Brevard County: Glass Houses And Stones.

We mentioned Nicolas Tomboulides in a “drop the mic” moment as well as his use of “hoecaked” as a verb previously.

Tomboulides posted this on FaceBook, which was reposted then by County Commissioner Bryan Lober:

Perhaps it was meant to be funny, but it wasn’t.

Both parties have labeled people as having “Derangement Syndrome” depending on the target. There was “Bush Derangement Syndrome” followed by “Obama Derangement Syndrome, followed by the current rage of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

While we agree that some people will disagree on just about anything along party lines (facts be dammed.) Claiming or charging people that have legitimate grips or beefs with elected officials are somehow mentally ill does no one any good. It is similar to a charge of racism, sexism, or just about any other “-ism” one can think of.

The charge of “Derangement Syndrome” is designed to shut conversations down, not encourage them.

When Commissioner Lober finished discussing the charge of “racism” leveled against him by a citizen at the last Council meeting, Lober launched into a long rant about people who come to the meetings instead of doing something “productive.”

We have no idea what Lober thinks is “productive,” and besides, who would ever assume that speaking before the County Commission was not “productive?”

Is that really what we have come to? Voicing an opinion is not “productive?” If it is not “productive,” could it be that the only reason it may be considered not “productive” is because the Commissioners are not going to listen to what is said? That people are wasting their time trying to be heard?

Unfortunately, Tomboulides echos Lober’s sentiments when he writes in his post:

“Lober Derangement sufferers are known to frequent county commission meetings at 9 AM when everyone else is working…..”

We must have missed something. The laws of physics and glass houses and stones must have changed and we missed it.

On January 22, 2019, the County Commission held a meeting at 9 AM at which time the request for the Children’s Services Council to raise funds be placed on the ballot for the 2020 election. We talked about the meeting and the acrimony between the dais and citizens on the issue which you can read if you want.

We don’t want to rehash that issue which may be being brought to a resolution after the Children’s Services Council sued the County. (It is said that the settlement will be voted upon by the Commission soon.)

What we do want to point out is this from the FloridaToday newspaper in summarizing the speakers at the meeting. (We did mention that the meeting was at 9 A.M., right?):

“It’s as crooked as a $3 bill,” said Melbourne resident Nick Tomboulides. “Taxation isn’t compassion. Taxation is theft.” (emphasis ours.)

On one hand Lober and Tomboulides say while everyone else is working people who have some sort of delusion appear in front of the Commission at a 9 AM meeting and then on the other hand, Tomboulides is one of the people that appeared in front of the Commission at a 9 AM meeting.

Neither Lober nor Tomboulides said anything about the timing of Tomboulides’ remarks or him making the remarks when “everyone else is working” in January. We wonder why that is?

The fact of the matter is that accusing others of having some “derangement syndrome” are often based on legitimate differences of opinions. It is so much easier to dismiss someone with which you disagree as being “mentally ill” than actually dealing with their ideas.

However, there is an imbalance when someone speaks in front of the Commission or any elected board. For the most part, the citizen speaking is limited to a certain amount of time. (Usually 3 or 5 minutes depending on the rules of the board.) Commissioners or Council members have unlimited time to respond. They can take as long as they want or feel they need.

They have the “bully pulpit.”

So when we hear elected officials whining about people saying mean things, disagreeing with them, or posting a comment echoing the sentiment that people speaking before them are not being “productive,” it rings hollow to us. We have seen elected officials of all political leanings do this.

It is just so odd to us that those with the bully pulpit are whining about those who whine.

To paraphrase William Shakespeare, “we-thinks thou doth protest too much.”

19 Responses to “Brevard County: Glass Houses And Stones.”

  1. Truthful says:

    Anyone who sits on the dais as a council or commission member needs to grow a
    thicker skin, as well as understand the laws about free speech. People will disagree,
    and at times, vehemently so.

    Guidance to council/commission members: Each time you sit on the dais remember who put you there, why you are there (your duties), and listen respectfully to the citizens who took their time to speak. You might learn something that will assist you in making a better decision.

