Commisioner David Austins ad in the paper this week

[smy34]

Who said you are limited to a 2 min video....I have watched many for a whole lot more than that....just a ploy I guess....and teachers, fire, and so on...

[smy34]

Forgot to look back through and Madea natta a word about teachers...just the length of the video...again, both must be legal....

[chainshaw1]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the sitting Commission Chair should never endorse someone who is running for a post seat. That is a HUGE conflict of interest and sheds a very unflattering light on the Commission as a whole.

[bellaprincess]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the sitting Commission Chair should never endorse someone who is running for a post seat. That is a HUGE conflict of interest and sheds a very unflattering light on the Commission as a whole.

 

Exactly how I took it!

[realtor]

Exactly how I took it!

 

 

 

 

 

Same here

[gpatt0n]

 

I wouldnt vote for Cochran if I lived in that district, which I dont. HOWEVER, I do think we ought to leave her family and all families out of it. Plain and simple it is the candidates who are running and not their families. I dont judge people based on what their moms, kids, dads, uncles, or even 3rd cousins do! I look at what they can bring to their district and make the best choice possible on who THEY are.

 

 

Seriously!

 

Feelip that is beyond a ridiculous statement. Read Palm Trees Rock statement.

 

For the most part you are right, Bellaprincess. A candidate should not be judged on the actions of those close to them.

 

That said, when an incident comes to light there are a handful of legitimate questions that would relate to the actions of the candidate/public official.

 

The questions are the same ones that sank the Nixon Administration 36 years ago.

 

The questions were in that case: "What did the president know?" and "When did he know it?"

 

The purpose was to discover if the president/candidate/public official took actions to thwart, delay or avoid the proper administration of justice - i.e. did the president participate in a coverup.

 

Recent information garnered from the Watergate Tapes - some that weren't released during the investigation, show that Nixon was very aware of and directing the dirty tricks campaign.

 

In 1996, 200 new hours of tape were released in the lawsuit of historian Stanley I. Kutler. The new tapes revealed that Nixon was intimately involved both before and after Watergate in abuses of power. A taped conversation on June 23, 1972, proved that Nixon and Haldeman talked about using the CIA to thwart the FBI investigation into the Watergate scandal cover-up. source

 

The actual crime may be minor - an effort to cover up crimes of the child driving DUI or car theft(Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell) - or a major conspiracy of close friends like Halderman, Erlichmann and Mitchell to home bake a presidential election - but the act of obstruction - the act of covering up a crime, delaying the discover of a crime - for political advantage may be prosecutable and may lead to the indictment of a candidate and their removal from office.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

Feelip that is beyond a ridiculous statement. Read Palm Trees Rock statement.

 

For the most part you are right, Bellaprincess. A candidate should not be judged on the actions of those close to them.

 

That said, when an incident comes to light there are a handful of legitimate questions that would relate to the actions of the candidate/public official.

 

The questions are the same ones that sank the Nixon Administration 36 years ago.

 

The questions were in that case: "What did the president know?" and "When did he know it?"

 

The purpose was to discover if the president/candidate/public official took actions to thwart, delay or avoid the proper administration of justice - i.e. did the president participate in a coverup.

 

Recent information garnered from the Watergate Tapes - some that weren't released during the investigation, show that Nixon was very aware of and directing the dirty tricks campaign.

 

 

 

The actual crime may be minor - an effort to cover up crimes of the child driving DUI or car theft(Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell) - or a major conspiracy of close friends like Halderman, Erlichmann and Mitchell to home bake a presidential election - but the act of obstruction - the act of covering up a crime, delaying the discover of a crime - for political advantage may be prosecutable and may lead to the indictment of a candidate and their removal from office.

 

pubby

 

If you know any of that to be a fact then please share the proof. If not then it is rumor that can harm a candidate to help another candidate.

[LPPT]

Pubby,

Some have taken exception to David's endorsement of Todd.

 

Is this not a common practice?

