What Is Happening With The Ethics Committee Scheduled For 1 April.
There seems to be some confusion taking place concerning the Ethic Committee Meeting scheduled for 1 April 2010 (Thursday Morning) at 9AM in the Courthouse Annex (Suntrust Bldg.)
I believe that because the Chairman of that committee is Commissioner Tommy Pollard, an honorable man, the committee will do the right thing if not misled by some last minute finagling by some who are presently seeking to confuse the issue.
Two matters of importance, first there were a number of citizens who signed the ethics complaint, this was not done out of necessity as there were no requirements for more than any one citizen of the county to have signed a complaint, yet the radio station reports that ten signatures of citizens are the minimum required for the complaint to be valid.
A second issue that has come to light is that the subject of the complaint has twenty days to answer said complaint. There was no such verbiage in the resolution adopted by the county that established the Ethics Committee. It is fully expected that the subject having been notified would attend the meeting and give response to the complaint.
Will these things play a role in the upcoming committee meeting? That is an issue we must wait and see about.
It is very important that everyone who can attend this meeting. It will determine whether the County Ethics Committee will be taken seriously or will it be relegated to merely giving lip service as an April Fool Prank. Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 7:09 PM
59 Comments:
I agree that Tommy is as good a person as will ever be found for the job.
A DUI has extreme penalties that don't need adding to. We need to keep that in mind - the man needs to say his piece & we need to be ready to forgive.
I think the ethics committee has a far more important mission than adding to penalties already imposed - unless it becomes a habit.
The issue needing addressing is ethics. Getting honesty & integrity re-established, in the school system. I don't see a big problem anywhere else, maybe one or two. There is nothing wrong with mistakes as long as they're in the open.
The other side is, If you're a habitual liar & conniver you need to be roasted & run out of town. An ethics committee can do that without sending someone a one way ticket to jail. can get things done without getting lost in politics & BS
I agree with the first post.
Sticking to the subject of the Ethics Committee.
The next thing that needs to be addressed is the fact the Mrs. Vanzant was not legal when she ran for County Executive either time.
Everyone connected with the County Court House knows she lives in Lincoln County.
Sure, she owns property in Giles Co. and pays taxes here but so do plenty of other people that live in Lincoln, Lawrence and surrounding counties, and even other states, but none of them have lied and ran for an Office here. One must live in the county PER STATE LAW!
She is a steady liar! What I mean by that is: she has been a liar since 2003 until to day and will be tomorrow also.
She need so also be OUSTED by the same Ethics Committee.
Then any tax payer can bring suit against her for fraud and demand total repayment to the county.
Oh, here we go again attacking Mrs. Vanzant.
And, by the way, someone mentioned allowing the offending party to say his piece and then be ready to forgive. Isn't that what Christian people are supposed to do, Mr. Barrett? You seem much like a tiger shark who has been smelling blood in the water for quite some time now. Are you not a little bit ashamed?
6:19 am.
If you are so defenceive of Mrs. Vanzant, why don't you go to work for her? Then again this may be JANET VANZANT herself posting as quick as you do!
We all here in the Court House & Annex know what she/you are like.
A couple that are real tight that work for her/you will stick, but the rest will not!!!!!!!!!!!
We have seen what you are really like and it is not pretty.
Ahhhh the serpent speaks with due reliability. "Repent and sin no more" is the other half of the equation! I certainly don't hate Mrs. Van Zant, blue gill, or anyone else - we all will make errors of all types. The issue is correct them & move on, don't go back the them same old crap over & over.
If you lie about lying, I don't want to be around you - not hate of the person, but of what the person does and represents! If they force their will and what they represent upon me, I will fight to get them tossed out! If you represent an office of trust & can't speak the truth - you need to be ousted by whatever means necessary!
If you are in a position of extreme trust, such as educating our children, the tolerance level should be near zero - absolute zero if repetitive!
