DAVID AUSTIN AND CENSORSHIP OF COUNTY MEETINGS

[mrshoward]

Good luck to Walker. He did compleat three years but dropped out. He will be the first President with no higher education since Hoover.

 

Different time NJ.

 

 

Please use this haughty and elitist line of attack in the general election,

many intelligent and successful voters have never completed college...

 

 

[billh]

The solution to the video is to air the meetings live. This would solve the problem

and let the folks that can get the channel see how stupid some people are.

Why don't they stream it online so all of us can watch live?

[rockysmom]

After thinking more about it, you guys are right, education has no place in the leadership of this county.

[mrshoward]

After thinking more about it, you guys are right, education has no place in the leadership of this county.

 

 

[Peaches]

 

 

If you honestly believe that someone without a college degree would be held in the same regard by the world's top leaders as someone with a college degree, then there is nothing anyone can do to help you see the fallacy of that thought.

[mrshoward]

If you honestly believe that someone without a college degree would be held in the same regard by the world's top leaders as someone with a college degree, then there is nothing anyone can do to help you see the fallacy of that thought.

 

 

If you honestly believe that a piece of paper magically confers intelligence and knowledge,

then you are disregarding an enormous breadth of individual ability and human experience.

 

 

 

[Peaches]

 

 

If you honestly believe that a piece of paper magically confers intelligence and knowledge,

then you are disregarding an enormous breadth of individual ability and human experience.

 

 

 

 

If you honestly don't understand that the piece of paper shows the successful completion of the course work, then there is nothing anyone can do to help you understand the complexities of the world in which we live. Without that piece of paper, there is an informational illiteracy.

[rockysmom]

If you honestly don't understand that the piece of paper shows the successful completion of the course work, then there is nothing anyone can do to help you understand the complexities of the world in which we live. Without that piece of paper, there is an informational illiteracy.

I seem to remember Mrs. Howard putting Pubby down with a comment along the lines of ....."one of us has a degree in ------ and it isn't you."

 

So yes, she understands the concept, she's just baiting. She enjoys it.

[Peaches]

I seem to remember Mrs. Howard putting Pubby down with a comment along the lines of ....."one of us has a degree in ------ and it isn't you."

 

So yes, she understands the concept, she's just baiting. She enjoys it.

I've read her posts enough to know that. I'm just in a mood to poke her with the stick to get a rise out of her so she will keep saying these really out there statements. My colleagues laugh at the things she posts and this is just more stuff for us to get a chuckle over next week.

[crossroads]

I've read her posts enough to know that. I'm just in a mood to poke her with the stick to get a rise out of her so she will keep saying these really out there statements. My colleagues laugh at the things she posts and this is just more stuff for us to get a chuckle over next week.

Never going to happen.

[Peaches]

Never going to happen.

The fact she kept responding shows I did get a rise out of her.

[lowrider]

The fact she kept responding shows I did get a rise out of her.

 

 

Just wondering, you're profile shows you've been a member since 2004. Have you always used the name Peaches, or was it something else?

 

You're hostility is familar, I just can't place it.

[Peaches]

 

 

Just wondering, you're profile shows you've been a member since 2004. Have you always used the name Peaches, or was it somethig else?

 

You're hostility is familar, I just can't place it.

Always used this name. Just hardly ever post.

[crossroads]

The fact she kept responding shows I did get a rise out of her.

 

Oh, like I am responding to you you now? Too funny..... and it speaks volumes about you, and your disingenuous intentions.

Now, I know.

[Peaches]

 

Oh, like I am responding to you you now? Too funny..... and it speaks volumes about you, and your disingenuous intentions.

Now, I know.

Mister, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

[WHITEY]

I think you read way too much into the editing of the videos of the commission meetings. I've not viewed them nor have do I intend to do so in part because I don't believe they include the 'citizen input' sections as a matter of course. I would be surprised, however if the editing extended to the sometimes extended remarks of the post commissioners who may be debating an issue like the removal of appointed board members.

 

From a logical point of view, the public comments at commission meetings in particular (but also meetings of boards like the IBA, etc.) are provided the public as a courtesy and are not a requirement of the law nor are they an official part of the order of business of the county or the various boards.

 

The one exception to this being the formal elements of the planning and zoning function where the future use of a piece of land is at question and the comments of the land owner and residents surrounding the proposed land development are relevant and part of a specific public hearing. Other events where a public hearing with comments are formally called for to be part of the public record are also circumstances where the comments should be captured and be part of the video record.

 

However, comments at commission meetings aren't among the public comments with any standing in relation to the business of the meeting.

