Legislative Committee Meeting 5 March 2012
The Legislative Committee, chaired by Commissioner Faulkner, met to discuss among other business the proposal for setting a time frame for appointments to committee membership.
1) If you remember a while back, the County Executive forbid the Legislative Committee to meet because according to her an assignment to a committee for a year meant only for eleven months. The County Attorney had been scheduled to attend and discuss the legal aspects of such assignments, but was a no show.
The proposal presented and accepted by the Legislative Committee yesterday was that membership on committees be for one full year instead of eleven months. That appointments would be made the third Monday in September and end with the swearing in of new members the next September.
2) It was discussed that even though the matter had been discussed and voted against by the Legislative Committee a commissioner was planning to offer a proposal to the full commission to do away with the School Committee, the only connection between the Commission and the School Board.
A vote was taken by the committee and once again they voted to keep the School Committee. The only vote cast for dissolving the School Committee was from Commissioner Harwell.
3) The matter of having a secretary take notes for committee meetings was discussed. The County Executive made the suggestion that someone from the Financial Management Office come take the minutes. It was mentioned that the Office of the County Clerk was already responsible for the minutes and should be taking them. The County Executive stated that it was a grey area claiming that the Clerks Office took care of the "Official" minutes to which the question was asked but not answered, if they take them aren't they official?
It was decided that for now at least the minutes would continue to be taken by a member of the committee and audio recordings would be made.
4) The question was asked concerning the adoption of a county wide nuisance law that had been discussed in March 2010 and what was its status. The response was that the county attorney was suppose to be researching the matter and bringing back the information. I stated that the county attorney had been researching the matter for well over six months with no information shared, how long before you can expect her to respond? The committee agreed they would contact the county attorney and ask for a report. on the matter.
1) If you remember a while back, the County Executive forbid the Legislative Committee to meet because according to her an assignment to a committee for a year meant only for eleven months. The County Attorney had been scheduled to attend and discuss the legal aspects of such assignments, but was a no show.
The proposal presented and accepted by the Legislative Committee yesterday was that membership on committees be for one full year instead of eleven months. That appointments would be made the third Monday in September and end with the swearing in of new members the next September.
2) It was discussed that even though the matter had been discussed and voted against by the Legislative Committee a commissioner was planning to offer a proposal to the full commission to do away with the School Committee, the only connection between the Commission and the School Board.
A vote was taken by the committee and once again they voted to keep the School Committee. The only vote cast for dissolving the School Committee was from Commissioner Harwell.
3) The matter of having a secretary take notes for committee meetings was discussed. The County Executive made the suggestion that someone from the Financial Management Office come take the minutes. It was mentioned that the Office of the County Clerk was already responsible for the minutes and should be taking them. The County Executive stated that it was a grey area claiming that the Clerks Office took care of the "Official" minutes to which the question was asked but not answered, if they take them aren't they official?
It was decided that for now at least the minutes would continue to be taken by a member of the committee and audio recordings would be made.
4) The question was asked concerning the adoption of a county wide nuisance law that had been discussed in March 2010 and what was its status. The response was that the county attorney was suppose to be researching the matter and bringing back the information. I stated that the county attorney had been researching the matter for well over six months with no information shared, how long before you can expect her to respond? The committee agreed they would contact the county attorney and ask for a report. on the matter.
posted by Allen Barrett | 11:17 AM
94 Comments:
I don't understand why if the attorney is paid to be some where are do something why he's not there and doing it.
Call and find out.
The county attorney is Lucy Hensen, a female. There is nothing for her to 'research'. This is nothing more than a delay tactic because the commissioners do not want to vote on it one way or the other in case they PO some constituents and lose votes come next election.
Then call Mrs. Henson and find out.
CG You call and find out, maybe you have the money to pay her for her time.
8:43
You seem to be the one who wants to know so badly. Her number is in the book. Give her a call.
8:45 Sorry but you missed that one, I didn't ask that question.
Just read the question and your usual answer.
