Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
tundra

Secret meetings, code names, forgetting about minutes

Recommended Posts

This is an excerpt from an article in todays (3/10/14) AJC. Skirting sunshine laws in order to prevent citizen opposition is not the best way to garner support for any project.

 

This is the #1 reason I am opposed to this airport expansion, this is NOT in my back yard, we are not in the flight path, the airport will have little to no impact on my personal life. I can't use the quote function so everything that follows is from the article that can be seen in it's entirety here: https://www.facebook.com/savepauldingco

 

Hollie Manheimer, an attorney and executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, said both cases appear contrary to the Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, which says meetings must be public if “any official business, policy, or public matter of the agency is formulated, presented, discussed or voted upon.”

“The Open Meetings Act in Georgia has always been designed to aid citizen access, not arm public agencies against it,” Manheimer said. “To the extent meetings are moved out of the county, improperly noticed, and improperly recorded, these barriers impede citizen access rights.”

 

As to the round-robin meetings Cobb commissioners had with business leaders, Manheimer said: “If the … act exists for any purpose, it’s this situation.”

 

Cobb and Paulding officials say the secrecy was necessary because both projects were sensitive economic development deals that could have been wrecked by public knowledge.

Cobb County Attorney Deborah Dance, who attended the chamber meetings, wrote in an email that they were perfectly legal: “No quorum existed.”

 

Paulding airport director Blake Swafford said his board’s out-of-county retreat was necessary, because it was “the only way (to) capture everyone’s attention, and keep them focused and keep them in the room.” Had the retreat been held in Paulding, he said, board members would be “running all day long in and out” to handle other business.

Share this post


Link to post

Paulding airport director Blake Swafford said his board’s out-of-county retreat was necessary, because it was “the only way (to) capture everyone’s attention, and keep them focused and keep them in the room.” Had the retreat been held in Paulding, he said, board members would be “running all day long in and out” to handle other business.

 

Was there a quorum that existed in Blake's meeting?

Share this post


Link to post

Paulding airport director Blake Swafford said his board’s out-of-county retreat was necessary, because it was “the only way (to) capture everyone’s attention, and keep them focused and keep them in the room.” Had the retreat been held in Paulding, he said, board members would be “running all day long in and out” to handle other business.

 

Was there a quorum that existed in Blake's meeting?

 

Yes there was a quorum present. However because no one knew about the meeting until after 6 months, the sunshine law violations were avoided. No minutes, no record of the meeting. They just forgot about them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
<br />This is an excerpt from an article in todays (3/10/14) AJC.  Skirting sunshine laws in order to prevent citizen opposition is not the best way to garner support for any project.  <br /><br />This is the #1 reason I am opposed to this airport expansion, this is NOT in my back yard, we are not in the flight path, the airport will have little to no impact on my personal life. I can't use the quote function so everything that follows is from the article that can be seen in it's entirety here:  <a href='https://www.facebook.com/savepauldingco' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>https://www.facebook.../savepauldingco</a> <br /><br />Hollie Manheimer, an attorney and executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, said both cases appear contrary to the Georgia's Open Meetings Act, which says meetings must be public if "any official business, policy, or public matter of the agency is formulated, presented, discussed or voted upon."<br />"The Open Meetings Act in Georgia has always been designed to aid citizen access, not arm public agencies against it," Manheimer said. "To the extent meetings are moved out of the county, improperly noticed, and improperly recorded, these barriers impede citizen access rights."<br /><br />As to the round-robin meetings Cobb commissioners had with business leaders, Manheimer said: "If the … act exists for any purpose, it's this situation."<br /><br />Cobb and Paulding officials say the secrecy was necessary because both projects were sensitive economic development deals that could have been wrecked by public knowledge.<br />Cobb County Attorney Deborah Dance, who attended the chamber meetings, wrote in an email that they were perfectly legal: "No quorum existed."<br /><br />Paulding airport director Blake Swafford said his board's out-of-county retreat was necessary, because it was "the only way (to) capture everyone's attention, and keep them focused and keep them in the room." Had the retreat been held in Paulding, he said, board members would be "running all day long in and out" to handle other business.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

So. Blake has to wrangle the Commissioners up like a bunch of kids. Nice to know what he thinks about our Commissioners and their attention span.

