Why Is The County Attorney So Defensive About A Simple Question?
There was a meeting of the County Legislative Committee held last night at the Annex.
Those in attendance were Commission Members Mrs. Faulkner, Chairman; Mrs. Howell; Mrs. Reece; Mr. Carpenter; Mrs. Coleman; Mr. Jackson sat in for Mr. Wilburn. Mr. Beech, a member was absent. Also in attendance were the County Attorney; Mr Manke from the paper and three citizens. There were no deputies present.
The county attorney presented an extensive list of reasons why the nuisance laws passed in 2000 haven't been enforced, and no plan to enforce them now exist. This was termed unacceptable and a motion was approved to research and compile information needed to adopt an enforcement authority.
Among other topics discussed was the need to adopt clear language fund balance levels for each department of county government and comply with them.
Another question was whether there must be fifteen members, all appointed by the County Executive, on the Planning Commission. It was stated that each member is paid $30.00 per meeting and they meet ten times a year at a cost of $4,500.00. While the county is required to have this Commission to maintain it's three star rating it is unclear if it must have fifteen members or if less would suffice.
The second part of the meeting involved the question I was allowed to ask the county attorney. "A letter was sent to me and the commissioners denying me the privilege to speak at the last Commission Meeting. In that letter it was stated that you advised that state law prevented me from speaking. What was the specific Tennessee Code Annotated number that you used to make that decision?"
Mrs Henson's response took almost everyone by surprise when she stated, "you have two attorneys ask them".
I stated, "you're the one who used the code I just want to know what it was". Mrs Henson, "I'm not going to tell you, ask your attorney".
I stated that, "there was no TCA that prevented me speaking" to which Mrs Henson very red-faced left the meeting and the meeting was adjourned.
The question is one of credibility on the County Attorney's part. If there is a Tennessee Code Annotated that prevented me from speaking simply tell what it is and that's the end of the story. If there is no T.C.A. number and the whole thing was simply made up then she needs to apologize and resign as county attorney. The credibility of the county attorney is of immense importance and reflects on the full commission and all the county. If this decision was based on imaginary Codes and unsupportable what else has she advised on that is of questionable legality?
posted by Allen Barrett | 9:28 AM
171 Comments:
This is one the most offensive posts that I have had the dubious pleasure of reading on here; thank goodness that most of the people in this county know that this sulfurous belching amounts to no more than the barely coherent ramblings of the local disaffected troublemaker. Let me set one thing straight, for those few that might be tempted to believe this manure - Lucy Henson is a wonderful person...period. She has, time and again, gone out of her way to help people, individuals, in this county who would otherwise have nowhere else to turn. I suspect that if you lined up the folks that she has done favors for, and bent over backward to help - and I mean the so-called little people in this county - that the courthouse wouldn't have room to hold them all. You on the other hand,as far as I can tell, never do anything positive for anyone. You sit on the sidelines, because your fellow citizens rejected you at the polls, and spew your sewage at the folks who ARE actively working in government, for who knows what reasons.
And just for the record, the county attorney isn't required to answer questions from the public...sane, or otherwise. If you think differently, then prove it through the legal channels at your disposal, and give up on your hate-blogging. What a loser...you should be putting your time to better use, like using the hours in your day to try to find a life, instead of sitting at home, alone and bitter, plotting what turds to fling at what walls of your pathetic, filthy little cage.
Was the camera recording this?
11:40
Excellent post. In my opinion, you are absolutely correct in your assessment of a troublemaker.
Talk about a hate filled offensive post you got it 11:40.
I have only one question, why would she refuse to answer such a simple question even if it was from a citizen. After all that citizen helps pay her salary and I think something this clear cut should be dealt with in an open manner.
I agree that it would have been easy to just answer the question. I am going to make some calls and try to find the law in which they are speaking.
DAW
11:40 Yours is the most hateful post on here. Must have touched a nerve. A person can be a wonderful person, helpful to fellow man, but still be ignorant of the law. I know Ms. Henson detests Mr. Barrett so if any other citizen asked what TCA stated a person cannot speak even though that person has met all the requirements would she have made the same reply? If there is such a law she should tell us. If that letter to him and the commissioners contained a falsehood that should be revealed. And it does affect her credibility as a county attorney. The commissioners should be able to trust the advice of a knowledgeable attorney, shouldn't they?
I posted this on July 27th and I believe this pertains:
TCA 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
5:27 how?
5:27
If someone had called you names and had accused you of being a liar and incompetent...among other things, would you be interested in letting him speak? No!
No you would be more interested in stopping him from talking and proving the he was right about you 10:09.
10:09 If you are elected to office, you need to hide your feelings and do what's right.
A mighty selfish person not to do that.
well these posts show the root of the problem....no matter if she is a nice person or not, how unprofessional of someone to answer a question like that while she is acting in the "county" capacity. No matter if you like Mr. Barrett or not he has rights as we all do to speak and ask questions, and it seems that most of you that posted only "spew" that it was offessive of him to post that---if that's what happend, that is what is offensive and also the problem with our government.
Guess I'll have to call a few commissioners to ask if that's what happend
10:36
Can you not see the magnitude of trouble this man causes? Perhaps you are a family member?
11:40 am Most of us help our fellow man in need whenever we can but are no interested in taking credit for it. It comes from the heart.
The question Mr Barrett asked Ms Henson is associated with her professional life and her role in serving the citizens of Giles county, not personal. Having researched, don't believe there is a law that prohibited Mr Barrett from speaking at the commission meeting, If Ms Henson is such a great person why didnt she do the courtesy of answering his question and if she was caught 'off guard' at least she should have given him the TCA topic where he could have looked it up himself. With the controversey going on about it amongst the commissioners and others, it should still have been fresh in her mind. Is Ms Henson another county employee who forgets she is paid through tax payer money?
Look forward to what DAW is able to find on the subject.
Is this the same lawyer that sent an undetailed bill to the budget office for payment.
9:21 Yes it is and the problem is she thinks she works for Mrs Vanzant not the people of the county.
7:49 I am not a family member. Having an open government is not causing trouble, unless something is wrong. If someone spoke in the meetings why can the county not handle it in a professional manner? Mr. Barrett keep trying, I think there more in the county that appreciate what you are doing, than a lot of people think.
You're right 9:57 the people are getting fed up with all this secrecy and bad treatment. If people can burn the flag under the first amendment how in the world can they be stopped from just talking about the budget to OUR commissioners?
I don't understand why he was stopped from talking. I say let the lawyer tell what law stopped him or she needs to be fired.
9:57
We already have an open government and an estab;ished procedure for getting our wants and concerns made known. We have commissioners who are our first line of communication in making those wants and concerns known. I'm sorry that you don't think so, but that's the way it works. What we don't need are troublemakers who disrupt the business of our government by creating disturbances and then trying to turn people against the commission. I think you are dead wrong about people in the county appreciating troublemaking. I for 0opne certainly don't think we need it.
1:50 would you like to state the alleged code that no one seems to be able to locate. I think most people have stated they feel the same way as you do if the government follows the rules that are in place for every one. Not just the ones that are complacent and easily follow along.
All opposing view points can be deemed troublesome, so who is allowed to speak when following the written laws and not the spoken arbitrarily dictated ones? At a closer look one would think the officials who choose not to follow the written laws as well as expand into some alleged ones, as it stands are the real trouble makers and hurting the welfare and business of this county?