It seems Jack Woodard is the commissioner who is pressing for the Schools Committee to be done away with - why? Its the only committee whose job it is to question proposed budgets that come from the school board. With the atrocious accounting that has been going on between the schools and Garner's office (refer to state audit) it would seem this committee is badly needed. Then consider the proposal has already been voted against by the commission, why is it necessary to keep wasting time and money on the subject? Does Woodard not understand the word NO?
Having a school board and a school committee is overkill. Most of the commissioners have no business making decisions about our childrens education.
Has it not been done that way for 200 years. I thought some said that's the way we've done it for 200 years and see no reason to change.
Maybe Jack Woodard doesn't think we need to do things like they have been done for 200 years? I don't see anything wrong with that. I like the way he votes on the issues. I know for a fact that he didn't vote to put the cuts back into place. He has common sense. Maybe some of the other commissioners can take a lesson from him. He has been there for a long time and is fiscally responsible with the tax dollars. He despises the fact that Hospital funds are being used.
The school committee has little to do with education of our children but they have a lot to do with oversight of school spending.
If Mr Woodard is so upset about the hospital money why don't he do something about it. He can ask that discipolineary action be tajken against those who are dipping into that money.
The school board is all that is needed to look over school spending. Maybe Woodard knows that the commissioners don't have a positive track record when it comes to spending?
Good for Mr. Woodard if he don't like the way things was done for the last 200 years. Maybe he will vote for the charter. lol
7:29
Mr. Woodard is wise enough to know who is behind this charter thing and why they are trying to push it off on Giles County. I don't forsee him voting for it.
5:52
Until the superintendent is an elected position again there needs to be over-site by the commissioners. It would be nice if the chair of the school committee was actually a high school graduate.
You need to look in the mirror 8:00 and realize what a moron and troublemaker you are. You really are pitiful and have no common sense. I wish I knew who you were so I could put a face with the stupidity.
8:34 Looks like 8:00 must of stepped on your toes.
7:44 I don't see him voting for it either, not sure I will, but someone had said on the blog they didn't see any need for change from the last 200 years. Then someone said on this thread maybe Mr. Woodard saw a reason for change from 200 years. Oh well it was said in fun, knew you would blow off about it.
AT last Mrs. Garner told the money was returned to the hospital fund. Did it hurt to tell that?
What else do they collect tax from beside property tax and what is the usual amount. I'm sure less buying will be going on with so many out of work.
I have a question I have wondered about and doubt if many people know the answer to.... when food stamps are used to buy groceries does this include taxes are the food stamps taxes dropped? If dropped it would make a big difference in taxes the county would receive.
At one time it was talked about droppong taxes on food for everybody.
BIG NEWS!!!
Margaret Campbell is the new Chamber Director and Jessie R Parker is the new Chamber Secretary.
Not surprised M Campbell (former secretary) is the new Chamber Director. Do her qualifications meet all the requirements for the job? Will she still be working for the newspaper? We have three people in local government working at the newspaper.
That explains the lame news being reported 6:41.
6:41
Why are you trying to stir up trouble over this? If you have concerns, pick up the phone and call Ms. Campbell's employer. Or, better yet, go by and discuss the matter face-to-face.
Always thought tax payers were employers of all city and county employees.
3:24
Why don't you stop trying to stir up trouble? Wouldn't your time be better spent in trying to find out who the spy is at both the court house and the annex. I think I know who it is (there could be two), but I'll leave that to you to find out. I would almost bet the farm that you already know. Pitiful.
I must of missed something, "There is a spy working in Giles County Government?"
Sounds like there must be someone that do along with CG. So laughable
7:28
It's more pathetic than laughable.
Pathetic that there is at least one spy.
A spy for the newspaper? They need to do better spying then.
I posted 7:28 and made a mistake in typing. I should of said DON'T go along with CG instead of do.
Got to start going over before send.
11:06 Does that mean the spy is suppose to be working for the newspaper? I don't think I've ever read anything the paper said against anyone at the courthouse.
11:13
You know very well who the spy or spies report to...and it's not the newspaper. Many county employees know this is going on. Whether you believe that or not is your choice.
You folks claim to like truth. Well, there it is.