  2. Nick Tomboulides says:

    It appears Brevard’s most anonymous smear merchants are a few hoecakes short of a stack.

    Here’s my advice for you low energy, humorless, corruption-enabling assholes: find a dictionary and look up the verb “frequent.”

    Merriam-Webster: to associate with, be in, or resort to OFTEN or HABITUALLY.

    Ergo, my solitary 9 AM appearance wouldn’t fit the definition in my post. Stacey Patel and Robert Burns’ constant appearances would.

    Case closed.

    • AAfterwit says:

      Nick Tomboulides,

      Thank you for the comment.

      We are going to re-open the “case,” if you don’t mind.

      Here’s my advice for you low energy, humorless, corruption-enabling assholes:

      Low energy? Us? Humorless? Us? We assumed that the post was meant to be funny, but in our opinion, it isn’t. We apologize for not thinking that such low brow, cheap, divisive attacks are “humorous.” There are enough real attacks made by people that should be addressed without making stuff up. (See our post here where we say that Lober was right to respond to Burn’s attack with facts.)

      As for “corruption enabling,” as this is the type of unwarranted attack of which we think needs to be defended, we will defend that here.

      You won’t find one word in any post here were we have defended the appearance of corruption much less any actual corruption. Not a word. So we are left to wonder “why lie, Nick Tomboulides?”

      And finally,……

      Excuse me, is someone cursing? Sir, if you need to curse, I think you need to leave.
      I appreciate the fact that you can [not] express yourself so eloquently without using profanity. Thank you.

      – County Commissioner Bryan Lober. Tuesday, May 21, 2019

      Now we can close the case.

      A. Afterwit.

      • Nick Tomboulides says:

        Thanks for backing off the false allegation of hypocrisy, upon realizing the definition of a word people learn in preschool. James Madison would be so proud.

        I 100% stand by my claim that you enable corruption. You were “neutral” on the Children’s Services Council and actually attacked the Commission for how they went about eliminating it. Don’t lecture anyone on corruption if you’re not even smart enough to oppose a $120 million slush fund (read: corruption and kickback jackpot). That’s conservatism 101.

        I don’t know how to respond to the cursing jab.

        To fail to grasp the difference in etiquette between blogging and a public government hearing is…as we say in the cursing community…monumentally full of shit.


        A real advocate for limited government

        • AAfterwit says:

          Nick Tomboulides,

          Thanks for the comment.

          We didn’t back off the allegation of hypocrisy as it still stands. You attacked people for showing up at meetings at 9 AM when you yourself have done the same. If you want to hang your hat on the word “frequent,” that’s certainly your choice as that would mean that someone has to be an arbitrator of what is “frequent.”

          You can claim we enable corruption, but that’s not backed by the facts. Yes, we did say that Commission was going about the decision to disband the CSC wrongly, but we would have said that about any organization.

          If we are going to talk about not lecturing, don’t lecture about people being “smart enough to oppose a $120 million dollar slush fund” when in an opinion piece in the Florida Today, you misrepresented what the Commission was even discussing.

          You wrote:

          The Brevard County Commission must reject the proposed tax hike for a Children’s Services Council. It is at best a waste of taxpayer money and at worst, a possible conduit for corruption.

          That wasn’t what the Commission was voting on, was it? It wasn’t a vote on a tax at all, but after jumping through all of the hoops the Commission laid in front of them, whether the referendum would appear on the ballot. The Commission was not voting for or against the tax at all, yet that is how you chose to frame the argument.

          Even the editors of the Florida Today called you out for your obvious distortion of the truth:

          Brevard Republican Party Vice Chairman Nick Tomboulides did that the other day in a guest column in FLORIDA TODAY. We published it because he is vice chair of the Republican Party, and he is supposed to be a responsible person. Unfortunately, what he wrote didn’t live up to that.

          Parsing facts to create a false reality would not have been my mother’s idea of telling the truth.

          He called on the Brevard County Board of Commissioners to “reject the proposed tax hike for a Children’s Services Council,” which he wrongly called a “charity.”