 

That the commissioners sit on their dais and listen (or not) is the reality. In the context that actions speak louder than words; the elimination of the discussions from the video record (whether or not they are pro or anti the commissions approach) is just a statement that the comments 'don't really count.'

 

Oh, and before you think that I'm being mean or supporting the commission or any of that other rot ... please forgive me for saying this too - there is no Santa Claus.

 

pubby

Pubby

I disagree the two times that a citizen can speak are Agenda Items.

 

First you can speak only on items that are currently on the Agenda and you sign up just prior to the meeting for this option, Secondly you sign up on the Friday prior to the meeting to talk about non agenda items.

 

A citizen who is unable to attend the meeting and who views the program on the County web site or on Comcast are not getting the fully scope of what occurred at that meeting.

 

Ethically the commissioners should have nothing to hide and what is the need of spending extra dollars to edit out part of the meeting. Heck Jerry only edited certain things and sometimes asked for videos others made to include in the programing.

The lady that spoke a few meetings back about the slaughtering of the dogs and cats at the Dog Kennel should of been aired in its entirety , Volunteers that are willing to help could of been attained through the viewership of this program on Comcast and the county web site.

 

Bottom line the meeting is being taped in its entirety and tax dollars should not be spent to edit the programing

[surepip]

 

 

The one exception to this being the formal elements of the planning and zoning function where the future use of a piece of land is at question and the comments of the land owner and residents surrounding the proposed land development are relevant and part of a specific public hearing. Other events where a public hearing with comments are formally called for to be part of the public record are also circumstances where the comments should be captured and be part of the video record.

Pubby

I have to question your comment.

 

Unless it has changed, the Planning and Zoning Meetings are NOT video taped at all. And good luck finding any minutes other than the paragraph in the formal zoning proposal saying recommended or not recommended, and 4-3-2, such numbers to describe the vote of the P&Z Board without reference as to who voted how.

 

See, our first mistake was believing Jerry Shearin and his band of RBMDs would be truthful and above board, many of whom we considered friends. They gave us what we asked for in the way of stipulations at the P&Z meeting, and then changed the stipulations on the official minutes the next day. As we trusted them, we did not make a big deal out of making them read, out loud, the stipulations at the BoC meeting when they voted to approve, with X stipulations. It took us over a month to get a written copy of the stipulations, and we were then informed it was too late for us to protest or challenge them.

 

Our lawyers was there representing the Hardys, and he made them read those stipulations, which were full of errors, which they they spent 30 minutes or so correcting.

 

When they REOPENED the zoning 14 months later to AMEND many of the stipulations to save Womble/Contour money, the law saws they reopended it for us to challenge them as well.....which we did, filing 2 constitutional challenges with the P&Z commission. Lani Skipper, bless her heart, refused to allow our challenge at the meeting, stating we were just adjacent land owners [surrounded on all 4 sides by the PRD under going the zoning.].

 

Bottom line is Austin and company make it the same sham and fiasco it was under Shearin, bending the rules to help their clients and campaign donors, and making certain the records for posterity only show what they want the public to see and remember.

[gpatt0n]

Whitey:

 

I understand completely your point of view but the county administration is not about creating an official record, just answering the request years ago to video the meetings. How they did it was a footnote but, for instance, when Todd would appear and speak against Jerry (2004) before there were rules barring people associated with political candidates; all you had was a series of campaign ads in the videos. It was at that time that the decision to eliminate - not include - citizen comments was established. (SO in a real sense, I suppose you could blame Todd for the rule as he was speaking for challenger Van Westbrook at the commission meetings.)

 

Surepip:

 

You are correct, the county does not record the detail of the planning and zoning meetings. However, these are hearings and the discussions can and do become part of the court record ... but only when a petitioner asserts their constitutional rights and brings a court reporter to capture and transcribe the hearing testimony into a certified document.

 

The point I was making was not whether or not they recorded on tape the meetings, but that the testimony from those in favor of or opposing a zoning matter was indeed testimony in a public hearing and therefore different than the expression of opinion from the public at commission meetings. It is a somewhat esoteric difference but formal public hearings are technically a different beast than offering the public an opportunity to speak on a breadth of issues.

 

To make comments from the public an element that should be included would require that the time allocated be organized as a public hearing on particular ordinances ... i.e. by requiring that the county call a public hearing on all issues in which a change in a local ordinance is contemplated before the commission can take action on said amendments to the local ordinances.

 

I think the most recent example was the open-ended public hearing on the budget this past summer when Whitey spoke for 40+ minutes on that topic before the commission called a recess. There may have been technical reasons - I know I ran out of recording space and battery on my equipment - that those comments were not included in their entirety but that was 'a public hearing.'

