but refuses to recall the actual question asked, does the answer to the unstated question have any relevance?  Florida Power and Light’s (FPL) prime ministers of propaganda have tended to focus on selective answers by Mayor Dick Winger and Councilmember Amelia Graves during last year’s campaign without putting the answer in context with the question actually asked during candidate forums.

There were several candidate forums prior to last November’s election and I attended three of them.  I listened to the questions asked and the answers given.  To the best of my recollection (I was paying attention but not taking notes), the question asked the candidates was if they would pursue the sale of the Vero Electric system to FPL based upon the conditions approved by the voters in March of last year.  Both Graves and Winger said that they would as did the other three candidates.

Well those conditions have changed . . . drastically, but those accusing them on reneging on their campaign promise fail to mention the qualifiers in the question that substantiated the answers given.  Perhaps the answer to the question might have been a little different if they were asked “will you support the transfer of ownership of the Vero Beach utility to FPL if it means both losing the asset and being in debt to the buyer in the amount of $26 million?”

It would be my guess that at least four of the candidates (including Graves and Winger) would have given a slightly different answer if that question had been posed . . . rather than the question that was actually asked.  Yes, those who are calling for the heads of those elected last year are attempting to juxtapose answers given to questions that were unasked.  This is a true example of comparing apples to oranges (unlike FPL spokesperson Amy Brunjes attempt to discredit Councilmember Jay Kramer’s documentation showing that FPL now has the 7^th lowest electric rates in Florida contrary to their advertised claim of providing the state’s lowest rates during the March 4^th meeting).

You can expect the likes of a “sell at any cost” spokesman for FPL like Charlie Wilson to threaten attempts at a voter recall election to unseat Kramer, Winger and Graves or a “voter initiated petition referendum” when he doesn’t get his way but it is disappointing when a fellow councilmember, Craig Fletcher, who I have always considered an honorable person, makes a statement like,”Some people last night showed their true colors.  They told you one thing during the election and another thing last night.  Now you know where they stand,” on a local radio program.

Fletcher’s comments were made the day after the March 4^th city council meeting where both Winger and Graves along with Councilmember Kramer refused to swallow the latest numbers game sales pitch by FPL hook, line and sinker.

One would expect a little more diligence from Fletcher in an attempt to discover facts before making deceptive allegations; especially since he was elected to represent the citizens of Vero Beach rather than the stockholders of FPL.  But then again, Fletcher was not up for re-election last year so maybe he was not paying attention to the forums prior to the November election.

You might need to find an abacus on e-Bay to calculate the false numbers given by FPL proponents over the years that were used to seduce the Vero Beach ratepayers to support selling the electric system to the utility giant.  I remember profit numbers like $156 million, $90 million, then down to $3 million.  Now we are in a position where we will owe FPL $26 million at the conclusion of “the deal”.

Yet these FPL drones have the audacity to accuse Winger and Graves of breaking a campaign promise based upon a true answer to a false question.  That is simply a dishonest attempt at wordplay to give a false impression of an elected official who a questioner now opposes.  Why not discredit the person who is manipulating the question rather than the person who is attempting to give an honest answer?

In a court of law, if an attorney attempts to discredit a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, he or she must allow the witness to read the question and the answer before the witness can be impeached.  It is simply deceptive to criticize someone when you can’t back it up with facts or, in this case, reality. Selective memory is a convenient handicap for those who go out of their way to make false accusations.  It is a little too opportunistic for them that they can’t accurately remember their own statements when attempting to attack the credibility of another.

Those criticizing Winger and Graves should examine the question before condemning the answer lest they be accused of proposing only a half-truth.  And we all know that a half-truth is, in actuality, a lie.

Now, what about that $156 million?