 

When Karen Handel was here Friday she had someone endorsing her.

 

I didn't catch his name and title, but I believe he was a Senator or Congressman.

[gpatt0n]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the sitting Commission Chair should never endorse someone who is running for a post seat. That is a HUGE conflict of interest and sheds a very unflattering light on the Commission as a whole.

 

I love it when folks start spitting rules

 

In the context of things, the commission chairman is the county executive - like the president.

 

the Post commissioners are, in the rough design of local government, the legislature - kind of like the Congress.

 

So, if you say that the Chairman should never endorse a candidate for post commissioner it is, in my mind about as absurd a point of view as saying the President shouldn't support members of his party for Congress.

 

The only difference here is that all the candidates are of the same party but that is only because we are have a one-party system in the south.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

I love it when folks start spitting rules

 

In the context of things, the commission chairman is the county executive - like the president.

 

the Post commissioners are, in the rough design of local government, the legislature - kind of like the Congress.

 

So, if you say that the Chairman should never endorse a candidate for post commissioner it is, in my mind about as absurd a point of view as saying the President shouldn't support members of his party for Congress.

 

The only difference here is that all the candidates are of the same party but that is only because we are have a one-party system in the south.

 

pubby

 

 

I don't think there is a rule against it and I think David has a right to state his opinion and endorse his choice. Do I think this was the best way for him to do it? No.

[bellaprincess]

Feelip that is beyond a ridiculous statement. Read Palm Trees Rock statement.

 

For the most part you are right, Bellaprincess. A candidate should not be judged on the actions of those close to them.

 

That said, when an incident comes to light there are a handful of legitimate questions that would relate to the actions of the candidate/public official.

 

The questions are the same ones that sank the Nixon Administration 36 years ago.

 

The questions were in that case: "What did the president know?" and "When did he know it?"

 

The purpose was to discover if the president/candidate/public official took actions to thwart, delay or avoid the proper administration of justice - i.e. did the president participate in a coverup.

 

Recent information garnered from the Watergate Tapes - some that weren't released during the investigation, show that Nixon was very aware of and directing the dirty tricks campaign.

 

 

 

The actual crime may be minor - an effort to cover up crimes of the child driving DUI or car theft(Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell) - or a major conspiracy of close friends like Halderman, Erlichmann and Mitchell to home bake a presidential election - but the act of obstruction - the act of covering up a crime, delaying the discover of a crime - for political advantage may be prosecutable and may lead to the indictment of a candidate and their removal from office.

 

pubby

 

I do get what you are saying Pubby, but without any facts or knowledge of any incident that could be considered a cover up it just comes down to the poster sounding like they are spewing crap. If someone has direct knowledge that BC is trying to actually cover up an incident then I and others need to know that immediately.

[bellaprincess]

Pubby,

Some have taken exception to David's endorsement of Todd.

 

Is this not a common practice?

 

When Karen Handel was here Friday she had someone endorsing her.

 

I didn't catch his name and title, but I believe he was a Senator or Congressman.

 

Yes many people endorse others. The problem here in Paulding is that we came out of a well known good ole boy system and how the endorsement was executed by Austin makes it appear as if we are going to have a new one. The letter was too much! If he would have just stated I endorse TP, I personally would not have thought much of it, but that letter changed my vote.

[LPPT]

Yes many people endorse others. The problem here in Paulding is that we came out of a well known good ole boy system and how the endorsement was executed by Austin makes it appear as if we are going to have a new one. The letter was too much! If he would have just stated I endorse TP, I personally would not have thought much of it, but that letter changed my vote.

 

That view of it makes sense, I think every politician that endorses another takes the chance of it backfiring on them.

[lowrider]

I had my mind made up a long time ago, I don't understand what someone's endoresement has to do with.

 

Politicians do it all the time.

 

Regardless of who endorses whom, my mind was made up and I VOTED early.

 

I don't particularly care for Sarah Palin's (don't care for her) endorsement of Karen Handle, but it didn't change my mind about the capabilites of Karen Handle.