One might say a very likeable person who is corrupted is worse than the thief with a gun! They threaten the soul!
March 30, 2010 6:19:00 AM
Did Mr. Barrett mention Mrs. Vanzant's name? He can't help what you or anyone else writes.
To 29 Mar 8:35PM
You state, "A DUI has extreme penalties that don't need adding to."
While I agree with most of your post I must disagree with you on this issue. A DUI does not have extreme or even severe penalties. A few dollars in fines and a couple of days in jail on the week-end is hardly extreme or severe or even a strong message that the behavior is wrong and dangerous.
A person who voluntarily decides to get drunk then gets behind the wheel of a vehicle with the capability of killing another person or family in many instances is not only a person who has failed to use good judgement they have shown a total disregard for everyone else those in other vehicles, those walking down the road and in some instances those who are sitting in their own living rooms. Driving drunk into a tree is only a matter of Providence to driving into a mini van filled with a family. Such poor judgement should not be dealt with lightly.
While I certainly agree with you that a person should be allowed to speak in his defense and that we should be ready to forgive, at the same time forgiving a person of wrong behavior does not remove the penalty for that wrong behavior.
I have nothing personal against this man, I have never had any negative personal dealings with him. I hold no animosity toward him but I also hold no ambivalence about being drunk or driving drunk.
So while I wish him well as a person I condemn his behavior in the strongest possible way.
To 9 Mar 6:19AM
You state, "by the way, someone mentioned allowing the offending party to say his piece and then be ready to forgive. Isn't that what Christian people are supposed to do, Mr. Barrett? You seem much like a tiger shark who has been smelling blood in the water for quite some time now. Are you not a little bit ashamed?"
No, I am not the least bit ashamed of condemning the bad, irresponsible behavior of being drunk and driving drunk it is some of the worse most dangerous behavior a person voluntarily engages in.
Certainly it is a Christian trait to forgive but as I stated above forgiving someone of a thing is very different from removing the penalty attached to that wrong behavior. Adam was forgiven but still not allowed back into the Garden. A person who rapes another may be forgiven but aren't they expected to pay a penalty for their decision? So don't try playing the guilt card with me it just will not work.
One of the things you seem unwilling or unable to understand is the concept of responsibility. A person who is responsible is one who does not hide from their actions and is willing to face the consequences of those actions, learn from them and make better decisions in the future in order to regain the lost self esteem and the respect of others. Allen Barrett
There seems to be some confusing developing about the ethics complaint that was presented to the Giles Ethics Committee.
1st This was not a petition it was a letter of complaint written under the guidelines established by the Ethics Committee. It does not require anymore than one signature of a Giles County citizen. The one that was delivered contained more than one signature instead of each individual presenting their own individual letter of complaint.
2nd There is no summons to be answered. The committee under their guidelines does not have the power to issue a summons. Certainly out of respect for the process it would be expected that they invite the object of the complaint to come and answer questions in their defense. If the individual desires their attorney to be there that is their privilege but it is not a necessity.
3rd This is not a court of law and has no authority to incarcerate or declare a monetary fine. It does have the authority to suspend or dismiss in accordance with state law.
The State Ethics Committee is an entirely different situation. Confusing these two very different
entities as one and the same will undermine the power of both.
Allen Barrett
wab..
Look, nobody said a lawbreaker should not be made to pay the penalty. Case in point...the thief on the cross.
Legal fees are over $1,000. Then there is the insurance hike. - there's a lot more than meets the eye.
For a decent person who values their reputation - the penalty is very extreme, just because it happened, without any condemnation from anyone else. It's a mark no one wants.
If you're a rum head, none of it really matters - they'll be back on the road, endangering the community, taking food out of their family's mouths, & being their worthless self in from to the whole world. The fine means nothing. you can't humiliate them. They are worthless.
Same characteristics as Dufus except drunks are drunk on alcohol, while dufus is drunk on koolaid thinking she's got the world by the butt.
