To Quit Or Not To Quit, That Was The Question!
Recently Ms. Adrienne Braden decided to resign from her position as School Payroll Clerk rather than go to the Financial Management Office. Now, I'm told, she has been re-instated to that position. The question I have is, "Was Ms. Braden really persuaded by Mrs. Vanzant to come back because there is a need to have a person of color in the Financial Management Office to help in the racial discrimination complaint filed with the EEOC and upheld by them? Is there really a thought this action will help in the secret settlement with the EEOC? Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 8:59 AM
123 Comments:
Maybe someone should call Adrienne and ask her straight out before posting a "rumor". Maybe she was trying to get a $14,000 raise as well.
I agree. Ask HER. She is the only person making that decision. You're going down the wrong road considering the EEOC - promise.
Since she has been complaining about money for two years I would say she wants a raise and has been promised one.
this is nothing more than trying to sensationelize an issue to make it appear to be more than it really is. propaganda and nothing more. same is true of the other recent posts too, actuelly, almost all of them.
If you don't have any proof that this was the reason she decided to stay, then please don't print it. When you insinuate this was the reason, you are provoking rumors and I don't think you need to do that. I'm friends with Adrienne (a white friend of hers) and maybe they thought she was irreplacable. If you really knew Adrienne you'd know what I was talking about.
Look, I have no problem with Mrs Adrienne Braden I don't even know her. I do understand that by being one of the lowest paid bookkeepers in the school central office and now in the Financial Management Office that she might feel somewhat slighted as I understand she has more experience than some of the others there.
As for the EEOC action it has nothing directly to do with Mrs Braden, however having watched Mrs. Vanzant in action I find it very plausable that she intervened
in the situation in order to prevent an all white staff in "her" courthouse while the EEOC are engaged in negotiations to settle the current suit. Allen Barrett
I am so ashamed. I've read these blogs for awhile now and thought people really gave Mr. Barrett a hard time for uncovering truths they didn't want to admit were true. I thought he was a man of character. Now I realize why everyone is so upset with him and how very wrong I was to believe him. In the above post Mr. Barrett has admitted that he has no proof and no evidence that any of this is true. It's not even like someone told him this without proof. He came up with it on his own. He admits he just made it up. He admits he doesn't even know Mrs. Braden but he has posted something about her anyway. I feel so embarassed and ashamed that I have taken his side before. Now I know I can't believe anything he says. Mr. Barrett, I don't know what you attempted to gain by posting this. I can see no point whatsoever except to try to make those who you do not like, like Mrs. Vanzant, look bad. That is not something an ethical person would do. I don't know what you meant to gain but I do know what you lost, my trust and the trust of alot of others who believed in you that I've talked to who've said they won't believe you anymore either after this.
Folks, the point is being missed. Mr. Barrett only raised the question of the possibility it was done due to the EEOC discrimination decision. Apart from that, truth is Ms Braden did resign after threatening to for a couple of years, ad was published for replacement applicants and a friend of mine had an interview lined up with the finance director, then it was cancelled because the job was filled by Ms Braden. I have a problem with that because it was a total waste of tax money, those newspaper ads dont come cheap and then the people applying didnt even have a chance to compete for the job even though my friend was more than qualified for the job. Something else that bothers me in this is if someone threatending to resign then let them go. They wont do a good job in the future if they have an attitude toward the work and then if they are wishey washey, they shouldnt be employed.
To Anonymous of the 2 June 4:07 post
I’m very sorry that I have disappointed you, but I do not understand what you refer to when you say, “In the above post Mr. Barrett has admitted that he has no proof and no evidence that any of this is true. It's not even like someone told him this without proof. He came up with it on his own. He admits he just made it up. He admits he doesn't even know Mrs. Braden but he has posted something about her anyway”.
If you could possibly be more specific I might understand better but at this moment I can only say I stand by my post and did not admit any of it was untrue, that it was made up or fabricated in any way.
Here are the absolute irrefutable facts Mrs. Braden resigned from her position as payroll clerk for the school system. She was reinstated after speaking with Mrs. Vanzant. She was, at just over $23,000.00, the lowest paid bookkeeper in the Central Office. And at $26,000.00 is one of the lower paid bookkeepers at the Financial Management Office.
A discrimination suit has been filed with the EEOC, they have found evidence of discrimination and they are involved in negotiations with the county to settle the matter.
I do not know Mrs. Braden anymore than half the people who report about the President know him. Do you imagine that Mr. Stewart personally knows everyone he reports about in the paper or that Bubba knows everyone personally that he reports about on the radio?
As for trusting me that is entirely up to you all I can tell you is that from the time I was a senior in high school I have put a very high premium on integrity and character. It has been difficult and costly at times but I believe the only true thing a person has that is completely his is his integrity. I may not be right all the time, I’m not perfect, but you can be sure that I will not willfully tell you something that I know is not true. A person who will willfully lie to you has absolutely no respect for you or for self. Allen Barrett
Somebody reassure me this is not the same schools bookeeper that didnt get our insurance payments sent in on time.
I for one beleive that Mr. Barrett is a person that has nothing better to do with his time other that try to cause trouble. He has posted many things on here and knows very little about most of them.
MR. BARRETT GET A LIFE AND LEAVE THE GOOD FOLK OF GILES CO ALONE!!!
annoymust why don't you get off Barrett's back and try to find some of those good people you talk about. Good people don't live with their heads in the sand while evil and corruption run rampant.
Oh by the way if you knew him you'd know he has a wonderful life with much to do daily. Why don't you take some time and point out some specifics that he has been wrong about?
8:36, YES it is the same bookeeper and everybody else, this is not the first time Adrienne has resigned and to turn around and change her mind and be allowed to continue her job....
disillusioned tax payer
Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:42:00 AM ......In response to your post. THE WHOLE AMBULANCE SERVICE first of all.
GO ahead and drink more kool-aid. You will just makes things easier for him
Talk about drinking the kool-aide 12:05. An examination of the ambulance books reveals the whole story. spend a million to make 200,000 that sure is good business.
Dumb, Dumb, Dumb
8:42, this very post. he even admitted this wasnt the truth. just printed it as the truth through he just assumed it. sounds wrong in more ways than one to me.
Anyone remember Amos & Andy. The Kingfish didn't grow old & disappear - he's alive & well, runnin the GC skoo system just like we'd expect him to!
Braden isn't going back to the same position. It's a different position. Don't know whether she applied for the different position or if it's with the school board or financial office. Anyone know?
I have just gone back and re-read once again each of my post on this subject and still can not find one thing that I wrote then made mention that it was not true. Will someone please tell me where I said or claimed that what I wrote was untrue.
In my 2 June 8:35 post I thought I had addressed each of the topics I had raised in detail. Mrs Braden went to the Financial Management Office and then resigned. The position was advertised and interviews were set up then Mrs Vanzant intervened and reinstated her. Those scheduled to interview for the job were called and told the position had been filled. This in itself should be cause for another law suit. The interesting thing to watch in light of the other manipulations of salaries, is whether Mrs. Braden receives a higher wage, once again ignoring the requirement that no one come to the Financial Management Office with a higher salary than they were receiving before the move.
Another question was asked about whether this is the same schools bookkeeper that didn't get insurance payments sent in on time.
