REQUEST AND DENIAL TO ADDRESS THE COUNTY COMMISSION!
Having been denied the opportunity to speak at the Budget Committee Meeting and the Public Hearing on the Budget, because of arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions applied to those not in favor with the "county monarchy", the "pseudo servants of the people", I naively presented a formal letter requesting to address the Full Legislative Body at the called meeting to discuss setting the tax rate and adopting the budget. When I returned home last night I had a letter from the county executive denying me the opportunity because of "State Law". Of course there was no specific Tennessee Code Annotated Regulation or law mentioned but the law does often stop a woman determined to have her way. I am posting the body of my request to speak and the letter denying my right to address the Legislative Body. Three things to note: (1)there no specific law mentioned prohibiting me from speaking; (2)This decision was made without any input from the County Legislative Body; (3)My request specifically states that my remarks are about the adoption of the Tax Rate.
Mrs. Vanzant,
In accordance with County Legislative Rules and at the urging of several County Commissioners I am requesting to address the County Legislative Body at its called meeting scheduled for the 27th day of July 2011 at 9AM.
The topic of my address will be the proposed budget and tax rate under consideration at this called meeting.
Sincerly, Allen Barrett
Dear Mr. Barrett:
Thank you for your letter of July 21, 2011 with regard to your request to speak at the special meeting on July 27, 2011. I have consulted the county attorney concerning this matter and this request must be denied.
In accordance with Tennessee law, no other business but that embraced in the call shall be transacted during such a special session.
Sincerly, Janet P. Vanzant
YOU BE THE JUDGE OF THIS ACTION!
Mrs. Vanzant,
In accordance with County Legislative Rules and at the urging of several County Commissioners I am requesting to address the County Legislative Body at its called meeting scheduled for the 27th day of July 2011 at 9AM.
The topic of my address will be the proposed budget and tax rate under consideration at this called meeting.
Sincerly, Allen Barrett
Dear Mr. Barrett:
Thank you for your letter of July 21, 2011 with regard to your request to speak at the special meeting on July 27, 2011. I have consulted the county attorney concerning this matter and this request must be denied.
In accordance with Tennessee law, no other business but that embraced in the call shall be transacted during such a special session.
Sincerly, Janet P. Vanzant
YOU BE THE JUDGE OF THIS ACTION!
posted by Allen Barrett | 11:30 AM
79 Comments:
Our County government is ridiculous.
sounded respectful to me
1>55 No one said it wasn't a respectful response - the problem is there is no law against Barrett or anyone else speaking at that meeting regarding the budget and tax rate. I smell a lawsuit coming on against Vanzant and the county and it sure would be justified in this case. Maybe the infamous Enabler will be able to enlighten us on Ms Vanzant's actions in this matter.
The folowing was copied from the Tennessee Code in regards to REGULAR LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS:
5-5-104. Regular meetings.
(a) Regular meetings of each county legislative body shall be held at the time, day and place set by resolution of each legislative body.
(b) There shall be at least four (4) regular meetings of the county legislative body each year.
(c) Special meetings of the county legislative body may be called by the county mayor or by petition of a majority of the members of the county legislative body in accordance with ยง 5-5-105.
(d) No business shall be transacted, or any appointment made, or nominations confirmed, except in public session.
5-5-110. Business presented by chair.
(a) All business for the action of the county legislative body shall be presented to the chair, who shall announce the same to the county legislative body and take the vote thereon.
(b) No business shall be acted on by the body unless presented as required in subsection (a), except by the consent of a majority of the members present.
In regards to SPECIAL MEETINGS there is the following TCA provision:
5-5-105. Special meetings.
(b) (1) The county mayor shall be authorized to call a special session of the county legislative body for emergency purposes only by publication in a newspaper published in the county, and by personal notification to the members of the county legislative body at least two (2) days before the time of the convening of the county legislative body, in any county that authorizes its county mayor to act in accordance with the provisions of this subsection (b), by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the county legislative body.
(2) The call or notice shall specify the objects and purposes for which such special session is called, and no other business but that embraced in such call shall be transacted during such special session.
In this case the County Executive was correct and well within her authority to restrict business other than that presented in the call.
