Selective Application Of Rules
I posted this as a comment on a thread but then though I would open it as a subject unto it's self.
One thing was made abundantly clear in the County Commission Meeting this morning.... only those rules that are convenient will apply to the county executive.
During the meeting it was clearly presented by Commissioner Wilburn that the Tennessee Code Annotated and the Roberts rules of order were ignored by the county executive in her recent decision to veto the commissioners decision on the distance rules.
Mrs Vanzant simply dismissed each statement with the arrogance befitting the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland who is quick to decree "off with their heads" at the slightest offense.
After she dismissed both the T.C.A. and Roberts Rules of Order as authorities over her she then demonstrated the convenience of selective application by citing those rules in refusing to recognize Commissioner Wilburn to speak until after everyone else had spoken. Yet when Commissioner Jackson stood, interrupted or started speaking before being recognized there was no corrective ruling from the chair.
Allen Barrett
One thing was made abundantly clear in the County Commission Meeting this morning.... only those rules that are convenient will apply to the county executive.
During the meeting it was clearly presented by Commissioner Wilburn that the Tennessee Code Annotated and the Roberts rules of order were ignored by the county executive in her recent decision to veto the commissioners decision on the distance rules.
Mrs Vanzant simply dismissed each statement with the arrogance befitting the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland who is quick to decree "off with their heads" at the slightest offense.
After she dismissed both the T.C.A. and Roberts Rules of Order as authorities over her she then demonstrated the convenience of selective application by citing those rules in refusing to recognize Commissioner Wilburn to speak until after everyone else had spoken. Yet when Commissioner Jackson stood, interrupted or started speaking before being recognized there was no corrective ruling from the chair.
Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 7:18 PM
51 Comments:
wab
Perhaps you misinterpreted Mrs. Vanzant's following proper procedure for arrogance? And yet, you deny any arrogance on your part ever. That is what I call arrogance. Still witch hunting I see.
Anonymous, I am sure Mrs. Vanzant does not appreciate you calling her a witch one bit. Please stop your name calling, Mrs. Vanzant is not a witch.
Even witches have more integrity than vanzant.
9:14
I would strongly disagree with you. Hook, Line, and Sinker Syndrome is driving you crazy with jealousy and hatred. Mrs. Vanzant is a good person; I don't know about barrett. And you don't question his integrity at all.
9:11 (aka 9:14)
I think you need to read some history. During the Salem Witch Trials, totally innocent people were wrongly accused and even put to death. Just because there's a witch hunt going on for Mrs. Vanzant does NOT make her a witch. I realize you were just trying to be cute and impress the "non-existent" folks, but you're really not funny. However, I would suggest you seek remedies for HLSS.
To 6:14 Theirs an ole saying that the proof is in the puddin. Mrs Vanzant has proved her lack of integrity and Mr. Barrett has proved his possesion of integrity.
I have read on here that you don't know Mr. Barrett so how can you say he ain't a good person but you know Vanzant is a good person.
I have spoken to a large number of Commissioners some like Mr. Barrett and some don't but not one of them will say he has lied to them. On the other hand every single one of them I spoke to said that Mrs Vanzant can't be trusted and lies constantly.
Out of the 5 posts, none deal with "did that happen or not"--only bantering about namecalling.
Q: There was many people there. Did she actually stop Mr. W until everyone spoke or not?
Q: Did she actually not stop Mr. J when he spke or interupted...ignoring her prvious statement?
Q: What if anything was the result of Mr. Wilburn pointing out the previous discrepancy?
?????
To 8:57
1, Yes she did.
2.No, she did not.
3. He was ignored.
No one has to take anyone's word for what happened in that meeting if you have Pulaski Cable you can watch the whole thing for your self. Don't know when it will be on but they recorded the whole thing.
Watch it and you'll see Mr Barrett is correct.
I'll add to what 10:04 said.
Mrs. Vanzant had added on to the Jan. 19th Minutes with her take on what she decided after the original beer vote failed. Minutes must record ONLY what happened within the actual meeting. The Jan. Minutes were passed with Mrs. Vanzant's personal additional paragraph being struck from the record. Remember, Minutes are an official document. Mr. Wilburn did an excellent job in his presentation of the chain of events and reminded the commissioners the current beer license that was issued is unlawful and should be pulled.
There were a great many people in the audience, many that normally don't attend. Expect they were there to watch the performance of their district commissioners.
General consensus is that Stoney Jackson is running Giles county.