Yes it is. She has not performed exceptionally well in the past, and the same goes for Mrs. Sigmon who as the school's internal auditor was written up for a number of shortcomings by the state auditor yet she received a very large bonus for her work. The system is broken and every effort is being made by some to insure that the Financial Management Office is just as dysfunctional. Allen Barrett
Mr. Barrett,
Once again, as a friend of Adrienne's how do YOU KNOW she hasn't performed exceptionally well in the past at her position? Who has told you she was the one who didn't get the insurance payments sent in on time? I wasn't aware you worked for the Board of Education. Please enlighten me as to who has verified your information. By the way, I do agree with you on a number of things one of them being that there is a lot of issues going on in our county government and I applaud you for bringing some of them to light. I have read every topic on this blog and I have read every letter you send to the newspaper and I have always cheered you on for having the balls to speak up for us. However, at times I do believe you get ahead of yourself with the whistle blowing. I work in an office myself for a small business in Giles County and have for the last 15 years. I am responsible for calling in our payroll taxes and paying our sales taxes among many others. Years ago I forgot to pay one of these taxes and it cost my employer some penalaties. Mind you not $10,000 but it did happen and it was my mistake. My employer did not fire me for it and actually understood that at that time they had given me a heavy load to carry while I was going through a divorce. They gave me this extra responsiblity hoping to make their job easier and they understood how I made that mistake. If it's true that Adrienne made the mistake, and I actually have never asked her about it because even though we are friends we don't speak on a daily or even a weekly basis, then I'm sure that's what it was- A MISTAKE- I don't believe she intended to do what she did. Maybe that's another reason she wanted to quit to begin with was because people like you wouldn't let it go. She's only human, put yourself into someone else's shoes for once. I have the impression you don't like people pointing fingers at you either.
I just returned from the Financial Management Office where Mrs. Garner confirmed the situation I stated concerning Mrs. Braden. She also stated that the reason she was rehired was because she (Mrs. Garner) didn’t have the time to go through the interview process and train another person when Mrs. Braden wanted to come back. Mrs. Garner also confirmed that Mrs. Braden’s salary had been increased from just over $23,000.00 to $26,000.00.
To Anonymous of the 4 June 9:32 post. I appreciate your stated previous support and hope it will continue. You ask, “how do YOU KNOW she hasn't performed exceptionally well in the past at her position? Who has told you she was the one who didn't get the insurance payments sent in on time?” Discussions with her co-workers have revealed that while she is liked by most she has some serious professional/work habit short-comings. Her job description identifies her as the one responsible for the insurance payments. Discussion with the people on the receiving end of the insurance “payments” revealed that “they” were late. If you will re-check my post you’ll find that I did not open the subject of the late insurance payments. I don’t even see that as the major problem with this situation. For me the problem is simply the manner in which these actions were allowed to take place, some in direct conflict with county policy.
As for mistakes I certainly agree everyone makes mistakes, I have made more than a few in my life. You describe a situation where you made a mistake and it cost your boss a penalty; he dealt with it and the matter was resolved apparently satisfactorily for you and him. My question is what would have been his response if you continued to make that same mistake several times, was given a warning then another warning then a fine? A mistake is when you do something wrong and learn how not to repeat it, a habit is doing the same thing over and over. Now was Mrs. Braden the only one involved in this mistake, clearly the answer is no. Not only was she dependent in part on others but others tried to cover up and deny the existence of the late payments.
Again let me stress this is an issue that is not directly about Mrs. Braden it is about the violations of policy, the unfair way those scheduled for job interviews were treated, and the blatant disrespect shown to every citizen of the county by those who have chosen the less ethical way of doing business in our name. Allen Barrett
Going from $23,000 to $26,000 is a 13% raise. Times are hard right now, and few if any will get a raise of any consequence!
Giving a big raise to anyone on the threat of quitting is just about the worst management scenario imaginable! Worked many years in executive management & unquestionably anyone who can't make it through the bad times doesn't need to be there during good times. The pressure works good for replacing marginal workers with exception workers who are out of a job & looking!
Trouble with the school system is their hog in the slop mentality. As long as the slop bucket is full, there's enough for everyone who wants to pile in the mud hole!
O.K. let me get this straight. If you quit your job, and someone says they don't have time to interview folks to replace you, they will hire you back and give you a $3,000 per year raise. Maybe all the teachers in the county should resign, and then they will get $3,000 increase in pay when they are hired back. Sounds like a plan to me.
Mr. Barrett,
Thanks for confirming Adrienne's mistake NOW after you were challenged too. Now, while you were speaking with Loretta did she also confirm that Adrienne was hired back to help with the lawsuit of discrimination? No, she didn't. So since you have it from the horse's mouth the reason Adrienne was rehired, maybe you need to take that out of this topic instead of planting it in people's minds that this was the reason. You have proof why she was rehired so get clear that up would you?
He doesn't have to clear up anything. It was speculation and rightfully so. It is still speculation. It has been proven over and over that our government officials are not always on the up and up. There is something fishy about this whole ordeal. Loretta knew that Adrienne was less than up to par to do the job. She has been told and she has been shown. Janet is telling some people one explanation of Adrienne's return and Loretta is telling another. We all know Janet is a liar. Are we to assume that Loretta is too or has Janet gotten to her? I truly believe Janet has much to do with it. Adrienne did not come back on her own. She was asked to come back. Asked to come back by Janet. That is why there is speculation as to why she was rehired. Adrienne has been telling everyone that Janet asked her to come back. I feel sorry for the county employees that have to deal with Adrienne when it comes to their paychecks. Ask a teacher how much of a screw-up she is. I wonder if she plans to work all day unlike her days in the central office when you needed to speak to her and she was no where to be found. Adrienne likes to go visiting during work hours. She spent much of her time running from school to school on tasks that should only take minutes where she would be gone hours and sometimes not come back to the central office at all. She has a horrible work ethic. She is not knowledgeable of her job and is derelect of her duties. She is a gossip and a troublemaker. If she applied as much time to her job and gaining knowledge of how to do her job in the past as she did running her mouth I would say she would be overqualified for the job. Let's not forget she is responsible for that retirement for the teachers being sent in late. She is responsible for late insurance payments being made. Now the county employees have to deal with her incompetence. To the friend that so quickly defends Adrienne, my suggestion to you is until you have more insight as to how she does her job you need to just be her friend and back off the blog. You don't have the knowledge that those of us who have had to deal with her have.
wab, 04 8:52..you say you "still can not find one thing that I wrote then made mention that it was not true. Will someone please tell me where I said or claimed that what I wrote was untrue."
check your own post June 02 2:40 where you say "As for the EEOC action it has nothing directly to do with Mrs Braden..."
your topic for this whole discussion says mrs braden was rehired to help with the discrimination suit and the eeoc!! and it your post you say it has nothing to do with the eeoc. so you just admitted you made the whole thing up. how much plainer can it get. i thought you were smarter then that and could figure it out but i guess someone had to spell it out for you.
if you need further proof, then reread what you wrote at 10:33 June 4 you say "...this is an issue that is not directly about Mrs. Braden it is about the violations of policy, the unfair way those scheduled for job interviews were treated..."
so again you say it isnt about the eeoc at all. but in the subject of this whole thing you said she was hired back because of the eeoc. you made it up or you guessed and you were wrong. just admit it and people will accept that you are human. you made a mistake. everybody does it. just most people arent so arrogant as not to admit it.