Hopefully this Ethics committee is made up of people who truly understand that the people of Giles County are wakening to the rules fo the 21st Century and not those imposed via the 'lords and servants ' system of the last 200 yrs here.
It is time for change and ethics is a great place to start . If our paid -elected officials cant keep themselves on the straight and narrow then it's time for the peoples representatives on this ethics committee to start giving them some strong judgements as indicators of what is now expected AND WONT BE COVERED UP AS IN THE PAST .
We should all be looking for the upcoming county charter to be written in such a way that it emphasises what kind of behaviors are expected from paid officials -and that drunkenness isnt on the list .
Caligula
6:51
While you are busy calling me names, just consider he thief on the cross.
Christianity has nothing to do with this issue. When McGill ran for office he took an oath to obey the law. State law clearly says drunkeness in a public place is cause for ouster. Anyone in elected office attends annual seminars where behavior is re-emphasized. There is no excuse for this. I for one am very much opposed to continuation of employment. I believe we can get better for our $90,000 a year he costs us as tax payers. The man is an embarrassment to the county.
Forgiveness has everything to do with Christianity. That doesn't dismiss the fact that violators have to suffer consequences. Again, the thief on the cross is a prime example. I believe forgiving others of their tresspasses rather than beating them over the head with hatred and spitefulness is classic Christianity.
These are the same people who voted against the liquor by the drink vote. Sure the man should have not been driving under the influence, but to remove him from the job, NO WAY! I guess when the congregation is fed up with silly antics, they find another pastor. Case in point - New Hope Baptist.
If a public official is ousted from will their retirement be null and voided, or would the county still have to pay for it?
above post meant to say ousted from office.
Sure, forgiveness is part of Christianity but Christianity does not enter into this situation. McGill broke the law, plain and simple. In addition to his 48 hours in jail and the fine which was local penalty, he also has to answer to the State law governing public officials and in this case its grounds for Ouster. Since a complaint has been filed with the Ethics Comm. they make the decision on what to do about it.
It seems to me I heard a an old story about about the same as this one seems to go.
Someone was caught doing somehing that was bad under the law - worse than DUI - so bad in fact that the punishment was stoning to death. Seems like the accusors with the ultimate penalty in mind scattered to the four winds when a man who knew all about them started checking their past.
A liar is far worst - let's start there. It's a good place to get the facts & urgency in the right priority! If you want to fire everyone who drinks or has had too much at some time (including Rx meds for a real sickness), then only a few would be working & the liars would have no one to steal from! Reminds me of what's happening right now - right here & especially in Washington DC
So 8:16 are you saying that no one should ever be punished for wrong doing because no one is without sin?
Seems to me that is an attitude that would allow everyone to do as they please without any consequence leaving the strongest and meanest to be the only survivors.
8:16 You are missing the point. Everyone knows McGill was sentenced locally to 48 hours in jail and a small fine. Since he is a county official, as per state law, the matter will now be addressed by the local Ethics Comm. The decision to Ouster or to drop the matter is entirely up to this committee. Its not a case of whether or not he is guilty as he has already admitted guilt. Its not as if the committee will have to investigate much at all, just to make a decision.
He who is without sin should cast the first stone. I wonder who he is...or thinks he is?
funny how everyone wants to make this a "fogive me for my sins" issue now...use that all the time and it might mean something...not just when it suits you. unreal..he got caught.pleaded guilty whatever...should he be allowed to keep his job after the wonderful fines ets a year after being in trouble? and does the ethics committee let his penalty up to date serve as "paid in full?"
we shall see tomorrow.
How about everybody that is for McGill show up tomorrow and support him.
Everybody that thinks show your support for him to be outst.
Then stop playing anonymous.
I bet the one writing on here as anonymous for him want show.
McGill is a drunk!!!!!
OK!!!!
I have said It.
He was , is, and undoubtedly will continue to be one.