Share this post


Link to post

So having the meeting in secret....outside of Paulding at a retreat style location kept everyone from “running all day long in and out” to handle other business?

 

I'm calling BS... because I go to these types of meetings all the time and people still run in and out all damn day.

Being in one state or their home office don't make a damn.

Edited by GeorgiaTornado
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Paulding airport director Blake Swafford said his board’s out-of-county retreat was necessary, because it was “the only way (to) capture everyone’s attention, and keep them focused and keep them in the room.” Had the retreat been held in Paulding, he said, board members would be “running all day long in and out” to handle other business.

 

Was there a quorum that existed in Blake's meeting?

 

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

Blake Swafford said that the people who are duly elected to do a job, CANNOT BE COUNTED ON TO DO SAID JOB, UNLESS YOU LOCK THEM UP AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES?

 

They can't even be expected to stay "in the room" when dealing with something this major??

 

It sounds to me like Blake Swafford is saying the people who are wanting the commercialization of the airport don't even have enough attention span to know what they are for or against.

 

Sad sad sad, when someone has to be locked in a room, out of town, in order to get them to do the job they were elected and paid to do.

(Oh yeh, the job they wanted and begged for)

 

The more these guys talk, the more I learn towards this airport deal being a bad idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

But no one broke any laws.......... Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Edited by tundra

Share this post


Link to post
<br />But no one broke any laws..........  <font size="5">Just because you can, doesn't mean you should<

 

They did get caught....just not in time. I know how that works!

 

Just keep covering it up and if we can keep it covered-up long enough no one can do anything to us.

 

These people have no respect for the law or the citizens of Paulding County. They are following the legal advise of the FIRM. If we get caught we'll just change the law. The FIRM knows the boards and commissioner's will follow their advise....right off the cliff.

Edited by Find something

Share this post


Link to post

So having the meeting in secret....outside of Paulding at a retreat style location kept everyone from “running all day long in and out” to handle other business?

 

I'm calling BS... because I go to these types of meetings all the time and people still run in and out all damn day.

Being in one state or their home office don't make a damn.

 

Honey, you are trying to apply logic to something that defies logic. Every stinking thing I read about them hacks me off just that much more.

Share this post


Link to post
<br />but but...they have our best interest in view.... really, come on now... who are you fooling?<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

The percentage of politicians who have their constituents best interests at heart is minute when compared to the ones who are only concerned with their own agenda and how to further themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

As I understand the article in the AJC, the only reason this Douglasville meeting wasn't subject to investigation under the Sunshine Laws, is due to the people involved being able to keep it quiet until the deadline passed for it to be investigated.

 

But, I am sure that is all just a big coinkidink.

Share this post


Link to post
<br />As I understand the article in the AJC, the only reason this Douglasville meeting wasn't subject to investigation under the Sunshine Laws, is due to the people involved being able to keep it quiet until the deadline passed for it to be investigated.<br /><br />But, I am sure that is all just a big coinkidink.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

A coinkidink.......yea.......that's it!

Share this post


Link to post

It would appear from a reading of the 2012 open meetings act that the airport authority may have exceeded its authority.

 

Here is a pdf of the 2012 Georgia Open Meetings Act:

http://www.paulding.com/pdfs/OMA_M_2012_Act_correctly_formatted.pdf

 

Being a member of the press for some time, I don't like closed meetings and I think that while it is possible under the law for some meetings to be closed to the public, the individuals who are authorized to attend those meetings are saddled with the responsibility not just to the body that has closed the meeting, but to the public at large.

 

I'll simply note that David Hudson, attorney for the Georgia Press Association, has some rather intriguing thoughts on the duties of the public officials who happen to be behind those closed doors. He was interviewed by a transparencyprojectofgeorgia.com reporter.

 

Elected officials are free to speak about what goes on in executive sessions

 

ATLANTA — Elected officials are free to speak about what goes on in executive sessions, according to a leading authority on the Georgia Open Meetings Act.

 

Attorney David Hudson said elected officials do not give up their First Amendment rights to free speech simply because they hold office or because they participate in an executive session of a governing body.