To 2:50, The key word is speculation. There is no proof to any of this, yet it has been posted by WAB as being truth. Until you have proof, you are guilty of slander and subject to prosecution, even if that slander is only hinted at. That's the law.
And to WAB, you said you got your information from people she works with. Did it ever occur to you that people sometimes lie or don't always tell the complete truth? I appreciate what you try to do, but your biggest problem is you just take what people say as the truth without any evidence. Maybe those that told you this information had some issue with Adrienne or were just giving their opinion. Face it, people lie. Sometimes some people lie to you. You can't believe everything your told as the truth and should never post it unless you have the proof.
June 4, 3 p.m.
Mr Barrett did not say this was anything to do with the EEOC discrimination case, in the topic he only raised the question of its possibility. With the excuse given by Loretta Garner of not having time to interview people, why then did she even run an ad for the position in the first place? Next you have to look at Vanzant asking Braden to come back to work. Its not Vanzants job to have anything to do with the hiring in the finance office, its Garners job. What a disappointment that woman is.
3:07 There was a school board meeting regarding the late insurance payments. There have been many attempts to get Adrienne to make these insurance payments on time. Meetings were held with Tee Jackson and Debbie Braden numerous times. That is a factual statement. I know what insurance company this is regarding. Several Commissioners were at this meeting. Teachers are aware of it. It happened and was no speculation or hearsay from WAB. So, you can let that issue rest. You are not in the loop on this one. My guess is that if she has access to the payroll for the county there is also the chance it will happen with the county employees insurance too. My question is to Loretta, why hire back someone who has this track record. You knew this was going on at the school and you knew it was a relief when she resigned. Why? It is way too convenient to blame Melanie White as has been done in the past. She has always gotten the blame for Adrienne due to the fact that she disburses the checks. How is she supposed to print out a check when she has no idea how much the check should be? Melanie has to know that first in order to print it and it's Adrienne's job to tell her how much she needs a check for and who the check is payable to.
I agree 3:33.Why are we paying a $70,000 salary to Loretta if she is going to let Janet Vanzant call the shots. Wouldn't she have to take the whole issue before the finance committee?I mean, Vanzant is a committee member and that may hold some weight but wouldn't other committee members have a say.Sounds like Vanzant is calling the shots.I think she is another one trying to sabotage the act of 81.My understanding is she was never in favor of it in the first place.Loretta needs to understand she does not work for Vanzant, she works for the finance committee as a whole.
Why don't all you big mouths just take over all the offices and all the positions in these offices you constantly bitch about that way they can be done to perfection?
Well, this loudmouth is looking out for the best interest of the citizens in this county.Question: Why aren't you more interested?You should care that the most qualified individuals are handling our county and school payroll.You must be close to one of those being criticized here.To answer your question, that might be a good idea.I can think of a few good people to replace some of the incompetent ones we have now.I sure hope you have a better come back line than the one you used previously.However, I guess this is how people react to the truth when they don't like what the truth reveals.
My loudmouth will keep on speaking the truth. What is yours going to do?
Yes she is very close to one being criticized, like 7 hours a day.
3:45, I wrote the 3:07 post, and I have no idea what your talking about. In a previous post you used the word speculation in reference to WAB's post, and that is what I was referring to. My post had nothing to do with what Adrienne Braden has or has not done on the job. It only referred to WAB's posting something about the EEOC based only on what his speculation and on no proof whatsoever. Pay attention.
Talk about paying attentions 6:42 for that statement and the others you obviously made about Wab comments about the EEOC you not only need to pay attention you need a course in reading comprehension. Wab merely asked a the question, speculated if you like about the reason Ms. Vanzant intervened and rehired Mrs Braden. He did not say that was the reason only asked if that could possibly be the reason. Can you see the difference? If you can't then there is no use trying to explain something that simple to you. It's amazing what a little intelligence will do for a person you should try getting some and using it sometimes.
Loretta Garner should be required to reimburse the county for the funds she used to place the ad for bookkeeper in the local paper. Talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars. You mean to tell me that if she really doesn't have the time to conduct interviews she only realized this after the ad was placed, applications received and phone calls placed to schedule interviews with applicants?It says alot about Loretta and the kind of job she is doing as director of finance. I only hope she doesn't continue to be this irresponsible in the future. What a disappointment! Commissioners should require her to fork out the money from her own pocket since she made such a bad decision. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for her bad judgment. I wonder how those applicants that applied feel about the way this was handled and I wonder how many applied. Sounds like it could be another lawsuit against the county due to Janet Vanzant's poor job as County Exec. It is my understanding according to what Adrienne has told everybody is that Vanzant asked her to come back. I sure hope people will have the sense to not vote for her if we have a decent candidate next election running against her.
10:31 pm - very well said. Reality is though no funds will be repaid by Garner nor will any of the commissioners question this. Bet Garner even gets an excellent job performance and a raise. This is not the only poor handling of her job since she got hired. Are we forgetting about the Julie Phillips thing already.
Julie Phillips, Another FLUB UP that is costing taxpayers money when we are having a hard time putting food in our kids mouths and gas in our cars. WASTE!!! WASTE!!!WASTE!!!
When will it end....
If you look at the big picture this one of the major causes of the economy today...no one watching out for the person who is responsible for paying for all of the "benefits" provided by state, federal and county taxdollars. The Citizens!!
Is Julie still at the same salary as before her job reclassification or has is she getting a raise with the new budget???
Less Work, Less Responsibility!! More Money!!! Where do I put in my application...
Well when you find out 10:34 let me know. I will be there with bells on!!!
The problem goes back to the financial manglement committee & who runs it. It's dedicated to failure & corruption & has Jacksons fingerprints all over it & the calamities that will happen!
Until the commission decides to neuter that situation, the results will be corrupted.
And the whining never stops. You people screamed financial management and how wonderful it was going to be and until you got it, and now before it's even started off you're already complaining. Some tried to tell you it wouldn't be what you thought, but nooo, you insisted it's what was needed. Some tried to tell you it would create more problems, but you said not if it works like it should. Did you really expect that it would? Are you really shocked it's going the way it is? You shouldn't be. You were told it would be this way, but you wouldn't listen. You have no reason to complain about it at all. You asked for it, now live with it and stop whining.
The Financial Management Act is a very strong management tool that has always been presented by those who support it as having a great potential for getting the county into compliance with state requirements, save a large amount of money and provide accountability. The problems being experienced now have little to do with the Act itself but with the people who have chosen to ignore the requirements, subvert the intent and allow personal relationships and desire for power to undermine it.
There are many good laws on the books but that does not insure they are properly implemented. People murder, rob and do any number of things in spite of being against the law, because they think they can get away with it. When the officials look the other way and the citizenry is asleep very often they do get away with it. That does not make the law bad it only reveals those charged with the enforcement of that law as weak, corrupt or both. The Financial Management Act will, I fear, fail not because it isn't a good program but because of some who have determined to destroy it for their own personal gains. With a controlling committee made up of the County Executive, The School Superintendent, Budget Chairman, Highway Supervisor and hand picked Commissioners by the County Executive add to that a director too weak to stand against more powerful personalities and plain deceit how can it succeed?
