Where Was The Financial Director When She Should Have Been At The School Board Meeting Last Night?
What a very interesting situation developed at the School Board Meeting last night. At last months School Board Meeting the question was asked why did the School System contract for one price on insurance then end up paying almost $5,000.00 more than the contract called for? At that meeting last month the request was made by Mr. Story to Mr. Jackson to have the answer at the September meeting. Mr. Jackson reluctantly made a firm commitment that Mrs Garner would be there and explain the difference in the payments and the contract.
Last night came and there was no Mrs. Garner only a representative who could not clearly and fully explain her way out of the proverbial "paper-bag". It was explained that Mrs. Garner was at the Courthouse waiting in case she was called to be a witness in the Barrett vs Giles County Election Commission hearing.
While Mrs Garner sat in the courtroom most of the day there was never any possibility that she would be called as a witness to anything. She was not issued a summons as were other witnesses, she was not sequestered as were other witnesses, she had no involvement with the election, the election commission, or me. The only possibility that she would be called as a witness was impossible.
Was this a very poorly disguised effort to avoid the very unpleasant duty of appearing before the School Board with an explanation of why almost $5,000.00 was paid over the contracted amount? Perhaps there are other reasons why Mrs Garner could not be there but one thing is very clear during the School Board Meeting Mrs Garner was sitting in the Courtroom and there was never any possibility that she would be called to give any kind of testimony. Allen Barrett
Last night came and there was no Mrs. Garner only a representative who could not clearly and fully explain her way out of the proverbial "paper-bag". It was explained that Mrs. Garner was at the Courthouse waiting in case she was called to be a witness in the Barrett vs Giles County Election Commission hearing.
While Mrs Garner sat in the courtroom most of the day there was never any possibility that she would be called as a witness to anything. She was not issued a summons as were other witnesses, she was not sequestered as were other witnesses, she had no involvement with the election, the election commission, or me. The only possibility that she would be called as a witness was impossible.
Was this a very poorly disguised effort to avoid the very unpleasant duty of appearing before the School Board with an explanation of why almost $5,000.00 was paid over the contracted amount? Perhaps there are other reasons why Mrs Garner could not be there but one thing is very clear during the School Board Meeting Mrs Garner was sitting in the Courtroom and there was never any possibility that she would be called to give any kind of testimony. Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 9:15 AM
109 Comments:
Who was the substitute employee sent to the school board meeting by Garner?
wab
You have a lot of nerve to "hypothesize" as to why Mrs. Garner was in court. You DON'T KNOW, so why try to stir something up over that? Perhaps she wanted to be there to see you get the justice you really deserve.
I hope you will let readers know when the McAlister trial comes up. I plan to take a day off from work to be there for that one. I believe he will take you down. From what I hear, you just might be in some hot water.
The Financial Director as well as Mrs. Vanzant was asked to be in court by the county's attorney. What about that? It seems that barrett should have gotten all the facts before he started this thread. Perhaps this thread should be deleted before any further trouble is caused. How about it, wab?
5:25 Now how would you know that?
5:44 That is what I would like to know.
Seems like someone is always in the know.
Did the Judge do what she told him to?
5:44
Trust me; it's true. So why wouldn't this thread need to either be deleted or wab make an apology for posting unsupported information?
What would Mrs. Garner know about that case?
6:44
No, Mrs. Garner did what the attorney asked her to do.
Fri, 5:25
What would the county atty need from either the Financial Director or the County Exec? Other than the County Commission funding the Election Commission, at least in part, what relationsip would they possibly have to this case? I believe Fri., 8:36 already asked this question but it has as yet to be answered. I am not being antagonistic towards anyone in asking this. If they were needed they both could have been summoned on short notice from their offices so they could still perform their duties without wasting a whole day sitting in a courtroom. The Judge had already told one witness that if he was called he could go home and babysit for another witness so she could appear, thus leading us to believe he would allow time for FD and Co. Exec to get to courtroom. All other possible witnesses were sequestered.