What facts do you have to support your truth? And if it is true does this not support the fact there are more than just a few on this blog that are not happy with the leniency in policies and abuse of power some influence? If it is true I like it. Transparency in government.
12:18
It's true. Like it or not. And it's a shame that such deviousness goes on.
from reading a few earlier posts RE: the school com/oversight,,,,yes they need an oversight committee however, every time a comissioner (or anyone for that matter) asks about reducing anything $ wise to the school system..it always receives the standard answer "you cant' cut school money"...what a crock....so our oversight committee is for naught because they have no teeth to change it (it seems) What a vicious cycle.
If you work at the courthouse, better watch out, CG is after you thinking you are a spy.
I hate you have to work at a place like that.
1:17
I am beginning to think you are either a complete nut or just an unhappy and quarrelsome person.
I never said I was OUT to get anyone. Again...your words and not mine.
Is there an issue you would like to discuss, or am I the issue as far as you are concerned? What a hoot. Your life must be so drab.
CG's life does seem drab doesn't it. All he knows is "move' "call" I'm a christian gentleman.
Wonder when she will discuss the issues. Oh I forgot she is a he.
4:25
Well, here we go yet again. You are absolutely unbelievable.
I still haven't decided whether you are a complete nut or just a very unhappy and quarrelsome person. Perhaps it's a little of both. Either way, you are acting like an angry child who is mad at his sister because she got a cookie and you didn't.
Since I am a Christian and a gentleman, how could you possibly surmise that I am a fgemale?
Is there an issue you want to discuss, or do we go on with your game? mIt's beginning to make you look quite foolish.
4:25
I will admit to one thing. I need to proof my posts before submitting them.
I knew you would make some smart remark about the last sentence in my above post. Mit is not making you look foolish. That was a typo. YOU are the one making yourself look that way. No, you can't blame your behavior on Mit. What a joke.
Could someone explane the post of 9:20 to me. What is he/she talking about "Mit"? When I first read it I thought of Mitt Rommeny. I looked at a few post above and that wasn't it. Who or what is Mit?
4:26
The last sentence of the 9:16
post should have read "It's beginning to make you look quite foolish". The typo was explained in the 9:20 post.
Mit was a typo.
6:44 Thanks, Now I see. I only get to check the blog on weekends and miss things sometimes. Don't read everything I guess is what happens.
Ok 9:16 now we know what a Mit is but what the heck is a "fgemale' since you didn't correct that word are we to believe it's a female gentleman?
8:56
You know very well that I was referring to a female. That too was a typo I simply overlooked. More gender confusion? Sorry, but as much as it seems to anger you, I AM a Christian and a gentleman.
If you are trying to impress the other one or two troublemakers, I really don't think it's working. In fact It's making you look quite foolish.
You really need a job or a hobby of some sort. No, wait; this is your hobby. What a hoot.
6:16 Isn't this blog your hobby? Now that's a hoot.
2:44
No, this blog is certainly no hobby of mine. I have plenty to do but make it a point to come here and challenge you when necessary. And that is quite often.
Get a life.
CG you get a life instead of this blog. Thank goodness I have help coming back at pitful you.
7:03
No problem whatsoever. I can take on all two or three of you. I'm a bit outnumbered, but I don't worry about that. What I am doing is right in that I am trying to get the troublemaking and strife stopped. That's a pretty noble cause, wouldn't you say?
7:48 NO! You are just making matters worse. Most of the post are at you.
Barrett starts a thread. It's hardly ever discussed. It turns into something about you. You are causing more trouble than Obama.
7:48 Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So there is no mistake, I'm referencing you.
8:24 (11:18)
Most of my posts are in defense of myself from YOU. Just stop this hogwash, and this "insanity" will end. Oh, but were it not for you and me, what would become of this blog?
It is really time for you fellows to go to "TIME OUT". Our Lord Jesus never spouted off and demended that everyone one consider him to be a Christian. He was quiet and displayed his character by his actions not his words. A ture gentleman also displayes his character by his actions and not his words.
8:13 You are so right the Christian thing to do is stop this.