Indeed some have warned that it would do little if anything to benefit the people of the county and some of those prophets of doom have worked the hardest to insure its failure. Allen Barrett
6-6-8 WAB - you're right. One thing we are missing is the tremendous changes that have occurred since 2003-4. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind what the tax rate would be right now if a very few people hadn't stepped up and forced change & stopped the tax increases?
Garner is in an untenable position, because of the financial management committee. She doesn’t have the independence she deeds for the position we expect. That’s not her fault. She will fail if the commission and the public doesn’t step up and make some changes! It is the responsibility of the county commission to step up and change it, regardless of what CTAS or anyone else says. People dedicated to destroying financial management do not need to be on the governing board. Having someone like Jackson on it is like having a possum in charge of the hen house – you know there will be no eggs and there will be feathers all over the floor every morning; but he’ll be there grinning & happy to see you coming to pat him on the head every morning!
Forget about Julie if she’s at the same old salary level – If she’s critical to the road operation & they’re not raising taxes, it doesn’t matter. It does matter when the Kingfish gives raises to someone who has a hand in some of his financial boondogglery, especially when it’s a new #2 position in line to take control! Got to keep focused on the real issues of financial integrity, credibility, simple honesty, etc
Why should we forget about Julie Phillips....she is being overpaid for the new position that she and Barry chose to create for her? It takes alot of little corruption to eventually develop into big ones. Her salary might not directly be causing a tax increase this budget year...but all officials need to be cutting the fat and overspending now to keep taxes down next year. And her salary is part of the Highway Department's "FAT"!!
Julie probably is a real good person, however, not remaining a bookkeeper in the Giles County Government was her choice and I for one do not think that she should be compensated at the bookkeeper's salary for a receptionist job. As the previous blogger said:
Less Work, Less Responsibility and More Money! JUST AIN'T RIGHT!!!
That is what is wrong with the Giles Co. TaxRate today...everyone doing less and expecting to get paid more.
Ask for the Employee Hourly Pay Rate at the Highway Department...See What Barry and His Cronies(Julie Phillips, Steve Kelley, Buster Wallace, Gene Barnicle, Kyle Phillips, & Kathy Young) are all making. It's big BUCKS!!
Then ask what the overall cost of these employees would be with benefits. SO SAD...
4:13, Your right, and that's the point. Never said the act itself was bad, but like alot said along it wouldn't work for the very reasons you mentioned. We knew it would be more of the same and end up costing the county more money, which it will. That's the reason people I know argued against it. But no one would listen. That's the point that was being made.
The pure simple point is getting off track and not doing something about the real problem, beginning with T Jackson.
As long as we're chasing pennies, we're not focused on the millions & Millions it is.
The people who argued against Financial management are the root of the problem - their names were splashed all over the paper with their stupid ads - but they lost & more than one had it stuffed where it belongs! If you go back to who made sure the boondoggles of the past happened you'll find their votes & support - same names & same stupid arguments.
As long as the Kingfish sits in his seat, the flies will gather about him!
Throughout all of the fiascos WAB and others have dug into, one would think the public would throw a tantrum & run some of the rats off.
Does anyone in the county think TJ is honest, upright, & a pillar of hope & decency??? This man runs Giles County Schools! It's the icon of education & smarts! God help us, for we know not what we do. But, God helps those who help themselves - in the old tradition, not like the connivers of today!
Does anyone in the county think WAB is honest, upright, & a pillar of hope & decency??? He's as much a con man as anybody and as power-hungry a person as I've ever seen.
Sorry to hear about your blindness 18:00. Was 18:00 the time you posted or the era in which you live?
9.35 It was a cryptic clue - the minute 18.00 - is an exact time the minute hand reaches "its" IQ - "its" family celebrates by lighting candles & praying for it to reach 19 some day - maybe even learn the difference between a round peg and a square one
Sounds like 3:18 is one of the problems, they seem afraid of what might be exposed. Our County Executive may be the tap root of many of the problems. If she would go back to Lincoln Co.we would most likley be able to straighten many of our county problems. As long as she is where she is things will not get any better.
You have got that right 9:59. Loretta is letting her run the finance office. Janet will lie to you as look at you. She and Tee Jackson eat from the same trough. Shameful!
How does Van Zant have the authority to hire for Financial Management? She a member of a committee. Who was interviewing for jobs at FM? They will see how long Braden stays in line. Nobody will be able to find her. We never could find her when we needed help with our paychecks. Nobody at the Central Office could tell us where she was or when she would be in.
You are exactly right 8:50. I have had the same problems with her. As far as Vanzant goes, she doesn't have the authority to hire anyone in the finance office. She thinks she is in control of every aspect of this county. She has been the cause of lawsuits against the county in the past and the potential of future litigation. Vanzant is only a member of the finance committee. She is against the act of 81 and speaks out both sides of her mouth about the act depending on who she is talking to. Which is typical of her on many issues.
Tell me how Adrienne Braden is suitable for the job when she never did the job properly when she was at the central office. Loretta knows this. Either Loretta has extremely poor judgment and managerial skills concerning this issue or someone is putting pressure on her to keep Adrienne. Namely Vanzant. Adrienne is not an asset to the finance office by no means. Adrienne better know that many people know what a poor job she did at the central office and she has gotten a lot of people's attention and will be watched very carefully to see how good a job she will actually do. Let's see in a couple of months after payroll runs a few times with the county if everyone's insurance is paid on time,their paychecks are accurate. and retirement money sent in on time. Two things she is re-known for screwing up. She is being watched but has no idea by who. Those that have worked with Adrienne know how she has done her job in the past. I know her work ethic and it surprises me that she would be hired to work in the finance office based on this. That is why speculation is that it may be due to her skin color. Considering the current EEOC violation found by the county due to the black lady that was never interviewed when she ranked the highest when looking for a finance director. I personally think it is wrong for skin color to ever enter in to the equation. People should be evaluated and considered based on their credentials. It is looking more and more like a mistake was made in hiring Loretta. She apparently can't stand on her own two feet and make her own decisions. She was hired because she could be pushed around and told what to do. I wonder if the black lady that was never given an interview would have done the same thing. I bet she wouldn't have.
One thing you have to keep in mind about putting a screw up in the financial management office from the school system is when the finances get messed up the school can appeal to be removed from under the Financial Management Act something Jackson has wanted and worked for all along.
Oh how true that is 3:36. You hit the nail on the head!
You can't blame Jackson for putting the screw up back in FM that was Vanzant this time. I know same theory.
According to law, the only way the schools can opt out of financial management is if the Commissioner of Education decides it so and that is if school reports dont go in to state on time. Garner knows this and also knows people are watching her and the FM committee on this subject. If Garner wants to lose her job over it, thats up to her. Course, she could lose her job on other things that are happening within the FM.
Please elaborate 12:48. What other things are going on in the finance office?
Did give you some specifics - did my post get removed?
It must have been removed because I don't see any post regarding specifics or details.
No comments have been removed from this tread. Kent Allard
Can you repost details please?