 

Hudson told members of the Georgia Press Association, “From time to time, elected officials such as city council members, county commissioners, school board members or appointed members of the board of government authorities will receive advice (usually a lawyer representing the public entity) that the public official may not disclose information learned in a closed session. Such advice has no basis in fact or in law,” (Georgia Press Bulletin, Dec. 2013).

 

Hudson, who also serves as general counsel for the press association, added, “Elected officials are subject only to the voters.”

 

He explained there is an obvious misunderstanding of the Code of Ethics contained in O.C.G.A 45-10-3 that prohibits them from disclosing proprietary information for “personal gain” or in violation of the public trust. He said, “none of its provisions would prohibit an elected or appointed member from disclosing what occurred in an executive session if the member felt it was in the public interest to do so.”

 

In fact, Hudson included a legal opinion that the state’s constitution might even compel an elected official to disclose what occurred in a closed-door executive session.

 

In the same article he commented on Article I, Sec. II, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution, “It states: ‘Public officers are trustees and servants of the people and are at all times amenable to them.’ Thus if the public officer learns of something that occurs in a closed session that he or she believes should be known by the people to whom the public officer is a servant, there is no prohibition in Georgia law that would prevent such disclosure or subject the public officer to any measure of discipline.”

 

“These are extremely important legal perspectives,” said Jim Zachary, editor of the Henry Daily Herald and Clayton News Daily, director of the recently-launched Transparency Project of Georgia and longtime open government advocate. “Citizens should continue to put pressure on local officials to stop doing public business in private.”

 

“Public service and even working in the public sector comes at a price,” Zachary added. “Citizens have every right to know everything that government is up to. It is their business. It is their money. Our state’s provisions for executive sessions are too liberal, but knowing that elected officials are not legally prohibited from disclosing what goes on behind closed doors should be empowering for citizens. Now, all we need is elected officials in city and county government who will realize their first commitment is always to citizens and not to each other.”

 

Sean Ireland, publications editor of Georgia Press Association, said this week that several newspaper editors across the state were planning to use Hudson’s comments about elected officials and their First Amendment rights in stories in their own newspapers. Some even planned to distribute them directly to elected officials in their communities.

 

Ireland said Hudson’s comments regarding disclosure of what goes on in executive sessions are resonating throughout the state. “It seems there are a lot of journalists who deal with public officials who may wish to comment on what goes on in closed meetings but feel as though they cannot. Helping these folks understand their rights and responsibilities will go a long way toward helping journalists accurately report the news, something both groups want to happen.”

 

Hudson said that disclosing information from executive sessions might anger fellow officials, but in his opinion a public servant should weigh the public trust against the risk of creating ill-will with other members of the same elected body.

 

Local elected officials in county and city governments have told reporters and editors they are legally prohibited to disclose what is discussed in executive sessions.

 

Hudson disagrees.

 

In addition, Hudson has consistently opined that there are no requirements in state law to hold executive sessions for any reason. Rather, he has said, it is permitted or allowed for property acquisition, pending or actual litigation and certain personnel issues.

 

“There is a significant difference between being legally permitted to do something and being required,” Zachary said. “Every single time elected officials retreat to executive session, it is a choice they are making to conceal the public’s business. It is important they know that if even just one of them chooses to disclose what was talked about behind closed doors, they can do so without fear of violating any state law.”

 

- By Kelsey Cochran, Transparency Project of Georgia, project manager and moderator.

 

There are a variety of means by which the public can be informed including passing things along to those in the media (I wish I got more material) as well as slowing things down a little bit.

 

I've been lobbying those on the commission to table every action of the commission for a period of at least two weeks (next meeting) before taking action. This along would give the public the opportunity to comment, lobby and inform those who comprise the county's legislative body - the commission - on subtleties that staff and they, themselves may miss.

 

The reality is the commission as a whole, does need to listen better and literally be about finding the best solution to the problems that the community faces.

 

I don't defend the airport authority on this. I think the issue should have become public sooner. That the law prior to 2012 may have had allowed a more liberal interpretation of out-of-county retreats, had elements of it been known sooner, the "for educational purposes" excuse would have probably been more palpable. But as the Press Association Attorney notes, the individuals engaged did not give up their first amendment rights to speak either on or off the record. The public also has not abdicated its right to know.