Mrs. Garner was asked by the defense attorneys to be there. Why is that hard to understand? If you can't accept that, why not call and ask Mrs. Garner?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
3:28
WHAT is your problem? 2:56 asked a civil question and instead of answering it you come back with a malicious reply. So I will ask you---why would they (defense attorneys) need her there? I'm not trying to be argumentative but the way you post sounds like you know a lot of the inner workings of this case and therefore could answer a question that has many people wondering.
Go watch some football and get a life!! Wab could work on his sermon for tomorrow if he still has a church!
5:12
I would ask exactly WHAT is YOUR problem? My response was to the 5:44 post. Why don't you go read that one before you go mouthing off?
Go Vols!!! Wab are you watching game? Did you get your yard mowed?
6:58
If your response was for 5:44 which was about 5 postings above yours you should have said so. With all these anons on here unless you reference a post everybody takes it you are responding to the post above yours. If you know Mrs. Garner was asked to be there you should be able to answer the question as to what was the need for her to be there as has been asked by several on here. No need for a nasty reply just a direct answer will do.
Maybe Mrs. Garner was mowing her yard. Wab, maybe you should have done it for her. That would be the christian thing to do and she could have come to the meeting that you are crucifying her for not coming. Throwing rocks tomorrow wab? Would you please trim your shrubs?
9:44
Look, nobody made a nasty remark, other than 5:44. No, I have no idea why one of the lawyers asked Mrs. Garner to be there. Why don't you go ask them?
Thank you!
Neither Mrs Garner nor Mrs Vanzant were on the witness list and therefore could not have given any testimony if they had been called. Had they been on the witness list they would have been required to leave the courtroom along with other witnesses as the judge order all witnesses to be sequestered until they were called.
Anyone who said that either or both these ladies were required to be in the courtroom were terribly mistaken or just plain lied. If either of these ladies say they were required to be in the courtroom they are flat out lying.
Using the court as the reason for not being at the School Board Meeting is just a flimsy excuse to not face the responsibility and embarrassment that Mrs Garner had been committed to answer questions about. Allen Barrett
Ouch, Sounds to me like he did have the facts before he posted this thread.
wab
LOOK, I am sure of what I'm talking about. Just call one of the defense attorneys and find out for yourself. When you do, will you then apologize for trying to stir up unneccessary trouble? Will you delete this thread? You were wrong AGAIN! Will pride keep you from doing the right thing AGAIN?
Why don't you try to be a little more truthful in the future?
To 6:04 I have done nothing but be truthful but for people like you the truth is about the last thing you have a desire for.
I posted some very clear reasons why Mrs Garner and Mrs Vanzant were not witnesses or potential witnesses yet you discard those facts in favor "call a defense attorney and find out". Are you really so dense as to think you could be a witness without the opposition being told, or that when all the witnesses are sequestered by the judges order that two would be allowed to stay in the court room while the others are escorted out? You sir are more than an enabler of wrong you are a liar and gossip and if anyone owns an apology to anyone it would be you as you have already been revealed as spreading lies.
As for deleting this thread why should it be deleted since it has already been posted and people have read it.
I will in the future delete offensive posts before they are posted. Allen Barrett
Way to go WAB!
wab
Did you speak with either of the defense attorneys about why Mrs. Vanzant and Mrs. Garner were asked to be present? Obviously not, and it's amazing that you call me dense.
There you go again telling that same old tired lie that I am somehow an enabler of wrong. I don't appreciate it, and you need to stop calling names.
Go ahead asnd delete this one. I'm sure you didn't like what I had to say. But you need to be a bit more truthful in the future.
4:25
Why would Mr. Barrett have to call the defense attorneys? He was a principal in this case and he and his attorney would know who was asked to be there. For that matter, why would any of us curious persons on here have to call to verify something. You obviously are in the know so why can you not answer the simple question that several have asked on here-----why was there a NEED for Mrs. Garner to be there?
