The Wall for What?
During the move into the Courthouse Annex the Election Office made a strong case for building a wall to create a smoother traffic pattern for voters on Election Day. Alternatives were offered by different commissioners and citizens including a temporary wall that could be moved during non-election days at a significant savings. Finally at the insistence of the Election officials a permanent block wall was built at a cost of about $18,000.00.
As those voting on Election Day know voting no longer is done in the courthouse Annex but is now at Martin College.
Why was this wall, at such great expense, built then the Election Commission move the voting precinct to Martin College?
As those voting on Election Day know voting no longer is done in the courthouse Annex but is now at Martin College.
Why was this wall, at such great expense, built then the Election Commission move the voting precinct to Martin College?
posted by Allen Barrett | 4:50 PM
51 Comments:
It was built because the election woman whined and the commissioners won't say No to anybody.
What wall are we talking about?
It was a wall build in the suntrust courthouse annex basement to accomodate the election office, moving from the old courthouse. Bassham wanted it built for "privacy" of the voters. Then she and the election commission arranged for the voters on voting day to move to Martin. My question is, if it worked out ok for early voting why was there a problem on the actual voting day? Bassham got her privacy cause they even created a private office for herself.
18,000 dollars for a wall are you crazy? Who in their right mind would approve something like that the thing can't be twenty feet long, good grief, no wonder people are mad
at the way money is spent around here.
The budget committee approved it, the commission approved it, Vanzant pushed it, James Harwell pushed it Bill Holt pushed it, Stoney Jackson and Judge Lee offered alternatives at less than half the cost but Mrs Bassham wanted it, said he needed it and had to have it.
WAB spoke strongly against it and offered an alternative but had no vote.
So........who needs to be put in jail or humiliated for this atrocity? Outrageous!
Our commissioners are accountable. Kathy should have been told no. Clearly our commissioners are not very good stewards of our county tax dollars. Remember that next election!
Anonymous 9:54, you are right it is outrageous. However I am guessing you mean how outrageous that anyone complain money was spent so frivolously. If so, that gives every indication that you are either one of the commissioners in favor of uncontrollable spending or you are one of the ladies in the election office. Hmmm...which could it be?
anonymous..
It's NONE of your darned business who I am. But since you made in an issue, let me just say that I have nothing whatsoever to do with the election commission office or with county government. I just get tired of people like you trying to find fault with everything. Can't you find one positive thing to say about county government? I doubt it.
There are a lot good things to say about county governemnt. There is only one county executive, only one mayor, only 21 commissioners. Vanzant and holt can't run everything even if they keep trying.
several commissioners are finding a backbone to stand up for what's right instead of what's easy.
The govermnemnt both city and county haven't run all the businesses and factories out yet, even though they have tried.
We still have the Hunter Smith building so there's plenty of entertainment watching the bricks fall.
One of these you guys are going to piss off the wrong one with your accusations and smearing. Have you ever thought about that?
Better to pissed of, than pissed on!
ooops..Better to pissed off, than pissed on
Why did I expect a smart-aleck remark to that? Like I said, one of these days you are going to go too far with the smearing.
You call the truth smearing? You are apparently comprehension challenged. All public officials are open to scrutiny. If they don't like it then do the right thing or better yet don't seek public office. As the spouse of a former elected official. My spouse has been criticzed a great deal in the past. I however, understand that comes with the territory. So, you really don't have an argument.
I only hope you are right.
I wonder how much & how long it too the Chinese to build their wall. Wonder why somebody didn't think about hanging cheap sheets from the ceilling to the floor. Somebody said she didn't want to work in a building full of sheets.
Well "somebody" always seems to have something critical to say around this county. Would you want to work under those conditions? I think not.
What conditions are you speaking of, the totally remodeled office, the privacy that she never had before, the office she completely designed at great cost, the furnishings that she picked out? Just what conditions are you speaking of?
ruby..
Why is it that you are whining about this? Could it be that you are one of the commissioners? I think your muscle flexing exercise over something that was really not your concern is preposterous. Get a life.
The conditions I was talking about (and you knew it very well) was the reference to the hanging sheets! I would imagine that you would find fault with those (the sheets) too.
