When You Wear Many Hats How Do You Tell Which Is Which?
The question is was Mr Hoover acting in his role of City Attorney, PES Attorney or PES Lobbyist when he arranged meetings with some City Council Members to discuss and sway their votes to re-appoint Mr. Bryant and Mr. Houston to the Power Board.
These meetings were in direct violation of the state Open Meetings Act, "Sunshine Law". Does this state law have no meaning to one sworn to abide by the law or was it simply overlooked for convenience sake?
Perhaps these questions will be answered at the City Council Work session to be held on 17 August at 4:30 in the Pulaski City Hall. Folks, this will be a very important meeting and only your presence will ensure that answers will be given. You showed up in mass at the PES hearing we can't drop the ball now if there is to be any real change in the way business is done by the Mayor and his appointees. Allen Barrett
These meetings were in direct violation of the state Open Meetings Act, "Sunshine Law". Does this state law have no meaning to one sworn to abide by the law or was it simply overlooked for convenience sake?
Perhaps these questions will be answered at the City Council Work session to be held on 17 August at 4:30 in the Pulaski City Hall. Folks, this will be a very important meeting and only your presence will ensure that answers will be given. You showed up in mass at the PES hearing we can't drop the ball now if there is to be any real change in the way business is done by the Mayor and his appointees. Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 10:40 AM
36 Comments:
I think it is an expected practice for our city attorney, mayor, lobbyist, economic developer and PES attorney and all like them to do underhanded work. These guys should be ashamed of their actions. One day, as always, the score will get settled!
He has not done anything anyone else hadn't done on that board. You have one in particular that has gone around lately trying to sway opinions, support or the like.
Because someone else did worse does that make it OK to do bad?
1) Is there a law against this?
2) Is there any credible evidence of wrong-doing? (Oh and in case you're wondering, griping on a blog does not constitute credible evidence)
To:Friday, August 14, 2009 9:48:00 AM - hahahaha! Great parenthetical retort!
I think we should get our mayor and aluminum hat so he can communicate with the planet Bongol to get up to the minute updates on the lowdown at the electric factory, coordinate it with ruling the masses, cruise around town, check out the boozers, & make some $.
As far as Hoover and other Speerites -- let's get them out of office either by outster or by next year's upcoming election. Hoover needs to resign. If he don't then let vote for Aldermen that will force him out. He's in DIRECT conflict of interest with him being a lobbist and all. How much has the Speered rubber stampers paid him for lobbying????
How much have we the taxpayers and ratepayers paid for the Speerites luxuries??? I want to know. And where are all the industries??? Maybe some of the Speerites can answer this. What about it Stoney Jackson? Bill Holt? Tommy Campbell? Mark Hayes? Hascal Mays?
Jimmy Green? Pat Miles? Charles Jenkins? Where have all the industries gone? Why can't we get commercial businesses in here. And don't give me because we're not enforcing Zoning. Ask Marshall County, they've got zoning and they're still fighting landfills. No the businesses are not coming here because they don't want to sink their money into a dead hole. There is no growth here and there are no jobs here. And when the Speerites say they (a business or industry) are coming, look-out their months are moving again. No industries, no jobs, no new businesses, low income jobs that are here. There's nothing here in Pulaski - Giles County. Even the present (still barely alive) factories are permanently laying off employees. Sounds like the Speerites are getting what they've always wanted... a little retirement town where the same ole, same ole people keep getting back into the official positions and these select Speerites continue to run this little county like little Hitlers. Let's stop the insanity!
One thing is for certain. If someone with a prospective industry read all these negative comments, I'M sure they would want to look elsewhere.
One other thing for sure is the fact, that if we did something positive to eliminate corruption, high taxes, & underhanded dealing, we would have somethinng very positive to attract all kinds of businesses.
Business is in business to run an efficient operation and make money. The last thing they want is a bunch of controlling idiots trying to stiffle productivity, innovation, & profitability.
old farmer proverb -
run the rats off & you'll have grain to sell - otherwise plan on starving & hard times!