Why did he have to try gaining Mr. Black's signature at the nursing home?
Mrs. Garner was asked to be there by one of the attorneys. How many times do you need to ehar that? Why don't you go ask them yourself?
Better yet, call and ask Mrs. Garner.
To 4:44
There was never an attempt to get either Mr. Blacks signatures. I have nothing but sympathy for the situation Mrs Gilbert is in with her father. It is a very taxing and painful situation and I suspect may have caused much of the confusion she displayed on the stand. She was trying to be a nice lady and Mrs Coleman in her haste and recklessness took advantage of her.
All you have to ask about Mrs Vanzant and Mrs Garner is if they were asked to be witnesses to anything why were they not sequestered and removed from the courtroom when the other witnesses were escorted out? You, 4:44, have simply been caught once again cowardly spreading gossip, just plain lying or both either way it proves once again that you have no moral character and by your very attitude enable and embrace wrongdoing.
Allen Barrett
they just wanted to see wab waste his money or somebodies money. he sure wasted enough tax payers money that he brags about saving all the time. that also hes had nothing to do with saving any tax payers money from anything he did.
Monday, September 13, 2010 4:44:00 PM
I'm having a hard time understanding, why any of this is any of your business.
You come off like you are the judge of Barrett.
wab No, you seem to have been caught in a lie. All I did was tell you what I kinow and asked that you either apologize or delete this particular thread. If you or anyone else wants to know why Mrs. Garner was asked to be at your hearing, why don't YOU call and ask one of the attorneys who were defending the county against YOU?
It'ds my business because the county has to waste taxpayer money on this ridiculous court proceeding.
6:37, I wrote 6:20 and I don't care why Mrs Garner or Janet were at the trial. It wasn't any of my business, just wondering why it was yours.
6:46
LOOK, barrett is the one who introduced the topic. Why don't you ask him why it was any of his buisiness? I'm just telling you what happened. Apparently, that's just not good enough for you. Too bad.
6:59
Just been reading todays post. Do you watch to see what posted every minute?
Someone is just enjoying making you mad.
Don't make yourself sick over it.
6:59 you are a liar and you are very aware that you have lied and been caught in it.
8:30
What lie did I tell? Please elaborate.
I didn't make the original claim that you lied but it's very clear that Mrs. Garner was not a witness or ever was intended to be a witness because she was never sent out of the room with the other witnesses.
When you are made aware of facts but continue to say things that ain't true you are telling a lie.
charles
I NEVER claimed that Mrs. Gatrner was called to be a witness. She was asked to be there. NOBODY that I'm aware of said she was there as a witness. Please get YOUR facts straight too. When you go off telling things that are not true, wouldn't that make you appear to be a liar?
Who is Mrs. Gatrner?
To 6:07 Mrs Garner made the claim that she was required to be in the court as the excuse for not being at the School Board meeting that was plainly stated in the thread topic.
You on more than one occasion implied that she was required to be in the courtroom, your first post of such an untruth could have been the result of a mistake or misunderstanding but your continuing to state and re-state this same thing after being told it was untrue makes it a lie plain and simple. Allen Barrett
wab
But it doesn't make you a liar, plain and simple, when you falsely accuse me of enabling wrong? How convenient.
Look, since you are making this an issue, why not call Mrs. Garner and ask her why she was in court? Or better yet, why not get someone else to do it?
Don't be so stupid 3:54. If I stood on my porch and saw it was raining why would I call someone and ask if it was raining at my house?
I have never falsely accused you of anything, everything I have called you has been meticulously supported.
Allen Barrett
wab
Calling me an enabler of wrong is a lie, pure and simple. Why can't you accept the fact that just because someone disagrees with the way you sees things does not make that person wrong or trying to promote or facilitate wrongdoing. As long as you call me that, I must respectfully call you a liar. Ok?
