She’s not tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Commissioner, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

On becoming Commissioner, Sharon fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. She hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal; loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda. Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

Sharon considers it a compliment to be referred to as “a lipstick pit bull” and is intolerant of jokes about her. She’s fired people for being fat, for having spouses she didn’t like, and for not serving at her “pleasure.” She investigates prospective employees to make sure does not hire anyone who expresses political aspirations; and she fires those who do. She forces staff to attend “educational” meetings that are about one side of political issues and has emailed staff to get their “voluntary” signatures on petitions for issues she wants to win.

There is far more that could be told about Sharon. For example, her reaction to hearing about the terrorist attacks on the U.S. in 2001, on 9/11, was an oblivious don’t-bother-me response. It took a full week before Sharon before she presented a response and that was only because she was told it was necessary.

It’s time to put an end to Sharon McDonald’s aspiration to be Norfolk’s Commissioner for life. Norfolk deserves better.

How does the City Code handle McDonald’s and Moss’ complete ignorance in the performance of their duties? And do we really believe that McDonald or Moss care? Not a chance. I’m surprised they can get their huge egos through the doors of City Hall.

It’s certainly no surprise to anyone Sharon has been running the Treasurer’s office for the last six years and it’s obvious she controls City Council in the same manner. Is anybody getting this? She’s only comes to Moss’ defense because he’s too much of a fool to ever stand up to her and that’s exactly the way she likes it. It gives her free reign and total dominance. She’s a disgrace and an embarassment to her gender . . . what a horrible role model.

City ordinances can be changed as long as they remain in compliance with State law. In this instance state law defers to the cities and counties to decide on the issue of proration. In short, this ordinance could be changed at any time if the powers that be want it to be changed.

How sad that McDonald assumes we should be well versed in the tax code. Isn’t that why we have highly paid “elected” officials? But it seems we are no longer allowed to question anything. What happened to the good ole days when these highly paid “elected” officials were not there to “scold” you but rather help you by explaining (in a non-defensive manner) the tax code and assist you with your taxes? How dare she be so rude and so arrogant.

Don’t be confused Norfolk, Moss and McDonald think we are complete idiots except on election day when all of a sudden we’re their best friends. They truly believe they are untouchable. Yes readers, Sharon blogs on city time and doesn’t care what anyone might think about that and I can only imagine what Moss does.

I say it’s time for McDonald & Moss to get touched and Norfolk should evict them from their self made thrones.

I think we need a new Treasurer (go Viv!) and a new Commissioner of the Revenue.

If you had purchased your vehcile [sic] on or after that date, you would have been refunded one-half of your initial license tax.

Um, read above – I was refunded more than half of my license tax.

Are you trying to imply that I should have paid the “license tax” in full for both vehicles? After all, the code section you refer to is silent on refunds, only the charges. (For those playing along, the Norfolk Code is available here. The relevant section is Chapter 24, Article III.)

Why would that be a mistake?

“[This] inconsistency falls outside of GAAP.”

When has the government worried about GAAP, except with regards to the companies from which they are taking money?

And on a blog before noon on a Thursday, no less! That’s some impressive constituent service.

In any case, I wonder if you have an opinion on Vivian’s assertion that the two guidelines should be reconciled within the tax law so that all licensing fees are pro-rated the same way? As it stands now, a less knowledgable taxpayer who hasn’t taken the time to read the tax code and who doesn’t have the Commissioner of the Revenue posting tax tips on his blog might make the mistake of assuming the Norfolk City Gov’t is playing a little “gotcha” with their inconsistent pro-rating laws (which I imagine is a complaint you may have heard before, since you very quickly assumed that’s what you were reading here).

Thanks in advance for your time, Mrs. McDonald!

MB rules
also the post at 12:39

However, as our Norfolk City Treasurer, Tom Moss often says, “nothing adds to the zest of an arguement like lack of knowledge of the facts.” And in this case, your comments give the impression that either my office or that of the Norfolk City Treasurer are subjectively handling such matters.

The facts are that it is neither my office or that of the City Treasurer who decides how much a taxpayer owes or is refunded with respect to a vehicle license fee. Rather it is our City Council. Norfolk City Council enacted Section 24-163 of the Norfolk City Code which specifically addresses the proration of the vehcile license tax. I’m providing the code section for your reference:

Sec. 24-163. Proration of tax.
One-half of the annual license tax required to be paid by this article shall be collected when such license is issued on or after the first day of July.

So you see, it is not that there is a “different rule” for providing a refund on your vehicle license tax it is that the LAW states we prorate by one-half of the tax after July 1. If you had purchased your vehcile on or after that date, you would have been refunded one-half of your initial license tax. Since you purchased it in JUNE, we are prohibited by law to pro-rate the tax.

I hope this provides clarification for you and your readers.

Along similar lines, I was thinking about my 2009 Legislative agenda the other day…