Always one to point the finger when you should be paying attention to the three pointing back at you 9:02
Does anyone understand 9:32's post?
I thought it would be the christian thing to do when two people were disagreeing would be to stop it. I hope 9:02 is going to do that.
I've read enough of their little fued, bet others have too.
I would like to see some constructive discussion on this blog.
8:13
AGAIN, the only reason I EVER referred to myself as a Christian gentleman is because of the lie allen barrett told about me that I enable wrong. Add to that the fact that his one or two loyal followers continually referred to me as a female. The blogmaster(barrett)insisted that I offer up proof that I am not an enabler of wrongdoing. I responded that I live a Christian life and that I would never go along with wrong. That was not to say I think myself so pious. I was just offering up what I know to be the proof he and his loyalists couldn't accept. That is their problem and not mine. I also referred to myself as a gentleman because barrett's followers continued to call me a female.
When these people stop bringing this up, my promise is to never mention the fact that I am a Christian gentleman again.
If you reference yourself as the Christian gentleman why can no one else? Should we start referring to you again as enabler or do you prefer hypocrite? Either fits you better than Christian gentleman.
5:00 Wrong CG. It's clear now that Barrett didn't lie about you and you did not say that because you live a Christian life you would never go along with wrongdoing, what you said was the proof I would never go along with wrongdoing is I am a Christian. That sir is very big jump. It was that selfrighteous arrogance that cause some to ridicule your proof.
I have never read one single comment from anyone on here that ridculed being a christian they just laugh at your selfrighteous
negative witness.
6:03
Wrong yet agaqin. This is completely outrageous.
No, allen barrett did in fact tell that lie about me, and I have told him so. I think he's tried to downplay it, but YOU just can't let it rest.
I said I am a Christian because that's exactly what I am. To me, that is proof enough that I wouldn't go along with wrongdoings. You see, true Christians would never knowingly be a part of something they believed to be wrong anymore than they would be involved in name- calling and troublemaking. I stated that I am a gentleman because of your unwillingness to stop referring to me as a female. How many times do you need to be told these things?
Is there something wrong with your thinking and thought processes...perhaps a synaptical issue? I can't help but wonder. It's either that, or you just want to keep playing this silly game. Either way, it makes you look pretty stupid.
To defend myself against a lie by stating that I am a Christian is hardly self-righteousness. On the contrary, it is the best answer I could think of to refute it. It's just too bad that you find that unacceptable.
CG so what?
Get over it!
Be a true Christian and hopefully a gentleman and walk away. If you do, the people who seem to be tomenting you will shutup. Because you insist on haveing the last word just allows others to poke fun at you and they love to see how upset you become. It's a game with them.
So, get over it.
7:30
Perhaps you are right. I don't think the one who torments me is ever going to stop, and I really should just give it up.
What upsets me is the fact that this little group thinks they can get on here and badmouth anyone of their choosing with no repercussions. And whenever someone like me says anything to challenge them, my words get twisted and spun into something entirely different. Thank God, most people who know about this blog don't read it anyhow.
I still don't think these one or two people should get away with what they are doing, but I think you are probably right. Arguing with troublemakers is not a what Christian people should be involved in.
CG in your 8:34 comments you wrote "I said I am a Christian because that's exactly what I am. To me, that is proof enough that I wouldn't go along with wrongdoings. You see, true Christians would never knowingly be a part of something they believed to be wrong anymore than they would be involved in name- calling and troublemaking."
Even you should be able to see why so many people don't see your claim of being a Christian as proof of you not supporting wrongdoing,
If a Christian would no more support wrong doing than be involved in name calling and trouble making, you failed. You failed terribly because you have called people names, you even called Mr. Barrett a liar in that very comment. You have called a number of people names and if you deny it I can take the time to cut and paste a bunch of them. You also have accused people of things you have no way of knowing or proof of and example is in that same comment you claimed "allen barrett did in fact tell that lie about me, and I have told him so. I think he's tried to downplay it". Many times you have even claimed to know the very heart of others. You have spread gossip and told people to leave their homes if they don't like the way things are done here. Not many of these actions would be considered "Christian" by most people and that is why calling yourself a Christian as evidence that you don't enable wrongdoing
is laughed at. Your inconsistencies
make you look foolish and hypocritical.