[chainshaw1]

I don't have a problem with endorsements. I see a problem with an endorsement of someone who will end up sitting on your commission. It just looks really shady.

 

I like David and think that he has done a pretty good job, so far. I just think that this was very poor judgment on his part.

[mojo413]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the sitting Commission Chair should never endorse someone who is running for a post seat. That is a HUGE conflict of interest and sheds a very unflattering light on the Commission as a whole.

 

 

Got to disagree here. Governors, presidents and just about every other elected offical will endorse those who represent their same values and platform.

Presidents have come to Georgia to endorse and support candidates who had like values. Howard Maxwell endorsed Jerry Shearin. Bill Carruth supported Roger Leggett. Glenn Richardson supported Bill Carruth. What was different these times? I for one respect David Austin and his recommendation speaks volumes to me.

[AustinPlantation]

Up North visiting the recently arrived grandbabies, which arrived prematurely.

 

Sorry I'm gong to miss the runoff vote.

 

Edited August 8, 2010 by AustinPlantation

[gpatt0n]

 

I do get what you are saying Pubby, but without any facts or knowledge of any incident that could be considered a cover up it just comes down to the poster sounding like they are spewing crap. If someone has direct knowledge that BC is trying to actually cover up an incident then I and others need to know that immediately.

 

Facts and knowledge are often two different things, Bellaprincess.

 

What I do know is that Beverly has taken care to say that she did not agree with everything that was done by the Commission during her tenure.

 

Of course the specifics of those moments have never been disclosed but to hear surepip describe some of the actions - you get the idea that there may be actions that could lead to an indictment in a place where getting along and going along wasn't the major motivation of most in public office.

 

I remember the day the planning board approved and extra 10-15 feet of buffer on Surepips property but when the commission re-convened to pass the zonings recommended for approval by the planners in the afternoon, those stipulations were 'missing'. Certainly it was a daunting and long afternoon of zoning, but what was the problem?

 

Well the facts remain confusing and I'm not sure this one is right ... but the developer whose name was on the zoning application accepted the stipulations but those stipulations were rejected by the real developer who had connections with the commission. This is the same developer whose position of respect by the county's administation was so great that things required of others were not germane for him. You know, things like obtaining a land disturbance permit before taking the trees and disturbing the land.

 

Of course that was one of the half-dozen or more incidents that made me go 'hummmm?' back in the 2005-2007 period.

 

Given I was a personally a witness. I do have facts and among those is that Beverly's job in those days was to prepare the documents from the planning commission and add them to the agenda of the county commission later that evening. I've never heard her speak on that matter. I know that she reported that evening that the documents regarding the palisades property were not part of the written agenda. Further the agreement reached in the planning meeting and the terms that were eventually published differed.

 

However, knowing Beverly, even if this was one of those incidents with which she didn't agree I doubt she will speak about it. Rather she would simply decline talking about it using the old excuse, well that pending litigation.

 

And why there was no litigation, no charges for falsifying government documents, nothing of that nature ... well ... all I can say is that didn't mean it didn't happen.

 

My point is that one of Beverly's greatest skills, one she demonstrated while with the county, is her ability to keep facts from being known (and charges filed).

 

So, while I have given just enough information from one incident ... and just enough to establish her abilities to conceal - I have to say that I prefer folks who are just not as good as Beverly at keeping facts hidden.

 

pubby

[surepip]

I have to put myself in David Austin's position.

 

He took over the Chairman's seat in January of 2009, and did not want to keep Beverly Cochran on in her over paid highly sensitive position. I would see this as a plain and simple "I want someone in the administrative assistant position whom I can trust". After 4 years as Carruth's assistant, and 8 years as Shearin's assistant, Beverly was pretty much connected to and a part of the Good 'Ol Boy Group that Austin defeated in his bid for the Chairman's seat.

 

Would you really expect him to keep Beverly on in that role.

 

Would you keep your opposition's "right-arm" on as your right arm ?