However, since Mr. Barrett wanted to discuss what is being discussed by out Giles County Legislative body; the County Executive could allow him to speak (and the Commission does not have to "wave the rules") but I know that it will be a very cold day in HELL before Janet Parker VanZant will allow Barrett to speak.
Thanks for your post 2:03.
Now thia brings up another point. Ref TCA 5-5-105 (b) (1) this meeting on the 27th is not an "Emergency Meeting" but one set by Vanzant some time ago and the commissioners did not get to vote on whether or not this "emergency meeting" should be held. Further, this goes back to a topic from a week ago - why couldn't all this work have taken place all in one meeting? The citizens and half the commissioners are getting screwed, the other half are enjoying the paydays.
The actual fact is that no one gives a d@#% what the mighty barrett has to say and no one wants to listen to his idiotic banter. If you will recall he finished a distant fourth when he ran for commissioner. The only reason he didn't finish fifth is there were only four running. Might be the same reason he keeps getting kicked out of churches. How many Baptist preachers have every been kicked out of the Giles Co. Baptist Assoc??? I only know of one--that being the mighty barrett. What will it take for him to ever get the message that he is the minority of the public opinion and NOT the majority???
This is not a conversation about any church. Pretty obvious you threw that in as you dont have an excuse for Vanzant in this case. Good try, but you need to try again and stick to the issue at hand if you know how.
As a citizen that would like to see the best for the county I am interested in Mr. Barrett's opinion. If he presents facts that can not be refuted then the commissioners should take those facts into consideration.
If the information Mr. Barrett brings forth is not factual and can be disputed with other documentation furnished by proper sources then only five to ten minutes has been wasted by listening to Mr. Barrett's opinion. But he does have the right to speak.
42 U.S.C 1983 (nicknamed the Ku Klux Klan law) Mr. Barrett may want to check this out.
Did he really get kicked out of the Baptist Minister Association? I think that should come from him rather than rumor. If it is true, that is not good. I just wonder if he will answer honestly?
How does his association with the Baptist Preacher's association relate to County business? Is this post about his personal life? Please start up your own blog and make that a topic or call him up and ask the man yourself.
Does he have the right as a citizen to address the commission? I do not see the harm but then his religious affiliation is not a concern of mine but higher taxes and restrictions on our freedom does concern me.
4:12 Good post, but enabler want think so.
I think it is a fair question. It speaks if his honesty and integrity. If a man that claims to be a Christian can't get along with fellow Christians, how do we expect him to get along with other commissioners? It just appears that trouble and turmoil follow wherever he goes. I think anyone that is not directly related to him on this blog would want to know as well. I assume anyone turning the other way already knows the story.
Here's the facts all you lovely christians that try your darndest to put Mr Barrett down:
A while back some in the baptist ministry wanted to have Mr Barrett leave the association. There were enough sensible ministers in the group that thought otherwise so he remains a member. He currently does not have a church to pastor because a damn tornado blew it to bits then when the congregation was in the process of re-build the floods took it away. It was deemed too costly to do everything to that acre before they could continue so the congregation disbanded to various other congregations. They remain friends with Mr. Barrett as do most of the baptist ministers.
I wonder why some of them wanted him gone? He seems to be a very religious man. Very upstanding.
Looks like some one spew with out the facts and told it to be true.
What does that say about that person?
5:33 I am not related to nor do I know the story but I am a citizen and in the video I witnessed his concerns validated by others that are knowledgeable.
If the state mandates in writing that numbers that are used to calculate the budget can not be rounded up, but are, and our finance director is getting second hand information from Judge Dameron in order to estimate a portion of revenues that many of the commissioners questioned the realism in this estimate and you have a man that wants to challenge this with facts, in writing, obtained from the state; how does this man's affiliation with the Baptist's Preachers Association carry any relevance. His honesty can be tested by comparing his data and copies of statutes with the states. Very simple and no need to try to start something else.
Should Barrett be allowed to speak? Absolutely.
Are his concerns valid? We do not know because the Commission fails to acknowledge or answer his questions.
If they fail to protect his rights then they fail to protect all of our rights.
Well it seems the hounds of gossip have been loosed in an effort to re-direct attention away from the violation of civil rights, misuse of office and abuse of power along with blatantly offensive behavior by some arrogantly manipulative and vindictive people.