          On Tuesday, July 24, the commissioners are being asked to do one thing and one thing only: Trust voters by allowing funding for the Children’s Services Council to go on the November ballot.

          That’s the tiny kernel of fact in Tomboulides’ column. If commissioners allow it on the ballot, voters — all of whom are adults with minds of their own — could decide to provide funding for the council. But the commission’s vote on Tuesday wouldn’t raise anyone’s taxes.

          For someone who claims to be a proponent of limited and smaller government, we wonder what you had against the people deciding the issue? Is it that you don’t trust the people to make up their own minds on whether they want to raise their taxes? The “limited government” you say you believe in has to make it so the issue never came before the voters as allowed by law? We wonder why you had to distort the issue? (And you did it again at the Commission meeting.)

          As for your comment on cursing, there is a difference between cursing in a public meeting and cursing on a private blog read by the public. The first is allowed under the law. The second is up to the owners of the blog.

          Heed the warning.

          Question: Was your signature of “a real advocate for limited government” another poor attempt at humor? If it was, we missed it. After all, you wanted the Commission to expand their power and authority over an issue granted to the people.

          Have a great night.

          A. Afterwit.

          • Nick Tomboulides says:

            I’m going to lay a generous offer on the table right here and now. If you need to enroll in a remedial English course to understand the meaning of a verb like “frequent,” I will foot the entire bill for your tuition. There does not exist any definition of that verb which includes doing something a single time. This is not debatable. A single data point cannot be frequent, even in the mind of a blogger who was dropped on his head as an infant. I will visit a first grade classroom WITH YOU where we can meet with a teacher to confirm this fact.

            On the question of the CSC, I didn’t misrepresent a thing. True experts and observers of government – as opposed to amateur hack bloggers – understand the truth about legislatively-referred referenda. We understand it is but a game, where “letting voters decide” is used as a pretext for advancing the politicians’ agenda.

            The trick being employed in these cases is one of curation: the decision to allow certain choices to reach the ballot while precluding more popular ones. For example, putting only sales tax increases on the ballot as opposed to giving voters the choice to repeal or reduce taxes. They pass not because voters truly understand the implications, but due to flowery, carefully-crafted ballot language which makes it seem as if the sky will fall if one votes no. The CSC is no exception.

            Therefore, the commission vote I called a tax hike was indeed a vote which would have guaranteed a tax increase. And it is commissioners’ responsibility to understand not only the language on their docket, but the causal effects of these votes. Putting tax increases on the ballot – while omitting tax decreases – is a vote for raising taxes.

            Your defense of retention votes in Broward and Palm Beach is further evidence of your naivete. It should come as no surprise that, after acquiring hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, CSCs suddenly grow the ability to maintain a well-oiled political machine and perpetuate their existence at the ballot box. But we live in a republic. And it never advances the cause of limited government to foist more taxes, more dependency and more slush fund corruption onto our society.

            • AAfterwit says:

              Nick Tomboulides,

              Thanks for the comment.

              Your defense of calling something a “vote on a tax” shows that perhaps you need to take the remedial course in English that you want us to take. The vote was never a vote on “taxes” as you claim.

              Here’s what the agenda item read:

              9:30 a.m. Time Certain ­ Resolution re: Allow a referendum seeking approval of the electorate to approve authority for the Children’s Services Council to annually levy up to a .33 mill of assessed valuation of properties

              Clearly it was not a vote on the actual tax. If you think it was, then the Commission lied to the people. Is that where you want to go? You want to say that the Commission lied to the people? You talk a good game about “corruption,” but it seems like you are supporting the Commission lying to the people if the vote was, as you claim, a vote on the tax itself.

              So who’s lying? You? The Commission? Both?

              There is one rule of politics that seems to apply in most cases – people vote with their pocketbooks. If people want a tax increase because they think the cause is a good one, that effect on their finances is something that they consider.

              Of course, we get the idea that you don’t want the people to matter. You don’t want them to vote on the issue. You don’t want people to retain those who they believe are representing them well. In short, you believe that the vote and the will of the people should be controlled by the opinions and vote of a few. You want to take the people out of the equation and substitute the government and then say “look at me! I am for smaller government.”