But I am more curious as to which state code was referenced for Mr. Barrett's refusal by the Executive. Every one could just move on and have a little faith in the transparency of their government.
OK I will post this again which is the TCA that does apply:
TCA 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
TCA 5-5-105 in layman's terms simply means the Co. Legislative Body can not bring up or discuss any other business other than what's on the agenda. I don't think it applies to anyone speaking on the subject that being voted on. Just my opinion.
So what was the 'emergency' in regards to this meeting?
Unless the agenda for the called meeting included a public hearing or an agenda item for concerned citizens' comments, it would have been unlawful for Barrett, me or any other person not on the commission to speak.
Seems to me this is much ado about nothing. Someone just loves playing the victim card over and over and over and over.
8:46 AM That is not what the LAW says. Barrett was entitled to speak. Period.
This is not much ado about nothing. What happens when the next person wants to speak under the same circumstances? Seems to me members of the Legislative Committee where Barrett put the question to the county attorney would be something they would very much like to know the answer to. Sounds as if Ms Henson was caught out otherwise why couldnt she give the simple answer..
8:46 if you can back up your opinion with written law we would love to know how you came to your opinion. But only if you have written law to prove it.
8:46 Either show the law are stop talking about things you know nothing about. There is no law that prevented Barrett from speaking plain and simple. Vanzant and Henson are caught in a plain lie and the commissioners look to spineless to do anything about it.
This blog has become the Barrett, family and friends tribunal. They object to anything anyone says that is not in agreement with them,Period. Ms. Henson didn't have to recpgnize him at all. A publicity hound; always sniffing. Put some pepper on something and let him take a big sniff.
9:02
I call it troublemaking.
Or caring about how those that are receiving their paychecks from the taxpayers act according to law.
9:02 Barrett is paid nothing from taxpayer money to have a blog that is open for anyone to post on but Vanzant and Henson are getting huge paychecks from taxpayer money and they lie, censor and kill the Constitution and you'er whining about someone disagreeing you you. How would you like it if Barrett just refused to you post anything except what he agreed with are wasn't critical of him like vanzant and henson have done.
What would the enabler do if this blog wasn't here for her to post on. Oh, I forget she thinks she is a he.
I find the 10:09 post very interesting in its comparisons. I had not thought of this and wonder if others have but here we have a man who isn't a paid politician providing an opportunity to exercise a Constitutional right while on the other hand we have a paid politician working to destroy and deny that same Constitutional right.
When I first heard of this I wondered if there wasn't something missing, some fact that wasn't being considered, but the problem is there is no other thing to be considered until the issue of Constitutional rights are resolved.
Regardless of Barrett or Vanzant's alleged behavior the simple fact is that denial of Constitutional rights is a very serious matter and should be cleared up ASAP.
No one should be denied the right to speak to their government, after following the proper procedure and no one should ever use their office to prevent even those they dislike from speaking.
Henson was used just as Garner is being used and some others by the master manipulator. Henson has been thrown under the bus already and Garner will be next.
Vanzant is a vicious incompetent who uses people like a person with the flu uses tissues. This lie is Vanzant's doing and I feel sorry that Henson got caught up in it but when you sell yourself that's the cost.
We have set procedures in place for citizens to address their government. Without them, we would have anarchy. Is that what the troublemakers want? Are the procedures not good enough for them? Should Mrs. Vanzant and the Commission open the floor for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wish to get up and speak at meetings where they (the commissioners) are trying to onduct the business of the county? No! When would anything get done if the Commission had to sit and listen to an endless parade of people who, by the way, should have already made their concerns known to their respective commissioners.
For barrett, he should discuss his concerns with Terry Harwell, Vickie Coleman, and/or Tommy Campbell. How can getting up and causing a disruption at meetings and then trying to get people to turn against county government be productive? I call it it troublemaking. We do not need it.
Who could 8:19 be? Who would know if and what the procedures are?
I've though all time it was her.
8:19 how do you explain other counties being able to allow citizens to speak at their meetings? Even a place as big as Nashville allows time for public comment. As I understand it all the requirements were met and still he was allowed to speak so how do you explain that?
I know it is very hard to get hold of two of my district commissioners, they never, never answer the phone or return calls.
This is not just about Barrett it's about the whole county and the rights of citizens to petition their government. Read the 1st Amendment.
8:35
What difference does it make who I am? And you know as well as I do that all government in this country has set and established procedures in place for citizens to communicate their concerns. Do you think you can just waltz into the White House and speak to the President? You wouldn't get very far, would you?
8:19 First, procedures to speak at commission meetings are ludicrous when you look at when meetings are posted in the weekly paper, when that paper arrives in homes, then the time frame in which you have to get a letter of 'application' to speak in to the county executive's office. Add to that, when you do get to present your 'application' they either "are not in the office today" or "have gone home for the day" at 2 p.m.!
In this latest Vanzant escapade Barrett went through all the 'required' procedures yet Vanzant still did the denial quoting Henson's interpretation of a phantom law to deny. Barrett had a perfect right to ask Henson what that TCA is but abviously she can't answer his question because there is nothing in existence to support the denial. I truly hope Barrett pursues this through ACLU or whatever.
9:04 No one was trying to waltz in and speak to at the commissioners meeting. Barrett was trying to comply to with the requirements.
But hell will freeze over before you let him.
If barrett did not cry the blues, and act in such a disruptive manner, and stuck to the business at hand things would be different, but he always cries the blues about how he has been mistreated, bull....who wants to hear this mess all the time, no one does! If he had a purpose other than trying to get people to feel sorry for him, and always trying to be in the lime light of controversy. What she has done to me...what she said to me...ME ME ME, not what I can do for the county, no never does he do that. Like a spoiled child who does not get his way, he flops down in the floor and has a temper tantrum. And a far as not getting a pay check from the county, he money he has cost the tax payers would pay a county employee salar for a year. Get real people no one want to hear this pitty party in court or on the street.
I was told by a friend i should read some of this blog. SO i have sat for days reading. I have come to a conclusion...Mr. Barrett is a man filled with hate, hate, hate. I have seen lots, and heard lots in my time, but this is really bad. He has mention the KKK on several different occasions, race discrimination, and gender discrimination. I have one question...which clan do you belong to Mr. Barrett? I know what I think...question is what message are you really sending out? Don't even tell me or anyone else, it's for the county, I know better, and so do the rest of us.
10:09
I think you are absolutely right.
Carol Wade announces the agenda, and barrett was not on it at the last meeting. However, I heard from an eye witness that he jumped up and started talking anyway, and Mrs. Vanzant told him he was out of order and that he should sit down. Furthermore, if he didn't stop, she would have to ask him to leave. Now that's what happened, and there was a police officer ready just in case he continued causing trouble. It's just sad.
Hi! In the interest of voicing a different viewpoint, I would like to state that: I am an intelligent, involved taxpayer, residing in Giles County, who is happy with my county government and the officials that run it. Thank you.
The last three posting sound as if they came from the same person?????
12:27 Watch the video of the meeting and you will see things did not happen as you say it did. Also, you have to take into account Barrett went through all procedures to speak and met criteria. Still he was denied. I hope this man sues the socks off of Giles county.
To 1:34 I agree with you. Nothing in life is perfect, therefore we should be thankful for our time here. Mrs. Vanzant has done so many wonderful things for the county and it's people. I voted for the people I wanted in office. She has not cost the tax payers money, Barrett has cost a bundle, and has done nothing for the county, all he does is cry cry cry.