I'm sure that's not the only thing you been wrong about 2:34
howard
You know what? I'm right about this. You can try to excuse mean behavior all you please, but that doesn't change things one bit.
To 2:34
You can call a sheep a horse all you want to but that doesn't change the fact it is still a sheep. So you can call me whatever you want it don't make it so until you start showing some proof and so far you don't get very close to the truth. On the other hand when I refer to you as an enabler of wrongdoing I have presented the facts that support such a charge. Allen Barrett
Good grief...people. Take a time out!!!
Maybe if there are still questions concerning the issue of insurance...it should be put back on the school board to discuss it at next meeting and request Mrs. Garner to show up and answer the questions!!! ;}
Good grief...people. Take a time out!!!
Maybe if there are still questions concerning the issue of insurance...it should be put back on the school board to discuss it at next meeting and request Mrs. Garner to show up and answer the questions!!! ;}
wab
To call me an enabler of wrong is a lie, regardless of whether you are a troublemaker or a sheep.
2:34, Oh my gosh, Ithought you had run out of things to gripe about after Janet got back in. You wore the blog out trying to defend her and I hope you are happy. When you go on food stamps just remember I told you so. Please go away and don't come back. I hope Mr. Barrett deletes every post you make and maybe you will get the message
9:57 When I go on food stamps, I'll call you for advice on things I can and cannot buy. I'm sure you have plenty of experience using them. Yeah, I know this post is stupid but so is yours.
10:18
You're right about the post; it makes no sense at all.
I am very happy that I was able to help Mrs. Vanzant gain re-election. I worked hard for her, and there are no regrets. I'm just thankful she won. Had Scott Stewart been elected, I honestly believe the troublemakers would be right there beside him wanting favors for the trash and smear campaign they unsuccessfully carried out against Mrs. Vanzant. And it was they who helped her to victory moreso than anyone else. I warned them that people do not like attack dogs, and I'm sure they learned that hard lesson.
However, if there are any sour grapes on my part, it would have to be with the charter committee. I'm hearing that every single member (with the exception of Mr. Reynolds) is in favor of something we do NOT need. And unless something is said to convince me otherwise, I will work just as hard to see it defeated as I worked to help Mrs. Vanzant.
to 10:18
My apologies. The above post was intended for 9:57.
Mr. Barrett you want proof that Mrs. Garner was ask to be in the courtroom. You won't take anyone's word for it because every one but you lies. Why won't you go to the source yourself and ask. Is it because you don't want to admit you were wrong. I am not one of the above posters but have been watching these posts. Ask then let us know who is right. I don't know the answer myself but I am giving the other poster the benefit of the doubt. Give us the proof. Ask then let us know the correct answer.
6:48
He IS wrong about that, but don't hold your breath for an admission or an apology.
Mrs. Garner didn't get away with anything not being there. She will still have to report to the board about the insurance.
Barrett already said Garner wasn't required to be there. The simple question he asked was "if she was considered a witness why wasn't she on the witness list and why wasn't she sent out of the room with other witnesses"? If she was asked to be their to watch then who asked and why would that require her neglecting her official duties to attend a hearing she had nothing to do with? The truth has already been told and until the answers to the above questions are given differently the truth will not change.
Someone is conveniently missing the point. Lucy Hensen may have 'asked' Loretta Garner to attend the Hearing but as WAB says, unless Garner was on the official witness list, supeonaed by either plaintiff or defendent, she did not need to be there. What authority does Lucy Hensen have to take a publicly paid employee away from her duties? Obviously there for the entertainment.Thats the point.
9:03
You seem to be missing the point. Mrs. Garner was never on the witness list. Nobody said she was. She was simply asked to be there in case something came up for which she was needed. Now will you and barrett give it a rest?
There was absolutely nothing Mrs Garner could have contributed to the hearing and because she wasn't on a witness lest would not have been permitted to say anything anyway.
