Sep 8, 2012 Posted by AAfterwit on Sep 8, 2012 | 4 comments

The “Robitschek” Beachcaster.

We aren’t sure, but we may be about to cross a line here.

We are about to talk a little about a person we are pretty sure would rather not be talked about at all, but to get where we want to go, we have to mention her in context. We want people to know that we aren’t trying to make this post about her, but rather the actions of a City of Satellite Beach City Council person.

Early in 2012, city resident Carol Robitschek took on the daunting task of trying to resurrect the City’s newsletter, the Satellite Beach Beachcaster. In a cost cutting measure, the previous City Council had discontinued the Beachcaster. After the 2011 election, the council also decided not to print a Beachcaster.

Up to the plate stepped one Carol Robitschek who made it her cause to get the Beachcaster back on the road. She took her crusade to the City Council and convinced them to produce a stepped down version of the Beachcaster in order to gauge the support within the city for the publication itself.

With absolutely no printing, publishing, layout or graphics experience, Carol dove into the Beachcaster and produced what we are calling the “Robitschek Beachcaster” from February / March of 2012.

To be fair, there were some technical issues with that issue of the Beachcaster, but they were issues that were easily understood. In fact, a friend of ours went to a meeting and was able to tell Carol what she had used to layout the Beachcaster and why the issues had appeared. He knew what to look for and how it certain applications affect different end products.

Carol told our friend that she had literally spent hours upon hours trying to make the thing work, often going to bed in tears because of the frustration in simply not knowing what was going on within certain programs.

Our friend Steve (who does some of the graphics here at Raised on Hoecakes) stepped up and started working with Carol to make the Beachcaster better than ever.

Carol was supportive of the effort which came to a crashing halt when Steve and I were accused of being cowards by Vice Mayor Rhodes. We were also attacked in a City Council meeting by Councilwoman Denan.

While working on the Beachcaster, Steve made it clear he was simply a layout and graphics guy. He wanted nothing to do with the copy or the contents of what was said in the Beachcaster. He was not going to assume the role of a copy editor. Given the amount of time he was spending on the layout, he thought (and we agree) that articles should come in without need for change or editing. Whatever the author wrote was what was going to go into the Beachcaster.

During a discussion on the Beachcaster, Councilwoman Denan said she had submitted three articles for the Beachcaster. To some extent that is true. She did submit three writings. However, none of them were ready for publication.

None.

Spelling errors were rampant. Information was missing. She asked a copyrighted graphic be included in one of her articles.

It was, quite frankly, a mess.

When Steve walked away from the Beachcaster, he knew he was leaving behind a lot of people who wanted to see the Beachcaster become something modern, informative and cool. At the same time, in good conscience he felt he could not support a publication that by its very nature existed within the First Amendment while members of the City Council sought to shut off speech they did not like. He did not like the idea of a sitting Council member demanding accountability for everyone’s actions other than her own.

Normally, we would have left this in the past, letting go of an incident that never should have happened, but there is a new movement to resurrect the Beachcaster.

There is some concern amongst some citizens on the content of the Beachcaster as to whether it is now more of a political paper or an informational city newsletter. We don’t want to enter into the fray on that one at this time as people – including the indomitable Carol Robitschek – are working on the proofs with the publisher.

However, in an email concerning the current Beachcaster effort, Councilwoman Denan wrote:

From: Sheryl Denan
To: (redacted)
Cc: (redacted)
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: original Beachcaster proof

I agree with Scott.

The Beachcaster that wnet out last time prepared by volunteers was
absolutely horrible. it contained no information on the election
results for the first time in the history fo the beachcaster post
election. There was no input from Council yet it was paid for by the
city. Ironically the chair of the commmitee came back to the council
and blamed us for the contents stating we had the opportuntiy to
review the product before it went out.

Perhpas the council needs to review the final product so the last
dibacle does not happen again.

Couincilwoman Sheryl Denan

Are you friggin’ kidding us?

Were the election results really needed 4 – 5 months after the election? In a version of the Beachcaster that was designed to gain input on the level of interest and direction of the Beachcaster, Denan complains about not having election results?