 

I don't know what the Airport Authority should do to make amends. I will only note that I don't think they are, as a group, too big, too important or too special to apologize to the community for their secret retreat.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes (aka: pubby)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It would appear from a reading of the 2012 open meetings act that the airport authority may have exceeded its authority.

 

Here is a pdf of the 2012 Georgia Open Meetings Act:

http://www.paulding.com/pdfs/OMA_M_2012_Act_correctly_formatted.pdf

 

Being a member of the press for some time, I don't like closed meetings and I think that while it is possible under the law for some meetings to be closed to the public, the individuals who are authorized to attend those meetings are saddled with the responsibility not just to the body that has closed the meeting, but to the public at large.

 

I'll simply note that David Hudson, attorney for the Georgia Press Association, has some rather intriguing thoughts on the duties of the public officials who happen to be behind those closed doors. He was interviewed by a transparencyprojectofgeorgia.com reporter.

 

 

 

There are a variety of means by which the public can be informed including passing things along to those in the media (I wish I got more material) as well as slowing things down a little bit.

 

I've been lobbying those on the commission to table every action of the commission for a period of at least two weeks (next meeting) before taking action. This along would give the public the opportunity to comment, lobby and inform those who comprise the county's legislative body - the commission - on subtleties that staff and they, themselves may miss.

 

The reality is the commission as a whole, does need to listen better and literally be about finding the best solution to the problems that the community faces.

 

I don't defend the airport authority on this. I think the issue should have become public sooner. That the law prior to 2012 may have had allowed a more liberal interpretation of out-of-county retreats, had elements of it been known sooner, the "for educational purposes" excuse would have probably been more palpable. But as the Press Association Attorney notes, the individuals engaged did not give up their first amendment rights to speak either on or off the record. The public also has not abdicated its right to know.

 

I don't know what the Airport Authority should do to make amends. I will only note that I don't think they are, as a group, too big, too important or too special to apologize to the community for their secret retreat.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes (aka: pubby)

 

 

So now that you decided to run you are against them? You seemed to be kissing their a** up until now.

As for you as a candidate I think some things will come out. My first allegation would be you had

a commerce member on here with the address and name of a business that did not exist. This same member would

later be arrested for manufacturing drugs. Later another was arrested for counterfeit items,

in both cases you first came to their defense until the evidence was just too strong. You used intimidation methods on local businesses when

they refused to pay for months of ads that they did not request. And if you are so big on helping the community

why would you go to local businesses that people are mentioning on pcom and tell them buy a membership or I

will remove all post, then you proceed to sit there and remove the posts.

And then there was that trashy Christmas float, I mean come on really, a kids parade and you got trash on a float?

 

I have never said all this before because unlike you and your minions I will not put myself in a position of being sued for slander. Now that you are running for office it is fair game.

Edited by bh67
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It would appear from a reading of the 2012 open meetings act that the airport authority may have exceeded its authority.

 

Here is a pdf of the 2012 Georgia Open Meetings Act:

http://www.paulding.com/pdfs/OMA_M_2012_Act_correctly_formatted.pdf

 

Being a member of the press for some time, I don't like closed meetings and I think that while it is possible under the law for some meetings to be closed to the public, the individuals who are authorized to attend those meetings are saddled with the responsibility not just to the body that has closed the meeting, but to the public at large.

 

I'll simply note that David Hudson, attorney for the Georgia Press Association, has some rather intriguing thoughts on the duties of the public officials who happen to be behind those closed doors. He was interviewed by a transparencyprojectofgeorgia.com reporter.

 

 

 

There are a variety of means by which the public can be informed including passing things along to those in the media (I wish I got more material) as well as slowing things down a little bit.

 

I've been lobbying those on the commission to table every action of the commission for a period of at least two weeks (next meeting) before taking action. This along would give the public the opportunity to comment, lobby and inform those who comprise the county's legislative body - the commission - on subtleties that staff and they, themselves may miss.

 

The reality is the commission as a whole, does need to listen better and literally be about finding the best solution to the problems that the community faces.

 

I don't defend the airport authority on this. I think the issue should have become public sooner. That the law prior to 2012 may have had allowed a more liberal interpretation of out-of-county retreats, had elements of it been known sooner, the "for educational purposes" excuse would have probably been more palpable. But as the Press Association Attorney notes, the individuals engaged did not give up their first amendment rights to speak either on or off the record. The public also has not abdicated its right to know.