Did not the hiring of Ms. Gardner (by Vanzant) cost the County over $70,000.00 in a law suite settlement?
3:36 PM Yes, she did. One of many.
3:17. I am far and away NOT a WAB fan, but Mrs. Vanzant has cost this county a TON of money. Far more costly is that she has cost us 10 years of possible progression!
Rabid the Enabler, your post today @ 5:19 p.m. is a classic example of why and how you earned your name of enabler. The answer to your question is yes, absolutely, positively "every Tom, Dick, and Harry" has to right to address the commission especially when they have complied with all the hoops that were created solely to squash one man's Constitutional rights. You enable the wrong behavior by excusing a county elected official's deplorable redneck behavior in public because of some nonsense, yet constantly attack a private citizen and take every opportunity to insult, slam, slander and libel a private citizen but say our elected officials are the victims. It's too flipping bad if they don't like Barrette or what he has to say. I wouldn't like someone either if I was caught time and time again engaging in behavior that was immoral, unethical, possibly illegal and that person kept making it known publicly. Every time you criticize Barrette for what he does, you are attacking the constitution and every time you defend the commission and particularly Janet in their treatment of him you are defending communism. You don't have to agree with the man, but you would deny his civil rights, and you proudly proclaim that every bit of info you have came from gossip. (i.e. had a friend at the meeting, word on the street, etc) You've worn out the kool aid comments, the election #'s, (which is a whole entire separate and dangerous problem) and your defense of the elected officials makes them appear even more incompetent. The simple fact is they didn't let Barrette speak because they are afraid of him and they lied to get their way and justify the decision. We are all tired of you claiming you know only a few support Mr. Barrette since there is no way to know that, it just emphasizes what a liar you are. Since you are opposed to freedom, why don't you start your on blog and discuss how wonderful our commissioners and JV are and how nobody should dare question them. You are growing more communistic like daily and it sickens me. You don't even bother to try and disguise your multiple posts pretending to be different people. You have become a joke.
Deanna
deanna
You are such a laugh. I was out working in my yard until well after seven this evening. I even missed Wheel Of Fortune. Rats!
How much plainer can I make it to you that I never was an enabler. You know who started that lie on me, so why don't you give it a rest? Oh, but you would say he never tells a lie. That is laughable as well.
I think you are an enabler of troublemaking; it seems you like to keep something stirred up. More refreshing kool-aid perhaps?
You mentioned "if they have complied with all the hoops". You are exactly right, and any citizen has that right to speak IF he or she has complied......complied being the operative word there.
I attack our Constitution by challenging barrett on his misbehavior? Are you out of your mind, or did someone spike the kool-aid?
It's sad that smart people like you can't be in charge here instead of incompetent rednecks! You are really something, aren't you? Pardon me if I don't stand in awe of you.
As for people being afraid of barrett, it is my opinion that the only thing about him that they fear is that he might sue them.
I love freedom. I served in a war wherein our opponents hated it. You know NOTHING asbout my love for this country and for our county. How dare you in all your arrogance to accuse me of defending communism. To me, that is a very dangerous thing to say to someone. I almost died fighting communism a few more times than I care to remember.
Oh, and by the way, you bet I think Mrs. Vanzant and most of the commissioners are doing a good job. I don't always agree with some of them, but I am convinced that they act in what they believe to be best for Giles County.
Why don't you run for commissioner if you think you can do any better than some of our incompetent rednecks??
A defender of Communism? You are a complete loon.
8:28 Why did you post if you didn't post 5:19 pm (which I've not found)?
Don't you think there could be more than one enabler?
You are as crazy as Barrett. Just got to have the attention.
Don't worry about Deanna. She is a hypocrite by saying that you wrote multiple posts. She has posted under a wide variety of names and been called out on it. I think that the majority of negative posts come from her. She can't even spell Barrett's name right. This is just a place for her to spew some hatred. I am pretty sure she doesn't teach in Giles County because I have gone through all the names and can't find her. Juset because someone has a right to speak doesn't mean that the county commission has to allow it. It is that simple. And Barrett did act out of order according to the video.
Jethro
To:
Monday, August 15, 2011 10:03:00 PM
You picked a good name, fits you to a T.
Just need a few more licks from Granny's frying pan will help.
9:59
Look, I just stated in my above post that I worked in my yard until well past seven last evening. And guess what? I couldn't find a 5:19 post either. Having said that, I do admit to a post wherein I did say that I saw combat and guys die. I have seen these things and do not need a lecture on patriotism. And I am the same one the kook (deanna) called a defender of communism.
Lastly, I am the one allen barrett told the lie on that I enable wrongdoings in county government. I have called him on this lie many times, but he keeps telling it. As long as he lies, I will be here, the Lord willing, to call him on it.
8:23 you expect any one to believe you?
9:28
I expect nothing. Believe what you will.
I don't believe that 8:23am is a veteran. When they speak of their service and past experiences it sound generic. Unlike how a true vet would actually communicate. Stranger things have happened but, too fishy sounding to me. Sounds like a woman talking who is trying to convince others of who they are. Just not believable. And, yes they do care if we believe them. Otherwise, they would not go to the lengths they do to try and convince everyone.
I believe him. Thanks for your service! Just goes to show how stupid and mean some people are. Cheerleaders at their worst. So typical and expected.
10:07
If I were into name-calling, I would call you a complette imbecile. But I am better than that.
I don't have to prove my service to my country. Believe what you will. I really don't care.
It's vets like me who gave you the right to call names and criticize. By the way, are you not an enabler of troublemaking and strife?
Maybe it is a man and woman residing in the same body. Glenn or Glenda
We have cheer leaders for Janet and cheerleaders for Barrett.
Keep cheering if it makes you happy.
I think barrett is an enabler of strife.
Guess what my word verification code was for this post? it was "penises". Freudian slip or what?
8:42 Me think you are also. laughable
See 12:40am, if you didn't care you wouldn't have responded yet again. Just because you or maybe your spouse was a cubs scout, that hardly qualifies you as a vet. I am sure you won't let sleeping dogs lie. So hit me with your best shot. Obviously your years of military experience didn't teach you any discipline or mature you in any way.
12:40 You can put your critics to rest as easily as Henson could stop this uproar over Barret speaking.
Simply tell what was your unit and when and let Henson tell what number the law was she used to deny Barret his rights. Now that shouldn't be to hard for either of you should it. Make your critics look foolish by just telling the facts.
These blogs are pretty stupid...what starts out as a legitimate question or post...always end up as name calling and fights. I agree...if Mr. Barrett was not allowed to speak at meeting...the law needs to be sent to him. I don't understand what all the fighting is about. He asked to be put on the agenda...so he should have been given the law when he was told that he would not be allowed to speak. Then if it was legitimate there would not be all of the crap!!!! Come on people isn't that what the United States is "suppose" to be about is freedom...and I think speech is one of them!! I don't agree with Mr. Barrett on very much...but I do respect his right to have a different opinion than mine!
7:56 AM Exactly! And when that law is not provided to Mr Barrett and the rest of the interested community you can be pretty sure one does not exist. Thank you.
10:36 My unit, branch of service, MOS and combat AO are none of your business. Suffice it to say that I have been in the ditch with a lot of others who served and who, by virtue of serving, allow people like you to point fingers and call names. You may thank a vet for that.