 

Anyone who works in government, for an elected or appointed official holds onto their job at the whim of the voter. There is no long term job security. And this goes from the local county and municipal level to state to feds. It is universal.

 

I also know first hand of some instances during the transition from Shearin to Austin in January-February 2009 where messages to and emails to David Austin simply "vanished".

 

So when David tries to have the BOC lay off Beverly, the remaining old guard refuses.

Having his hands tied, he provides the letter she insists on and lets her move to the DA's office AT THE SAME RIDICULOUS SALARY of $65,000 a year [and by the way, I don't know of any administrative assistant jobs at the Ag Department, Labor Commission, AG's Office, etc., even with a 4 year college degree who are knocking down that kind of money even doing the commute to downtown].

 

When the July 2009 budget cuts came along, the DA's office laid her off. So she hires an attorney and threatens to sue.

 

She then agrees to a $49.900 settlement, and 6 months later enters the races for Post 2 Commissioner. I believe she will be qualified to start drawing a substantial retirement in another 18 months or less.

 

And you question as to why David Austin would choose to endorse her opponent ?

 

I find this amazing in itself, ...... basically unbelievable.

 

 

Give the man the job....then tie his hands behind his back.

 

Go figure?!

[Cabe]

Forgot to look back through and Madea natta a word about teachers...just the length of the video...again, both must be legal....

 

Not sure why you are so hot to trot for my response. I can't even vote in that district. I stated an opinion, just like everyone is entitled to do.

[chainshaw1]

Got to disagree here. Governors, presidents and just about every other elected offical will endorse those who represent their same values and platform.

Presidents have come to Georgia to endorse and support candidates who had like values. Howard Maxwell endorsed Jerry Shearin. Bill Carruth supported Roger Leggett. Glenn Richardson supported Bill Carruth. What was different these times? I for one respect David Austin and his recommendation speaks volumes to me.

 

I respect David, too. That is not the point. He is endorsing someone who will sit directly under him.

 

All of the other endorsements were for people that the were not, more or less, reporting to them. It just looks shady, whether it really is or not.

[mojo413]

I respect David, too. That is not the point. He is endorsing someone who will sit directly under him.

 

All of the other endorsements were for people that the were not, more or less, reporting to them. It just looks shady, whether it really is or not.

 

Of course we all have opinions and hopefully we can agree to disagree.

I see the Commission Chairman being elected at large and the 4 Post

Commissioners being elected from each individual post. More of a sitting beside than under arrangement.

I did an Internet search "Georgia Commissioners Election Conflict of Interest" and could not find any hits close to the matter being discussed.

Maybe those who feel David did wrong should Lobby our State Representives to push for a new law that would cover this situation.

I expect that lobbying might fall on deaf ears.

[gpatt0n]

I respect David, too. That is not the point. He is endorsing someone who will sit directly under him.

 

All of the other endorsements were for people that the were not, more or less, reporting to them. It just looks shady, whether it really is or not.

 

 

Chainshaw:

 

I don't think that post commissioners 'sit under' the commission chairman. He is the executive with 'input' into ordinances but they are the legislature. Three of them together can stop most anything the Chairman wants to do.

 

One could move to propose a new ordinance that drops the dollar amount the chairman may expend from $50,000 to $500.00. Another could second that ordinance and the three of them could pass the measure that would effectively force the chairman to bring every expenditure greater than $500 to the board. In the legislature that is the board of commissioners, the Chairman has one vote.

 

Now I'm NOT suggesting they SHOULD do that and every chairman of the county I have known would be severely upset if the post commissioners were to do so. It would be bloody

 

But I think it does present an example of the power of the post commissioners, acting independently, to set the stage in such a way that they could humble a chairman. (The commission chairman, under the laws creating the Paulding Commission, does not have a veto over the actions of the post commissioners.)

 

And of course the point is that in terms of power, three post commissioners hold the trump card over a commission chairman. He is not 'over them' nor is he 'their boss'. They are independent.