Let me set the record straight about "being kicked out of the Baptist Association". I will not use names but what I am about to write is very easily verified by asking the Director of Missions and some of the ministers who were directly involved. A long number of years ago when I was very active in the Baptist Association I was elected to the finance committee and after a period of time I became aware of some irregularities in the bookkeeping. When I pointed this out to others on the committee and to the Director I was quickly made persona non grata. I showed the records to others and tried to present the issue to the full Association, there too I was denied the opportunity to speak and was attacked on the most personal of levels.
I was offered the opportunity to either be quiet and leave things as they were and be the next Association Moderator or continue to stir the pot and I would never serve another church in this Association. I refused to drop the matter and agreed to have some Baptist Conference Officials from Nashville come and serve as mediators. After a discussion of the issues it was agreed that "for the benefit of all" I would no longer take an active role in the Association.
Not many knew all the particulars of this situation but years later many of those who opposed me the most apologized, and after the books were finally audited I was completely vindicated. Were my actions costly to me, absolutely but I had less concern about answering to the Association and its members than answering to God and I would do the same thing again were the circumstances to arise.
Your personal integrity is the only thing a person truly and completely owns. If it is treasured you will protect it and when you sell or give it away it can not be regained. I may not fit the pattern some have established in their minds but no one can show where I have forfeited my integrity.
Right on WAB!
Just read what the mighty UNELECTED barrett said. He stirred the sh?$ at the Baptist Association just like always. If he would tell the whole truth, he would also tell he did not get his request to speak in on time. Should the rules be changed for the mighty barrett?? As for his current church--even God won't let him speak. Just follow his past history and commisioners had better beware, he might just bring his bag of stones and throw them at you like he did his congregation at one of his many previous churches before they kicked him out. How can any one take this fool seriously?
How can any of you idiots not take him seriously when at great personal cost to him, he has tried to point out what is right? whether you like it or not, in your soul, (corrupt as it may be)you DO know right from wrong....
So what if he pointed out irregularities in that association, what there aren't "godly" people that need calling out from time to time?
10:25, prety bold that you think you could speak on behalf of God stating that even God won't allow him to speak...really? Wow
religion aside---there always seems to be an excuse as to why folks aren't allowed to speak to these commissions, meetings etc...convienient....just hope form a better turn out next election.
To 10:25 Everyone has the right to be stupid but you are abusing the privilege. My letter of request was in Mrs Vanzant's hand before noon on 21 July requesting to speak at the meeting called for 27 July. Maybe some first grader could count those days for you. You might want to try and catch up with your gossip because you're daze behind in your meetings and the conversation.
The "many" previous churches I served as pastor number two and I challenge you to produce one single person that says I ever threw stones at them or that saw me throw stones in any church or building of any sort. Yes, there was a dispute in the church where I was the pastor for over nineteen years some wanted a family member as the pastor while the majority was supportive. I resigned rather than demand a vote in order to not split the church but the church split anyway. It was a heartbreaking experience for everyone. You ask about taking someone seriously, I would suggest that it is impossible to take seriously anyone who flutters about gossiping and spreading lies and human worshiping as you do. Were you able to merely activate one brain cell you would possibly see how totally stupid you are in playing the fool for those who are using you and your ignorance as their stooge. You are such a sad little pharisee with so many words and so little understanding.
Hey WAB,
Didn't I see you and Bob Hughes on TV at a wedding ceremony in New York this past weekend??
Mr. Barrett, I agree with as to the fact that you sent the letter in on time. But, you version of the church situation in not the same as the membership that I know personally. Your members had problems with you. I do know that for a fact. Whatever the situation whether it is church, school or commission, you are a control freak and cannot get over the fact that you cannot be in charge. Why do you not see from the two election you have been in that the majority does not want you. Now it sounds like you are going to cost the county more with another law suit.
Majority of 7th District! Not Giles County.
To 6:45 As you have proven many times before you are a liar and your 6:45 post proves consistency.
Regardless of what disgusting lie or gossip you attack me with the fact remains that as an American Citizen I have certain rights, among them the right to address those who represent me in our representative form of government.