I agree with 7:56, 8:28 and most all those who see this not so much about me but about the basic Constitutional right we have under the first amendment to speech and petition.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If there is a law that prohibits a person who meets all the requirements, including those that are excessively prohibitive, then show it. I have asked for it, several commissioners have asked for it, DAW has said he would try and get it and a large number of citizens have asked for it. To date there is no such law that has been made available.
Having the county attorney say when asked to tell me the TCA number, "Mr. Barrett you have two attorney's ask them for it" is much the same as a judge finding a person guilty of a crime and telling the person it was up to him to find out what crime they were guilty of.
Folks this is not just about me but involves any and everyone who treasures their Constitutional Rights.
Some have said it's OK to prevent me from speaking because I might say something that makes someone uncomfortable, well that is outright censorship. Some say I have made harsh accusations against
some people. That is true but I have always included the reasons along with the evidence to support those reasons. If everyone was prevented from speaking because of what they may have said in the past, who would be left to speak at all? Some have said, well he'll just say the same ole thing and people are tired of hearing him. Well there is nothing in the Constitution about anyone having to listen but the courts have upheld the right of citizens to address the government and it is the responsibility of the government to allow such. While they must sit there they can stick there fingers in their ears if they choose and that's find as it shows just what they are made of.
Some have said I am whining because I didn't get my way but is it whining if you complain to the police that someone just stole your car? Stealing something that belongs to me that I consider more valuable than my car and reporting it isn't whining.
A part of good citizenship is not only protecting this country from those who seek her destruction but also protecting the rights of individual citizens from those who are just as threatening and destructive as any foreign force that has ever been gathered against us.
To criticize Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin or any middle eastern potentate for their totalitarian governments and not criticize the same arrogant, arbitrary suppression of rights in our own county is not only a hypocrite but a simple minded fool.
9:58 I do not believe one word of your post. Most veterans understand the importance of our Constitution and how every citizen is responsible to make sure our government does not become tyrannical, as is our local government. Every one has equal rights under the Constitution. My question to you is why do you fight so diligently to deny certain citizens the rights guaranteed for all?
wab
It is my opinion that you just perfectly described yourself in the last paragraph of your above post. And, yes, I think you are whining. Have you not been allowed to speak at several meetings? Of course you have. Admit it and stop this troublemaking.
10:42 Speaking at a meeting and asking to speak at another are two different things.
Get over it, you are so filled with hate for WAB you don't know what to say.
7:56 A good post. I don't always agree with Barrett, but like the enabler who said she/he defends those accused, guess I think he/she accused Barrett and he needs defending. That person is the ones causing people to post something other than what the thread is about.
I'm with you 10:23 it's not often that a vet is ashamed of the unit they served with like 9:58
12:00,
You are a troublemaker and a gossip. You post the most rediculous things I have ever seen. Why even post if you are not going to say more than that? Talk about hate. Find a new hobby.
DAW
DAW Really who cares what branch of service or unit he served in.
Your sentence, "Why even post if you are not going to say more than that?"
Also fits the one that said Barrett didn't meet the regulation to speak.
Which all they said was "No he didn't"
I wish a lot of people would get a hobby.
This could be a good blog if the silly stuff was left off.
When WAB post a thread say why he's wrong. You are the only one that has posted something like that.
There is people reading this blog that don't know if Barret is right or not, like me. I believe Barrett when foolishness is all they can post.
1:47
Then you need to just ask around town who is really being foolish. You will find out perhaps more than you want to accept. Just a thought.
I would suggest one review the law and the facts 1:54 as opposed to listening to gossip and opinions.
But since I am from around town I can tell you I do not believe there is a law that prohibited Mr. Barrett's from speaking. I would have liked to have heard what he had to say concerning the budget. It was our government that showed bias and continues to show bias toward certain citizens.
Being ashamed of you military unit makes me think you didn't have one. Always talking about how you call Barret and others to task who you say is a trouble maker but I never heard a word out of you about Bill Holt cusing out everybody at he little league last summer and you defended Terry Harwell when he acted like a complete fool on the video. You don't call people to task you just sit in judgement of those you don't like. Not saying what your unit was is worse than being a coward I think you lied about the hold thing.
To DAW you said in a earlier post that you would make some calls and try to find out what the law is they used to keep Barret from talking have you found out anything are did you get the same treatment I got when I called. I called twice and the secretary asked what I wanted when I told her I wanted to ask Mrs Vanzant about the law that kept Barret from talking to the commission I was told Mrs Vanzant is out both Monday and today. Is she on vacation are is she dodging the question? Her car was there yesterday.
1:54 Your post is foolish.
Can't you say anything more than that. Get a hobby.
I don't care if you are male, female or vet.
I think most people know you don't like WAB, who cares.
I sure hope you aren't JV. I don't think she would act like you do.
Who wants to go around town trying to stir up gossip?
This is just another silly post like most of the others on here.
3:49 PM Thanks for trying. Keep at it. Then please post the excuses you get when the secretaries wont let you speak to Vanzant. It will be interesting for all to read.
3:49,
No luck yet. I think it boils down to them not having to allow him to speak. Though there may be no law that disallows it, there is none saying that he has the right to if the Executive and Commission feel there isn't time for it or it doesn't fit the agenda for a special session. I would just like to know if WAB did call his attorneys to see if they could tell him anything? I would think that he would have already asked them. In that case we should have heard a definite answer rather than all this bickering that has gone on for days over this same subject. The last several topics have all revolved around this same issue. It is getting boring.
DAW
3:34
I am very proud of my military service and the fact that I answered my country's calling.
Look, Bill Holt and Terry Harwell do not get on this blog and act a fool by calling names and accusing people of being dishonest and incompetent. However, I can think of an individual who frequents this blog and does just that. Can you?
There are lots of things people do that are not to my liking, but my focus is on the hate-mongering and jealousy that permeates this blog.
His attorneys told him Ms. Henson was correct.
If his attorney told him that he would never come on here to admit it. I have looked at the TCA and cannot find it. I don't know how anybody finds anything on there.
I am thankful for all vets , who have fought for our rights. It matters not what unit you were in,THANKS.
11:01 PM Cant remember ever calling anyone a liar in my life but your statement in that post is nothing but a bald faced lie and you know it. Shame on you.
11:01 is an outright liar by claiming to know whether I have spoken with my attorney about this or any other matter. They are also a lair in stating that any attorney has told me Mrs. Henson was correct in what was claimed to be her determination that I could not speak.
The reason no one has been able to produce the law is because it does not exist. A question for everyone when you go to the doctor, or even take your car to the mechanic what is usually one of the first questions they ask? What's the problem! The person with knowledge of the problem is asked to describe it so the doctor or mechanic will have an idea of what to look for. You say to the doctor I have an earache and that prevents him wasting time looking at your toes. You tell the mechanic that when driven the car pulls to one side, this keeps the mechanic from wasting time checking out the fuel system. Even when a person is arrested the specific law that was violated is listed on the arrest report. So, you're told there is a law that prevents you from speaking at a government meeting, should that person who is applying that law refuse to identify which law is being used to justify their actions? It is not up to the doctor to tell what's wrong without being given a description of the symptoms. It's not up to the mechanic to tell what's wrong with a vehicle without being given some
idea of what the symptoms are. It's not up to the person charged with a crime to figure out what crime he is charged with. It should not be up to me to find the law that was used to prevent me speaking before the Commission. They stated that Tennessee law prevented them from allowing me to speak, it wasn't their idea but state law. OK, tell what that law was and settle the matter or admit that the arrogant prejudice of the County Executive against an individual citizen was allowed to trample on the Constitutional rights of every person in this county.