 

pubby

[chainshaw1]

Chainshaw:

 

I don't think that post commissioners 'sit under' the commission chairman. He is the executive with 'input' into ordinances but they are the legislature. Three of them together can stop most anything the Chairman wants to do.

 

One could move to propose a new ordinance that drops the dollar amount the chairman may expend from $50,000 to $500.00. Another could second that ordinance and the three of them could pass the measure that would effectively force the chairman to bring every expenditure greater than $500 to the board. In the legislature that is the board of commissioners, the Chairman has one vote.

 

Now I'm NOT suggesting they SHOULD do that and every chairman of the county I have known would be severely upset if the post commissioners were to do so. It would be bloody

 

But I think it does present an example of the power of the post commissioners, acting independently, to set the stage in such a way that they could humble a chairman. (The commission chairman, under the laws creating the Paulding Commission, does not have a veto over the actions of the post commissioners.)

 

And of course the point is that in terms of power, three post commissioners hold the trump card over a commission chairman. He is not 'over them' nor is he 'their boss'. They are independent.

 

pubby

 

If David were to help a post commissioner get seated, he most certainly would have power over them. Political favors have to be returned. That is my point. You even say yourself that he could make things "bloody". It looks bad, whether it is the intent or not. I understand that they could band together against him, that is what it appears he is trying to prevent by endorsing this candidate.

 

It's not against the law. I know that. I am not even saying that it is worth the effort to make it illegal. It just seems to be a very poor judgment call on David's part.

[smy34]

Let's see. Howard Maxwell was on my recorder when I got back yesterday afternoon, I think it was a 6th Dist Congressman, and Bubba McDonald with Karen Handel here on Friday, and suddenly becomes against the law for Comm Austin to endorse someone locally. Oh, I get it, you have to be higher up. And I do believe Mayor Austin, introduced and supported Karen Handel on Friday. Yes, Madea is allowed to voice her opinion, I am just pointing out that when someone appears before the BOC, they immediately say see the BOE. Just a point.

[rbpls]

I live in Post 2. I will vote for Todd (again) in the run-off. He is simply the more qualified candidate. Pownall is honest, decent and smart. I don't always agree with him politically, but I do believe I can count on his integrity, competency and decency. I also have knowledge of some of the good works he does without puffing himself up about it. We could not do any better than him for this office. We lose if he doesn't win this election.

[Cathyhelms]

I live in Post 2. I will vote for Todd (again) in the run-off. He is simply the more qualified candidate. Pownall is honest, decent and smart. I don't always agree with him politically, but I do believe I can count on his integrity, competency and decency. I also have knowledge of some of the good works he does without puffing himself up about it. We could not do any better than him for this office. We lose if he doesn't win this election.

 

Simply put, very well said.

[feelip]

Feelip that is beyond a ridiculous statement. Read Palm Trees Rock statement.

 

 

Bev is looking kind of haggard. Are you sure she can take the pressure of this job?

[bellaprincess]

Bev is looking kind of haggard. Are you sure she can take the pressure of this job?

 

Good grief. Now appearance comments.

[feelip]

Good grief. Now appearance comments.

 

She doesn't look tired to you?

[mrshoward]

She doesn't look tired to you?

 

Is this a beauty contest or an election ???

[feelip]

Is this a beauty contest or an election ???

 

 

Simply an observation. If it were a beauty contest I would be backing Beverly.

[lucky114]

I have read the Commission Chairman's newspaper add several times and I do not read it as an insult to anyone except maybe someone who would have been grossly overpaid and then demand a lump sum settlement / payout to go away quietly.

I for one have respect for the Chairman. We have discussed several issues that are near and dear to my family, when he was running, after he won the primary and after he took office. I have always found him to be available, accessable, open, honest and very obsessed with serving the citizens of Paulding County with honestly, openness and integerty.

I cannot say the same about the previous Chairman. Maybe he was as open, but I was never able to get past his door guards. One of which now says she wants to serve us.