 

I don't know what the Airport Authority should do to make amends. I will only note that I don't think they are, as a group, too big, too important or too special to apologize to the community for their secret retreat.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes (aka: pubby)

What really gets my blood boiling is the reality of who is involved Commission Chairman David Austin, Mayor of Dallas Boykin Austin, Mayor of Hiram Doris Devey, Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Carolyn Wright with the balance of the members either being hired or appointed By David Austin and the Board of Commissioners.

Apology is not enough, Our leaders need to be held accountable for the secret meetings, They should also be held accountable for the actions taken in those meetings. But Hey.... all you got to do if you belong to the clique is .............Anything that you want to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So now that you decided to run you are against them? You seemed to be kissing their a** up until now.

As for you as a candidate I think some things will come out. My first allegation would be you had

a commerce member on here with the address and name of a business that did not exist. This same member would

later be arrested for manufacturing drugs. Later another was arrested for counterfeit items,

in both cases you first came to their defense until the evidence was just too strong. You used intimidation methods on local businesses when

they refused to pay for months of ads that they did not request. And if you are so big on helping the community

why would you go to local businesses that people are mentioning on pcom and tell them buy a membership or I

will remove all post, then you proceed to sit there and remove the posts.

And then there was that trashy Christmas float, I mean come on really, a kids parade and you got trash on a float?

 

I have never said all this before because unlike you and your minions I will not put myself in a position of being sued for slander. Now that you are running for office it is fair game.

 

There is so much more .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. I want to know more.

 

I really don't keep up and y'all seem to know a lot. How do you find out all these things? Seriously. I don't PM folks on here and I'm not really in the know but I would like to know more.

 

What made the Christmas float "trash"?

Share this post


Link to post

So now that you decided to run you are against them? You seemed to be kissing their a** up until now.

As for you as a candidate I think some things will come out. My first allegation would be you had

a commerce member on here with the address and name of a business that did not exist. This same member would

later be arrested for manufacturing drugs. Later another was arrested for counterfeit items,

in both cases you first came to their defense until the evidence was just too strong. You used intimidation methods on local businesses when

they refused to pay for months of ads that they did not request. And if you are so big on helping the community

why would you go to local businesses that people are mentioning on pcom and tell them buy a membership or I

will remove all post, then you proceed to sit there and remove the posts.

And then there was that trashy Christmas float, I mean come on really, a kids parade and you got trash on a float?

 

I have never said all this before because unlike you and your minions I will not put myself in a position of being sued for slander. Now that you are running for office it is fair game.

 

The topic here is the first amendment rights of the commission members and the information provided by the George Press Association's attorney's opinion that and, for that matter, observation that executive sessions are 'permitted' and that the information discussed by t he public body is not nor has it ever been afforded 'state secret' status by the courts.

 

I'm not dissing on the current commission nor am I kissing up. Like everyone who seeks elective office, my attitudes and opinions are based on my life experience. I believe in the first amendment and the public's right to know ranks pretty high in my order of priorities ... higher than I suspect would be in the case of regular business people, real estate brokers, bankers or even those whose professional careers may have been the military.

 

As far as intimidation; I actually do follow my rule that I don't comment on bills owed pcom unless there is a court suit filed. Guess how many court suits I've filed for non-payment in magistrate court? Zilch. Fact is I've never sued anyone.

 

We indeed have felt 'played' when a new business would come on and start a new topic about their business and generate talk about their new business. We typically allow new businesses that first bite but when it becomes a habit - a game - and we see recurrent posts we recognize as someone's effort to game the site, we do shut it down. That is a business decision and as the owner, I'm not eager to be played by people seeking freebies. You want to criticize me for this, hey, go for it.

 

On the other subject regarding specific individuals who betrayed a community trust. As a general rule we have warned people that they should have their business documents in order - business license, sales taxes, etc. Yes, and I even warned them that the county was checking for business licenses when they attempt to do business here. But I'm not the court and I'm not the county marshal, nor am I the tax collector.

 

I think you know that we've posted people who we felt were making improper business decisions and have on occasion, revoked a business members posting privileges although we don't typically advertise that we did or do, just as we don't advertise the fact that a member has been moderated (bulleted) by one of the mods.