 

pubby

[WHITEY]

Whitey:

 

I understand completely your point of view but the county administration is not about creating an official record, just answering the request years ago to video the meetings. How they did it was a footnote but, for instance, when Todd would appear and speak against Jerry (2004) before there were rules barring people associated with political candidates; all you had was a series of campaign ads in the videos. It was at that time that the decision to eliminate - not include - citizen comments was established. (SO in a real sense, I suppose you could blame Todd for the rule as he was speaking for challenger Van Westbrook at the commission meetings.)

 

Surepip:

 

You are correct, the county does not record the detail of the planning and zoning meetings. However, these are hearings and the discussions can and do become part of the court record ... but only when a petitioner asserts their constitutional rights and brings a court reporter to capture and transcribe the hearing testimony into a certified document.

 

The point I was making was not whether or not they recorded on tape the meetings, but that the testimony from those in favor of or opposing a zoning matter was indeed testimony in a public hearing and therefore different than the expression of opinion from the public at commission meetings. It is a somewhat esoteric difference but formal public hearings are technically a different beast than offering the public an opportunity to speak on a breadth of issues.

 

To make comments from the public an element that should be included would require that the time allocated be organized as a public hearing on particular ordinances ... i.e. by requiring that the county call a public hearing on all issues in which a change in a local ordinance is contemplated before the commission can take action on said amendments to the local ordinances.

 

I think the most recent example was the open-ended public hearing on the budget this past summer when Whitey spoke for 40+ minutes on that topic before the commission called a recess. There may have been technical reasons - I know I ran out of recording space and battery on my equipment - that those comments were not included in their entirety but that was 'a public hearing.'

 

pubby

Whitey:

 

I understand completely your point of view but the county administration is not about creating an official record, just answering the request years ago to video the meetings. How they did it was a footnote but, for instance, when Todd would appear and speak against Jerry (2004) before there were rules barring people associated with political candidates; all you had was a series of campaign ads in the videos. It was at that time that the decision to eliminate - not include - citizen comments was established. (SO in a real sense, I suppose you could blame Todd for the rule as he was speaking for challenger Van Westbrook at the commission meetings.)

 

Surepip:

 

You are correct, the county does not record the detail of the planning and zoning meetings. However, these are hearings and the discussions can and do become part of the court record ... but only when a petitioner asserts their constitutional rights and brings a court reporter to capture and transcribe the hearing testimony into a certified document.

 

The point I was making was not whether or not they recorded on tape the meetings, but that the testimony from those in favor of or opposing a zoning matter was indeed testimony in a public hearing and therefore different than the expression of opinion from the public at commission meetings. It is a somewhat esoteric difference but formal public hearings are technically a different beast than offering the public an opportunity to speak on a breadth of issues.

 

To make comments from the public an element that should be included would require that the time allocated be organized as a public hearing on particular ordinances ... i.e. by requiring that the county call a public hearing on all issues in which a change in a local ordinance is contemplated before the commission can take action on said amendments to the local ordinances.

 

I think the most recent example was the open-ended public hearing on the budget this past summer when Whitey spoke for 40+ minutes on that topic before the commission called a recess. There may have been technical reasons - I know I ran out of recording space and battery on my equipment - that those comments were not included in their entirety but that was 'a public hearing.'

 

pubby

I figured you would blame Todd in some way, Shame on you for misleading, The videos were always included except on rare occasions under Jerry Shearin, Heck I will be willing to go back and show you some if they are archived. David Austin is the one that censored all the citizens wishing to speak, heck under his administration they have now included speaking on agenda items on that date just sign up prior to the meeting just about every commission plays the video of the meeting in their entirety.

Davis started the censoring and I am sure you are aware of that...... Remember David and Boyd got the city of Dallas and Paulding County certified as cites and counties of certified ethics and just recently got the certification renewed yea....... Even had it proudly posted in the lobby yea....... Open ,honest and transparent certification.

Agreed those running for public office cannot speak at the meeting David Changed that after him and Boykin used that effectively against Jerry.

 

Bottom line Pubby as a self proclaimed Journalist you should be in favor of a citizen addressing the commission and voicing a grievance against them, Furthermore you should promote the idea that all citizens should be afforded the opportunity to listen to all comments that are made at the commission meetings.75% of our working citizens leave the county to work everyday and have no other way to know the issues facing them within the County. A censored video is not ethical nor is it fair to a majority of the citizens that are unable to attend the meetings.

[gpatt0n]

I figured you would blame Todd in some way, Shame on you for misleading, The videos were always included except on rare occasions under Jerry Shearin, Heck I will be willing to go back and show you some if they are archived. David Austin is the one that censored all the citizens wishing to speak, heck under his administration they have now included speaking on agenda items on that date just sign up prior to the meeting just about every commission plays the video of the meeting in their entirety.