Does anyone know how Mrs. Vanzant is getting away with hiring another secretary full time and why in this world has she hired Jimmy Mooney to help with maintenance of the bank building, the bank he was let go from years ago. How many secretaries does it take for a official that's seldom there? One to answer the phone and one to run her errands or what???? Couldn't some of Loretta's girls answer her phone and take her messages? Does she really need a secretary at all? That would be a savings to the taxpayers. Officials need to think about that and quit hiring so many people for the taxpayers to pay. Mr. McGill is another one that robbing the taxpayers. He would have been better off not to have asked the Commissioners for the new girl a few months back, especially when he knew at that time Mr. Stafford was really sick. But he got his way as usual and now he's asking for a field man. Could that have been a move for a political favor he's promised someone. Vote for me and I'll give you a good paying job.
Don't think Jimmy was hired but on work release from the Sheriff's office. You're dead right about the rest. McGill said in the meeting he didn't even know how long Mr. Stafford had been out and he could do the job of a field agent because it was too important for him to be in the office, he did say he would have to go out to train the new person, I'm sure it will have to be a male because as he said last year "women can't use the bathroom in the field". This guy is the most useless official in the courthouse. He not only can't do the job he don't even have a clue as to what's going on there.
If you think about it McGill has been part of the problem all along. He has stated that in past years the job was not being done, well who's fault was that. If I recall Mr. Billy Gordon had him and others employed to do the job. Simply put, McGill was part of the problem. And don't tell me it was because he didn't have enough help, please. I know of several other counties that have much more parcels of land that don't have as many people in the Tax Assessor's office that G.C. has. What's makes us citizens think he will do a better job again this next term. All he's done his first term as Assessor is to raise everyones (except family and close frinds) assessments to the point our taxes have been unbearable to pay. Get an official in there that will work or will at least hire someone that will.
This blog about Mrs. Braden's color just takes the cake with me. I have always supported this blog but from time to time I read topics that just disgust me Mr. Barrett in the way you and Mr. Allard choose your wording.
Why would a comment regarding Adriene's color offend you? Does she not know she's black? I know her, like her, and consider her a friend and I'm pretty sure she's aware of it...Actually WAB didn't even comment on her color, but on the lawsuit regarding racial discrimination and a possible "conspiracy theory." Again, he commented, or really wondered "out loud". Apparently we are all allowed to publish our opinions, but when he does, it's open season on him....He really should start posting anon. and people would pay more attention. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he offers an opinion, people accept it a fact and then turn on him. If you distrust him that much, don't read his posts, but then again, so many of us are just looking for sometime to be mad at, or just love playing the victim....
Understand Ms Vanzant has also hired ANOTHER receptionist for her office and this young girl is Black! Nothing against this person at all, but why does Vanzant need another receptionist and it reeks of trying to stack the office with anyone who might make her case look better with the EEOC. Too little too late. Surely the EEOC would question when these two people came on board if they are submitted as part of Vanzants defense in the EEOC case.
Agree with you. Looks like McGill is trying to hire people to help him get reelected. I was at Farm Bureau when he was down there talking to one of their new employees about a job with him. Then he hired her. A member of the Woodard family from Lynnville. What does that sound like. Who did Vanzant hire? She will do and say anything to cover her behind and make herself look better. I think Adrian is too smart to allow herself to be used by Vanzant. Of course, would you turn down a $3000 raise if it was offered to you? The jobs in Fin Management are going to end up costing the county BIG BUCKS.... I heard Mooney was hired too. Anybody know the straight of this?
It is the Commissioners place to find out where the money is coming from to pay these extra people that have suddenly come on board. Did the Commissioners approve the money to pay another maintenance/housekeeping man for the Annex?
Each dept budget is so well padded there is plenty of money to hire more people. However, I would have thought the commission would have to ok the positions, money or not. What about it commissioners, its known a bunch of you read this blog, give us an answer.
Increasing salaries for people who transfer to the finance office is what Garner was supposed to control. In the beginning she would talk about reducing slaries, not raising them. Thats one of the underhanded things Garner has been doing since she got her job. Its her job to save the county money, not add to the spending and she does exactly what the county mayor tells her to do but the mayor is not over the finance office. Then we dont have enough commissioners brave enough to challenge the mayor or Garner. They both need to go. Did yall know they are neighbors?
Mrs. Garner and Mrs Vanzant seem to be one in the same when it comes to the financial management office. There was much speculation about Mrs Garner when she was hire when the committee voted in secret to hire her. Another lady that was interviewed clearly was the stronger of the two but her strength was also her weakness as the Vanzant, T. Jackson, Hyatt tribunal would not allow a strong efficient person to have that position and weaken their own powers.
At the school board meeting last night Mr. Jackson announced among those leaving the school system was Mrs. A. Braden who had resigned. I asked him during my two minutes directly did she resign, his response was "yes she had resigned her position". Now with her resignation there is no way she could have been legally transferred to the Financial Management Office.
The Financial Management Office ran an ad in the newspaper announcing this position with details for applicants seeking the position. People applied, some more qualified than Mrs. Braden, interviews were scheduled then suddenly Mrs. Vanzant entered the picture, Mrs Braden was hired and all the interviews were canceled.
I was told by Mrs Garner directly that "I hired Mrs Braden she knew the job and I didn't have time to train someone". Allen Barrett
If any of the applicants had been in bookeeping before (which we assume they had or they wouldnt have applied for the job), there would be very little training for Ms Garner to do. And what training needed to be done would have been done by Glenda. I doubt Ms Garner knows what to do herself. And think about it, she must have had time when she placed the ad. What changed? I would also like to know why Braden quit in the first place, anybody know?
June 12th at 2:10- I am a friend of Adrienne's as well, in fact I am VERY close to Adrienne which is why I have a problem with Mr. Barrett insinuating the color of her skin is why she was rehired. You, however can't be too good of a friend to her not to have a problem with it. Have you even talked to her about this blog to see how it makes her feel to know that the color of her skin is the main topic? Yes, she's fully aware she's a black woman and for all those who want to call her a screw up well, if she is she's one of many. I don't blame her for taking the position back, she has a family she has to help provide for. As for telling me not to read Allen Barrett's blogs, I suggest you mind your own damn business because I can have an opinion just like you and Mr. Barrett can.