Obviously you have forgotten much of our national history but there are hundreds of thousands on graves in this country and abroad of those who sacrificed their lives to provide and defend those rights. There are thousands currently suffering the effects of their sacrifice for those same freedoms. Your expressed desire to prohibit the use of those freedoms, because you have a personal objection to me, is nothing short of a slap in the face to all those who sacrificed so much. You are not only a yellow coward, liar and gossip you are a parasite on the very term liberty.
I tell you what, since this is not the first time you have tried to use church events and business to attack me, if you can produce the name or person of one member that will publicly support your outrageously false claim about me I'll give you a thousand dollars.
So shut up or put up.
Now Now WAB.
Lets play nice. I am not positive on this but I think I recall in a distant past post you posted that you never called anyone names. You just blew that with your 7:50 post.
6:45
Great post-- I love to see WAB all riled up when he is treated the same way he treats others and then wonders why he gets no respect.
7:13
I beg to differ--- if that is the case why does WAB not run for County Executive. Could it be that her could not take the humiliation of the spanking he would receive, especially if Mrs. Vanzant is running-- she would receive at least 4 votes to his 1.
No 7:13, the majority of Giles County. Get Barrett to run for County Executive and you will see how bad it is.
There you go again 9:09 at least you are consistent with lie, lie, lie.
I have never said I didn't call anyone a name only that I have not called anyone a name without also posting the reason for using that name. So when I call you a simple minded liar I refer to your post as proof of your simple-mindedness and give evidence of your lie.
6:45 you really need to read the law that was posted by Barrett. It allows a citizen to go after an elected or appointed official directly. The law suit is not filed against the county but against the individual that denied the citizen equal protection under the constitution. Public funds may not be used in defense or payment of any award granted.
If you are faulty in your assessment of a law that is posted on this blog, then perhaps you may be faulty in your assessment of Mr. Barrett.
We can even argue that you paid as much attention to your friend's statements and only carried away with you what you wanted to hear.
WAB,
10:58 post. If you are calling me a liar from the 9:09 post and saying that is proof, this explains just how twisted your thinking really is. I said "I am not positive but I think I recall" and you are referring back to that as absolute fact. Taking what ever information you receive and distorting it to say whatever you want it to say in your miniscule mind. Please seek some counselling as soon as possible, you really need some help.
I've often wondered how someone could be sued because of gossip, but Clinton couldn't sue anyone because of the gossip about him and Monica. Some one said an elected has to take it.
If that's right Janet has to take the gossip, but Barrett don't so he can sue the one saying the gossip he heard?
To 3:49 I referred to you as a liar from a long number of lies that you have told for which I provide evidence of that lie.
To 5:08 gossip is one thing but violation of a person's civil rights is a totally different matter. Mrs Vanzant enjoys the same civil rights as I do only I don't get the privilege of expressing mine because of her arrogant misuse of her office. Just as she violated Mrs White's and had to pay it will catch up with her as she continues with such disregard of the law.
5:08 Don't know who you have been listening to but that is not true. Slander is slander and libel is libel. does not matter who you are or what position you hold.
6:44 Why don't the politicians sue the other side when they slander them.
Surely you have seen how they do in a president election.
Maybe they said something like this:
"I am not positive but I think I recall"
To me the one talking about Barret and his church was slandering. The ones talking about Vanzant are slandering. Is that not right?
If we knew the name of the person some call Enabler it would be slander, but since we don't know his name that's not slander.
Slander is verbal and libel is printed. The statement has to be able to be proven to be untrue. this might answer your question.
Another point is that a person may make a statement that it is their opinion and this does not necessarily mean that it falls in the libel or slander category.
But if you hold something to be true and if it is able to be proven false with factual evidence then it can fall into these two categories, dependent upon how it was presented.
The proof is in the pudding so to say.
Mr. Barrett. I am 6:45. I wrote that post but that was my first. I would not give you the name of the person if that person was my worst enemy. Why would I let you loose on someone to attack. Maybe people in your church were not being truthful with you about why they wanted you gone, I don't know. You have some good points when it ocmes to the county government but it is hostility that scares me. I fear you going "postal" one day. The church members that I talked to have a right to their opinion just like you do. I think that their opinion of you changed when the school board stuff happened. Mr. Barrett you really do scare me.