 

We also, when confronted with a business member - and some of them were personal friends - who were charged with criminal acts, we reported the stories. Why, because those stories were legitimate news and it would violate my sense of priorities regarding the public's right to know to suppress or censor that material.

 

As far as the Christmas float all I can say is art, culture and beauty is all in the eye of the beholder.

 

And don't worry, btw, I wouldn't have sued you for slander before and wouldn't even think of it now that I am a public figure. My skin is pretty thick and I expect to see a few barbs thrown my way. It came with the territory before and it is certainly not going to abate now that I am seeking office.

 

Have a great St. Patrick's Day. I can tell the beer won't be the only thing that is green in your household.

 

pubby

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm amazed at the hypocrites on this site that can't stand Pubby, maybe even hate him, and continue to use this site FOR FREE.

 

So while we're at it, bring on the trash. I love a good, trashy read.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm amazed at the hypocrites on this site that can't stand Pubby, maybe even hate him, and continue to use this site FOR FREE.

 

So while we're at it, bring on the trash. I love a good, trashy read.

 

I love you lowrider. That is all. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm amazed at the hypocrites on this site that can't stand Pubby, maybe even hate him, and continue to use this site FOR FREE.

 

So while we're at it, bring on the trash. I love a good, trashy read.

 

 

 

 

I also am amazed by those who use Paulding.com to their advantage, as non-paying members, and then on top of that trash the owner who allows them to participate as non-paying members.

 

I know a great deal of this has been a general boycott by those who disagree with Pubby's politics, yet use the site to spew their rhetoric...for free.

 

Not even considering the costs involved with keeping a site of this size operational.

 

At least go on and sign up for a general membership if you want to be active and participate.

 

Or shut the crap up.

 

No where else is there a forum like this, that allows ALL views to be aired.

 

If you don't want to vote for Pubby for Commissioner, then fine, no one is twisting your arm. But if you are going to use his forum to trash him, and not even pay to be a member, that is pretty chitty don't 'ya thing ? But then again, knowing those with the local GOP who have always been clear on how much disdain they have for P.com and Pubby, what do you expect.

 

I can say this, ......without P.com, King Jerry would have remained in office for another 4 years. Might not have been any worse than King David [oh the biblical repercussions!!!!], but might have been better. He could have ended up with 2 or 3 places in the Keys bought and paid for by the taxpayers and RBMDs.

 

Our illustrious Board of Commissioners have embarassed us all with their actions these past 6 months. They have subverted the entire process concerning the airport, and bear in mind that is not high on my personal priority list, other than the $40million pissed away we don't even know what on.

 

They have screwed us all.

 

But then again, FindSomething and I know that as they have been doing that to us through the courts, using your tax payer dollars for almost 8 years now.

 

What could those $2Million spent by the BoC in our lawsuits have paid for to help out the average citizen of Paulding ? Or employee ?

 

Instead, they keep on spending money to protect the RBMDs and their campaign contributors, and to Break us. Which they have successfully done now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
<br />I'm amazed at the hypocrites on this site that can't stand Pubby, maybe even hate him, and continue to use this site FOR FREE. <br /><br />So while we're at it, bring on the trash. I love a good, trashy read.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Yeah Low, I agree with you.<br /><br />When I have a guest at my house, I expect a certain behavior. Guess some of these folks don't know much about common curtesy.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

And that is EXACTLY why I later posted the following topic right here on p.com. :)

 

http://paulding.com/forum/index.php/topic/307091-my-story/page__p__3874640#entry3874640

 

I am proud to admit that I am a human being who has the ability to admit that I make mistakes. The world would be a better place if we could all do that. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Just for the record, I was wrong.

I'm not sure about what, but when the wife gets home I am sure she will tell me.

(she always does)

Share this post


Link to post

Just for the record, I was wrong.

I'm not sure about what, but when the wife gets home I am sure she will tell me.

(she always does)

 

Well then you make the world a better place - but we already know you did! :)

 

By the way, did you take out the garbage for your wife?

Share this post


Link to post

Well then you make the world a better place - but we already know you did! :)

 

By the way, did you take out the garbage for your wife?

 

Uhhh ohhh, well that question got answered, didn't it.