              The funny thing about Broward and Palm Beach is that you tried to use them as indicators of how horrible the CSC’s were, failing to mention the other CSC’s that were doing well. So when the Palm Bay and Broward CSC’s cleaned up their act and the people voted to reauthorize the CSC’s that didn’t fit your narrative and so once again, you attack the voter. You would have preferred that the government override the will of the people in another stunning display of “limited government.”

              You also used the attack on the Palm Beach and Broward CSC’s as “guilt by association” in saying that the Brevard CSC would be just as bad.

              We too can play the “guilt by association” game.

              In an “open letter” concerning a “Call For BREC President Rick Lacey To Resign,” in December of last year, we couldn’t help but notice the signers:

              Kristine Wolf Isnardi, Chairwoman, Brevard County Commission
              Bryan Lober, Vice Chairman, Brevard County Commission
              John Tobia, Brevard County Commissioner
              Tim Thomas, Melbourne City Councilman
              Paul Alfrey, Melbourne City Councilman
              John Dittmore, West Melbourne City Councilman
              Nicolas Tomboulides, BREC Vice Chairman
              John Weiler, BREC District 2 Chairman
              Cheryl Lankes, Brevard State Committeewoman
              Jason Steele, former BREC Chairman
              David Isnardi, former BREC Vice Chairman
              Bob White, former BREC Vice Chairman

              That is you cavorting with one of the people accused of a massive corruption scheme in Palm Bay isn’t? We don’t want to misrepresent you or anything, so if it isn’t you, please let us know that it wasn’t you signing a letter with a person accused of conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit extortion, and conspiracy to sell / manufacture illegal drugs.

              The difference between us and you is that we would never think of making that connection between the alleged wrongful acts of a person you were associated with and you. We would never try to plant the idea that because of what Isnardi is accused of somehow rubs off on you. Yet that is exactly what you did with the Broward and Palm Beach CSC’s in trying to taint the people of the Brevard CSC.

              Your position was that because of the actions in two of the most (if not the most) corrupt counties in Florida had groups that acted badly, the people in Brevard would act the same way.

              We understand that in order to make your alleged points, you had to misrepresent the truth and say that anyone associated with the CSC was basically a crook.

              Lie, upon lie, upon lie all in the name of expanding government authority over the people to the point where you think Brevardians are stupid.

              We have more faith in the people of Brevard than you do Mr. Tomboulides. We have less faith in government than you do.

              A. Afterwit.

              • Nick Tomboulides says:

                It feels good to be living inside your head rent-free. Still waiting on your explanation for how the verb “frequent” can apply to a single instance. Bottom line: it cannot, you know it and you are far too cowardly and meek to admit your blunder.

                Again, curation — deciding to give voters only the “choices” politicians permit — is a process officials employ to manipulate the electorate. By using carefully focus-grouped ballot summaries which don’t tell the full story, they are able to secure buy-in for egregious ideas (like the CSC) which will later produce buyer’s remorse from voters. It is the obligation of smart commissioners to cut these scams off at the pass before they have the chance to swindle citizens.

                That’s hardly undemocratic; seeing as we elect officials and entrust them with this specific power. And no, the commission didn’t lie to the people. They rightly recognized the CSC’s plot to manipulate voters and stopped it.

                “Of course, we get the idea that you don’t want the people to matter. You don’t want them to vote on the issue. You don’t want people to retain those who they believe are representing them well. In short, you believe that the vote and the will of the people should be controlled by the opinions and vote of a few. You want to take the people out of the equation and substitute the government and then say “look at me! I am for smaller government.”

                What’s terribly tragic about this critique of yours is…it would apply to your heroes. In Federalist 62, James Madison defends the notion of an appointed Senate. Did Madison “not want the people to matter” because he denied them a vote for senators? Was he “not for smaller government” because he believed in putting a check against rash and unstable behavior?

                Hardly. This was the genesis of our very Republic — the notion of checks and balances. Madison even writes “the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation.”