Davis started the censoring and I am sure you are aware of that...... Remember David and Boyd got the city of Dallas and Paulding County certified as cites and counties of certified ethics and just recently got the certification renewed yea....... Even had it proudly posted in the lobby yea....... Open ,honest and transparent certification.

Agreed those running for public office cannot speak at the meeting David Changed that after him and Boykin used that effectively against Jerry.

 

Bottom line Pubby as a self proclaimed Journalist you should be in favor of a citizen addressing the commission and voicing a grievance against them, Furthermore you should promote the idea that all citizens should be afforded the opportunity to listen to all comments that are made at the commission meetings.75% of our working citizens leave the county to work everyday and have no other way to know the issues facing them within the County. A censored video is not ethical nor is it fair to a majority of the citizens that are unable to attend the meetings.

 

Whitey:

 

I used to video tape the meetings myself going back to Jerry's administration because it took the county too long to edit them and they weren't putting them on the web either. The county was also using a third-party video production company to do that and it wasn't likely that I would have access to the video - especially in a timely manner - so I didn't pay much attention to what they did at all.

 

As far as editing the video, in those days the ability to upload large files was problematic and, going back to the days as a reporter where we had a maximum 15 column inches of paper to tell the story, it was a matter of prioritizing what was and what was not news. There was never any idea that we had to show every second of the video of some interminably long, boring meetings. We'd pick out what was important, distill it to a meaningful portion, explain it and ask questions to explain more.

 

This idea that the only acceptable record of a 2 hour meeting must include every sneeze is really rather amusing but a horrible waste of time.

 

The same is true for some of the commentary that is provided.

 

My point is that it is a true service when an hour long meeting is distilled to a three to-five minute story that tells what really happened with honesty.

 

pubby

[cookies are sweet]

If the little ole city of Smyrna, who has neither airport nor movie studio, can televise their city council meetings live, which they have been doing for over 15 yrs, I would think a big county such as Paulding, should be able to do the same.

In fact, for anyone to think that they can't.... well, let's just say that no one believes they can't.

 

They simply choose not to.

End of that story.

Close the book and return it to the library.

[WHITEY]

Whitey:

 

I used to video tape the meetings myself going back to Jerry's administration because it took the county too long to edit them and they weren't putting them on the web either. The county was also using a third-party video production company to do that and it wasn't likely that I would have access to the video - especially in a timely manner - so I didn't pay much attention to what they did at all.

 

As far as editing the video, in those days the ability to upload large files was problematic and, going back to the days as a reporter where we had a maximum 15 column inches of paper to tell the story, it was a matter of prioritizing what was and what was not news. There was never any idea that we had to show every second of the video of some interminably long, boring meetings. We'd pick out what was important, distill it to a meaningful portion, explain it and ask questions to explain more.

 

This idea that the only acceptable record of a 2 hour meeting must include every sneeze is really rather amusing but a horrible waste of time.

 

The same is true for some of the commentary that is provided.

 

My point is that it is a true service when an hour long meeting is distilled to a three to-five minute story that tells what really happened with honesty.

 

pubby

Why edit anything, let the viewer make the determination as to what they want to view play the entire meeting like they do In all ethical commission meetings. We have a budget of over $100,000 per year to provide this program to the citizens of this County. Make the best use of these tax dollars.

CENSORSHIP IS HOW SADDAM HUSSEIN controlled his people.

 

What is really sad Pubby I can remember the day when you would of been all over this censorship and now it seems that you promote it????

[tundra]

Why edit anything, let the viewer make the determination as to what they want to view play the entire meeting like they do In all ethical commission meetings. We have a budget of over $100,000 per year to provide this program to the citizens of this County. Make the best use of these tax dollars.

CENSORSHIP IS HOW SADDAM HUSSEIN controlled his people.

 

What is really sad Pubby I can remember the day when you would of been all over this censorship and now it seems that you promote it????

 

Is this a violation of first amendment rights. You can speak but only the people in the room will be allowed to hear it. The He!! with those people that can't afford to take off work to babysit the BOC, PCAA, IBA and BOE.

 

This is NOT the way America works. Those same cameras are available for all these meetings except the BOE.

 

Yea Whitey, I can't believe a so called "journalist" is okay with suppressing citizen voices. Really Pubby, if you don't want to listen to it, there is a little button on the bottom of the video recording that allows you to skip that part.

 

Wanna know something? I can't stand to hear some people's voices, I hit the mute button while they are talking. Easy, peasy.

[gpatt0n]

If the little ole city of Smyrna, who has neither airport nor movie studio, can televise their city council meetings live, which they have been doing for over 15 yrs, I would think a big county such as Paulding, should be able to do the same.