By the way, you don't know what you're talking about. But....will there be a retraction? I doubt it. That seems par for the course for you guys.
ruby,
I just thought of something else that proves your post is wrong about the "great cost" involved. The reporter (wab) was at every single meeting, and he knows how the furnishings were paid for and from what fund. Why don't you check with him next time before you go shooting off your mouth?
And you call me a pin head?
Now, how about that retraction?
Dont matter what fund the furnishings and renovations were paid from. The fact that it was county funds does make it "Ruby's" concern. When she wrote about high costs she was talking about a $25,000 wall built by Brindley (of course). A few 2 x 4, few sheets of wallboard and a door - $25,000? Most of the commissioners were agag about that cost. Then the area was only used for part of the last election. Therein lies the rub.
I don't think Ruby claimed a great expense for the furnishings only for the wall itself.
It seems that she was merely responding to your claim that the working conditions in the election office were below acceptable.
20 Sept.8:08 puts it very clearly and fairly. I believe it is the responsibility of every good citizen to be concerned with how "their" money is being spent.
I sat in the budget meeting where this wall was discussed and several alternatives were offered at great savings, none were offered to hang sheets over anything.
There is one thing very clear in this whole matter; the Commissioners approved the building of the wall based on trust in the individual giving them information that made anything other than a permanent block wall unacceptable then. After it was built it was decided not to use it for the purpose originally presented as "required". The whole thing was an unnecessary expense that strongly resembles getting money for school buses then spending it on other things. Ruby is definitely right on this one. Allen Barrett
wab...
May I refer you back to the 8:51post where somebody made that statement about the sheets? I interpreted it to mean that somebody actually said that. Isn't that what it said?
Ruby made reference to the privacy the lady never had, the office she completely designed (an adjacent mail room that she was offered for an office),and the furnishings she picked out. That wall didn't cost $25,ooo, and the furnishings were bought from a used furniture store. As for privacy, why wouldn't someone in her position be allowed some privacy when she needs to confer privately with someone? I will say again that the office was not her idea to begin with. Why didn't you inform your readers as to where the money came from to pay for these changes? I'm sure you know. It's not very responsible journalism to leave out important information. In fact, it's dishonest.
I want you to answer one question for me. Are you accusing Mrs. Bassham of being dishonest or that she purposely misrepresented the need for the wall? It's a simple question. It's either YES, she was dishonest or NO, she wasn't. Please answer that one for me.
8:17
Adding the bank's former mail room to the election office footage WAS Kathy Bassham's idea. The money to fund the renovations came from the county hotel/motel tax. Obviously the wall wasn't necessary. Thisd money could have been used for something else. What WAB and the commissioners dont like is when pleading for the wall to be built Ms Bassham didnt tell the commissioners only early voting would be held behind the wall. She never said the voters who usually voted in the old courtroom basement on election day would be moved to Martin Methodist. Thats why the commissioners didnt like what happened. It dont make sense to split the venue. Confusing to folks. Around here we call it deceiving by omitting the whole picture or story.
Wrong! She was asked if she would like that little room turned into an office. This is a fact so please stop trying to stir up trouble, OK? You are also wrong about where the funds came from. Ask the reporter.
There's a lot of talk on this blog about people hiding behind "anonymous". This would seem a grand opportunity for you to be brave and identify yourself.
WAB
Please settle the discussion on where the funds came from for renovations of the election office.
To anonymous of the 21 Sept. 8:17 post.
Sorry, I wasn’t able to answer these questions until now. What was said in the 8:51 post was “Wonder why somebody didn't think about hanging cheap sheets from the ceiling to the floor”, that seems a big stretch to “I interpreted it to mean that somebody actually said that”. It seems this is part of the problem with understanding, you just don’t read carefully enough. What Ruby wrote seemed to be in response to the post directly above hers which asked “Well "somebody" always seems to have something critical to say around this county. Would you want to work under those conditions? I think not.”
For the matter of the “$25,000.00 wall”. My notes reveal that the cost of the wall was to have been just over $18,000.00 so unless there was some over run cost and someone will correct me I have to stay with that number. The $25,000.00 number I believe probably included some of the other renovations to the office.
You state, “I will say again that the office was not her idea to begin with.” Whether the office was hers originally or not I don’t know but without question she is the one who presented the idea to the budget committee and lobbied for it. I certainly don’t fault her for that.
You state, “Why didn't you inform your readers as to where the money came from to pay for these changes? I'm sure you know. It's not very responsible journalism to leave out important information. In fact, it's dishonest”.