(We don’t want to be spelling / grammar Nazis here, but for someone who complains about something being “horrible,” the number of spelling and grammar errors in her email is appalling. We somehow found it amusing there is an extra “i” in “Councilwoman” as if to subconsciously note this is about her, and not anyone else.)

We are angry about this email from Councilwoman Denan. Without a clue as to how hard it is to do what Carol Robitschek did, Denan takes a shot at the completed work. Did the City Council including Denan have a chance to approve the Robitcshek Beachcaster before it was printed and mailed?

Yep. They did.

When the new Beachcaster designed by Steve was being put together, did Denan have a chance to put in articles as per instructions? Yep. Did she? Nope.

Did she then misrepresent her actions to the city?

You bet your “Beach-asster” she did.

Why does this matter? Shouldn’t we just let it go?

No, we shouldn’t.

The Citizens Advisory Panel for Efficient Government (CAPEG) report often refers to using volunteers to cut down on labor costs for projects within the city.

Who in their right mind is going to want to volunteer for a project where their work and effort is criticized by a Council member who not only did not lift a finger to help, but made things worse and then failed to hold themselves accountable for their screw up? Who wants to volunteer under those conditions where a Council member can berate others with impunity while trying to play the “victim” card?

There is no one in the City of Satellite Beach who is more keenly aware the February / March Beachcaster of 2012 had issues than Carol Robitschek. You can ask her. She’ll tell you it had problems. Were those problems insurmountable? Absolutely not. Working with a good group of volunteers and a supportive City Council, it should have been easy to improve the Beachcaster and at the same time acknowledge Carol’s vision to keep the Beachcaster alive.

That isn’t what happened. People were driven away by the Council. People were unfairly criticized by Council members.

The Beachcaster will rise again. In fact, our friend Steve contributed the new logo for the Beachcaster after being asked to do so by one Carol Robitschek. Even though he had a disagreement with the City Council and certain Council members, he has a respect for Carol trying to make things better.

As we sit here, we have to wonder why is it that the members of the City of Satellite Beach have a spirit of building and unity, yet Council members seem intent on demeaning efforts by people and keeping the city divided? We don’t understand that philosophy.

In closing, in case you missed the point of this post, the “Robitschek Beachcaster” should go down as a point in the history of that publication where one woman refused to take “no” for an answer. Her spirit and drive should be applauded.

At the same time, the Denan email reproduced earlier should cause everyone in the City to shake their head and wonder “what the heck?”

Shameful. Simply shameful.

4 Responses to “The “Robitschek” Beachcaster.”

1. Bill Spiegelhalter says:

   September 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm

   Great post on the ‘Beachcaster fiasco’.

   Now to add to the confusion in the Beachcaster process, we find Mrs. Billman has now put herself in a position of determining what content submitted is published and the wording of the content ‘in her best interest’. I, and many others, think a sitting Councilmember’s spouse in the position of determining how things are worded, or whether it gets published, etc. is a conflict of interest. This issue is now causing another point of friction and more in the revival of the Beachcaster project.
   Also, according to the City Charter, the Council’s responsibility stops at funding of the Beachcaster. Once the decision is made to fund it is then the responsibility of the City Manager to determine and edit content. The Council is not allowed to ‘micro-manage’ a project or a department; it is the responsibility of the City Manager. I think a Council person’s spouse should not be allowed to participate in any projects, etc. that has the opportunity to become a conflict of interest. (and that could be very few)
   • AAfterwit says:

     September 8, 2012 at 9:47 pm

     Mr. Speigelhalter,

     Thank you for your comment.

     This is one of those situations where the only thing one can hope for is that the head of the project / editor plays it straight down the middle.

     I keep trying to put myself in the position of the editor of the Beachcaster. I know they are trying to fit more content into the printed version than they have space for. I suspect they are dealing with trying to fit 10 pounds of stuff into a 5 pound bag. Something has to give and it is up to the editor to make that choice.

     The Beachcaster is being assembled by volunteers. Many of the articles are being written by people on their own time. It seems to me that some of what has happened is there is a gap in communication. If you are going to cut or reword an article, one should contact the person who wrote the article and say “this is what we cut and why.” I think that would have helped with any perception of a bias from the editor and the committee.