6:14
You need to drop the Hook, Line, and Sinker Syndrome. A lot of people think you have it also.
Maybe some have it because they believe Barrett.
You have it because you believe Janet.
I'm beginning to think that's all you know.
How about saying something else.
I will watch it on Pulaski cable if it comes on and decide for myself. Bet it want after being posted on here.
Check out this link that basically explains how Vanzant is seeking re-election.
http://www.wksr.com/wksr.php?rfc=src/article.html&id=23585
She says that she wants to help "any way she can". About the only way I can see how she can help is to get the hades out of office! No matter how many letters to the editor she writes, she cannot deny that she did everything Mr. Barrett states she did, which is violate rules, regulations, minutes, etc. Someone with lack of knowledge to that extent needs to go. I mean, she can hardly make a decision without calling someone for advice. Do you think all that attorney advice that she seeks is free? Nope. How many lawyers do you guys know that work or give advice for free on a frequent basis? I know none like that...
When Vanzant states "advice from attorney(s)" you cannot take it as gospel that an attorney has even been asked for advice, unless Stoney Jackson now has a degree in law.
Anyone of you that has something good to say about Janet Vanzant, just save it for someone that does not know her!!
Those that use the word Witch in reference to her, mean to Replace the W with a B.
EVERY ONE remember this, JUST VOTE HER OUT THIS YEAR.
Ok everyone, no matter what side you fall on, could you please refrain from calling her a witch with a b, evil, mean nasty etc. It goes nowhere into bringing any credibility to your case. If she's lied or something prove it or say it I guess (with facts as wab does) but calling her that only makes the case for the "others" even though you may feel that way.
3:20
Just who do you think started the witch hunt for Mrs. Vanzant? I'll give you one guess, becayuse the answer is so obvious.
3:20
Just who do you think started the witch hunt for Mrs. Vanzant? I'll give you one guess, becayuse the answer is so obvious.
5:16/5:17 Do you have some kind of finger or brain problem that causes you to post in duplicate?
5:52
Ready to pounce agin, I see. Actually, I have a very slow computer if you must know.
7:53 Having a slow computer has nothing to do with you duplicating. Slow brain is more like it.
ok 516 what does that have to do with my call (320)to refrain from name calling and you want to complain...guess you had to avert the question.
If wab tells what happens~~~TOO BAD...last time I checked it was a free country.....for now.
Guess I'll be among the ones that get shot because I spoke my mind and called a pig a pig.
8:22
You made a chilling statement about your getting shot for speaking your mind. Well, it's ok to speak your mind on this blog as well.....just as long as you agree with barrett and company. If you don't, then you are called a host of names.
I keep wondering who will share in the blame when someone tries to bully the wrong person and someone gets hurt? Would it be the all-wise and all-knowing one? I think so.
There has been no one on this blog called more names, mostly by 6:17, than Mr. Barrett.
822...thats a laugh~If I disagee with wab, he'd at least "debate"facts instead of getting violent...then you have to try and scare people into thinking someone will be hurt because of disagrement with improper procedure. Think back to any instance of scuffle or whatever~it's usually the "bully" that loses their temper when they don't get their way~
Line me up~guess I'd have to take one for the team instead of eating this crud that keeps getting showed down our throats~
You can fool some of the people all of the time! You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can NOT fool all the people all the time JANET!
The State Audiors started the so call witch hunt on you with their audit each year when you took office.
You were writen up the first three years in a roll and the 4th. year the write up also call for you to go to the Fincial Act of 81 or they would turn it over to the D.A.s' office.
You yourself got on the radio and in the paper that week saying that the State was going to require you to do extra work and bookeeping that wouldl the County a lot more money, and people, and you were against that!
The rest is history, you fooled enough of us to get the petition started and call for a vote on it.
You got yourself out of trouble with the State Audit and the D.A. and also re-elected.
Now we know who you are and what you have done (not all of it i'm sure) due to your threats to people that are afraid for their jobs.
Those who do not agree with you catch ##$#% and many of them are now unemployed because of you and you alone!
Time for you to be without of an income is OVERDUE!!
You have not worked for the people but for yourself in anything you go at.
Sole on and good rediance!
9:05
You said it's the bully who loses his temper when he doesn't get his way. You just perfectly described wab and didn't even realize it. And nobody is trying to scare people into thinking something bad may happen when the wrong one is picked on. Human nature alone should tell you that. My question remains as to whether or not "the great one" will feel any blame should that ever happen.