DAW
Why cant you get it through your head that Barrett asked to speak on the tax rate and the budget which WAS the only subject of the called meeting.
Why cant you get it through your head that it is not Vanzant's perogative to decided whether or not anyone can speak. That is the choice of the commissioners by a simple majority vote and only when a person is not on the agenda. Vanzant can only decide how much time to allow for that person to speak.
Why cant you get it through your head that Barrett met all criteria to get on the agenda and Vanzant denied him based on a phantom law according to Henson.
Perhaps grandpaw will allow you a peek at his commissioners manual and maybe then you will see the light.
By the way, have you ever met Barrett at all? Just wondering.
To DAW who wrote, "No luck yet. I think it boils down to them not having to allow him to speak. Though there may be no law that disallows it, there is none saying that he has the right to if the Executive and Commission feel there isn't time for it or it doesn't fit the agenda for a special session."
I met every requirement by the Commission to speak, even Mrs. Vanzant has not disputed this.
The letter rejecting my request stated specifically, "I have consulted the county attorney concerning this matter and this request must be denied in accordance with Tennessee law".
There was nothing about not wanting me to speak and how would she know how long the meeting would last on 22 July when the letter of rejection was dated?
In my request it was clearly stated the subject of my comments would be the budget and the tax rate which had been published as the reason for calling a special meeting.
One other question you might ask in your quest to find the non-existent law is what made this an emergency when these same matters could have been approved at the next regular meeting in September.
I fear that since you have not been able to find information that fits your preconceived idea about me that you may not be so eager to post the fact that there is no law
I hope I am wrong in this fear and that the same integrity that causes you to post your name will also cause you to post your complete findings.
wab
They didn't want you to speak so that should be the end of it. Get over the jealousy and resentment. You are NOT in on the decision making process for Giles County and I dare say you never will be.
11:41 if you are right then don't that make Vanzant the liar that Barrett and others have claimed?
Are you all still going to be talking about this same crap in December or this time next year? DAW is right, it is all about someone hurting Barretts feelings more than it is the good of Giles County. Ask your lawyer if you want a definite answer and quit crying about it.
No. This is not about someone hurting Barrett's feelings, it is about Vanzant, Henson and some commissioners denying people's right to free speech and its a violation of the Constitution of the United States. It is also a slap in the face and kick in the butt to all those brave people and their families who have given their lives and everything else in order for people to have that right. What I want to know is why didnt those commissioner veterans speak up about this violation when the abuse occurred?
We know what YOU think it is about. It has been said about 1000 different times in the past two weeks. Get over it. They would probably let other people speak. They have heard enough from Barrett. They should be upset that he sued the county because he didn't win a commission seat. Why let a troublemaker have another 10 minutes to belittle them?
I hope Barrett sues them again. Yes taxes just as well go up for that as paying a lady Vanzant wouldn't even interview for the Finance Department.
The enabler needs to grow up and get over it.
3:54
You are absolutely right. They have heard enough of him.
3:54 because he is a citizen in this community and has constitutional rights. Your statements make our governing officials sound like weak little crybabies. Maybe none of them have the backbone necessary for the positions they hold if what you write is true.
If Barrett went thru the correct procedures to speak at meeting..he definitely was denied his rights, however, I think if someone tries to disrupt a meeting without being put on agenda they should not be allowed to disrupt meeting! There has to be some sort of order in a public meeting!!! But Barrett definitely had the right to speak! Even if the majority or the person in charge disagree with his opinion!!
6:05 and there are laws in place such as slander and defamation laws.
If he is out of line and states something as true about an official he can be held accountable and his time cut off. But to say a person could say something in a 5 minute time limit that would throw such a cog in the wheels of government that would bring it to a screeching halt is as ridiculous as the excuses to deny a citizen to redress his grievances with government in a public meeting. especially when that person followed procedure and an imaginary law has been waived but not produced as defense.
Our government has shown their arrogance and uncaring attitude toward those citizens that do not care about opinion but do care if the government is just making excuses because they have something personal against a citizen.
Just produce the code number. All that needs to be done. Everybody and their brother can ask their lawyer what law Mrs. Henson was referring to but only Mrs. Henson and Vanzant can answer that question. It is absurd the attitude of government.
3:53 And if someone else is allowed to speak but not Barrett then you have discrimination as well.
Discrimination? How so? Barrett has spoken at many of the meetings. Get over it.
If it's true Barret wasn't allowed to speak because Vanzant didn't want to hear him and she just used the law to cover her cowardly attitude then she is nothing but a liar and even the enabler should have a hard time defending her on this issue.
The thing that is really disturbing about all this is how willing some are to just deny The Constitutional Rights of another person. Is this county really so callous toward the laws of the land? How can the commissioners allow such actions by one person and destroy the confidence that we are a land of laws? If one person is allowed to do this to a citizen without so much as a mummer from the commissioner we may as well do away with any idea of being ruled by law and just declare that whatever Vanzant says is law.
The truth is that Barrett has said enough about government in Giles County. Nobody wants to hear it anymore. His days of causing trouble are over. He is finished. The few that follow him can keep on with the pity party, but Giles County is going to be fine. Complain all you want on this blog, you have the right. The majority of citizens do not care because it is laughable. Janet Vanzant is not the devil. Dig a hole and bury your head in it.
8:48
It finally occurred to me that there really is an enabler. You then must be an enabler of troublemaking.
11:56
You are absolutely right. Nobody wants to hear it.
There ain't nothing in the Constitution about hearing only speaking. The man has the right to speak even if he has spoken before and nobody wants to hear it. There are lots of things I would rather not hear but would not say that person don't have the right to say it even if it's offensive to me personally.
This violation is beyond belief in a county where so many vet's live.
whether any one excepts it our not this is a bigoted area from the top of government all the way down. If you are not in the right circles the bigotry is obvious. Maybe that is the reason we are the only county that is losing population while all our border counties are experiencing population growth. Maybe they are nicer to outsiders and all citizens that grew up there instead of only the chosen few.
Why is it all our surrounding counties have population growth but we have a decline in population and have for 40 plus years. People can't wait to get out of here because they are sick of the closed minded bigoted attitudes and lack of opportunities.
We would have a greater population decrease but so many people are stuck here and can not afford to move, but then again what do you expect when you are paid 25% less than you would receive in surrounding counties for performing the same job.
Don't believe me check the census.
Good job Giles County monarchy.
You are dead on 9:29!!
Freedom to express an UNITED STATES CITIZEN'S
opinion....nothing else to say!!!!
Freedom to express an UNITED STATES CITIZEN'S
opinion....nothing else to say!!!! Right or wrong..popular opinion or NOT..nothing else to say! Constitutional rights ....YES!!! Agree or not.... Done!,, if not ......WRONG and US citizens...give up!!!!!
What was that all about? Someone spiked the kool-aid again?
What it's about 8:46 is that citizens are tired of being pushed to the back of the bus and special groups getting all the benefits while we pay the bills. When citizens are denied their Constitutional rights and non citizens demand them we got problems, when government officials use their positions and power to deny any U.S. citizen those Constitutional rights this country is finished just as this county is because of the tyrant running it into the abyss.
