Ethics Committee Meets For First Time Ever!
After much prodding from various individuals the County Ethics Committee met for the first time this morning 17 February 2010. Members of this committee except for one are appointed by the County Executive. Members include by law the County Clerk Carol Wade and appointed Commissioners Pollard, J. Harwell, Woodard and Flacy. Commissioner Pollard was elected Chairman.
Guidelines were stated for submission of Ethics Complaints. Only complaints that will be considered are those that are filed with the chairman in writing and signed by the submitter. There is no official county form for filing complaints and a simple letter format will be acceptable.
After a couple of procedural questions the committee adjourned to study their responsibilities. Allen Barrett
Guidelines were stated for submission of Ethics Complaints. Only complaints that will be considered are those that are filed with the chairman in writing and signed by the submitter. There is no official county form for filing complaints and a simple letter format will be acceptable.
After a couple of procedural questions the committee adjourned to study their responsibilities. Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 11:39 AM
38 Comments:
Mr. Barrett
Maybe someone will make a complaint about you.
Mr. Barrett
Maybe someone will make a complaint about you.
You wonder why they call you names. You ask for it.
You are always talking about the Bible, why can't you just turn the other cheek. No you like to stir up trouble also.
4:16 So why dont you file the complaint against Mr Barrett ? But then you would have to sign your name.
No, I like to challenge the one(s) who are in the business of stirring up trouble. Too bad, if that doesn't sit too well with you.
Anyone working within the body of Giles County will not sign a complaint because they know that Mrs. Vanzant will simply fire them.
She made it very plain to all after she was elected years ago, that she did not even have to have a reason to fire them.
She can do it at will!!!!!!!
Nuf said.
Let someone outside the employees, that she can NOT FIRE like a Commissioner (if any have the guts) bring a complaint to this Board.
But then again (she did appoint all the member but one) so would it be ruled on fairly?
You can rest assured that if you file a written complaint to the Chairman, he will see it through. One piece of advice, make sure you have proof of your complaint.
to nuff said
Have you ever heard of HLSS? You have the acute and typical symptoms.
to 7:12 have you ever heard of stupid? you've overdosed on it dude.
Why don't you come up with something not so boring than HLSS but that would overload your last brain cell.
10:05
Well dude (or dudette), it makes you mad when I mention the syndrome, doesn't it?
Let me remind you of some of th main symptoms. Here they are:
1. Heart and mind filled with hatered toward certain elected officials
2.Jealousy toward those same officials.
3.Inability to see the infectious nature of the syndrome.
4.Inability to think for oneself.
5.Allowing someone else to tell you who to hate.
6.Tendency to belittle and call names.
7.Eventual feelings of superior intellect.
8. Inability or unwillingness to have ANYONE disagree.
These are the major symptoms. There are others not quite so noticeable.
What are you? a doctor. I think not. You just made up a disease and now you are making up symptons to go along with it. Aren't you the smart one? Not!!!!!!
909 Let's not put dufus down - she knows all about what she lists - just sits in front of the mirror, waggs her tongue, & whoopish - she has it right - best self analysis on earth. Don't pay her any attention - she's nuts & the progressive plot of diversity has a place for her
5:14 can't decide if you talking about "stone head jackson", "dead head vanzant" or "my way or else lovell" they all three fit your description.
Doctor Dufus now that's a name worthy of the babbling idiot who proclaims such high moral standards while defending such low moral behavior.
Are you sure Chairman Pollard can even READ a complaint against someone in order to act upon it? I'm not real sure myself. Maybe Jackson can "call the question" for him and get it started.
4:58 Obviously you dont understand what "call for question" means.
Tommy Pollard is caring, responsible and contientious. Perfectly capable, more than most commissioners currently in office, to chair this Ethics Committee. Good luck with it Tommy. We know you will do the right thing and guide the rest of the committee.
9:09
No, HLSS is a disorder peculiar to barrett's followers. And the sad thing about it is the fact that they either deny it or can't see it. If you don't believe it's real, thn you too are in denial. Just look at the hate-mongering and venomous spewings in the last few posts.
No, HLSS is a disorder peculiar to Vanzant followers. PercLIAR outstanding.
Mrs. Vanzant is not the one running around the country stirring up trouble. Let's leave the etiology where it belongs.
I meant to say county and not country. TYPO!
458 Your progressive education doesn't cover your absence of common sense, morality, & ethics. Undoubtedly you have learned how to read, write, and convince everyone you are the annointed one. The problem is, you don't know right from wrong, or anything else that would possibly contribute to this nation!
I'll bet you couldn't fix a flat or figure out why the top of the tire is inflated while the bottom is flat. If you can be civil & talk nice to Tommy, Im sure he might explain both situations to you & a whole lot more that you'll never comprehend at the rate you're going.