6:45 as I expected, only opinion, no fact. It seems the only one that is attacking any one is you. Every one just ignore 6:45 they do not bring any facts. As I expected they are only on here to attack Barret and make up stories that they hope every one will believe. Next 6:45 will be telling us he is a good Christian gentleman.
Why would anyone be scared of me a cuddly, lovable teddy bear?
My speaking style, if that's what you choose to call it, is the natural development of my many past years in the housing projects, military and pulpit. Because I speak with passion does not mean you have anything to fear. While I have been taught many skills they are always well under control and have never been used out of anger.
Only foolishness would cause any decent person to have any fear of me.
Looks like barrett showed his but again and had to be escorted out of the commission meeting by police cussing Mrs Vanzant all the way
So much for pulpit learning...LOL.
1:55 must be the same fool that wrote in the first article. Only butt shown was Vanzant and no cussing at all from anyone that could be heard. 1:55 is just telling a big o lie about what happened guess he got his info from Hardee's again.
Somebody is gonna be embarrassed when the meeting is showed on TV and the new web sight.
1:55 I just saw the video and it was nothing like what you described. Can you explain why such a big difference?
1:55 Who told you Barrett was escorted out of the building, Janet.
Video showed him going toward door before Janet said "Leave".
A close friend of mine was at that meeting and said Barrett was out of line and was asked to sit down. Then he stormed out of the room when Mrs. Vanzant asked him to leave.
A close friend of mine was also at that meeting and said Barrett had applied to speak and his request was on the subject for the morning and he did meet the timeframe to submit a request. Friend said Barrett was ignored and not one commissioner spoke up on his behalf. Why not? Barrett then stood up and turned to the audiance and said something then started toward the door. After he was already up and leaving Vanzant said 'leave" and he responded I" already am" before she added her command. Will someone please tell me its not true that Vanzant had FOUR law enforcement officers in the room that morning.
6:49 Your friend needs to watch the video and you too. I agree I saw he was out of order, but adding to what didn't happen makes them bad as Barrett.
Mr. Barrett, while I agree that you should have been allowed to speak after going through the procedures and at the school board meeting, the last thing that I would call you is a loveable teddy bear. I have seen your actions and heard your words and name calling in person. You are the type of person that I would call a loose cannon. That is my opinion I don't care what anyone says to the contrary. Once again, you scare me.
7:58 Barrett scares you, do you think he will bring a gun and start shooting?
I've never been to a Commissioners meeting, thinking about it, but wondering after your post.
I went to an Alderman meeting at Minor Hill years ago because of the tall tales I was hearing. Just wanted to see for myself. It was just tall tales nothing happen like I had been told.
8:45
All you need do is attend a meeting or two and you will see for yourself. And "loose cannon" doesn't imply guns and shooting. I totally agree with 7:58.
Barrett bringing a gun is the most ignorant thing I have read. We have County Commissioners that can not control their emotions and have physically attacked citizens and it is condoned, but you have a man who talks abrasively but has never physically attacked any one and he is a threat. Man there is some upside down thinking here.
How does Barrett scare 7:58 then? She is probably the same one that has said before "You scare me."
His words would not scare me, no matter what they were.
To the person who "Barret Scares". When Butch White was on the commission he carried a pistol in his pocket to every meeting he attended did he scare you? Commissioner Terry Harwell physically attacked a man on the public square then called him names that by all legal terms was hate speech does he scare you?
Commissioner Jackson verbally attacked a female senior citizen with such anger and hostilities that it brought her to tears, does he scare you?
Mrs Vanzant has ignored and violated the Constitutional and the Laws of God to get her way against anyone who opposes her, does she scare you?
While I would not say Barret is a "cuddly teddy bear" he certainly is not the one who needs to be feared in this county.
Tell me about what Jackson did? I didn't know about that and voted for him.
howard...
I would suggest that he is more a laughing stock and a troublemaker. Just my opinion.
Why did you say he scares you then?
Howard
You failed to mention when a county employee killed a senior with his steel toed shoe.
Sorry. Meant to say 'kicked' and not killed.
Who kicked who?