I agree with 8:01. Get your brain a moving and stop duplicating your comments. You post a lot on here and we're getting tired of reading your posts twice. It's hard enough to read them once.
7:01
Who is the "we" to which you refer? I'd be glad to stop when you guys quit spewing the usual hatred and jealousy.
I've known Allen Barrett a long time more than 20 yrs. If you don't like straight talk you'll not like him very much. You may not like what he says but you can count on it being the same thing he tells everyone else. In all the years I've known him I've never had him tell me something that wasn't true, never seen him fail to listen or seen him get angry at someone because they disagreed with him. He is passionate about what he believes in and aggressive if necessary but not out of anger. When he gets angry he becomes quiet almost withdrawn.
He is a confident man but very far from the arrogant person some would have you believe.
Right.
well since all you are going to do is call names I might as well.
905...
IDIOT...has Mr. Barret ever lost his temper in a meeting? Well I would about the time anyone put their hands on me because they didn't like my public RIGHT to speak.
IDIOT---wish I knew who you were so I could deliberately not ever respond to the CRAP that comes out of your lying pie hole. You are completely without common sense.
nice huh?
Why don't you people spew off at each other of the blog. That is not what the blog is about. I wish whoever started the blog or can take off what they do not like would do so with the ones that do not even apply to the subject.
1055~I'll second that motion!
I've asked for that wishfully, but unfortunately I understand that Mr. Barrett cannot edit "off subjects" posts as the ones who continually distract from the subject would just cry fowl saying they were edited for a "different opinion" Some kind of vicious circle. Of all the attacks & namecalling on ether side~at least no one has said that wab is lying in his reports~they just don't like being called out when he questions and brings to light the real issue.
I appreciate the 8:48 poster who identified the problem of censoring the content of this blog.
I have tried to explain the situation before but it never seems acceptable to some. I too, am bothered by some of the things that are posted on this blog and understand that some are so offended they no longer read the blog. The problem is if we are to have free speech we can not censor that part we dislike. Especially during the protest of the sixties and seventies some of the things that were done were extremely troubling to me. As a soldier during that time I was basically in a position of defending the rights of those who were using those very rights to abuse me and every other person in the military their families and anyone defending this country.
In an ideal world everyone would respect each other but the world we live in is far from ideal and many are devalued along with their ideas. To actually have free speech allows everyone the same opportunity to express their ideas in a manner they determine is appropriate. Some never learn to be appropriate or responsible but to remove their right of expression would only open the door for the removal of that right for everyone else with less power. Free speech in the exchange of ideas, not feelings, is and has been the goal of this blog since its beginnings. Some may not agree with that goal and are free to express that disagreement simply because it is the goal. As the blog master I have taken the responsibility of removing post that contain harsh profanity. I would prefer to only mark out the abusive words but do not have the capability of such an action.
I wish everyone would take a name either their own or a pseudonym much like a CB handle, that way everyone would be able to follow the train of thought being presented or able to ignore the writings of those they choose not to bother with.
I have chosen to put my name on what I write as a way of taking responsibility for that posting you can either read it or ignore it but you do know exactly who wrote it and can call me up ask question me if you don't agree.
I hope this helps understand why there are postings on here that are off subject and offensive to some. If you have a suggestion on how to remedy this please let me know but censorship isn't the answer. Taking away the freedom of everyone because of a few is never the answer as we have observed over the past few years dominated by political correctness. Allen Barrett
Thanks Mr. Barrett as poster of 848...I totally agree and understand.....wish even those who always distract could at least agree on that and stay on the subject. Great post and answer to those who will actually think about it.
Thank you sir for your service to our country then and now!
If people had to use their real name on here, there would be no one to post but WAB and Howard. I sure would not be here myself. Most posts are just subconscious feelings from angry people who cannot have everything their way so they blast everyone else. They seem to think that you get to the "top" of a ladder by pulling the top down. Just doesn't work that way.
thanks 259.....i really needed a good laugh
2:59
I think you just gave an accurate description of wab, howard, and the other CAVE people. That really would be a laugh if these people were not dangerous.
I wuz there. Wilburn gave a very intelligent, logical recitation of the events. Vanzant snubbed her nose. Shame more commissioners didn't speak up. It was the time to! Howell pointed out that minutes were minutes. Shouldn't have qualifying statements added. Or explanations added. Now, why isn't Wilburn running for commissioner again? Didn't see his name on the list?
it was HArris that said "minutes were minutes" by the way in case that was a mis-type.