Share this post


Link to post

We had some darn good discussions back then :) I found our dissection of the Brevik's murderous rampage an interesting read.

 

That the title of that topic earned me a great deal of flack, I found interesting as well.

 

Probably the best comment in the topic that criticized my headline was:

 

I am flumoxed. I baffles me that some of you read the title of a news story and begin to argue about the politcal implications of the title instead of responding to the horrendous story that is being reported. :wacko:

 

Oh well, my search showed that was the only time that right-winger appeared in a topic title on pcom.

 

pubby

 

PS: Would that suggest that I listen?

Share this post


Link to post

How in the world do you keep all of this filed away in your head? and your computer? and the time?

 

I'm way too busy with life.

 

:drinks:

 

 

 

God blessed me with an excellent memory and near total recall.

 

I can remember conversations with my mother at four years old, detailed anatomy lectures from my college days,

books I read 20 years ago, and I can remember things that Pubby posted on Pcom way back in the summer of 2006.

 

He also blessed me with a brilliant husband, a beautiful daughter,

loving family, wonderful friends, and some really great neighbors.

 

Off to give the kiddo her reading lesson... have a grateful day.

 

 

 

 

 

8)

Edited by mrshoward

Share this post


Link to post

What boycotting local businesses because they support something you don't? O.M.G.!!

 

I thought it a bad idea then and I think it was a bad idea now.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it a bad idea then and I think it was a bad idea now.

 

pubby

The United States have used boycott's very effective, Many organizations have used boycott's very effective. Heck Wally world today is being boycotted on the National level to bring attention to some of its policies.

 

I have been told that there was a memo circulated among County Employees not to purchase items from two local ace Hardware stores..

 

I really think that a person has the right to purchase goods and services from those businesses who agree with them on some of the major issues within our County.

 

Am I wrong to believe that the PBA and the Chamber promotes those businesses that are dues paying members? If I am wrong please explain.

Share this post


Link to post

The United States have used boycott's very effective, Many organizations have used boycott's very effective. Heck Wally world today is being boycotted on the National level to bring attention to some of its policies.

 

I have been told that there was a memo circulated among County Employees not to purchase items from two local ace Hardware stores..

 

I really think that a person has the right to purchase goods and services from those businesses who agree with them on some of the major issues within our County.

 

Am I wrong to believe that the PBA and the Chamber promotes those businesses that are dues paying members? If I am wrong please explain.

 

Well, I've been a paying Chamber Member for over 20 years, they've never "promoted" my business. I will not be paying any more dues to the Chamber. When they represent my company as supporting the airport, that's a fallacy. We do not support commercialization of Paulding's airport.

Share this post


Link to post

What boycotting local businesses because they support something you don't?  O.M.G.!!

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily boycotting a business because the do, or no not support continuing to pour money into the airport.

 

The CHAMBER is supposed to be a non-partisan, non-political entity promoting business in general in the county.

 

If this was a cut and dried business deal, with no political strings attached it might be completely different.

 

Had it been presented to the citizens above board, the facts on the table, some positive PR spin, with the good, bad and ugly all laid naked out for everyone to see, it would be a completely different situation.

 

4 or our 5 commissioners have chosen to do the airport, with or without citizen support, with our without citizen comments, with or without citizen taxpayer consent to spending another $40,000,000 or more, going against everything those citizens were promised when this started 8 years ago.

 

They chose to make it very political, and at the same time they chose to deny 25% of the Paulding citizens of their right to political representation on the Board of Commissioners by their duly elected commissioner.

 

They did NOT have the right to do that, nor the permission or anything else.

 

 

For the Chamber to then come out and run a full page ad, send out a letter, both full of mis-representations and false information, was not the correct thing to do.

 

I feel it is wrong for the Chamber to even consider getting involved in this Bru-ha-ha. They are free to make a statement possibly endorsing MRO and other industrial business efforts at the airport. The Chamber should NOT be endorsing spending another $40Million of the tax payers money with the efforts at the airport.

 

So for me, to boycott a business because the owners are pro or con is not the issue. My issue is with the Chamber as a whole getting involved.

 

The Board of Directors of the Chamber should consider hosting a Chamber Town Hall Meeting and discussing the airport issues and let their membership choose what they want to endorse, or NOT endorse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

<br /><br /><br />

 

Not necessarily boycotting a business because the do, or no not support continuing to pour money into the airport.