James
Sorry, but I stand by every word I said. And barrett is a liar for accusing me of willfully going along with wrongdoings. As I said, I am perfectly willing to drop this matter if you would just stop bringing it up. It seems to bother you that I am a Christian. That's unfortunate, but it has been that way since Biblical days. It's really nothing new.
Think what you want. I'm just glad that you and the other one or two who actually are the troublemakers will not be my judge. Thank God.
6:00 you are a blind fool. Accusing others to justify yourself. Jesus said remover cinder from your own eye before you criticize the speck in another fellows eye.
Your idea of a Christian sure don't fit with that of the Bible.
6:00 Think what you want, but remember God is watching you.
6:43 (9:14)
It's interesting that you should mention the hypocrisy of the beam in one's eye. That is EXACTLY what I have told people like you and barrett for a long time. None of us are so perfect and without sin. Yet, some choose to run around calling people nasty names as you just did me and trying to create as much grief and trouble as they can for those individuals JUDGED by them to be somehow unworthy. We all fall short, including you and me.
Yes, God is watching, and I hope my life meets with His approval. That's what counts.
Is this what you want to discuss? If so, let's just talk Bible and stop all the name-calling and attacks on people you guys dislike.
You call people names and you judge people then you criticize them for calling people names and judging people. If that ain't a log in your eye brother you got your head way in a dark place.
9:09
Wrong again! If I were running around calling people names, I would guess you to be right. But I don't. But when someone tells a lie on me, I normally let them know that they are telling a lie. Please explain to me what's wrong with that?
Is there an issue you want to discuss, or do you want to continue judging me? You obvioulsy refuse to accept thae fact that I do not go along with wrongdoings.
I want to discuss why you are so stupid and such a hypocrite 3:29.
10:07
Go ahead. You've been trying to malign me for quite sometime now anyway. You just seem to resent what I stand for, and that's fine. Do what you feel you must.
What do you stand for?
Have you ever discussed an issue on this blog? You very carefully watch how you critize barrett and some others.
8:00I stand for treating people right. I believe that's called the Golden Rule. I stand for humility and moral values. I stand for patriotism and for Christianity.
You didn't ask what I stand against, but I will share with you anyhow since you are taking another shot at me. I stand against arrogant and prideful peoople who think they are smarter than the rest. I stand against troublemakers who sttempt to use intimidation and bullying to get their way. I stand against troublemakers and name-callers. That's not a complete list, but it will at least give you a better grasp of what I stand for and against since you appear to be so interested in what makes me tick.
About the opnly issue I see on this blog anymore is between you and me.
In the movie Casablanca there's a scene where Captain Renault is ordered to close Rick's club. In response to Rick's protest Renault states, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" This is stated just as the
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] and says, "here's your winnings" to which Renault responds
"Oh, thank you very much."
That's the first though that came to my mind when I read 7:43 bragging about how he treasures humility and moral values. Proving himself to be void of both struck me as being so hypocritical it was absurd.
If a person is going to stand for such things as 7:43 claims should they not first understand what those words actually mean? Based on 7:43's prior posts it's very clear that his understanding of those concepts are extremely limited.
In his second paragraph they list things no one is more guilty of on this blog than he. Amazing that such loud proclamations should come form the most guilty but not surprising. Since I was very young I've heard that the bit dog barks the loudest. I would suggest that 7:43 check his shoes obviously without his knowledge someone put a pair on him that fit and he didn't even realize it.
So funny, I heard and think of so often when he/she post yes "the bit dog barks the loudest."
wab
I have never in my life seen such arrogance. You mentioned that I brag about being humble and moral. That's simply not true. Would you agree that an individual rightfully should be proud to have those virtues?
What "struck" you as hypocritical to the point of absurdity is such an ironic thing for you to say. Perhaps you should go take a look at the man in the mirror.
Limited understanding of concepts? Hardly so. Granted, I don't know much about rocket science or brain surgery, but I do know about the things I hold near and dear. Do you?