I would say that if vitally important information is intentionally left out so as to alter the integrity of the statement that would certainly be dishonest, based on that I find it incredible that you would even mention the word dishonest. If you will go back and read what I posted you’ll see that I not only did not mention where the money came from but I, nor Ruby, mentioned what the amount was. The $25,000.00 amount was mentioned in a post by anonymous in their 20 Sept 8:08 statement. My response had been in defense of what Ruby wrote therefore since nothing had been said about the specific amount, surely even you would agree that over $18,000.00 is a lot for a simple block wall with two doors, nor was the question asked about where the money came from I did not see that as pertinent and certainly did not, do not see it in any way as dishonest. As far as I know all the money for the renovation came from the litigation funds. There was some discussion about using the hotel, motel tax but that was dismissed.
Your final comment is the most irritating and disingenuous of all as you state, “I want you to answer one question for me. Are you accusing Mrs. Bassham of being dishonest or that she purposely misrepresented the need for the wall? It's a simple question. It's either YES, she was dishonest or NO, she wasn't. Please answer that one for me.
Your question and your demand for a simplistic yes or no reveals your total shallowness in thinking. If you can show me one statement where I questioned Mrs. Bassham’s honesty, understand your inability to understand the meaning of words does not count, I will be more than happy to take out an ad in the newspaper apologizing to the whole world for existing.
I have yet to find reason to question Mrs. Bassham as being anything other than honest. I have always found her to be very helpful, pleasant and approachable.
What I wrote was “There is one thing very clear in this whole matter; the Commissioners approved the building of the wall based on trust in the individual giving them information that made anything other than a permanent block wall unacceptable then. After it was built it was decided not to use it for the purpose originally presented as "required". The whole thing was an unnecessary expense that strongly resembles getting money for school buses then spending it on other things”. I stand by that statement completely.
Mrs. Bassham’s record of honesty was, I believe, a factor in the decision by the commissioners approving the wall as she requested. I do not know or have cause to think she had any knowledge at the time of the request that the voting precinct would be moved. I would be extremely disappointed if she did have. My understanding is that after the wall was built the “election commission” made the decision to move the voting precinct, a move I consider not only stupid and unnecessary but a terrible waste of space and money. Allen Barrett
As I mentioned in the above post the money for the courthouse renovation as far as I know came from the "ligation tax". Allen Barrett
That is exactly correct! You should have clarified that at the outset.
wab
Good answer. If it's up to the election commisssion to move the precenct, it's obviously not your call. Thank you. Now that is what I call more responsible journalism!
wab..looks like you just couldn't help but go back to your usual smart-alecky comments (total shallowness, irritating, disingenuious, etc.). Why is it that it's OK for you to critique others who question you, but it is unacceptable for them to criticize you? Can you see the hypocrisy there?
anonymoose when are you gonna see the difference is that wab uses facts to support what he says while you just keep on relying on your tender feelings. grow up and become relevant.
name-caller....
Why don't you get it through your thick head that the argument is not about who is right or wrong but about conceit and arrogance? Look those two words up in the dictionary. You might find it an enlightening experience.
I looked up those words as you suggested and both had the same picture of you.
That's your problem anonymous you just don't care about what's right or wrong. You're such a loser.
So typical of you whiners to call names when you don't like to be challenged.
I own my own land, home, and cars and have a very nice and respectable family. That makes me a loser? What dictionary are you using, or what are you drinking while you are using it? What a laugher that one was.
By the way, could you think of anyone you so admire who might be defined by the two new words you learned? You were on the wrong page if you think you saw my picture. So incredibly silly of you!
Who cares if you own your land, home, and cars! I don't recall anyone asking you if you owned anything. If you are into bragging so much, why don't you sign your name so all of us will know just who is so lucky to own all this stuff you seem to think is so important.
What you own isn't a measure of a person. It's the character of the person that separates them from loser to person of quality.
Many own much but are as low life as can be. Your failing is in not being man enough to take responsibility for your self and your inaction in light of evil.
1050 Clearly you respect and admire yourself as do the other crooks, liars, and corrupters who pat you on your little knotted head. You've been living in a pig pen so long you don't know the difference.