Think about it - what could be worse than dumbass politicians taking money and telling people what they can't do!
I wonder what the blogmaster thinks of the last paragraph of the above post?
755 ever read the Bible? Ever go to a dumbocrat rally?
If the ears are big enough to hear, but the brain is too small to comprehend, the description might be a dumb ass.
to Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:53:00 PM -- anything would be better than being surrounded by the likes of you.
I bet Speer and Hoover have to have extra pockets. Special tailors to make pants with more pockets. To handle their multiple employment. City. Pulaski Electric. Pulaski Electric Lobbyist. Economic Development Director. Hey! We could buy them both a wheelbarrow to actually watch as our taxdollars go whizzing by.
Read Hebrews 10:19-25. When you do, I hope your cheeks are burning with shame.
Would you not agree 7:19 that correction is an expression of love and leads to good works? Allen Barrett
I would agree that correcting a child or a friend bent on self-destruction (examples) would be an expression of love, but I'm not in agreement that what you are doing in this county is done out of a spirit of love.
Your cheeks should be burning with shame, but pride can be very hard to overcome sometimes.
To 1:01 Do you think correcting only a child or friend would be an expression of love. What if a stranger was about to sat on a freshly painted bench or touch a live electric wire? Does correction of strangers not qualify as an act of love?
You state that, "I'm not in agreement that what you are doing in this county is done out of a spirit of love." Since you are an authority on what motivates me you must know me extremely well since motivation is one of those characteristics that only God and the individual can truly judge. Now I know for an absolute fact you are not me so are you claiming to be God?
Let me make it clear for you, I love this county, it's the only place I have ever chosen to live. I would love to see it be the best it can possibly be. There is much that is very right here but there are also some things that are just plain wrong. So while much of what I seek to see changed is motivated by love, certainly some things are motivated from simple self preservation and the desire to keep other people's hands out of my pockets and controlling my life. Now, I have told you what motivates me, perhaps you would be so kind as to show some factual evidence that disputes my claim and supports yours. Please spare me a soliloquy about your feelings. Allen Barrett
Mr. Barrett..
Look, I gave you a couple of examples and even placed the word in parentheses for you. But you want to make it appear that I only see two things that qualify as acts of love. I recall the story of the good Samaritan. Do you?
Claiming to be God? I think your hat band is on a bit tight. Would you say the things you call Mrs. Vanzant and others are motivated by love? I'm quite sure you provoke them, but not unto good works?
7:35, oh 7:35, how you mix potatoes and bologna in your effort to make a gourmet meal.
In your explanation "clarifying" your 1:01 post you state, "Mr. Barrett..Look, I gave you a couple of examples and even placed the word in parentheses for you. But you want to make it appear that I only see two things that qualify as acts of love. "In your 1:01 post you state, "I would agree that correcting a child or a friend bent on self-destruction (examples) would be an expression of love". By specifying two distinctive groups of people instead of simply stating that correcting a person (any person), you took the emphasis off the people as the subject and placed it on "self-destruction". Thus you gave not two examples but only one and that was "an act of love was one that saved a person from self destruction". I simply responded by asking, should correcting strangers from other than "self-destruction" also qualify as an act of love.
Now the comment about you claiming to be God was not based on your overt claim but the assumption stated by you that you knew my motivation for behaviors. Knowing that only the individual (who has a limited understanding of their own motivation) and God (who has a more complete understanding) can actually discern the truth of what motivates a person, it seemed very clear that since I had positive proof that you were not me the only one left that could give a true analysis of my motivation was God. You claimed to know expressly what my motivation was therefore you made the (hopefully) unconscious claim that you were God.
Now I stated there were four things primarily that motivated me one was love, the other three were self preservation and the desire to keep other people's hands out of my pockets and controlling my life.