Yes you are right. Typo. It was Harris that jumped up and said minutes were minutes. Course he voted yes on the beer issue and probably didn't want the heat of the discussion. THEN Howell explained why JV could not include little addendums to the minutes to explain her actions or inactions.
2:59, You may be on to something; if people's thoughts and ideas aren't appropriate enough to sign their name to, then perhaps they shouldn't post on here. Isn't it interesting that regardless of what this Mr Barrett posts, not one of his detractors will reveal their name; not a single one; nor will they give any basis for their disagreement with him. Only make wild accusations.Kinda makes me wonder if they have a clue what is going on when their one and only defense of any public official with questionable actions or ethics is that Mr Barrett is aware of it and made it public. Every single citizen should do what Mr Barrett is doing, report on the good and bad, but have some solid reasons. Voting or supporting someone because another is not supporting someone is a dangerous, infantile, and basically idiotic practice and shows a total ignorance of the democratic process. Time to grow up, take a stand, believe in something, and have a valid reason for believing it or move on to one of the numerous kiddie sights and play your silly games.
William James
2:59
Excellent post. You defined the situation precisely. Yes, it's past time to take a stand against these people. They haven't been able to get their way, and it's hard for them to accept.
Again with "these people". Who are "these people" that you speak of? What is it that "these people" want that they are having a hard time accepting? If it is a transparent, ethical gov't, I too am having a hard time accepting that I don't have that.Do you pay "these people" a salary? If not, then why don't you speak of issues, not gossip? I want to know more about the community and officials here. "These people" and their beliefs are not an issue with me unless I choose them to be and as I am fairly mature, I have learned that if it bothers me to read text posted by someone whom I violently take exception to, then I simply don't read their posts. That is of course if "these people" sign their name so I know what to skip over. Why torture yourself? "These people" always put their name on what they write, don't they. Skip the post. I believed I have solved your problem. You are very welcome, and have a nice day now.
William James
Mr.James.
At this point, you have my respect, and I want to avoid being confrontational with you. And I hope you will treat me accordingly.
The people I mentioned are the ones who, in my honest opinion, want the power they have been unable to gain via the normal election process. They seem to have nothing but contempt for those who have differing views. Oh, I could go on and on describing them, but I think you get the picture. If you don't and truly want to know what's going on around here, I would suggest you just take a stroll through town and just ask some questions. You'll find out exactly who "these people" are.
I don't agree with you, but I sure don't want the power that you are so desperately trying to hold on to. People like you are the reason so many people are leaving Giles County.
At election time we need to elect some LEADERS, not ones who want to be in CHARGE. We now seem to have people in office now who feel they are in CHARGE, as some on this blog have pointed out. I read one post who said Mrs. VanZant , and I quote, IS in charge. Before I am critized I did not say Mrs. VanZant said this.
The post referred to is the first post on the article enough is enough.
Is this not saying something about someone.
Anonymous said...
9:05
You said it's the bully who loses his temper when he doesn't get his way. You just perfectly described wab and didn't even realize it. And nobody is trying to scare people into thinking something bad may happen when the wrong one is picked on. Human nature alone should tell you that. My question remains as to whether or not "the great one" will feel any blame should that ever happen.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:56:00 PM
7:49, Thank you for your respect. I am sorry that you do not understand what my impressions or observations mean, not that you need to as I will not be seeking public office. Should I stroll through town and choose to ask questions, it will not be questions about a private citizen. As I have stated before, I do not care what private citizens do, it's none of my business. If I decide to ask about people in town, I will inquire about the personalities, reputation, and actions of those whose salaries are paid with tax dollars. If someone has officially declared their intention to seek a public office, I may ask about them, but it must be an official declaration, as I have no time to engage is gossip about people who have strong opinions. I also have strong opinions and have learned that it is interesting to discuss issues and agree to disagree, shake hands, and move on. Nor will I even consider casting my vote for anyone who was defended in this or any other forum by an anonymous poster. If the candidate and their supporters do not have enough pride and conviction to sign their name, I will do what I can to keep from giving them a position of authority. I am generally open minded about things, but secretive snide remarks are a deal breaker for me.
William James
who is this barrett guy? sounds like a jerk!
sounds like you people in this town love witch hunts, first this vanzant woman now these innocent officers, wow, they really do need to clean house in this election! and the crap you people let certain races get away with, and no punishment handed down, wow, just wow!
Post a Comment
<< Home