There have been several meeting where I thought that Barrett was going to get into a physical altercation with either commissioners or board members. In fact he has charged at people and dared them to hit him. How do you think the incident with the lawyer happened at the board meeting. He is the one that approached the lawyer and got in his face daring him to do something. He asks for trouble.
6:20
You are right (my opinion), and I just for the life of me cannot understand why people defend such misbehavior.
Didn't we see a video where Barrett was asking a woman something and as she was trying to answer, the lawyer jumped in and started telling WAB off pointing his finger.
How quickly 6:20 and 7:10 forgets.
Was the judge crocked for not blaming WAB in that?
To 6:20 you are a brain dead liar in posting that comment. Not only was there a video of that confrontation but there were a large number of witnesses who gave statements about those events and that led the attorney to plead no contest when he was taken to court for assault. He issued an apology and paid court cost and that was the end of it for me.
So you can go on with your lies and gossip all you want but no one can give one honest example of me "charging" anyone with an attempt of creating a physical altercation.
Your comment, "In fact he has charged at people and dared them to hit him" is as stupid a lie as the first one in your post.
I am 67 years old, have had triple by-pass surgery, walk on legs worn out from too much abuse, have weekly appointments with the chiropractor so I can turn my neck and stand up almost straight and have fibromyalgia which causes constant pain that makes it hard being touched even by my clothes on some days, so just who do you think I would "charge", you lying sub-human parasite?
wab
You just called 6:20 a brain dead liar. Then you called the writer a lying sub-human parasite. Unbelievable! How unbecoming!
He or she is not the only person who has seen you in action, so I really don't see how you can deny that.
The attorney in question had no choice but to plead guilty to assaulting you with his finger. After all, he did touch you and, from what I hear, was trying to move you out of his face.
wab
It may be ok for your defenders to take up for you when you resort to such misbehavior, but it's never acceptable for me or anyone else to call you on it. Can you see just a tad of arrogance in that?
I see a lot of arrogance in the county exc. and commissioners. So seems to be a lot of arrogance going around.
2:31 You are acting as bad as some that are defending WAB.
Why would the attorney have no choice if he wasn't guilty? From the video he should of let the chairman handle it. She was doing a good job.
Arrogance from some people really stirs up trouble.
8:53
The attorney had no choice but to plead guilty because he touched barrett with his finger. But I tell you this. What would you do if an angry little man got in your face shouting at you?
7:12 I was there and Barret was not in the guy's face in fact Barrethad his back to the attorney speaking to the chairman who when questioned stated that it was the attorney who entered the conversation uninvited.
Getting your facts wrong is one thing but you are just not telling the truth after being well aware of the truth. Wonder how your preacher feels about that.
2:29
Well guess what? My preacher would never be in a public forum calling people nasty names and accusing them of evil and wrongdoings. Furthermore, if my preacher behaved like another individual I know of who claims that title, I would go somewhwere else to worship.
As for the finger incident, I wasn't there, so all I have to go on is what others told me who were there. You say he didn't do that; others say he did. I tend to believe the latter.
3:13 If your preacher approves of your posting your hear say on the blog he's not much of a preacher either.
4:28
My preacher would have no problem with my stating opinions and beliefs. Standing for what one believes is the heart and soul of Christian belief; would you agree?
You need to come to a better understanding of what hear-say is and isn't. It appears that you are confused.
Hear say is when someone else tells you their view point. Have you ever heard a policeman can ask several people about an accident they saw and some tell it different.
Funny but a lot people hear it the way they want to hear it.
You need to get over it and forget about Barrett. Nothing is going to come of what he says. Janet want let it.
Big difference in your opinion and spreading gossip. Don't the Bible criticize spreading gossip, just asking.
9:17
Thank God for that. Nobody really takes him seriously, but he should not be allowed to get get away with accusing and calling names when he either dislikes or resents someone or when anybody disagrees with him. No way!
10:44
Yes, the Bible condemns gossip just as it does troublemaking, sowing strife, hypocrisy, telling lies, etc.
It takes at least two people to stir a stinking pot. The more it's stirred the more it stinks.
Looks like the enabler keeps it stinking.
11:09
Aren't you the enabler by keeping this lie going?
I see you, 1:06 had the last word like a little child.
1:03
No, that distinction belongs to you.
Post a Comment
<< Home