Having referred to Mrs Vanzant as a liar was the result of her proven disregard of the truth and my personal experience of her having lied directly to me. Were I not willing to recognize her action for what it was I would be working toward my own self destruction and opening my pocket wider for her hand.
Now your last statement is somewhat puzzling in that it implies that you think a person can provoke another person to do good even if that person has determined to do evil. I just disagree with you on that believing that a person will do what they choose to do regardless of how another might seek to provoke them.
One last thing, I noticed that you failed to respond to my question/request, "I have told you what motivates me, perhaps you would be so kind as to show some factual evidence that disputes my claim and supports yours. Please spare me a soliloquy about your feelings." I ask you again as you claim to know what motivates me please give some factual evidence to support your claim. No, I really don't expect you'll respond to that request since all your noise is feeling based not fact based. Allen Barrett
wab
I believe you are the one who thinks he can walk on water and feed the masses with your manna.
What claim? Factual evidence? We are talking about ideas and opinions here. I happen to think you are the polar opposite of what you claim to be. That's my opinion. Is it factual? Maybe not, but it's empirical.
By the way, you failed to answer my question about the good Samaritan, since we are aplitting hair here.
6:30 you just never cease to amaze. You talk in circles and expect people to understand you, you make things up and pretend they are fact, you write things then deny the words you used were actually what you meant and everyone should have known that.
You don't know me at all yet falsely claim to know what motivates me, deny what I offer as my motivation then claim because your observation is so insightful that only you can possibly be right.
Let me try to help you and your "empirical opinion". First so we'll both be on the same page I'm sure you are aware that the word "empirical" simply means relying on experience or observation to form an opinion. Now with that said when a person observes an event they seldom have any knowledge of that event other than what they believe they saw. Thus a person observing a car wreck knows the results but not the cause of the accident. Perhaps the driver was distracted by texting, or was drunk or speeding to the side of a dying family member. They may have experienced a broken tie rod and lost control of the vehicle there are any number of things that could have caused the accident none of which could be determined simply by "empirical opinion".
It's the same when a person speaks, you may understand what they are saying but not necessarily what they are hoping to accomplish and certainly nothing clear about why they are saying what they're saying. So you see the problem here, you may know many things but you will never know what motivates another person to do anything they might do. Motivation in its completeness is known only by God, in part it can be known by the one performing the action.
Now here is an example of your muddled thinking. You state, "By the way, you failed to answer my question about the good Samaritan". The only question from you about the "Good Samaritan" was "I recall the story of the good Samaritan. Do you?". I considered that to be a rhetorical question but if you wanted an answer, Yes I recall the story of the "Good Samaritan".
I also realize you did not answer my question about knowing my motivation so I'll ask you in a different way. Since you are not me and don't claim to be God and since they are the only ones who can know what motivates me, just who are you that you can see into my innermost heart and know factually what is there? Allen Barrett
Mr. Barrett
Of course I know what the word means, and that's why I used it. Do you know what soliloquy is all about?
Your quest for the "Siege Perilous" is so obvious. And that is no soliloquy as I am talking to you.
I can't see your heart. Again, I only go on empirical evidence.
3:55 guess I'll have to give you a verbal spanking for being so arrogant and talking down to people.
Don't you know how that makes people feel when you get on here and talk down to them.
"Siege Perilous" indeed, WAB's place at the Round Table is secure it's the wannabe like you that is in danger trying to occupy a place you have not earned.
4:33
I want nothing to do with the Round Table. Furthermore, I'm not the one who talks down to people. On the contrary, I have been pne who has pointed out the wrongness of talking down to people, calling them names, accusing them of criminal acts, etc. for quite some time now. And that's no soliloquy either.
Thanks Howard you gave me a good laugh by giving the "terminal spanker" some of his own medicine.
As for 3:55 and his "Siege Perilous" comment I only have one King and I already have a secure place at His table hope you do also.