Had there been a need to contact her during a recess there is this little invention by Alexander Graham Bell called a telephone that could have been used.
No matter how you stretch things in this situation it's still going to be a load of meadow muffins.
Just admit you shot off your mouth as usual before you were told what to say by your puppet master. Allen Barrett
wab
LOOK, go ask Mrs. Garner and may we then expect an apology from you?
Just admit that you were wrong about this as you have been 0on many many occasions. But pride makes that hard to do, doesn't it?
Again....give it a rest!!! Can yall not agree to disagree!!! Seems like to me that everybody just want to be in control and right..OMG!!!
Very simple. Ms. Garner came to see you lose your lawsuit.
Nothing wrong with that.
The one I want to be there to see is the McAlister trial. I'll take off from work for that one. Someone is about to have the old clock cleaned this time. I want to see it.
10:44 Yes there is. Ms Garner is paid by tax payers to be at work, not to get her kicks from 2 days being in the audiance of a trial hearing. AND she did not take vacation time which she has already used up this year.
8:33
Why don't you go see Mrds. Garner and take wab with you to find out who requested that she be at the hearing?
4:34 Not interested in who asked Garner to be at Hearing. Thats not what I wrote against.
7:06
So you just want to fuss and try to get something started?
7:36 Loosing it aren't you?
8:05
Indeed, I'm quite composed. I just love to point out what you guys are no doubt going to be doing for the enxt four years. Right?
7:36 No. Just pointing out what is right and what is wrong. Garner has to live with people's opinions of her.
819 Yep, have a good night.
9:30
I already knew the answer to the question. Just wanted someone like you to confirm it.
If all, who have ever been wrong about anything, stopped posting on this blog, we would not have a blog. How many have apologized when wrong?
If the board meeting was at night, why did being in court keep Mrs. Garner from attending. It appears she did not want to face the board.
And the choir said AMEN to 11:01 Sept 18
Melanie
When does the school board meet again? Want Garner be expected to be there and answer the question then?
The court was still in session that night. The school board agenda had to be rearranged so that Chris Morris could get back to court. I have no idea why he had to be in the courtroom either.
I doubt they rearranged the board meeting for Chris Morris.
As for him having to be in court, I guess it was like a lot of other people, nose trouble.
Chris Morris was there because he was to be a witness and sequestered. Garner was there with 'nose trouble'. She was not sequestered. Could have left anytime she wanted and still attend the school board meeting.
7:28
I didn't realize that a witness would be allowed to be out serving subpoenaes? And you are wrong about Mrs. Garner. Ask the county attorney why she was in court and stop trying to stir up trouble.
Are you saying Chris Morris was out serving subpoenaes?
Before I judge Mrs. Garner I will wait until the next School Board meeting and see if she shows up for it.
If Garner had been on the official witness list she could not have been in the courtroom listening to the proceedings. Surely to god you know that Idiot.
8:02
He absolutely was. Ask him.
3:45
Mrs. Garner was asked to be present by one of the attorneys who were defending against barrett. Ask one of them. Wonder how much that cost county taxpayers?
Why ask them, you are telling us.
In the first place all I know about them is what I read on this blog.
I didn't understand the post of 6:20 is why I asked if he was
serving subpoenaes. That is what I thought you meant but wasn't sure. Now you said he did so I know.
I have learned something now, I sure didn't know private citizens could serve subpoenaes.
They did indeed change the agenda of the BOE meeting to accomodate Mr. Morris. Mr. Jackson took it upon himself to do it even though he AND the board can't seem to remember that they are the boss and he answers to them. He took control of the meeting even though the president was there.
hahaha...you guys are all so funny running around like you know something. Arguing with each other, with neither having the facts. Some of you people sure are entertaining to listen to and sure think you know more than you do.
Some people are going to have the last word.
Does any of this make a hill of beans difference in anyone's life?