Howard,
you are foolish if you really think like that about the county
8:25
It's the kool-aid.
Does anyone know what happened to DAW. On 12 Aug he confidently posted that he would makes some calls and try to find out what law prevented Barrett from speaking.
Next post was 17 Aug with a "No luck Yet". Apparently he has spoken with some who should know the answer because he wrote "No luck yet. I think it boils down to them not having to allow him to speak. Though there may be no law that disallows it, there is none saying that he has the right to if the Executive and Commission feel there isn't time for it or it doesn't fit the agenda for a special session".
It sounds like DAW has been fed the same bull others have about this "invisible law", the question is will he swallow it?
If DAW is right about "there may be no law" then it's very clear Vanzant lied and used her position to deceive every commissioner in the county. If he is wrong and there is a law then why is Vanzant being so secretive about it. I for one have to believe that DAW is right and Vanzant is caught in another of her many lies.
how very right you are Howard. that is exactly what this is about, equal protection for all under the Constitution and not just the ones that win popularity contests with Janet and the commissioners.
DAW will never produce any law because it does not exist it was simply a lie that leads to more mistrust of our government by its citizens.
howard
Why don't you get some courage and post your name with your accusations? This is your chance to shine.
and you as well 10:56
What do you think Howard is goofball?
It sure is more of a name than anonymous and enabler.
12:18
You seem to be the real enabler....of trouble and strife.
1:06 did 12:18 hit a nerve with you? You preach bigotry and wish to only let those who you like speak at government meetings while citizens sit by and watch their elected representatives sleep and never question the wrong doings right before their eyes. They are not even aware enough or brave enough to question what is right in front of them on the board. And you call those who question the facts the enablers. Your attitude is trouble and strife for all the citizens of this county.
4:21
What you just said about me is frankly a lie. Why don't you stop trying to cause trouble? Or do you prefer being an enabler?
5:11 pot calling the kettle black.
6:08
Nope. I was just pointing out one of the real enablers.
8:08 look to the mirror
10:06 What have you been drinking. Not kool-aid, it's got to be stronger?
There sure is some strange post on here. Some should shut up if that's the best they can do.
It's not Janet or anyone working in her office or they would know something to say why what Barrett said wasn't true. All the enabler knows to say is "move, go ask."
To the enablers of strife and trouble (8:08 and 10:05)
Do you not realize that the chief troublemaker delights in all this drama and that you are enabling it?
You guys are the true enablers and apparently don't even know it.
6:39 for once write something backed by facts. Your opinion means nothing because we know your hatred for Barrett and any one that believes in equal rights for all its citizens is something you have stated over and over you are against. In your eyes only the popular citizens that go along with the commission should have a say.
You have been given opportunity time and time again to post any facts supporting your claims but you refuse and choose instead to only share your ridiculous opinions, name call, and try to change the subject.
The bottom line is our government lied to us, and not just once, they were caught, you defend them, you are one of them or married to one of them and have nothing intelligent to say. So have a little more of your bigotry ladened punch that you love to guzzle so much. You got plenty of it because nobody else is buying it.
Great post 9:14 accurate in every way.
to the 9:14 enabler of strife
Here are some facts:
1. I do not hate barrett, but I find his behavior both hypocritical and despicable.
2. I believe in equal rights and the right of a citizen to question government within reason.
3. I am not married to an elected official nor am I one of them.
4. There are many many people who scoff at this blog and who know a troublemaker when they see one.
5. To call me a bigot is to tell a lie.
I hope this has cleared up some of your misunderstandings.
9:22 Not at all and no one believes you because they read your posts. and your number 2 goes against the very fabric of our Constitution. So thank you for once again proving my point.
Maybe you should research Equal protection for all under the Constitution. Within reason is arbitrary and a way to discriminate and silence those with differing opinions.
Are you just too stupid to comprehend that?
9:41,
Ma'am you are a moron. Your hate for the government of Giles County is very transparent. Good luck ever getting anything you want in life. Nobody likes a whiner.
Is 9:57 not in to name calling? laughable
9:57 Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, now I know you are just nonsense and on here to stir up trouble. Look to the Constitution it really is a good read.
9:41 is absolutely right about the phrase used by 9:22 who said "2. I believe in equal rights and the right of a citizen to question government within reason".
9:41 very accurately stated, "Within reason is arbitrary and a way to discriminate and silence those with differing opinions"
As Napoleon the pig in the book "Animal Farm" was able to replace and condense the founding commandments posted on the barn wall with, "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". You, 9:22, have replaced and condensed the US Constitution to "everyone has equal rights as long as I agree with how they use them".
It was not "within reason" that slavery be abolished, that non-land owners and women be allowed to vote or hold office. It was not "within reason" that a non-white use the same water fountain or eat in the same restaurant as a "white person".
It was not "within reason" that a serf challenge the king's right to "deflower every new bride on her wedding night". There are many things that are completely reasonable to some but extremely offensive, demeaning and grossly unreasonable to others. You see that is what laws are for so that hopefully with everyone following them everyone will know where they stand and by being able to address issues with the law and government those "reasonable and unreasonable" attitudes of behavior can be more fairly applied. In a totalitarian state such as "Animal Farm" or what Giles County is becoming, only those who are "more equal" are allowed to determine what is reasonable.
Monday, August 22, 2011 9:22:00 AM
Within reason? You have no reason. Anytime anyone says anything about the government, or anyone in the government you automatically jump to the defense of the government. Whether you have the facts or not. (Mostly not.) I have read this blog for quite awhile, and have never seen you give factual, provable information. You deal with gossip, innuendo and outright fabrications. You accuse people of being cheerleaders, of lying and being hypocritical when they back up what they say with facts. You sir or ma'am are nothing more than what you claim Allen Barrett, a liar and a hypocrite. I am so glad you post on this blog, because now I know what the idiot faction of Giles county is thinking, or not as the case usually is. And before you start whining about me being a Barrett follower/cheerleader, I follow two things in this country, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and The United States Constitution. I may understand Allen's outrage, but sometimes I think their are better ways of expressing it. That however does not make him wrong. You however are. Wrong, an idiot, and a liar. If you want me to present proof of those three things I can do so easily. Read your posts on the blog. You prove it yourself. By the way, why don't you identify yourself on the blog? You could use a pen name, Giles County Fool comes to mind. Then we could know which of the hundreds of anonymous's is you. I won't give you my name on the blog either, you once were very decietful on here and got a name from someone and then refused to give yours. I have since found out after talking to him, that he is a genuine and thoughtful person. You said you had lost all respect for him, but you don't even know him. See if you can figure out who I mean. So, have a nice day, and God Bless You.
wab
You know as well as I do that you have been able to speak at many of the meetings, and some of them have been quite unpleasant. Don't you think it's time to stop this whining and troublemaking? Do you ever even consider why they are tired of your outbursts?
When are you moving?
11:44 or Giles County Fool
Just shut up your whining about WAB. Thank you Allen for standing up for what is right.
10:57 you are right on but she really likes the term enabler.
From what I have gathered, it is nearly impossible for a citizen to get to speak at a special called meeting. By law, you must have a written request to the Executive before the meeting is announced in the paper or notice is sent to the commissioners. (only for the special called sessions) I take it as you would have to request to speak without really knowing that a special meeting is going to take place. That is why I say, and was told, that it is nearly impossible to get to speak. This is not the first time that someone wasn't allowed to speak at a special called meeting. But just as the person before him, Barrett has already requested to speak at the next regularly scheduled meeting and will be allowed to do so. I was also told that his letter to speak at the previous meeting was not received until the day before the meeting.