Having had a position of respect & importance doesn't make you respectable or important. Oppps -- got to correct that - you are very important to the education of our children & financial well being of the county. If we don'tget you totally away from education & public financial matters ASAP/NOW, the county will be bankrupt in both areas.
Loser of the year takes a bow after crapping in their drawers!
anonymous 8:40
I wasn't bragging, but why would I not be surprised that people like you would think that? Silly, indeed! I was simply pointing out to you that I work and that I own things which make me anything but a loser. And you have the nerve to put a spin on it. No it's people like you who are doing all the harping and name-calling. Will it ever stop? I doubt it.
As long as your mouth is open, your foot will be in it! You are a looser - who else would brag about owning a new Yugo in 2008?
You just don't get it do you. Just because you "own" a few things you think that prevents you being a loser! Wrong your are a loser because have no character, integrity or moral compass. You're a joke looking yo make yourself relevant by trying to bring others down to your level just a typical liberal democrat tactic.
You love that word "relevant" don't you? I just have to laugh again at your suggestion that I have no character or moral compass. Wrong again! A person of character and integrity would never resort to the sleazy name-calling and belittlement of others with whom they disagree. No, a person of moral fortitude might disagree with another but would never resort to the low down tactics you guys are so good at.
Apparently you are certian others like you are conservatives. That's almost enough to make me switch to the democrat party. I said almost, so don't go trying to put some spin on that. OK?
Actions speak louder than your whispered words of self praise.
That asinine comment is irrelevant.
That's why it was meant for you.
341 You were high in class - must have been gluing the tail on the donkey when your nose got stuck in the bottle of glue. You got the words mixed up. It's, a person of sleazy character will always lie, cheat, and corrupt others who disagree with that lifestyle. You just can't accept the fact that no one accepts you or your lifestyle.
As they said in sunday school, babble on babble on. It's a wonder you can play winkum, blinkum, & nod.
And it's a person of sleazy character who would do anything and everything in his/her power to embarrass or malign those he doesn't like. What if one of these people came to your church services tomorrow? Would you sit in the back and point fingers and tell all the brethren what a rotten person that individual is? I always had the idea that church is a hospital for sinners and not for perfect people like some have the audacity to presume they are! Furthermore, what does the Bible have to say about those who sow discord among his brethren? You'll have to agree with me that God takes a pretty dim view of such antics.
No one's efforts to "embarrass and malign" are as great as the reality of the perpetrator who continually shows an unwillingness to do other than "embarrass and malign" themselves.
Church is not a hospital but a sanctuary where forgiveness is experienced. Problem is forgiveness requires a repentance or turning away from the wrong behavior and that is were some fail. There can be no forgiveness of continued habits only for changed lives.
You ask "what does the Bible have to say about those who sow discord among his brethren?" First thing to understand is that not all are His or brothers. Too many times folks assume brotherhood exist when there is none.
You state, "You'll have to agree with me that God takes a pretty dim view of such antics". Truth is I nor anyone else has to agree with you in order for a statement to be true. The truth stands on it's own merits that is why I do not try to make you are anyone else do anything I just give you the truth, what you do with it is then up to you. Allen Barrett
wab..
I think a church is a hospital for sinners, so we just have a difference of perceptions, don't we? Once the sinner has asked for and received forgiveness, the church then becomes a sanctuary.
Speaking of brotherhood, just who would you consider your brethren? A lot of Biblical examples suggest that we all are brothers and that we are our brother's keeper. Right? It makes no difference who you or I consider brothers. The point is that God hates those who sow discord. Your pride wouldn't let you admit that I was right about God's view of those who sow discord and strife. Very clever and laughable! That's ok thought; I know you agree with the statement anyhow.
MADAM Moo (457) Your church is different - it's a hideout for crooks! You visit to make everyone think you are what you aren't.
If you want to be with YOUR brethern, go visit the jail! Don't spend your time trying to corrupt the good people in a real church.
God doesn't seem to parse words like discord, brotherhood, or forgive me when I get caught. Take Sodom & Gamora - Poof - brotherhoods sowing seeds of destruction disappear in a cloud of smoke! Someone is trying to drag you away from harm, but you keep trying to go back & longing for your brotherhood. Better stop it you'll wind up in a salt shaker!
anonymous..
Your infantile remarks and name-calling only prove my point. How's that for gotcha? Laughable.
Post a Comment
<< Home