     I don’t think anyone should be excluded from serving or volunteering because of their spouse’s connection to the City Government. I think that sets up a dangerous precedent where we are excluding people for service based on perceived biases. By that I mean why should the spouse of a City Council person be excluded from service while the spouse of a person who ran against the Council member (or even the person who actually ran against the Council member) is not excluded? Hypothetically that could happen and I would hate to see that.

     In my perfect world, the editor would not make changes without notifying the writers and any questions on content would be settled by the City Attorney to insure the articles are legal.

     I don’t see anything in the City Charter that does not allow the City Council does not have some say in what volunteers product. I could be wrong, but I didn’t find anything nor did I see any direct reference to the Beachcaster. But to be honest with you, I could have easily missed any and all references.

     The bottom line to me is that the city is so divided that the one thing that should help unite us – the Beachcaster – has become some sort of battleground.

     The emails from the City Council members I have seen – especially from Councilwoman Denan – have lost sight of the purpose of the Beachcaster.

     If the editor of the Beachcaster is using the Beachcastor to promote a certain political viewpoint, they have to go.

     I suspect we will see the edits made after a request for all of the communications dealing with the Beachcaster and then comparing the submitted articles to the articles that are published. It is then we will see if there is a bias and how it played out.

     Thanks again for writing.

     A. Afterwit.
2. Local Guy says:

   September 8, 2012 at 2:09 pm

   First off we are fortune to have people within the Satellite Beach Community who are willing to undertake such projects for the betterment of all its citizens. Thank you Ms. Robinschek for all your efforts and passion regarding the betterment of Satellite Beach. Its my perception ( results speak for themselves) that over past 30 years there have been members of our community willing to step up and have added much to our quality of life here. Their long range vision of our city has provided us with an awesome place to live. I don’t believe there is a coastal town like ours anywhere.
   I also want to thank our current council members for their willingness to serve. Council has had had their feet held to the fire over their methods of doing the city’s business. After a long day’s work catching all the flack that has been passed around cannot be easy. Whatever the reason for their council actions, the fact that they are willing to serve in their perceived best interest of the city is appreciated. Its a lot easier to sit around and to complain than get up and do something. For that they are to be commended.
   Mrs. Billman offering to edit the Beachcaster and NOT recognizing the conflict of interest could be a statement of generally what is not right with our current council. It also makes me grateful that in 60 or so days we will have a chance to express our opinion. The direction we want our city leaders lead us and the tone of citizenship we want in our fair city will be reflected by our voice at the polls.

   Local Guy
   • AAfterwit says:

     September 8, 2012 at 10:02 pm

     Dear Local Guy,

     Thanks for writing.

     I agree with you on almost everything. People that volunteer or are elected deserve our thanks. (I guess I should include “those who attempt to volunteer” as well.)

     I am going to make one small change to a statement you made:

     Mrs. Billman offering to edit the Beachcaster and NOT recognizing the conflict of interest ……

     I would change that slightly to “….NOT recognizing the potential for a conflict of interest….”

     Billman should have taken steps and precautions to make sure her decisions when editing or changing the wording of an article could not be seen as a conflict of interest. Satellite Beach is highly charged politically and she needed to understand how her decisions will be perceived. She should have and could have played this more “down them middle” than she appears to have done.

     As I said to Mr. Speigelhalter, I believe the city residents will be well served by comparing the original submitted articles to that which is printed or appear online.

     The reason I say that is that I have seen one example where a formatting error plus what appears to be an innocuous change of wording led to something that was perceived as a bias.

     I never thought the Beachcaster would be so divisive but every time I think I have seen things “bottom out,” something new happens.

     Thanks for commenting.

     A. Afterwit.
3. Oh, This One Ought To Be Fun. | Raised On Hoecakes says:

   September 12, 2012 at 1:53 pm

   [...] This One Ought To Be Fun. As many people are aware (and we covered) the Satellite Beach Beachcaster has been a source of contention within the city lately. We believe [...]
4. Government Seems To Exist In Its Own World. | Raised On Hoecakes says:

   September 22, 2012 at 5:22 am

   [...] This is a skill that Denan does not appear to have. We saw the same action in regards to the Robitschek Beachcaster. Denan was against that version of the Beachcaster and reminded people of it after it went [...]