Basically, the law they are talking about is the timing in which a request must be made in order to speak. I think this should end all of the argument, especially since his constitutional rights were not kept from him and he will be allowed to speak at the next meeting.
DAW
I just got an email showing that the notice for the special called meeting was in the paper on the July 19th and Barrett's letter was received on July 21st at 11:05am. Since he didn't give notice in time to be put on the Agenda that was listed in the paper, state law prevents him from speaking. It doesn't matter if he requested to speak on the budget or tax levy.
Thanks,
DAW
DAW
Thank you for clearing this up. I heard pretty much the same thing from a county official myself, but the enablers just blew it off and accused me of being a part of gossip. How convenient.
Again, thank you so much for the post.
Do you mind sharing the exact code with every one?
5-5-105(c)(1)
The call shall be made by publication in some newspaper published in the county, or by personal notices sent by the county clerk, at least five(5) days before the time of the convening legislative body, which call or notice shall specify the objects and purposes for which the special session is called, and NO OTHER BUSINESS BUT THAT EMBRACED IN THE CALL SHALL BE TRANSACTED DURING THE SITTING OF THE SPECIAL TERM.
Since he didn't have a request in before the agenda was set, he could not be put on the agenda to speak.
Thanks,
DAW
DAW sorry but you have been fed a line of B-U-L-L.
First: There is no state law that requires a five day notice be made in writing in order to speak at a Commission Meeting, which is merely a commission policy. If there was such a law don’t you think they would have produced it already?
Second: If you count from 21 July, the date my request was hand delivered and date stamped by the County Executive's office, until 27 July, the date of the meeting, that is seven days before the meeting took place. Week-ends are counted because week-ends were counted when the County Executive determined that the announcement for the public hearing on the budget was made ten days in advance. Yes, state law does require that the budget be published and a public hearing on the budget must be published ten days prior to the meeting in a “newspaper of general circulation”.
Third: My request to speak at the special meeting was in the County Executives hand more than the required five days and it clearly stated that I would speak only about the budget and the tax rate both of which were the subjects of the published purpose of the meeting and fully within the parameters that had been set for the meeting.
Fourth: Your comment, “By law, you must have a written request to the Executive before the meeting is announced in the paper or notice is sent to the commissioners. (only for the special called sessions) I take it as you would have to request to speak without really knowing that a special meeting is going to take place. That is why I say, and was told, that it is nearly impossible to get to speak”.
That is so typical of the mumbo jumbo that has come to be expected for the county executive’s office. Do you not find it very odd that by your words a person wishing to speak at a commission meeting would be required to request such an opportunity before there was even a meeting called not just an agenda set?
Again I stress there is no such law and I believe that is proven by the simple fact that no one has been willing to produce it only refer to it.
Fifth: You state, “I was also told that his letter to speak at the previous meeting was not received until the day before the meeting”.
If that was true how do you explain the fact that my request is dated the 21st and date stamped by Mrs. Vanzant’s secretary while Mrs. Vanzant, Commissioner Campbell and Mr. Vanzant were in the office witnessing the actions?
Finally you state, “Basically, the law they are talking about is the timing in which a request must be made in order to speak”.
Again I repeat there is no Tennessee law that requires a specific time a request must be submitted requesting to address the county legislative body, it is a local policy.
-------End of Part One -----
----------Part Two-------
5-21-111. Budget -- Hearings -- Supporting documents -- County action.
(a) (1) (A) At least ten (10) days before the proposed budget is to be presented to the governing body, the budget committee shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation the proposed annual operating budget.
(2) Such publication shall also contain a notice of a public hearing to be conducted by the budget committee at which any citizen of the county upon five (5) days' written request shall have the right to appear and state such citizen's views on the budget.
As you can see by the annotated code the requirement to have a public hearing also requires the publishing of the budget not just the announcement of the meeting be “published in a newspaper of general circulation”. Did you ever see the budget published in the Pulaski Citizen? Would you consider the “Ardmore Shopper” to be a newspaper of general circulation? That’s where the announcement was made for the public hearing and used to meet the ten day requirement.
T.C.A 5-5-104 and 105 provide the rules for a special called meeting by the County Executive or the County Legislative Body.
5-5-104 (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 TCA 5-5-105
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 (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.
Now there are a number of questions that arise from this “State Law”
1. Has Mrs. Vanzant, been given by a 2/3 majority vote, authority to call a special meeting of the Commission?
2. What constituted an “emergency” that justified a special meeting being called just days after the regular Commission meeting on the 18th of July?
3. The notice clearly stated that the purpose of the called meeting was to “set a tax rate” and “approve a budget”. The law specifically states “no other business but that embraced in such call shall be transacted during such special session”, yet that was not the business that was conducted. A budget had already been adopted for the county and a tax rate had already been set. Since neither of these previous actions was rescinded this “special emergency called meeting” involved making amendments to the budget adopted on 18 July 2011. Money was taken out and money was put into the budget.
Unless a Tennessee Code Annotated with number is produced I am left with the obvious Mrs Vanzant and Mrs. Henson were not truthful in their letter of rejection and my Constitutional rights were indeed violated by an arrogantly vindictive decision by one seeking to maintain a closed government where only their word is law.
Gee DAW I'm surprised that you quoted the TCA 5-5-105 so in completely and incorrectly, you weren't being biased by any change were you?
5-5-105(c)(1) Correct reference is (b) not (c).
I have posted the Code in it's entirety and accurately in the post directly prior to this one. I appreciate your efforts but anyone can look it up and see the difference between what the state says TCA 5-5-105 (b) (1) states and what you have written that it states, quite a difference wouldn't you say?
wab
The truth is that you were not on the agenda, and you know it. DAW was right, and I just for the life of me cannot understand why you continue to whine and cause trouble about this. It's just unbelievable.
It is my opinion that you are insanely resentful because you can't get in on the decision making for Giles County, and you just can't get over it. You need to move on, both literally and figuratively. It is also my opinion that you owe a lot of people in Giles County an apology for all the trouble and expense you have caused.
5:51 Why can't you understand that I have acknowledged I was not on the agenda, the problem is the way I and others are kept off the agenda. While I have come to expect your irrational defense of wrongdoing I can not yet understand why you keep presenting the same extremely weak defense of wrongdoing based on gossip, opinion and outright lies.
DAW posted what he was told the problem is, apparently he trusted those who gave him that misinformation without checking the TCA and posting it accurately. Once upon a time I trusted what the county executive said also but after so many times of being misled and lied to I trust nothing she says. Her record does not justify trust in her.
Perhaps if you could develop some character and principles to fill your great moral void you would understand why I don't let go of this. I will not let go of this until she either resigns or acknowledges that there is no state law that prevented me from addressing the commission and that she just used it and Mrs Henson to get her way. Arrogantly thinking that she could, as in the past, deny the truth with the help of her lap dog lackeys.
As for your opinion why would anyone consider it since you haven't been right about anything else.
WAB,
I think you have trouble comprehending what I am trying to tell you. The code I posted is 100% correct. It came straight from the website. The five days has nothing to do with the notice that a citizen would have to give to be able to speak. It is referencing the amount of days in which the county executive must give notice of the meeting. You would have to have your request in before the notice was put in the paper so that you could be listed on the agenda in the paper. That is where the code and law that I posted came into affect in your case this time.