In fact, for anyone to think that they can't.... well, let's just say that no one believes they can't.

 

They simply choose not to.

End of that story.

Close the book and return it to the library.

 

I have no problem with the county doing this. I suspect that I could do it if I had a little help.

 

 

Why edit anything, let the viewer make the determination as to what they want to view play the entire meeting like they do In all ethical commission meetings. We have a budget of over $100,000 per year to provide this program to the citizens of this County. Make the best use of these tax dollars.

CENSORSHIP IS HOW SADDAM HUSSEIN controlled his people.

 

What is really sad Pubby I can remember the day when you would of been all over this censorship and now it seems that you promote it????

 

What you don't understand, Whitey, is that the meetings are theater ... they are a production. If you think that decisions are made in these meetings based on what is said in the meetings, they I've got some beach front land I want to sell you in Utah.

 

The point is that the official record of the meeting are the 'minutes' which, if you've ever read the actual minutes, contains very little of the discussion if any discussion.

 

If you're going to complain about and characterize the commission producing stuff that says what they want, then complain about the Paulding Post or the notes on the water bills or the notices they put up in the lobby ... or hell, the color on the walls and say that because they're not chartreuse, the county is censoring them.

 

They are producing a program that is the program that they want to produce. It is not a legally required document of record.

 

If you want me to become upset, let the commission pass an ordinance stating that from henceforth, the commission clerk will attach to the official record a DVD disk with the complete video of the commission meeting proceedings from the (specify meeting) and shall make that digital video document available to the public for a fee of $ and shall have the complete recording placed on the county's website, etc. and this document will be part of the official minutes of the meeting to accompany the written/transcribed meeting minutes.

 

That would make the video an official document.

 

 

Is this a violation of first amendment rights. You can speak but only the people in the room will be allowed to hear it. The He!! with those people that can't afford to take off work to babysit the BOC, PCAA, IBA and BOE.

 

This is NOT the way America works. Those same cameras are available for all these meetings except the BOE.

 

Yea Whitey, I can't believe a so called "journalist" is okay with suppressing citizen voices. Really Pubby, if you don't want to listen to it, there is a little button on the bottom of the video recording that allows you to skip that part.

 

Wanna know something? I can't stand to hear some people's voices, I hit the mute button while they are talking. Easy, peasy.

 

No, tundra.

 

As it stands it is an exercise of the publishing rights of those charged with producing the video. The provisions for the public to speak to the commission did not include include language stating that the comments received from the public shall be included in the official minutes of the meetings or promise that the presentations would be broadcast, or placed on the website.

 

Indeed, in the history of the country, the videotaping of the proceedings of legislative bodies is a relatively new thing. There was no live feed of actions from the US Senate until the 1990s although the US House did let Cspan in a bit earlier (in the 1980s).

 

One could argue that it was a bad idea as the debate on the floor in the days prior to the video feed of floor action, tended to not be as a polarizing and divisive. Now, as was predicted by many (I missed this one myself being in favor of the video feed), the floor action has become a dog and pony show that as often as not, shows a guy at the podium and one overseeing the house operations and the guy is speaking to an empty chamber.

 

As far as the charge of suppressing citizen voices, get your facts straight and I mean going back to the old days when there was no video. Those who spoke to the commission were given due notice including follow up questions and even standalone stories to highlight their complaints. The Neighbor management would have been happier doing a piece on a car wash with teens at East or human interest story about a veteran because all they were ever after was filling the pages. And the New Era ... well they did little reporting other than the actual votes taken.

 

The crux of what I'm saying is that the sole purpose of allowing the citizens to speak is to give the commissioners on the dais the benefit of their input. They do that at the meeting.

 

If the commissioners, at least a majority of them, think it is wise to create a platform for any and every person who wants to address the BOC a platform to speak to the public on whatever topic they feel is worthy, then the commission can pass an ordinance saying that.

 

I know that in my role as media, I reserve the right to not publish or write about virtually anything I choose not to waste my time on and regardless of what the commission decides to do, I'm not abdicating my first amendment rights as guaranteed under the constitution to feel compelled to publish anything.

 

Indeed, I could shut the site down and get out of the publishing business if I choose to do so. Hell, I could sell the paulding.com domain to those folks in Ohio

 

So, instead of lecturing me on 'how it is supposed to work' I'd suggest you instead learn how it really works 'cause tundra, you don't have a clue.

 

pubby

[WHITEY]

I have no problem with the county doing this. I suspect that I could do it if I had a little help.

 

 

 

What you don't understand, Whitey, is that the meetings are theater ... they are a production. If you think that decisions are made in these meetings based on what is said in the meetings, they I've got some beach front land I want to sell you in Utah.