Perhaps if the Director spent more time supervising her employees the school employees wouldn't have to worry about getting paid on time.
wab
Why don't you call and discuss your concerns with Mrs. Garner rather than to try to discredit her and stir up more trouble? You're really a piece of work.
Mr. Barrett has spoken with Mrs. Garner on several occasions. Perhaps if she could be honest when spoken to and not under the spell of Janet all the time things would be done the proper way. Mrs. Garner discredits herself. She needs no help from anyone else.
wab
Will you be deleting the 8:15 post? If not, please explain why? The post is dishonest and unsubstantiated.
I suppose too many people have read it already, so leaving the post is somehow justified?
To 8:45:
Up early this morn to see if the post was removed. Who would care most about it being deleted? I think we both know the answer to that question. The only thing dishonest and unsubstantiated on this blog are your rants. If Mr. Barrett chooses to delete my post then so be it. No one can stop me from verbally voicing my opinion and I couldn't care less who I offend with the truth. Something you are incapable of understanding. You must be Janet, Loretta or one of their faithful followers that are fearful of their job or just snowed into believing what either of them say.
The post before 8.15 told Barrett to go ask Mrs. Garner, then 8.15 told he had and said she was dishonest which you didn't like.
It also said something about Janet, sorry but if he don't delete all your post that one has to stay.
Before you come back are you Barrett, all I know is what I read on this blog about him. You hate him so I feel sorry for him.
You seem to want to be the ruler of Giles county and tell people they are not welcome here. I was born here and not leaving until my time comes.
7:19
And you sound just like none other than william allen barrett. Are you?
No, I don't want to rule over anything. What I do want is that barrett and his loyal few not gain any power over this county. That's what they want, but the problem is that they can't get elected.
4:23 must dream about WAB. That's all she/he can talk aout.
4:23 not only dreams of Barrett he dreams of being Barrett. Problem is he can't even be like Barrett until he gets a few things like courage, integrity, honesty, intelligence, principles, and a living active faith in God.
8:59
I am 4:23, and I can assure you that I have no desire whatsoever to be like barrett. You really cracked me up when you equated wab to such things as integrity, honesty, and principles. The jury is still out on his intelligence and courage. You knbow, there's a fine line between courage and grandstanding to be noticed. I don't judge the man in terms of an active faith in God, but I must confess that I doubt his sincerity.
7:21 you don't equate those things with Barrett because you have not clue as to what they mean.
Your obsession with Barrett is obviously one of admiration, it's like a kid in third grade you're in love with a little girl but you can't bring yourself to admit it. Years later you talk about how you loved that little girl and Barrett to.
10:33
Wrong! How much plainer can I make the point to you that I find allen barrett to be the most despicable person I have ever known in this county. It is my opinion that he is a blatant hypocrite and troublemaker. I see him as devious, dishonest, and calculating, not caring who he might hurt to achieve his objectives. Furthermore, it is my opinion that he is one of the most arrogant people I have ever seen. Shall I go on?
You confuse admiration with total disgust.
7:02 but you have said several times that you have never met Barrett and don't really know him. Are all those names you just called him based on personal experience or just the gossip you love?
7:02 You try to come across as very educated and smart, using big words, but most not of took Englis. People's name is suppose to be capitalized.
Oh I know you was trying to degrade whoever Allen Barrett is.
Don't put yourself in the same type of person you think he is.
Lots of people don't like WAB, but when they read your posts, they think you are crazy. Ignore WAB, don't let him get under your skin.
"most not of took Englis"?
I can assure you we were not in the same class.
5:30 Have you ever miss typed?
But if you make a mistake everyone was suppose to know what you meant.
Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:45:00 AM
Ignore her she thinks she's a man.
4:07
More gender confusion and hyperbole?
Educate me, what is a hyperbole?
Grab a dictionary or google it.
Hyperbole
•A large exageration, usually used with humor. Example: The fish was a football field and a granny long.
I guess someone is really educated on this blog and thinks the rest of us are backward.
Post a Comment
<< Home