                If the framers were alive today, they would be disgusted by your ahistorical understanding of how a republic works. Utterly disgusted.

                As for the Isnardi letter? Another deeply flawed analogy. First, because he gets due process (there goes ROH using the Constitution as toilet tissue again). Second, because our shared feature was a single belief. In the case of CSCs, the shared features are the ability to gobble up hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars and dole it out with little oversight.

                Those features are causally conducive to waste and corruption, so it is perfectly appropriate to tie them together.

                • AAfterwit says:

                  Nick Tomboulides,

                  Thanks for the comment.

                  “Living rent free in [our] head?”

                  Of course, that thought is contradicted by the fact you came here to post on a site that you called “hack boggers.” One must wonder that if you truly think that, you would even bother to respond? Just ignore it, right? After all, we are just a few citizens writing our opinions while you “play in clouds” where people who allege to be conservative try to determine the path of politics and votes. If we are “hacks,” then ignore us. Readers will ignore us. County officials will ignore us. The fact that you keep posting and responding says to us and many others that you perceive us as a threat. You see the truth as a threat.

                  Thanks for the quote by Madison. Most people who use the Federalist Papers as sources of authority do so with the knowledge that the papers were a discussion on how the Founding Fathers saw the fledgling nation and the government upon which it would be based. We can disagree on individual issues and still respect the person making the argument. Of course, Madison’s comment has nothing to do with the issue on the CSC, so it is not surprising that you threw it out there to distract from the real issues.

                  (It should also be remembered that the Federalist Papers were written anonymously at the time. Funny thing how you quote an anonymous political writing and then attack us for being anonymous. We see that as more hypocrisy from you, but we digress.)

                  The facts are these:
                  1) The CSC had the right to seek to put the issue of raising money through the vote of the taxpayers on the ballot. That right is codified within the Florida Statutes.
                  2) The issue could be placed on the ballot by the Commission either by ordinance, or by petition.
                  3) The Commission did not want the issue on the ballot so they voted against an ordinance to place it on the ballot. The Commission then told the CSC they had the route of petitions to get on the ballot.
                  4) When the CSC started to do just that, the Commission decided to wipe off the face of the earth what voters had created and approved. A legal issue was, and still remains whether the Commission can wipe out what the voters want. The Commission is deathly afraid of that case going anywhere near a Court or an arbitrator.
                  5) The Commission now wants to steal, yes steal, money from the CSC instead of letting it disburse the funds. The funds were given to the CSC, and not to this Commission, or any Commission. (We would argue that the Commission stealing the funds would be an increase in government which you say you are against, but somehow you seem to be supporting the Commission’s actions on this.)

                  While all this is happening, you made the accusation that a vote on whether to allow the CSC to appear on the ballot by ordinance was a tax.

                  That’s not accurate and you know it.

                  The Florida Statutes allow the CSC to seek to have an issue on the ballot.

                  Whether you agree with the CSC, there is a bigger issue when the Commission tries to increase their power and authority of groups by thwarted the letter and intent of the Florida Statutes, and at the same time blowing up that which the voters legally created.

                  You think that abuse and expanse of power and authority somehow ties into “smaller government” of which you claim to be an advocate.

                  Facts are tough things. Facts expose lies. Facts expose truths.

                  The facts are against you.

                  Thanks again for the comment.

                  A. Afterwit.

                  • Nick Tomboulides says:

                    I believe we are now on post five with no apology nor retraction offered for the low-IQ assertion that the verb “frequent” can apply to a single occurrence. Total unwillingness to own up to a mistake is likely a sign of a personality disorder.

                    I came here because I will not tolerate falsehoods from anyone, regardless of status. You initiated a chain of lies by calling me hypocritical. The basic meaning of a basic word reveals I’m not in the slightest.

                    Your style is sloppy, straw-man argumentation. For instance, I never said your anonymity was a negative quality. I only stated it as fact. Moreover, I never said Madison was my hero nor that I agreed with him. Merely that you were contradicting your own supposed values.