 

The point is that the official record of the meeting are the 'minutes' which, if you've ever read the actual minutes, contains very little of the discussion if any discussion.

 

If you're going to complain about and characterize the commission producing stuff that says what they want, then complain about the Paulding Post or the notes on the water bills or the notices they put up in the lobby ... or hell, the color on the walls and say that because they're not chartreuse, the county is censoring them.

 

They are producing a program that is the program that they want to produce. It is not a legally required document of record.

 

If you want me to become upset, let the commission pass an ordinance stating that from henceforth, the commission clerk will attach to the official record a DVD disk with the complete video of the commission meeting proceedings from the (specify meeting) and shall make that digital video document available to the public for a fee of $ and shall have the complete recording placed on the county's website, etc. and this document will be part of the official minutes of the meeting to accompany the written/transcribed meeting minutes.

 

That would make the video an official document.

 

 

No, tundra.

 

As it stands it is an exercise of the publishing rights of those charged with producing the video. The provisions for the public to speak to the commission did not include include language stating that the comments received from the public shall be included in the official minutes of the meetings or promise that the presentations would be broadcast, or placed on the website.

 

Indeed, in the history of the country, the videotaping of the proceedings of legislative bodies is a relatively new thing. There was no live feed of actions from the US Senate until the 1990s although the US House did let Cspan in a bit earlier (in the 1980s).

 

One could argue that it was a bad idea as the debate on the floor in the days prior to the video feed of floor action, tended to not be as a polarizing and divisive. Now, as was predicted by many (I missed this one myself being in favor of the video feed), the floor action has become a dog and pony show that as often as not, shows a guy at the podium and one overseeing the house operations and the guy is speaking to an empty chamber.

 

As far as the charge of suppressing citizen voices, get your facts straight and I mean going back to the old days when there was no video. Those who spoke to the commission were given due notice including follow up questions and even standalone stories to highlight their complaints. The Neighbor management would have been happier doing a piece on a car wash with teens at East or human interest story about a veteran because all they were ever after was filling the pages. And the New Era ... well they did little reporting other than the actual votes taken.

 

The crux of what I'm saying is that the sole purpose of allowing the citizens to speak is to give the commissioners on the dais the benefit of their input. They do that at the meeting.

 

If the commissioners, at least a majority of them, think it is wise to create a platform for any and every person who wants to address the BOC a platform to speak to the public on whatever topic they feel is worthy, then the commission can pass an ordinance saying that.

 

I know that in my role as media, I reserve the right to not publish or write about virtually anything I choose not to waste my time on and regardless of what the commission decides to do, I'm not abdicating my first amendment rights as guaranteed under the constitution to feel compelled to publish anything.

 

Indeed, I could shut the site down and get out of the publishing business if I choose to do so. Hell, I could sell the paulding.com domain to those folks in Ohio

 

So, instead of lecturing me on 'how it is supposed to work' I'd suggest you instead learn how it really works 'cause tundra, you don't have a clue.

 

pubby

And after spewing out all the aforementioned garbage, the very first thing you do is seek out the you tube that Roy made and post it because the county does not want you to use theirs, And in all reality you really want to hear all that is said. And oh.....In most cases that is the only video of the IBA and the PCAA meetings, And it surely is the only un edited version of the BOC meetings. Censorship is not Journalism PUBBY

[gpatt0n]

I never said what the county was doing was journalism either Whitey.

 

Indeed, it is not.  It is "Public Relations" ... aka: propaganda.

 

Even the BBC, Great Britain's stellar public broadcasting service, has had moments of compromise in its history as it pursued the policies of the government over the rights of the people to be informed and entertained.

 

 

"The whole point is if you are the government and If you don't like something... you just make it illegal." - British undersecretary in Pirate Radio...

 

The fallacy is to think they should act differently.  That they come out and compete with independent media is my complaint but then I don't expect them to do differently because that is their nature.  I just don't get my panties in a wad because of it.

 

pubby

[WHITEY]

I never said what the county was doing was journalism either Whitey.

 

Indeed, it is not. It is "Public Relations" ... aka: propaganda.

 

Even the BBC, Great Britain's stellar public broadcasting service, has had moments of compromise in its history as it pursued the policies of the government over the rights of the people to be informed and entertained.

 

<

 

"The whole point is if you are the government and If you don't like something... you just make it illegal." - British undersecretary in Pirate Radio...

 

The fallacy is to think they should act differently. That they come out and compete with independent media is my complaint but then I don't expect them to do differently because that is their nature. I just don't get my panties in a wad because of it.

