COMMENTS DEEMED FORBIDDEN BY COUNTY EXECUTIVE

The following statement is the entire content I requested to make before the Giles County Legislative Body at it's called meeting on 27 July 2011. The County Executive refused to allow me to speak even after I had met all the requirements to speak.
I had hope the Commissioners might have the strength and integrity to stand up to the abuse of power and override her violation of my civil rights, they failed.

My name is Allen Barrett…. I’m a retired soldier and retired minister. Giles County has been my chosen home since 1983 and I currently reside on Jackson Drive in Pulaski.
I appreciate your respect for my civil rights and giving me this generous allowance of time before you, to address the issue of the tax rate and the budget.

1) We’ve been told that the reason we’re gathered here today is because the state says..... Well, the state can’t talk... but it can be used as a scapegoat to pass the buck for excess spending.. Ladies and Gentlemen this budget is one big lie after another.

a) We were told that the tax rate... had... to go up from 2.69 to 2,77 or $350,000 because the Equalization Board had not completed their work before the rate was set. Yet the Calculation Form for the certified tax rate filled out by the tax assessor reveals that the equalization Board made zero changes.

b) Half a million dollars is in the budget as revenue from a weight station that isn’t even built yet, but we’re told that “Franklin County assured us that’s the amount they got” They don’t even have an interstate in Franklin County much less a weight station.

c) What happens if that money don’t materialize, will we be required to pay more in taxes later in the year? What will happen to next years rate?

d) We were told loudly about all the cuts but then all the cuts were quietly restored. We were told county employees would have to pay for the increase in their insurance but that too was secretly changed back to where it was….. 100% paid by the county. There’s no question the salary and benefits of government workers are already higher than the average citizen in the county.

2) For a change think about where this money is coming from, not where it’s going.

A) Asking the ninety year old lady down the street from me on a fixed income and
already paying to have her garbage hauled off, seems unfair to have her pay for a cow to be hauled off someone’s farm. That may be needed but how does it effect that lady?

B) You give money to the EDC/IDB which may be a good idea, but $35.00 car washes and
thousands of dollars for luxury rooms and meals don’t set well with folks struggling with how they’ll get their next meal. That money would pay for a lot of dead animal removal. Most of the money given the edc/idb….. the commission doesn’t have a clue where it’s gone.

C) The money is coming from people hit by 20% unemployment, gasoline prices 100% higher than last year, electricity up 40%, water up 25% in three years, sales tax maxed out. Well, you may say they can eat beans and taters and cornbread, but pinto beans increased 60% in past year to $1.15 a pound, potatoes and corn doubled in price. Fixed income ain’t fixed….. it’s shrinking.
There was no increase in Social Security this year but there was an increase in Medicare premiums. Our Seniors are paying more toward their medical insurance than county employees are.

3) There’s more space being used in the newspaper for foreclosures than for news.

A) Assessments were done not by our elected assessor looking at the property but by a formula and a guy from Nashville.

4) Many of you sitting here today have complained about the burden created by the federal government, yet you, are making this county government into the same kind of burden.
If this government is for the people and by the people then why is it making so many suffer unnecessarily? If this was a legitimate budget and process why was so much of it conceived and birthed in secret and open debate squelched?
I urge you please vote no on this illusion and the deceitful process under which it was created. Thank You

During the meeting, the $500,000.00 of possible money was removed from the budget and three positions that had been cut were restored. Two of those positions were custodians, the most productive of the custodians, and were needed. I believe they had only been cut to provide a stage to restore the third position in the Financial Management Office. The position in the Financial Management Office wasn't actually cut the person had quit three weeks ago and the director and County Executive wanted the position filled. Basically the Commission voted for a new hire. Understand that most of the people in the courthouse only work 35 hours or less but we'er told they can't possible get by with one single less person!

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1983, popularly known as "Section 1983," is a federal law that allows lawsuits for violations of constitutional rights.

Statutory Language
42 U.S.C. §1983 authorizes lawsuits against state officials, local officials, and sometimes local governments for violating federal constitutional and statutory rights. The text of the statute is as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ....

Supreme Court Standard
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for a nearly unanimous Court:[1]
Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to prevail in a § 1983 action for civil damages from a government official performing discretionary functions, the defense of qualified immunity that our cases have recognized requires that the official be shown to have violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). Thus a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having met every stipulation required in order to speak to the Called Commission Assembly it is obvious that the County Executive in collusion with the County Attorney has conspired to violate my civil rights of political speech. In so doing the County Executive's misuse of her position and power has violated the most basic of Constitutional Rights of every citizen in this county. It can not go unchallenged.

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!