He shows up at his office drunk,and unshaven
he is a joke
The Citizens of Giles County are entitled to a responsive, accountable and incorruptible government. The State passed the Tennessee Ethics Commission law to establish and sustain the public's confidence in goverement. All that said, here is what I think. ALL COUNTY OFFICIALS, no matter who they are accountable to us the taxpayersince we pay their salaries. Since the Ethic laws were passed by the State's General Assemby, don't you think they seen some corruptness in maybe other counties and they intend for us to have a way of ousting someone who is coming in drunk and/or driving drunk and who may kill an innocent child or person. When Mr. McGill ran for office, he knew he would be in the spotlight and he took a chance and he got caught. He's gotta go and these good citizens that had the backbone to file a complaint has my admiration. I only hope the Ethics Committee of Giles County realizes that Giles Countians expect them to have the same backbone.
Fully agree 7:24.
The person who has shown real backbone in this and every other thing he has been involved in is Allen Barrett. I wish he was running for County Mayor. I may have to move into his district just so I can vote for him as commissioner. Thank you Mr. Barrett you are a great American and an unwavering patriot.
Ruby
I knew you were a cheerleader for barrett, but I had no idea you were this impressed with him. It's unfortunate that there are many around here who have a totally different opinion.
The Ethics Committee met this morning and under the firm, clear guidance of Chairman Pollard a lesson on how to properly hold a meeting was demonstrated. While some had expected a muddled free for all it was made clear from the beginning that would not be the case. Everyone who chose to speak was allowed to speak.
The end result of the meeting was that the committee voted to have the matter of Mr. McGill sent to the full legislative body with the recommendation that they vote to censure Mr. McGill for his unacceptable behavior.
I spoke with Mr McGill after the meeting and he assured me that there would be no repeat of the behavior and that he in fact had given up drinking altogether. I commended him on his decision.
With the action of the full legislative body this should be the end of the matter and a strong message sent to others that this kind of behavior will no longer be tolerated for public officials. Allen Barrett
Good decision on the part of Tommy Pollard's committee. Since this has been in the news lately I did some research and found the committee or the legislative body could have already acted on this. Why did it take citizens of the county to force action and from what I have read was the complaint really against the ethics committee for not making a move on it and not so much again Bluegill McGill personally?
Excellent decision.
Welcome to Giles County , Home of Winos Anonymous & Total Tipplers (WATT ). Committee certified .
Hic!
TO: Thursday, April 01, 2010 7:54:00 PM
If you live here and don't like it - move away, very far away.
Sounds like an excellent decision! I had a bad feeling we might bite into a very bitter apple, but it appears we have some genuine wisdom. We let the law do its thing properly. The censure thing is not pleasant, but rightfully goes with public office - If it becomes a habit, the county can deal with it.
Tommy Pollard - THANKS!! - we need more like you in all levels of government. An ounce of common sense is a refreshing change compared to drowning in a river of BS like the nuts in Washington give us (both parties!)
8:10----Amen to that.
At least this Letter of Complaint (which was NOT a petition)will alert elected officials that citizens will not tolerate cover-ups as are seen on local, state and federal levels.
Great work Mr. Barrett for writing the letter that set the thing in motion and commissioner Pollard for your conduct of the meeting. Notice has been given bad behavior will no longer be tolerated.
if T Pollard was the wonderful ethical god you people praise so highly why didn't he resign his position when his family member was caught and convicted of shoplifting at Wally World? was that not ethical to do on his part?
1:32
I think Tommy is a good person although he tends to side with the radicals who want to take over this county and tell us what to do. But to trash him by calling attention to one of his family members is a bit mean-spirited.
A person can not be held responsible for another persons behavior even that of a family member. Mr Pollard has proven himself capable and honest with the best interest of all Giles County. Mean spirited is exactly what
1:32 showed.
Looks like McGill & Son have been hard at it trying to payback Pollard.