I must admit that you are right about one thing. That is, the bit dog barks loudest. Having said that, I have a suggestion for you. Stop barking and making so much unnecessary noise.
Hopefully, I have again been able to clear up more of your misunderstandings.
5:11 Do you really think you cleared anything up with your same old bull. Take a good look in the mirror.
It would be so nice if 5:11 took its own advice.
5:11 what looks like arrogance to you looks like intelligence to me and most other people.
12:07
Well, I see you've really set your hand to attacking me today.
You mentioned what looks like intelligence to most people. Who; the other one or two on here who think nobody should challenge misbehavior?
Does anybody understand 5:06's post?
I believe she is saying who (meaning the other people in 12:07's post) She thinks only one or two don't agree with her.
Someday she may have a rude awaking in my opion.
5:06 Are you not the one that condones misbehavior from our elected officials and government employees? You always defend their actions with out knowing any facts or just blatant disregard for written laws in favor of your "I believe" and "my opinion" statements. Why do you believe you should have the right to challenge what you believe to be wrong but no one else should? And don't lie we have read them all before.
5:55
Don't pretend you don't know what I am talking about. It's the same one who has been my nemesis for quite awhile. I believe his or her post is just below yours. For all I know you, 6:02 and 7:11 are the same person. Doesn't matter. You just can't stand it because I oppose what you guys are trying to do.
Challenge all you want to, but don't expect me to remain silent when I disagree with you. If I were as unhappy as you seem to be, I would hop a bus out of town. That's right...leave!
8:10 If you gave a reason why anything is right you might be believed. But all you know is you are challenging. But the question is what are you challenging.
Those other post aren't mine, I just got home from out of town.
You want to believe only one or two don't like what is going on so I can believe you are Mrs. Vanzant. Don't make either one of us right.
I'm sure if anyone wants to leave they will, why don't you? It will take someone bigger than you to run anyone off. Oh, I guess that's all you really know to say is LEAVE.
8:56
You think I'm Mrs. Vanzant. What a laugh. When will you ever get over the gender confusion?
Why don't I leave? Sorry, but I am perfectly happy here. By that I mean to say that I obey the laws, cherish family and friendships, and don't go about hating and resenting those who might have what I don't. Why should I leave that? The Lord has been mindful of me.
In spite of those who hate and resent, may God bless Giles County.
what proof do you offer up there 8:11? We have all read your lies before and your behavior, that many view polar opposite of Christianity, as well as your blatant disregard of the truth. So what proof do you offer because I personally believe you to be a woman that is employed by our local government and not the least bit trustworthy.
8:11 Those you want to leave may like Giles County. There are more things to like than the county government. They are trying to change things they don't like. Isn't that the way to do instead of throwing a tantrum and running away.
There was a lot going on that has been changing since Mr. Barrett has been watching them. In my opinion if WAB hadn't been watching they may have tore a beautiful courthouse down and put up another building, the way they like to spend the tax payers money.
Funny how you only read what you want in other peoples's post. I read 8:56's post as if you believe only one or two are posting he/she can believe you are vanzant. didn't say he/she believed it.
8:31
You judge me harshly, but it's always been that way. Back in the days of Christ on earth, people were stoned to death for professing to be a follower of the Lord.
Since when do I need to prove ANYTHING to someone like you?
Earlier this morning, I believe you suggested that I was Mrs. Vanzant and later Terry Harwell. Now you say I'm a woman who works in our local government. Which one is it? Answer...none of the above. Hilarious.
May God bless Giles County.
Again Huckleberry you make statements that are false. I did not write you were Terry or JV but I did write and I do believe you to be a woman in our local government.
10:17
I never said you did. I said I BELIEVE you SUGGESTED that. Look those words up in the dictionary. If you don't have one, ask wab if you can borrow his. What a laugh.
Your turn.
Never get in a smelling contest with a skunk you will come out smelling worse.
To clear it up for you. I did not write the posts you accuse me of. So it is established that you believe in things that are not true. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
12:02 Which post are you talking about and who to?
The idiot @ 11:31
Post a Comment
<< Home