                    You are a textbook goalpost mover, who, in your last breath, just assailed me for not believing a particular policy should be decided by popular vote. Then, when I pointed out that the framers wanted half our legislature to be immune to popular vote, you backed off. Sure, Madison had nothing to do with the CSC, but this is an argument about principle. It is an argument about absolute democracy, which you only favor selectively.

                    Your supposed “facts” about the CSC are actually opinions. If the Commission is “deathly afraid,” why is it the CSC crawling back with its tail between its legs and a settlement offer? Does the brilliant legal scholar ALackofwit know something the CSC’s attorneys do not? Better dial them up because they are about to toss in a white flag. They knew their legal argument was specious and used it anyway, in a vile attempt to extort the taxpayers of Brevard County.

                    If the CSC and ALackofwit had their way, there would be a $120 million revenue-gobbling monstrosity in this county — anathema to fiscal restraint and limited government. That is YOUR desire, because you are a far-left radical in a republican costume.

                    You have a severe problem conflating what is legal with what is just and right. While it may be legal for a group of corporate welfare hucksters to bribe politicians or petition their way to the ballot, it is in no way proper. It is actually an attack on the values we cherish as a republic, including the proper stewardship of public funds.

                    • Percy Veer says:

                      Nick – Okay, okay, I now understand what the word “frequent” means, thanks so much for your wisdom and enlightenment. Do I care, not in the least. Just hoping a few more replies will push the discussion all the way off the right side of my iPad screen.

  3. Julery says:

    The 2 faces of Bryan. He is all about saving the taxpayers’ $$ and cutting the fat, right? Well, that depends.

    Check out how Bryan (as then Prez) was able to save the Brevard Bar Assc “a nontrivial sum” of money by “outsourcing” their entire election process to our County SOE. Page 5 Page 5

    The SOE is “charging us nothing for the time their employees put into this process . . and she is ”assisting us solely as an effort at community outreach in order to generate goodwill.”

    The SOE’s website does indicate they provide clubs and orgs the use of the scantron machine, but this level of service being given to the Bar goes far beyond tallying votes for the 3rd grade one afternoon.

    FS 98.255 provides for the SOE to conduct nonpartisan education efforts but makes no mention of generating goodwill.

    It would be interesting to see the result of any other local group requesting this level of “goodwill” and community outreach. Perhaps the Cannabis Club would like more secrecy in their elections as well and could avail themselves to some of those County personnel manhours.

    The only goodwill I see is the favor garnered by these 2 elected officials by saving members of this private organization money on their dues.


    • AAfterwit says:


      Thank you for the comment.

      For the record, you comment was automatically dumped into a moderation folder because of the number of links within the post. We apologize for the length of time it took to make the comment public.

      While we thank you for the links, we want people to see the entirety of the comment from then President Bryan Lober in the April, 2017 newsletter:

      Given concerns chiefly pertaining to voter anonymity expressed to me by members, I reached out to the Supervisor of Elections and have, with the board’s approval and support, arranged, to the greatest extent permissible by the Association’s bylaws, to outsource the handling of BCBA elections to the Supervisor of Elections. Scantron-style ballots will be mailed to your address on file with the BCBA in early May. Ballots will be due back to the Supervisor of Elections on or before May 31. Ballots may be mailed back or physically returned to any of the Supervisor of Elections’ office locations throughout the county. Not only will this outsourcing safeguard voter anonymity but it will also better guarantee the integrity of the vote and, remarkably, reduce BCBA costs in conducting the election by a nontrivial sum. The Supervisor of Elections is charging the Association nothing for their personnel time and is only passing on their actual costs (e.g., ballot paper, postage) without markup. My thanks go out to the Supervisor of Elections and her staff as they will be doing everything from formatting the ballot, in accordance with the statewide uniform ballot rule, to tallying results.

      It is clear that the SOE’s office is donating only time and nothing else.

      How much time was needed to open and scan 300 – 700 ballots (max)? We don’t know but we suspect it is not much. If Lori Scott has the people available, we don’t have an issue with this.