10:47-I am sorry that you apparently misunderstood my post. I simply meant that I didn't see that OUR friend's skin color was the point of the post. I actually was making fun of the other posters who seem to think her skin color is such a big deal, I'm a different color that Adrienne, but it truly has never come up in our conversations...I just don't think about it. I mean, really, who cares? As for telling you not to read WAB's posts, I simply meant that if you get upset by reading what he has to say, well, that's an easy fix. I think he has both good and bad opinions, as do we all but many are so closed minded that they become irate just because he said it. Sorry you took everything so personal, but truly I was sincere when I said if reading something upsets you, you might be better off to simply not read it. I will mind my own business, but like every other anon on this blog, I just offered an opinion...Never insuated you shouldn't do the same. I guess some people are trying to be offended, but I can't imagine Adrienne being even remotely upset as you are.hmmmmmmmmmm
I know Mr Barrett and I can assure blog readers he does not have a problem with Black people. As a matter of fact, he will go to great lengths to support them if necessary. All he questioned or suggested was that perhaps Ms Vanzant was trying to get as many Black people in the courthouse offices to make the county look good with the EEOC. And this is pretty obvious. After all, Ms Braden had already quit her job. In normal industry you dont get offered a $3,000 raise to change your mind. Think about this, in normal industry if you have an employee quit, you usually advertise and hire a replacement before your former employee leaves so that employee can show the new one a bit about the job. I think Mr Barrett is correct about this. Think again, if you had been following the hiring of the finance director you would know that Mr Barrett was very supportive of Ms L White (Black woman) and pushed for her to get interviewed.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can post comments on this blog and when someone disagrees with them they try to go back and sugar coat it. Fact is, it seemed wrong to me for Barrett to even think Adrienne being rehired had to do with her being black. Whether the color of her skin got her hired or fired it should not have been put out there by a preacher to begin with.
3 43, AMEN!!!!
If you want to acknowledge it or not the race issue is very much alive in Giles county. You fail to recognize Mr Barrett is very much against racism, you would rather attack him as a preacher.
Okay, what changed Braden's mind, she was already told she would make $26,000, it was in the paper if anyone wants to go back and check. Everyone was overlooking that because of Sigmon's raise. The main question I have is how did Vanzant have the authority to hire someone in Financial Management?
Finally a voice of knowledge 10:51...All of us "anon" posters print like we know it all but obviously we don't. Neither does WAB, but at least he's public about it. Adrienne's job at the BOE was getting a $3 k raise BEFORE, BEFORE, BEFORE she was "hired" at Financila Mgt. Loretta didn't give her the raise. There's enough REAL stuff to be mad about, folks, don't look or make up "facts"!!!!
Adrienne has quit multiple times and for whatever reason, Jackson hired her back. It really doesn't matter if she is black, white or purple, quite obviously due process was not followed for her to get this job. And for pete's sake, people, WAB didn't insult or slur Braden by his post; he offered a very LOGICAL possibility as to the reason why she MAY have been hired. If there is a lawsuit involving a racism issue, what better way to "CYA", than to hire somebody black to disprove claims of racism???? The slur, for lack of a better word was against Vanzant, not Adrienne. As plain as day, he stated, "was Ms. Braden really persuaded by Mrs. Vanznt.....yada, yada, yada..." How can people take that as a jab against Adrienne??? And it was offered as just a possibility of of Vanzant's motives, again, not one single word for anybody with any kind of reading comprehension skills to deduce that he was insulting AB. Also, read the post again, WAB didn't accuse Vanzant, it was a possible THEORY. Just one more bit of proof to support my theory that some people just want to be offended and some people want to be irate at whatever WAB says, regardless of the words. If Wab posted on this blog that it was 90 degrees yesterday, bunches of people would immediately say, "there you go again, taking things out of context, everybody knows it was only 89.9 degrees." WAB is usually pretty clear on whether he is posting something as fact or opinion folks, which is something I get careless about ocassionly. I would truly like to discuss the issues, even the controversial ones without having to tiptoe around because someone perceives a racial slur, or is just spoiling for a fight. Like I said, there's enough real stuff to get mad at, "quit sweating the small stuff..."
It is obvious to anyone with any sense that wab's post was intended to make people think it was a fact. Take another look at the way he worded it. He said, Was Ms. Braden REALLY persuaded by Mrs. Vanzant...... If he meant to pose it as a possibility, then he would have said, Is it possible that Ms. Braden was persuaded by Mrs. Vanzant, or Could the reason Ms. Braden was hired be.....
He knew the difference and knew exactly what he was doing when he worded it that way. He was planting his "assumption" into people's minds as fact. If not, and it really was unintentional, then he is not nearly as smart as some of you give him credit for. One of the two is true anyway.
Braden has stated Vanzant asked her to go to finance office, after she had quit again. Since its not Vanzant's responsibility to staff the finance office, but Garner's, it speaks for itself the reason Vanzant injected herself into it. Garner needs to wake up, get some backbone and take charge of what she is being paid $70,000 for.
12:58 you never cease to amaze with your incredible powers and psycho deductions. If you had any reading comprehension you would be able to understand the grammatical structure of a simple sentence. Wab asked a question and you try to turn it into some kind of secret coded racial slur. If you would read some of wab's entries with an open mind or even better talk with wab for a few minutes you would see that he is a very plain spoken person who says simply what he means and means what he says. I have never heard him use any racially charged language, I have heard him say on more than one occasion that having grown up in the fifties there are many things he was taught that he later decided were wrong and it required an almost constant examination to prevent some of those teachings from being an active part of his belief system and character. It's awfully hard to drink from the same canteen and suck the same mud then think the person you shared those things with was somehow inferior because they happen to be a different color. If you are looking to make Wab a racist or some racially motivated jerk you're simply looking in the wrong direction.
Why don't you just wake you to the facts in this matter and stop trying to change them into your own fantasy?
11:01
Nice try. Your attempt to hide the real point of 12:58's post by bringing up the issue of racism is quite thinly veiled. The poster never inferred anything about any racial slurs. The point was that wab's language was meant to make people believe something negative about Mrs. Vanzant and everyone in local government who he doesn't agree with. The post really has nothing to do with Ms. Braden and everything to do with his attempt to make people believe everyone in authority in this county who disagrees with him is corrupt. So either you are doing the same thing wab was and trying to implant the idea of racism into this topic in order to hide wab's true intent or you aren't as bright as you think and have no ability to read with comprehension yourself.
Thank you 11:27 for backing me up on WAB's wording of this topic.
Neither WAB nor anyone else has to deliberately go about putting Mrs. VanZant in a negative light. She does that all on her own!
June 16 4;53 VERY WELL SAID, COULD NOT AGREE MORE.
You can do many things to me but you never talk about the family and that is all yall are doin on here. The only screw up in this town is people like yall making your small town drama!
Anna
8:42 what does that post have to do with anything discussed here.
Anna what do you perceive as being done to you? What family is being talked about?
Anna is trying to run with "the old bloggers" as she so eloquently puts it under the topic of Leaps and Bounds. Unfortunately, she needs a few more years under her belt before she can run with the old uns 'cause she gets confused - out of her realm no doubt.
An amazing revelation was made at the Budget Committee meeting Monday. Mrs Garner revealed in a discussion with several commissioners listening that she had not even reviewed the personnel records of Mrs. Braden nor did she have any knowledge of her previous work record at the school board before hiring her and giving her a $3,000.00 pay increase.
I asked her directly if it was her normal procedure to hire someone without even looking at their personnel records to see if they had ever been reprimanded or reported as having less than a desirable work history. Her response was that, "I didn't feel it was necessary". Allen Barrett
She is bragging that she has been promised more money. She says Vanzant promised her more money if she would come back. I guess that is await and see.
There is no wait and see, she already had been given a 3 thousand dollar raise.
No, she already knew she would get the $26,000 before she quit. She was promised more than that to come back. She was told that it would not be right away but soon. She told several people about that.