 

The CHAMBER is supposed to be a non-partisan, non-political entity promoting business in general in the county.

 

If this was a cut and dried business deal, with no political strings attached it might be completely different.

 

Had it been presented to the citizens above board, the facts on the table, some positive PR spin, with the good, bad and ugly all laid naked out for everyone to see, it would be a completely different situation.

 

4 or our 5 commissioners have chosen to do the airport, with or without citizen support, with our without citizen comments, with or without citizen taxpayer consent to spending another $40,000,000 or more, going against everything those citizens were promised when this started 8 years ago.

 

They chose to make it very political, and at the same time they chose to deny 25% of the Paulding citizens of their right to political representation on the Board of Commissioners by their duly elected commissioner.

 

They did NOT have the right to do that, nor the permission or anything else.

 

 

For the Chamber to then come out and run a full page ad, send out a letter, both full of mis-representations and false information, was not the correct thing to do.

 

I feel it is wrong for the Chamber to even consider getting involved in this Bru-ha-ha. They are free to make a statement possibly endorsing MRO and other industrial business efforts at the airport. The Chamber should NOT be endorsing spending another $40Million of the tax payers money with the efforts at the airport.

 

So for me, to boycott a business because the owners are pro or con is not the issue. My issue is with the Chamber as a whole getting involved.

 

The Board of Directors of the Chamber should consider hosting a Chamber Town Hall Meeting and discussing the airport issues and let their membership choose what they want to endorse, or NOT endorse.

 

The members of the chamber needs to give the Board of Directors some guidance in which they want the Chamber to go on the Airport Issue.

The president and CEO of the Chamber is also a member of the IBA and the PCAA that supported the secret, covert and devious meetings that surrounded the negotiations to make the airport a commercial passenger facility.

 

It appears to me that the Chamber is overstepping its authority coming to a BOC meeting and openly supporting the Commercialization of the airport with out full accord of its membership.

 

This thing could get real messy should the Chamber continue to exert influence over the citizens and a full blown boycott was called to counter act the bullying.... just saying....

Share this post


Link to post

The United States have used boycott's very effective, Many organizations have used boycott's very effective. Heck Wally world today is being boycotted on the National level to bring attention to some of its policies.

 

I have been told that there was a memo circulated among County Employees not to purchase items from two local ace Hardware stores..

 

I really think that a person has the right to purchase goods and services from those businesses who agree with them on some of the major issues within our County.

 

Am I wrong to believe that the PBA and the Chamber promotes those businesses that are dues paying members? If I am wrong please explain.

 

Actually, Whitey, boycotts in American history have a much more mixed record than you suggest.

 

You're probably remembering the boycotts of the 60s that were performed by blacks in cities like B'ham which actually were less effective than the 'sit ins' ... they were two totally different guerrilla tactics and were modest in their impacts.

 

Other boycotts, a tactic which on an "international' scale is called an embargo, have been total disasters. The embargo of Cuba, which has lasted 50 years at first pushed Cuba firmly into the arms of the Soviets and that blunder led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 which frankly, we are all blessed to have survived. Another impact was the Cuban boat people who ran away from the island in the 80s and added to the immigration issues that extend even until today.

 

Going back to the early days of the Republic, Thomas Jefferson's use of an embargo of raw materials (Cotton) from the British in a dispute with them caused great economic hardship here and pushed the Brits to push for colonization in Egypt where cotton could also be grown. Of course that one ended with the war of 1812 and, in a little remembered fact, the American victory in that conflict - Jackson's defeat of the British in New Orleans, actually occurred after the peace treaty was signed.

 

Boycotts, by nature, are fraught with unintended consequences, many of which are irreparable.

 

But hey, we're all adults; free and independent individuals and we all do what we have to do.

 

Still, I stand by the statement, Whitey, Boycotts were a bad idea then and they're a bad idea now.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I think the point was many people have personally boycotted business for different reasons. When boycotts come from a government level to local mom & pops, it hurts that business terribly.

 

People should practice what they preach. Don't chastise someone for doing exactly the same thing you have done. Back peddling isn't pretty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please Accept To "ENTER" Have a "BLESSED Day!