 

pubby

While you say it is public relations, I say it is misleading the citizens, and is unethical I doubt very seriously any of our elected officials would post on a election flyer that they support this alleged PR. What happened to being honest, open and transparent??

[gpatt0n]

While you say it is public relations, I say it is misleading the citizens, and is unethical I doubt very seriously any of our elected officials would post on a election flyer that they support this alleged PR. What happened to being honest, open and transparent??

Dang Whitey ... having worked in advertising and public relations (as well as the media) I recognize that in essence, PR is telling the story that the people paying the bill wants told.

 

And certainly, I can think of no politician including the ones I like and the one's you like who would assert anything other than that they're honest, open and transparent. That kind of statement is the essence of PR.

 

The other big truth is the one that has been with us in regard to politics since it was uttered by that great Republican - Abraham Lincoln. See politicians said things, quoted the bible, quoted the bible again, invoked God almighty, said how they were the friend of the people and were as honest as the day is long and were in favor of open, honest and transparent government.

 

Lincoln's comment to that line of PR?

 

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time.

 

The really hard question in this, Whitey, is "Are you one of those who is fooled all the time or just some of the time."

 

Now I could ask the same thing about myself and, of course I'd answer it, "Perfection eludes us all."

 

I will say that I'm not fooled by the current Chairman nor as I fooled by the the guy who got fooled in the months leading up to Oct 2013.

 

What I also know is that the driving attitude in the community seems to be vindictiveness. I see that, for instance, when I hear folks saying so and so is corrupt, crooked, ignorant, or what ever especially when there is absolutely no proof of such corruption. I also see it when people in institutions seem obsessed with extracting revenge on those who have challenged them. Obsessing on revenge destroys trust and community and to me that is like slicing off one's nose to spite their face.

 

pubby

[mojo413]

... I doubt very seriously any of our elected officials would post on a election flyer that they support this alleged PR. What happened to being honest, open and transparent??

Let's recap the last season of BOC candidates platforms;

3) Ran on "No Commercial Airport. Open, Honest, Transparent and Ethical Government Is Demanded By The Citizens".

2) Ran on "The Guys In There Are Doing Good, Let's Stay With Their Program, With Some Procedural Adjustments".

1) Ran on "Bull Doze This Danged Airport".

1) Ran on "I Did Good On The School Board. I Love Airports & The Chamber".

 

And the 3) Winners Were?

 

And for at least the next 10 years of local races my money is on the "No Commercial Airport. Open, Honest, Transparent and Ethical Government Is Demanded By The Citizens" platform candidates.

[gpatt0n]

Let's recap the last season of BOC candidates platforms;

3) Ran on "No Commercial Airport. Open, Honest, Transparent and Ethical Government Is Demanded By The Citizens".

2) Ran on "The Guys In There Are Doing Good, Let's Stay With Their Program, With Some Procedural Adjustments".

1) Ran on "Bull Doze This Danged Airport".

1) Ran on "I Did Good On The School Board. I Love Airports & The Chamber".

 

And the 3) Winners Were?

 

And for at least the next 10 years of local races my money is on the "No Commercial Airport. Open, Honest, Transparent and Ethical Government Is Demanded By The Citizens" platform candidates.

 

And the first thing the 3 that won did was ditch honest, transparent and ethical government by ramrodding in a slam-bam thankyou mam introduce at 10 and pass at 2 measure. (See vindictiveness above - got them suckers so clap and yell.)

 

What was that I was saying about PR, I mean propaganda, I mean politicians saying what they want you to hear?

 

pubby

 

BTW: I would amend the (2) that you said: Ran on "The Guys In There Are Doing Good, Let's Stay With Their Program, With Some Procedural Adjustments". to say, something more like, "We are committed for better or worse so lets not blow the sumbitch up and instead make the best of it ... limit it (referendum for expansion of runway) ... but lets institute some procedural adjustments that slow things down so there is discussion.

 

I know it is a more complex and nuanced approach but it frankly is and was the right approach.

 

pubby

[surepip]

What I also know is that the driving attitude in the community seems to be vindictiveness. I see that, for instance, when I hear folks saying so and so is corrupt, crooked, ignorant, or what ever especially when there is absolutely no proof of such corruption. I also see it when people in institutions seem obsessed with extracting revenge on those who have challenged them. Obsessing on revenge destroys trust and community and to me that is like slicing off one's nose to spite their face.

 

pubby

No, I disagree.

 

The current administration has shown clearly they will continue to work for their agenda in secrecy, and do what ever it takes to push that agenda.

 

Pubby, how can you critizise the 3 votes to replace obviously inept board members on the IBA and AA, who clearly have NOT been doing their job, ..... and then at the same time, support the Austin administration which has gotten us into the mess we find ourselves in ?