I listen to Tommy, because I respect his values & sincerity. You're a joke, because you're an educated idiot - a parrot that can get your attention by making a lot of racket.
I heard that Mr. McGill's Arraignment Day in Circuit Court was held this past Monday. Anyone heard what his plea was? Quilty or not Quilty?
When are the Commissioners going to persue ouster proceedings?
They wont pursue anything unless a written complaint is submitted to the committee.
The way I understand it is that the Commission may initiate its own investigation upon knowledge of a Ethics Violation. They do not have to wait on a written complaint.
Mr. McGill trial is set for March 25th. Watch and see if his lawyer doesn't re-schedule and have this thing put off as long as he can. This is too important for our Circuit Court Judges to be allowing that kind of thing.
Ok, Mcgill pleaded guilty. When is the Ethics committee going to get started with ouster proceeding???
Mary
Mary
They won't unless they receive a letter of complaint from someone.
Letter of complaint ?
Hopefully someone has put one together by now .
Giles Co has NO business employing confessed drunken drivers .
McGill needs to go NOW
To 9-28
Have to agree on that !! Sooner he's gone the better .
Where do we go to sign such a letter of complaint ? Has one been drsfted somewhere . If they can get a bunch of signatures it'd be like a petition for ouster wouldnt it ?
It is my understanding that a letter of complaint has been sent to the chairman of the Ethics Committee and they will be meeting soon to address the issue. Allen Barrett
I frankly think it is none of your business or mine what Mr. McGill does during his off time. Granted, what he did is clearly a mistake, but must he lose his job for that? How does it impact his job performance? I would think that he would have grounds for a lawsuit if he were fired for a D.U.I. even if he is convicted of it. I have known of people who were convicted of DUI, and they were not fired. And please don't accuse me of going along with wrongness. That would be untrue.
Hey 5:11. If he has a wreck while driving the vehicle you, Joe Taxpayer own, and kills someone, you ready to open your wallet and pay the bill? Don't imagine the county's insurance company would pay out if we let someone who pled guilty to driving drunk get behind the wheel. Would you sign a pledge to pay it all if something like that happens. Cha Ching!
5:`1`1 You really should take time to read some of the state laws then you might be dancing to a different tune. One law in particular states its grounds for ouster if a public official is voluntarily DUI in a public place. I'm thankful one of your family members wasn't hit by McGill when he was on the road drunk. Think.
Who said Mr. McGill was drunk while at work and on the taxpayer's dole? Not I? Were he drunk at work, I would say fire him (or anybody else) on the spot. And I do not think it's acceptable EVER for someone to drive while intoxicated. He should pay for his mistake, and I'm certain that he will. But it's not your call or mine.
To 5:11 you stated, "I frankly think it is none of your business or mine what Mr. McGill does during his off time. Granted, what he did is clearly a mistake, but must he lose his job for that? How does it impact his job performance?"
Do you not understand the concept of "public trust"? Are you saying that a public official should be allowed to do anything he pleases as long as he is not on duty? As an elected official there are no set hours for his job. Trying to make excuses for such a lack of judgement is reprehensible.
I though you was the guy who keeps saying if you have evidence of wrong doing turn it over to the appropriate authorities. That's why it's been turned over to the ethics committee. Tennessee Code Annotated 8-47-101 states "Every person holding any office of trust or profit, under and by virtue of any of the laws of the state, either state, county, or municipal,except such officers as are by the constitution removable only and exclusively by methods other than those provided in this chapter, who shall knowingly or willfully commit misconduct in office, or who shall knowingly or willfully neglect to perform any duty enjoined upon such officer by any of the laws of the state, or who shall in any public place be in a state of intoxication produced by strong drink voluntarily taken, or who shall engage in any form of illegal gambling, or who shall commit any act constituting a violation of any penal statute involving moral turpitude, shall forfeit such office and shall be ousted from such office in the manner hereinafter provided."
Basically it says if you are a public official and get drunk and get caught you lose your job. Allen Barrett
wab...
Of course I understand the terminology, so please don't attempt the usual condescension from your lofty perch of intelligence.
My lack of judgment is reprehensible? What a laugh. But I won't bother extrapolating that to you as it would be futile.
Yep, I'm the one (among others) who has suggested that you turn over any evidence of wrongdoing to the proper authorities and then butt out. I still believe in that principle. I wish you did.
So, according to your interpretation of the statute, are you saying that an individual who holds a public office can't get drunk without risking the loss of his or her job? Shouldn't a similar (at least moral) code for misbehavior be applied to people who are teachers, preachers, therapists, and the like?
12:25 That would be up top their bosses. In McGill's case the public is his boss (paid for by public monies) which is why the state has this law in place. Surely you can't be that thick headed to even ask the question.
Dufus - What is an extra-polator? sound like you tryed to get a part time job at the bungalow
Post a Comment
<< Home