      The reason for this is that the Brevard Bar Association has members across all political spectrums. If this were a case of counting votes for one party, we would have concerns with that. Secondly, lawyers in Brevard do donate considerable time to help people and organizations pro bono. We don’t have an issue with the SOE acknowledging those efforts by saying “sure, we’ll help.”

      We have not asked Ms. Scott the extent she is willing to do this for other organizations, so there may be some fire in your smoke, but we aren’t sure. We would also like to see how much actual time was spent on this election. Lober has been known to exaggerate and many heads of organizations are prone to “puffery.” Put the two together and we don’t know how much actual money or budget we are talking about.

      Until we do, we are willing to give the Supervisor of Elections and the Brevard Bar Association the benefit of the doubt.

      Again, thanks for the comment.

      A. Afterwit.

      • Julery says:

        Afterwit: Thanks for posting my comment and your response. I disagree that this was just time to “open and scan 300-700 ballots”. According to Lober, the SOE formatted, had printed, mailed, received, and tallied the ballots. They provided receptionist services in answering phone questions and had an email address specifically for this org’s election.

        If they have that kind of free time to dedicate to just this organization then perhaps they are over-staffed.

        • AAfterwit says:


          Thank you for the comment.

          We don’t know, and we suspect that you don’t either how the ballots were printed. If the ballots were printed in house, the Brevard Bar paid for the supplies. If they were printed out of house, the Brevard Bar paid for the costs. Tabulating the results would be part of the opening of envelopes to us. After all, you open the envelope and let it run through the scanner.

          The fact of the matter is that we are not trying to defend Lober or say he was wrong on this issue. We simply don’t have enough facts to make that determination. If you are a member of the Brevard Bar Association, perhaps you could request the amount that was paid to the SOE. Or perhaps someone should make a records request for the SOE’s billing on this that would show what was done and were.

          As for the SOE being overstaffed, the problem is that the SOE by the nature of what it does, doesn’t have much to do in non-election years. The event of which you speak was one of those years. It is unreasonable, in our opinion, to ask the SOE to gear way down letting most of their staff go, only to have to hire staff that needs to be experienced in election years. We don’t see how that would work or work well.

          As we said, the Brevard Bar is a non-partisan group and so we don’t see the advantage or disadvantage of the SOE doing the work if they have the time. If they had to put off other jobs or (heaven forbid) had to use overtime, we’d be upset just as you are.

          For right now, because of a lack of hard data and facts, we are going to say that we are solidly in the “don’t know” category. We aren’t saying that you are wrong, and we aren’t saying that you are right.

          We simply don’t know.

          Thanks again.

          A. Afterwit.

        • Percy Veer says:

          I don’t think a taxpayer funded organization, such as the SOE, should provide free services to any Private organization (including not for profit groups). It’s not their job and creates the impression of favoritism. The SOE is funded by taxpayers to perform certain tasks, they should stay in their swim lane.

  4. Lankes Cheryl says:

    Apparently word gets out when it is a winning vote for the grandstander to show up and speak.

  5. Bob Chadwick says:

    Having read Mr. Tombolides’ initial response to this, I wonder if perhaps he was asleep during the discussions about civility that have been conducted in various forums lately. His use of an anatomical reference suggests otherwise, and also reflects a bit on his maturity.

    I am not prepared to get in a long discussion about the political implications of Mr. Lober’s comments, or Mr. Tombolides’ responses except to say that they both need to grow up and conduct themselves with the maturity and cool-headedness that we expect from public figures. Particularly elected ones.
    Grow up, guys.

    • pissed off brevard/palm bay resident says:

      Unfortunately our locally elected officials have not shown any maturity between them lately..we have spouses of elected officials, charged with RICO violations and (according to FBI wires) discussing murdering other local elected officials…being represented by yet OTHER elected officials…where does it end? Everyone of these local elected officials is linked together with each of the accused through non-profits or PACs…there is no shame amongst any of them…they all felt un
      -touchable…..hopefully with this first bout of arrests they’ve come to realize it’s time to come clean. To the investigating authorities
      ..and at the VERY least…resign, before being given their new silver bracelet jewelry