My experience in dealing with employees is, if they ask for money or they will quit and you give it to them , it is a never ending cycle to keep happening over and over. A lot of the time it is just a threat. Four or five years ago I had a good employee try this. I told them I would not pay more and I didn't blame them for leaving if they could better themselves, they are still an employee and haven't ask for a raise since.
In response to what Mr Barrett reports on Ms Garners lack of checking personnel records, Garner needs to be removed.
One of the things we need most is fiscal responsibility. When revenues and total spending are increaseing far more than the raises given to the core workforce, something terrible is happening! That something is significant negative productivity. The net objective of the school system is teaching, getting the children to school, facillities, and supplies for them to learn - NOT ADMINISTRATION or big increases for a few! It is time for a roll back - wages preferences included!
I would agree with most of what you said, and readily accept thaat I may have misunderstood you ideas. However, it is absolutey Not the responsibility of the school system to get them to school by providing transportation. That's a luxury the the system provides. Parent's are responsble for getting their kids there, just as they are responsible for getting themselves to work. I am glad we have the bus system, but with the price of gas, I do see that as a viable area in which we may attempt to allow parents to parent their own child. If it was a social activity that the child wanted to go to, the parent would provide a means for the child to attend. Wherever did the idea come from that kids are "owed"transportation? People who work for the schools, whose families would not survive are not afford that luxory of mass transit, but if an emergency arises, they find a way to get there on time. I for one am sick of the "entitlement mentality" of so many.
(I apologize, as this is not the original tipic of the blog thread, but I felt that it needed to be said.)
I don't think doing away with transportation is the answer. I don't have a child in the school system so this would not affect me but the amount of people who work and cannot get their kids to school would be enormous. Maybe a fee for transportation would help. The buses were stopped about a dozen years ago for about a week and that was a an absolute disaster!!
Well I do think transportation to school is now the school boards responsibility for the one and only reason that now parents have to go to court and possibly will go to jail if their children miss to many days or do not attend school. This is the law all children under 18 HAVE to go to school, not should, can or may but MUST attend school-so therefore the burden should be put on them to provide transportation to and from the schools.
There are still people who have children who if they miss the bus do not go to school that day because they have no other way of getting to school.
By the way it's not a luxury anymore, it is so they can make sure they get as many children to school everyday so that get the most money they can from the government. If a child misses a day the system misses out on money for that day of attendance for that child. It really has nothing to do with making sure that children learn its all about the money.
Anna,
You just have to realize that there's a small group of people in this county who are angry because they have no political power. They are unrelenting in their attacks on certain individuals. You just have to keep that in mind when reading their venomous statements.
You have a great family, and I know it has to be frustrating to see the way these people try to malign and smear others. Perhaps if they would themselves get jobs they wouldn't have as much time to attack those who are working and trying to make a difference!
If Ms Garner said she didnt know anything about Ms Bradens work record she was not telling the truth as I know for fact when bills were not being paid through the school system and in the area which Ms Barden was responsible for, vendor would send copies of his company communications to Ms Garner.
That may not be true since Ms. Braden blames everything on someone else. I'm sure Ms. Garner had been told that it was not her fault. There has been a lot that she has done or not done that has been blamed on other people. I'm sure Ms. Garner will find out soon enough.
Yeah, she does have a tendency to blame others doesn't she? I have experienced that myself with her on more than one occasion. It is a shame that she never gets the heat from any of her large foul-ups. How do you get a job in the finance office again?? Screw-up, take numerous days off from work, go missing for hours on end during the work day. Seems she gets treated a little differently than her other co-workers doesn't it? Wonder how they feel about it? I hear her knew co-workers have taken notice of her poor work ethic not to mention what they heard of her work ethic before she came over from the central office. I am taking about the position she was in at the central office that she RESIGNED from. Or did she? I wonder if she had to apply for the job she has now like everyone else. Would only seem fair and LEGAL considering she RESIGNED.
It is all around that Janet Vanzant is the one that begged Braden to come to work at the finance office. At least that is what Braden was telling everyone. Who is running the finance office Vanzant or Garner? Bet Vanzant wishes that Braden would have kept her mouth shut. No, its okay I guess since Vanzant will lie as usual to get cover her a$%. Funny actually, Garner says she is the one that made the decision to hire Braden. Well, Girls(Vanzant & Garner)you guys should have gotten on the same page before broadcasting the circumstances for hiring Braden back.
My, my this county and SOME of the public officials in it are a joke!! I guess that is why neighboring counties speak of how ignorant our county is.
No, what surrounding counties are doing is laughing at Giles County because of all the bickering and complaining here by a small group of individuals who are unhappy with their political impotence.
If you think there is a small group of unhappy citizens then you have another thought coming. Why don't you get informed a little. Are you a taxpayer? If so, you should care! People that work for the county are accountable to the taxpayers that pay their salary. That includes you as well if you pay county taxes. It is apparent you can't handle the facts. And, if your comments cannot extend past the above post, then my what a shallow-minded person you really are. I am in direct contact on a regular basis with each of the counties that touch Giles County. You can speculate with your comments, but I happen to know the facts.
This county is an utter joke to those surrounding us! Not enough good people in current elected positions have enough of an upper-hand to overrule those who are in it for other reasons than the betterment of this county and the citizens in it.
My guess would be is that you have your head stuck in the sand and possibly related or good friends to one of the many criticized.
Wake up!!
anonymous..
I don't have to think it; I know it. They (the small group) are constantly tooting their own horns about how smart they are. It's almost become a routine to check the letters section of the paper to see what new "beef" they have. Yes, this county is somewhat of joke because of all the accusations, suspicions, name-calling, etc.
You stated that there are not enough good people in elected positions. Laughable. Who would you suggest? Oh, let me guess. Do the names Barrett, Ross, don m, and others ring a bell?
And I have some facts as well. So don't play that card, OK? I too am in contact with people in the surrounding counties, and I've heard their criticisms. Obviously, you and I are not hearing the same people. That being the case, you have your "facts" and I have mine.
It was quite silly of you to ask if I'm a taxpayer. Aren't we all? Why do you assume that I don't care? Ridiculous.
Lastly, anyone with a brain cell knows that government is answerable to the people. I've also been to school, so don't assume my indifference and ignorance!
Your guess about my position ,which opposes yours, is absurd. My head isn't in the sand, and I owe no allegiance whatsoever to those you people crucify. That silly statement smacks of the distrust and dislike you people have for those who don't do things EXACTLY the way you want them done.
I think you are the one who needs to wake up!
Go ahead 7:33 stick your head back in the sand. I am not one of the few you label "YOU PEOPLE". Ignorance sure is bliss isn't it?? I don't know what planet you hailed from, but it is my right as a taxpayer to be involved and educated when it comes to my taxpaying dollars. You are either a full blown idiot to not entertain the thought that there is corruption of mass proportions in our county government or you are part of the problem. Number one starting with our dear County Exec.
It hurts to hear you are called a joke doesn't it? Well, I don't know what people you converse with in other counties but I can most assuredly guarantee you that we are laughed at due to our gross misrepresentation in government partially becausee of the hooligans we have elected into public office. Any relatives or friends of yours? I thought maybe so since your cheeks have become so chapped. You have most certainly expressed to me that you don't know which end is up and far more ignorant than those you call "you people" if you think its all roses and apple pies here in Giles County. Further, convincing me of just how much you really know about what is TRUTH around this county, rather what you choose to believe.