5-5-105
(c) (1) The call shall be made by publication in some newspaper published in the county, or by personal notices sent by the county clerk, at least five (5) days before the time of the convening of the county legislative body, which call or notice shall specify the objects and purposes for which the special session is called, and no other business but that embraced in the call shall be transacted during the sitting of the special term.
The above code is copied and pasted straight from lexisnexis.com. Everything that I have written is 100% correct and the reason you weren't allowed to speak. Plain and simple. You can write a book about it to try and deny it, but it is the truth. Problem solved, and I don't care to talk anymore about it.
DAW
5-5-105(b)(1) would actually be used for Giles County because of the population.Either way, it is the reason you weren't allowed to speak, and the correct one.
5-5-105. Special meetings.
(a) (1) The county mayor has the power to convene the legislative body in special session when, in the county mayor's opinion, the public necessities require it.
(2) Upon written application to the chair of the legislative body by the county mayor or by a majority of the members of such body, then in that instance, it shall be mandatory for the chair to call a special session of such body.
(3) The convening date of such body shall not be more than fifteen (15) days nor less than forty-eight (48) hours from the time of the filing of such application with the chair.
(4) The provisions of this subsection (a) shall not apply to counties of Class 1 as established by § 8-24-101.
(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.
(3) The provisions of this subsection (b) shall apply only to any county having a population not less than two hundred eighty-seven thousand seven hundred (287,700) and not greater than two hundred eighty-seven thousand eight hundred (287,800) according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent census.
(c) (1) The call shall be made by publication in some newspaper published in the county, or by personal notices sent by the county clerk, at least five (5) days before the time of the convening of the county legislative body, which call or notice shall specify the objects and purposes for which the special session is called, and no other business but that embraced in the call shall be transacted during the sitting of the special term.
(2) In the event no newspaper is published in the county, the notice shall be by personal service upon all the members of the county legislative body, such service to contain the purpose for which the body is convened, and to be at least five (5) days before the time for convening.
HISTORY: Acts 1889, ch. 257, § 1-3; Shan., §§ 5997-5999; Code 1932, §§ 10195-10197; Acts 1957, ch. 16, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 5-503, 5-504; Acts 1978, ch. 934, §§ 13, 15; impl. am. Acts 1978, ch. 934, §§ 22, 36; Acts 1979, ch. 11, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 5-505; Acts 1983, ch. 241, §§ 1-3; 2003, ch. 90, § 2.
Copied and pasted from Lexisnexis.com
DAW
DAW thanks for posting the entire TCA 5-5-105 as it confirms everything I have said about this matter. I met every requirement from time to subject and was still denied the right to address the commission.
Your comment, "The five days has nothing to do with the notice that a citizen would have to give to be able to speak. It is referencing the amount of days in which the county executive must give notice of the meeting. You would have to have your request in before the notice was put in the paper so that you could be listed on the agenda in the paper", is correct. The thing you are overlooking is the fact that my request was in the county executives hands prior to the called meeting being announced in the newspaper, it is stamped as received by the secretary who was handed the letter by Mrs Vanzant in my presence along with Commissioner Campbell, and Mr. Vanzant. There is nothing in the law that says the request can only be accepted after the official announcement in the paper. The fact remains I met every requirement and there is absolutely no law that would prevent me from addressing the commission under the circumstances. The objection was simply an arrogant, arbitrary decision by the county executive who does not believe she is bound by the law, responsible to the commission or accountable to the people.
You had to have the request in before it was in the paper. It was in the paper on the 19th and your letter was received on the 21st. Case closed.
DAW
DAW
Are you reading what you are writing? Does it sound reasonable to you that a person would be required to request something before it was even available. That is just the way they have tried to prevent discussion.
I did not have to have the request in before it was announced in the paper only five days before the meeting. 21st to 27th is more than five days. Case not closed, just more clearly shown as an underhanded attempt to destroy the 1st Amendment Right guaranteeing freedom of speech even to those we disagree with.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, I certainly hope so, are you supportive of the denial based on what you have learned thus far? Do you not see the attempt to deny my rights? Do you really oppose the Constitutional Right to speak to and petition our representative government?
I'm not taking up for Barrett or against him. Just wondering how you would know you want to speak at a Commissioners meeting if you don't know when it will be or what it is about.
wab
You really are something, aren't you? Get over it. You have spoken at several meetings, and sometimes the results were not too favorable. You know that, don't you?
All that I am saying is that in the case of a special called meeting it is not set up so that a citizen can speak unless you know, through some channel, that there is going to be one. Once the agenda has been set and listed in the paper, it can't be changed. That is written in the state law that I listed above. The circumstance that you are referencing has to do with the regular meetings. In that case you can make the request in a certain amount of days. You have admitted that you were not on the agenda, therefore you did not have a right to speak. Your constitutional rights were not broken.
DAW
DAW
If you attend a meeting in which another one is set then you will know before it gets announced in the paper. WAB was not on the agenda to speak because Vanzant denied him the ability to speak, therefore he was not included on the agenda.
Hope the case is NOT closed.
And you are wrong 11:57. That case is closed for sure.
If he met all the requirements to speak and it appears that he did then his constitutional rights were violated. The law that DAW and Barrett posted states that the only restriction is that "no other business but that embraced in such a call shall be transacted during such special session".
In the subject meeting adding to and taking away from the budget was a violation of this law as the announcement called for acceptance of a budget and setting the tax rate. Barrett, in this instance, is right what they did was amend the existing budget and change the tax rate which was not the announced purpose of the special called meeting.
It absolutely amazes me how much troublemaking one man can be responsible for.
It does not appear that he did, because he didn't. You also need to go back and read the article in the paper that stated what was to be discussed during the special called meeting. The two topics you listed above were exactly two of the three on the agenda.
I don't have time or the need to get into a pissing contest with you. The article in the paper had nothing official to do with the announcement that ran stating that "the purpose of the special called meeting is to set the tax rate and to adopt a budget for the 2011-2012 year". There was no third item in the official announcement.
The article in the paper reads as follows:
1. Making appropriations to nonprofit charitable organizations of Giles County, Tennessee for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2012.
2. Making appropriations for the various funds, departments, institutions, offices, and agencies of Giles County, Tennessee beginning July 1, 2011and ending June 30,2012.
3. Fixing the tax levy in Giles County, Tennessee for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011.
That is the exact letter sent to the Board of Commissioners.
DAW
Remind me not to hire you as an attorney "an attorney" you can't even count to 3. Although I imagine you are one of the cheerleaders trying to post as an attorney to help WAB get back some integrity from being proven wrong on all of this. Funny how there isn't anyone jumping in to defend WAB today after the real facts have been shown.
The letter sent to the commissioners was not the same thing that was put in the official notice of the special called meeting.
What would you call the official notice? I have a copy of the notice in the paper and the notice sent to the commissioners. They are the exact same thing. Is there some other notice?
DAW
The official notice was the announcement that was paid for by the county, not the story written by Paul Manke. The letter sent to the commissioners was a required correspondence and contained a statement about why Mr. Barrett was not allowed to speak. I have my letter and it is just wrong.
I don't recall anyone saying anything about something written by Paul Manke. I am talking about the main notice. You will have to explain why your letter is just wrong. I don't think you are on the same page regarding the situation I am discussing.
DAW
Post a Comment
<< Home