I do know Todd Pownall. I know first hand of Todd's heart to serve his fellow citizens. For years Todd has given much to the citizens of Paulding County while asking nothing in return. I have seen first hand Todd refusing a nice commission so that children would have a better roof over their heads. I have the voided contract in my files to verify Todd refused a commission on a home so that a single father with 2 young children could afford the home.

We need more giving, open and honest people like Todd representing us.

 

I for one hope we continue along the path we are on now and never allow any of the past administration an opportunity to hold office in Paulding County again.

 

 

I'm glad you have found our Commission Chairman to be available, accessible, open, honest and obsessed with serving the citizens of Paudling County with honesty, openness and integrity. That's what a Commission Chairman should be, however I have found that totally not to be the case. When I've tried to speak to him about an issue near and dear to me, I have found him to avoid all phone calls, all emails, and all personal letters. I have a real problem with a man who avoids one of his constituants that comes to him with an issue he claimed to support being allowed to hand pick a candidate that he can use as a rubber stamp to everything he chooses to do or not do.

[mojo413]

I'm glad you have found our Commission Chairman to be available, accessible, open, honest and obsessed with serving the citizens of Paudling County with honesty, openness and integrity. That's what a Commission Chairman should be, however I have found that totally not to be the case. When I've tried to speak to him about an issue near and dear to me, I have found him to avoid all phone calls, all emails, and all personal letters. I have a real problem with a man who avoids one of his constituants that comes to him with an issue he claimed to support being allowed to hand pick a candidate that he can use as a rubber stamp to everything he chooses to do or not do.

 

Very surprised David would avoid you.

I am not wealthy. Not a large landowner. Not a big contibutor to campaigns. Just an ordinary citizen wanting to see things better for my kids ands grandkids.

Next time I see him I will ask him why it is so different for the 2 of us.

[smy34]

You know I thought about David's endorsement, and if he wants to put in on the line then let him do so....he is going to be fine as Comm Chairman and will be fine working in the public sector. Looks like things worked out, so move on. Now the teachers can focus on the Governors race, and Avery stands with the teachers, so this ought to be a good one around here for Nov...

[NewsJunky]

Very surprised David would avoid you.

I am not wealthy. Not a large landowner. Not a big contibutor to campaigns. Just an ordinary citizen wanting to see things better for my kids ands grandkids.

 

 

I have had the same experience with him. He has always listened.

 

You know I thought about David's endorsement, and if he wants to put in on the line then let him do so....he is going to be fine as Comm Chairman and will be fine working in the public sector. Looks like things worked out, so move on. Now the teachers can focus on the Governors race, and Avery stands with the teachers, so this ought to be a good one around here for Nov...

 

I truly hope the teachers are not fooled by Avery. I think they are smarter than that.

[Cabe]

I truly hope the teachers are not fooled by Avery. I think they are smarter than that.

 

Yes, and after Barnes turned on them the last time, they should have learned their lesson there too.

[mei lan]

I don't have a problem with endorsements. I see a problem with an endorsement of someone who will end up sitting on your commission. It just looks really shady.

 

I like David and think that he has done a pretty good job, so far. I just think that this was very poor judgment on his part.

 

Ditto. I like David and I was for Pownall (don't live in Post 2), but it just didn't seem kosher to me.

[lowrider]

Let's see. Howard Maxwell was on my recorder when I got back yesterday afternoon, I think it was a 6th Dist Congressman, and Bubba McDonald with Karen Handel here on Friday, and suddenly becomes against the law for Comm Austin to endorse someone locally. Oh, I get it, you have to be higher up. And I do believe Mayor Austin, introduced and supported Karen Handel on Friday. Yes, Madea is allowed to voice her opinion, I am just pointing out that when someone appears before the BOC, they immediately say see the BOE. Just a point.

 

Ditto.

 

He just didn't support who they were supporting.

 

Can't please all the people all the time, but for right now, I'm pleased with the results of the election.

 

Go Todd!