Seriously, you need to take a breath and step back if you think I was educating you on your rights as a taxpayer. In the very least I would think you know the elected officials that run our county government are accountable to us the people. If you just realized that and felt you had to point it out I truly feel sorry for you as you seem to be quite dense.
You must like government corruption cover-ups if you don't have any respect for those willing to investigate for your well-being and mine as a taxpayer to get to the truth.
Hurry up now and get back to your hole in the sand before the tide comes in.
I too have heard us joked about in other counties. The joke is all about WAB and his coherts shinanigans. The punch by a wagging finger for example. Never heard of anybody getting punched by a finger. A punch is usually with a fist. A poke is with a finger. Did anyone see a fist in the video? Nope!!! That kind of thing is the joke that is being laughed about in other counties.
6:53 you are so dumb. Have you ever had heart surgery and been left with a scar down your chest. Do you have any idea how sensitive that scar is for the rest of your life. I had heart surgery in 1997 and it is still so sensitive even my shirt hurts at times. I understand Mr. Barrett also had heart surgery a few years ago so I can identify with him, if I was poked in the chest it would no doubt hurt a great deal.
But the issue isn't about how much it hurt or if it was a punch or a poke, a fist or a finger. The law is very clear that any aggressive, uninvited touch by another person is considered an assault. Just as you don't have to be raped to bring charges of sexual harassment you don't have to be hospitalized to bring assault charges.
The lawyer was wrong and WAB was right to charge him. The court upheld WAB and punished the lawyer.
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "You just can't handle the truth".
annonymous 8:34
To use the word you called me, I think you are a TOTAL idiot. Just because I don't like what the malcontents are doing and just because I do not see eye-to-eye with you does NOT mean that I go along with things for the sake of getting along. And NO, I don't have relatives or friends in any of the offices people like you so wantonly crucify.
As for the "finger" incident, let me just say that if anyone gets in my face smarting off, I will do more than use a finger to deal with the situation.
By the way, it shocked me that a minister would sue someone over something like that. Is that not sending the wrong message to the congregation? That is, if the minister preaches on praying for enemies. Am I right or wrong about that?
To anonymous of the 11 July 10:06 post.
Since I am that minister that was involved in the incident I feel I have a right to respond.
First, in your response to the other Anonymous you state, "To use the word you called me, I think you are a TOTAL idiot." That anonymous referred to you as being "dumb" you claim to use his same word but refer to him/her as a "TOTAL idiot", that was not their word. This is typical of what you very often do in responding to posters, whether you can't understand, don't want to understand or are just intellectually lazy, the result is the same, you make statements using words but without a knowledge of those word meanings.
I'm sure if you hold true to form you'll come back with "you know what I meant". Well, the reason we use words to communicate instead of thoughts is so those thoughts can be clearly understood.
Second, you state, "because I do not see eye-to-eye with you does NOT mean that I go along with things for the sake of getting along". I would never claim anyone was wrong based solely on the idea they disagree with me. A person is wrong when they refuse to see anything but their own way and that way is based on something less than the facts.
Third, you state, "As for the "finger" incident, let me just say that if anyone gets in my face smarting off, I will do more than use a finger to deal with the situation". From this statement are we the readers to understand that you would take the law into your own hands but criticize a person who allowed the law to take its course. Would you suggest that when I was struck I should have fought with the attacker. What kind of example would you call that?
Fourth, you state, "By the way, it shocked me that a minister would sue someone over something like that. Is that not sending the wrong message to the congregation?"
Again you show your ignorance or mental laziness or open desire to mislead. No one was sued over the matter, assault charges were filed and since you have so much trouble remembering those charges were valid and warranted based on the fact the man pleaded guilty to them or doesn't that matter to you?
Fifth, you state, "if the minister preaches on praying for enemies".
Would you have me believe that if I "preach praying for our enemies" that I should have no objection if that enemy tried to shoot me, just keep on praying. Sorry, I believe strongly in praying for others even enemies but I don't pray for them to be successful in their efforts to destroy me or mine.
Which would you do if someone threatened to rape your child, (1) pray for them to do it quickly; (2) pray they not do it; (3) pray they not do it and do all you could to prevent it? I would choose number three also.
If you would try to see things in a more intellectually honest way instead of through the jaundiced eyes of your personal prejudice you might not end up looking so desperate and out of touch with reality. Allen Barrett
wab...
Actually, I've about decided that you don't know what I meant. Incredible.
You stated that a person is wrong when he refuses to see any way other than his own. Well, doesn't that also apply to you?
What I SAID about the finger situation is that I would not tolerate some smart aleck getting in my face. I would do more than push him back with my finger. If you call that taking the law into my own hands then so be it. I would not put up with it one bit. Did I suggest that you should have fought with the lawyer? NO. Again, your understanding seems limited.
Excuse me, but didn't Christ pray for his enemies? He certainly did. You'll recall that he prayed the Father forgive them for they know not what they do. And they KILLED Him anyway! Again, your lack of understanding is obvious.
Finally, allow me to be "intellectually honest" with you about what I would do if someone threatened to rape my child. I might pray for the person making the threat after I dealt with him harshly!
You are absolutely unbelievable. You tend to be looking at the world through a keyhole in the door while having the audacity (obama word again) to say I am out of touch with reality. Truly laughable.
To anonymous of the 11 July 7:56 post.
It's a simply matter of taking the things you say to their logical end.
If you didn't suggest that I fight with the lawyer please tell me what was "your suggestion"since yo criticized me for allowing the authorities to handle the matter.
Sorry to disappoint you but I fall a long ways short of Christ. Based on your statements apparently while you expect better of others you require nothing from yourself as you would deal harshly with a rapist. I would hope you would deal more than harshly with them.
As for your comment about peeping through a keyhole that seems more along your line of activity. I don't mean that in any perverted way other than in the tunnel vision you seem to have. Allen Barrett
wab
How is dealing harshly with an intended rapist any different from refusing to turn the other cheek from a Biblical standpoint?
You "allowed" the authorities to handle the finger incident. But could you not have dropped the charges and prayed for the man who despitefully used you? Bringing suit against him doesn't seem to harmonize with Christ's teachings on forgiveness. But perhaps making him pay was more important. Only you can answer that question.
You mentioned that I expect more of others than I do of myself. You got me on that one. But here's the kicker. You DID assume a higher calling when you became a minister, and I am often shocked by the things you do and say that, at least to me, do NOT harmonize with Biblical teachings. Perhaps it's hypocritical of me for pointing that out, but you are just as guilty. And though it's not fair to you, the difference between us is that I'm not a minister.
The difference in you and wab is he is a man and you are a petty Pharisee with very little real understanding of the Bible.
anonymous..
You don't know a thing about my manhood or about my Bible knowledge. Ridiculous.
You just never know. I may see you in church tomorrow morning and not realizee who you are. Ironic, isn't it?
Your being in church has nothing to do with your manhood or knowledge of the Bible. What you have shown on this blog is what has revealed you as a petty Pharisee with no real understanding of the Bible.
Can we now get back to the topic??? Or, has everyone forgotten what we were talking about?
Post a Comment
<< Home