What McGill did was wrong Barrett and Pollard did what was right now it's up to the commission. If you're gonna keep trying to blame the wrong persons and live in denial the same thing is gonna happen again it's just a matter of time.
To Lucy D. It takes a very small minded and mean spirited person with no scruples at all to try and attack a person through their family. Tommy Pollard can no more be a reflection of what a relative does or doesn't do than you can.
Commissioner Pollard has conducted himself in a very professional and responsible manner in every way since I have known him. He has proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be his own man and interested in serving the county in his position. I have not agreed with him on every issue and action but have always found him willing to listen to other opinions which is very much different from some of the less responsible commissioners.
To try and attack him or anyone else through the actions of their family members makes you a very low class, slimy individual and unworthy of any response other than to condemn your attempt in the stronger possible terms. Allen Barrett
wab
Go back and read what you called Lucy. You said she is small-minded, mean-spirited, and a low class slimy individual. Outrageous!!!!
While I don't like the way she attacked Tommy via his family, what you did is about as bad. So, in my opinion, I think you ought to shut your pie hole if you can't use better language. Just an observation.
To 6:20 Oh, did I do that? I thought I had taken a page from your book and merely suggested that, "It takes a very small minded and mean spirited person with no scruples at all to try and attack a person through their family".
Oh, did you think I wrote that statement with a concern for what you might think; OUTRAGEOUS.
Not having seen any thing from Lucy D in the way of an apology I have no reason to believe she has found anything I said objectionable to her character.
Perhaps you would have been more satisfied if I had used some of your terms to describe such disgusting behavior; "SHE HAS MY RESPECT, MY SUPPORT AND MY VOTE".
Now are you satisfied. Allen Barrett
wab
I think you owe Lucy an apology. I disagree with what she said but YOU called her a slimy person among other things. May we expect your apology to her anytime soon? I seriously doubt it.
If you can't control your emotions any better than that, I shudder to think how you would act as a commissioner if something doesn't go your way. That's just an opinion. However, I believe there are a lot of people who share that same concern. Think about it.
Here's something wlse that is strictly an opinion. If anyone is hurting your credibility, it's you.
If you think I will apologize to someone who did what Lucy D did you really are living in a dream world and should increase your Haldol immediately. Slimy was the correct word I used.
Why would you think, excuse me you don't think you feel, that my emotions were not under my complete control? There was nothing I stated that I did not completely mean and things I believe in I speak passionately about.
Of course that was just your opinion what else could it be from you as you never give anything but opinions and I suppose you know how that phrase goes.
You finally did get one thing right I am the one in charge of my credibility and that is why I protect it. Allen Barrett
And sometimes one's true colors come out when he or she speaks passionately.
I din't realize Mr Barrett had tried to hide his true colors seems he's been more open and clear in his talk than anyone I know.
11:38
Busy, busy, bust aren't we?
Who said barrett showed his true colors? It wasn't I.
But, in my opinion, he does show his true colors when he loses control and starts popping off at the mouth. Can you imagine him sitting on the commission and behaving like that? you know, he often shows his rear end, so perhaps someone is on to something here.
You're right 6:22 Barrett writes an intelligent thoughtful statement then signs his name to it then he shows his rear end each time you get on here and whine about how pitiful you feel being by yourself defending lies and corruption.
9:53
No, barrett does a good job showing his rear end without my help.
9:46 You are Barrett's rear end.
9:15
No, I'm not that big.
Your mouth certainly is.
Looks like the ethics committee is about to have more work with a complaint about Tee Jackson being filed.
So True!!!!!About Time!!!!!
What happen with McGill?
The Ethics committee needs to investigate why an elementary school employee in charge of the $$ still has a job when she has filed bankruptcy & had to pay $$ back to the girl scouts that was "missing".
Can you be more specific 11:23?
to 11:23, all you have to do is write a letter of complaint to the Ehics Committee, Tommy Pollard, Chairman.
Post a Comment
<< Home