Looks like Howard might have touched a nerve with you and his "talking down comment" Obviously you are not going to answer my question about how you have so much insight into what motivates me without even knowing me so I'll end this discussion with one last comment. Your last sentence states, "And that's no soliloquy either", since a soliloquy is the act of talking to yourself that statement was an absolute soliloquy since none of your comments reflect anything worthwhile to anyone but yourself as you critique your behavior and attitude. Allen Barrett
Mr. Barrett,
You think my response to howard was laughable. I would think a man in your position would choose to pray for and attempt to convict the gainsayer rather than laugh at him.
I have told you at least twice that my insights into your behavior is purely empirical. Are you familiar with the scripture regarding "by their stripes ye shall know them?" It's the same concept. In simpler terms, if it walks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
No soliloquy at all sir; I was describing your behavior.
Are empirical. Sorry about that. Subject and verb were not in agreement, so I thought I'd correct that before someone makes an issue of it.
To the anonymous 6:39 poster.
So now I'm not suppose to laugh when something is funny? I'm not surprised that you can't see the irony in Howard's post as he exposed your hypocrisy.
You state, "I have told you at least twice that my insights into your behavior is purely empirical. Are you familiar with the scripture regarding "by their stripes ye shall know them?"
Empirical basically means by observation and there is much that can be learned by observation but not everything.
Here's the thing I've tried to get across to you many times and using ""by their stripes ye shall know them" maybe you can now understand. A person is identified by their observed behavior, that means a liar is identified by the behavior of lying, a thief is known by the behavior of stealing, etc. Now here's the thing, at no time can anyone simply observe another person or their behavior and determine why that person is doing what they do. Certainly you can, by observation, know what they are doing but not why. Knowing a person is a thief is not the same as knowing why they steal. This is my contention with you, you claim to know why I do things that you observe me doing when you really have no clue as to why I, or anyone else, is doing what they do.
Observation only tells you what a person is doing not why. Motivation is what causes a person to do a thing and only the individual and God are aware of what that is. That's one reason man has no authority to determine if another person is actually saved or not.
You state, "if it walks like a duck, it is probably a duck."
You limit your insight. I'm not sure if it's because you're lazy in your thinking or just incapable of thinking beyond the most obvious. You fall upon an idea and are satisfied with it so that you just never seem to explore the deeper meaning.
Your analogy of the duck is a prime example. Are you not aware that many especially young geese look and walk very much like a duck? Are you not aware that there are dozens of breeds of ducks each with their own characteristics?
It's like when I asked you how many sides a board has and you said four when I told you there were six you couldn't accept that but it's a fact. Allen Barrett
to 6:40
You need to get a life. If your only concerned about the subject and verb. Your problem is Mr. Barrett brings up stuff that needs everyones attention good or bad. He deserves to laugh just like everyone else. Try it sometime it might help you. One more thing before you bring it up, I know you are going to say that I am in with Mr. Barrett, but for your information I would not know who he was if I saw him on the street. Mr. Barrett keep up the good work of informing us citizens as what is going on in the county and city government! I may not have used my verbs and subjects correctly.
Come on 6:39 critizing WAB for laughing instead of praying has got to be the most outlandish thing you have ever posted as a criticism of the WABman. You must be goatless cause the WABman sure got yours.
Again, why don't you pray for me instead of laugh at me? Is that what you do when you see a potential convert? I hope not.
To 3:55
I made a very pioignant statement and see absolutely nothing outlandish about it. As for being goatless, I would say you made a true statement. You see, I do not own any goats.
You sure show your stupidity every time you make statements like the one above.
According to your posts, WAB, I would say that you are an ass. Please try to act better.
Like a fly making it's home on a tiolet seat, she lives to get PO'd
I knew she would be back. She can't stand to see anyone have opinions other that hers.
11:05
Mr. Barrett you must have stepped on somebody toes. Keep up the good work Mr. Barrett.
Post a Comment
<< Home