 

And it is NOT and automatic, "If you don't support the commerialization of the airport, THEN you are against all industrial development in the county." That is plain and simply not true.

 

I know several of the owners/managers of the larger manufacturers in Paulding, and most, if not ALL, are against spending another penny at the airport. But ALL are 100% behind more industrial development such as Interroll. But they see how foolish this administration is, and how they react, when you consider they chased Jamie Gilbert away and basically have shut down the Economic Developemtn plans for the future. These guys are all successful, and have 12, 15, 25, etc. employees, who are very well paid by Paulding standards.

 

Who is marketing the land in the industrial park around Interroll ?

I know Jamie had researched this in depth, and had a handshake deal with a very, very reputable nationwide firm and only needed THE FIRM to finalize the contracts.....over a year ago.

Why wasn't this accomplished, and these guys turned loose to sell or lease that industrial park ?

 

Can you say because of the totally inept leadership of the IBA and the Boc, and depending on THE FIRM to take care of the contracts?

Its obvious THE FIRM is far more interested in litigation against McKnight and the others suing the country over various airport topics. They can really suck hard on that county teat running up those litigation hours. More than enought to make up for their drop in real estate closing fees.

 

But why is nothing taking place to market our potentially successful industrial parks, and the development of the property around the airport ?

 

Why ? Because our leadership under the Austin administration insists on continuing to do the same thing the same way over and over and over again, all the while expecting different results. Trun INSANITY according to Dr Einstien.

[gpatt0n]

No, I disagree.

 

The current administration has shown clearly they will continue to work for their agenda in secrecy, and do what ever it takes to push that agenda.

 

Pubby, how can you critizise the 3 votes to replace obviously inept board members on the IBA and AA, who clearly have NOT been doing their job, ..... and then at the same time, support the Austin administration which has gotten us into the mess we find ourselves in ?

 

And it is NOT and automatic, "If you don't support the commerialization of the airport, THEN you are against all industrial development in the county." That is plain and simply not true.

 

I know several of the owners/managers of the larger manufacturers in Paulding, and most, if not ALL, are against spending another penny at the airport. But ALL are 100% behind more industrial development such as Interroll. But they see how foolish this administration is, and how they react, when you consider they chased Jamie Gilbert away and basically have shut down the Economic Developemtn plans for the future. These guys are all successful, and have 12, 15, 25, etc. employees, who are very well paid by Paulding standards.

 

Who is marketing the land in the industrial park around Interroll ?

I know Jamie had researched this in depth, and had a handshake deal with a very, very reputable nationwide firm and only needed THE FIRM to finalize the contracts.....over a year ago.

Why wasn't this accomplished, and these guys turned loose to sell or lease that industrial park ?

 

Can you say because of the totally inept leadership of the IBA and the Boc, and depending on THE FIRM to take care of the contracts?

Its obvious THE FIRM is far more interested in litigation against McKnight and the others suing the country over various airport topics. They can really suck hard on that county teat running up those litigation hours. More than enought to make up for their drop in real estate closing fees.

 

But why is nothing taking place to market our potentially successful industrial parks, and the development of the property around the airport ?

 

Why ? Because our leadership under the Austin administration insists on continuing to do the same thing the same way over and over and over again, all the while expecting different results. Trun INSANITY according to Dr Einstien.

 

I see the elected officials leading this charge as extensions of some of the most conservative thought in this nation ... and likely recruited by those interests. I am not going to defend incompetence anywhere I see it but I see the argument here between the far, far right's agenda of eliminating government and the assertion that the actions taken, while maybe not as prescient as we'd all like, certainly within the mainstream of what we as a people want government to do.

 

I understand that because you know some folks who were against the airport but were for other government actions to promote commerce, that you think they are representative of what we are facing.

 

I just don't think you know who is in the hen house these days ... in a you can fool all the people some of the time sort of way.

 

And I'm not seeing anything from these folks that give me confidence otherwise. Maybe I'm wrong ... but maybe you are. Time will tell.

 

pubby

[Nice Green]

No, I disagree.

 

The current administration has shown clearly they will continue to work for their agenda in secrecy, and do what ever it takes to push that agenda.

 

Pubby, how can you critizise the 3 votes to replace obviously inept board members on the IBA and AA, who clearly have NOT been doing their job, ..... and then at the same time, support the Austin administration which has gotten us into the mess we find ourselves in ?

 

And it is NOT and automatic, "If you don't support the commerialization of the airport, THEN you are against all industrial development in the county." That is plain and simply not true.

 

I know several of the owners/managers of the larger manufacturers in Paulding, and most, if not ALL, are against spending another penny at the airport. But ALL are 100% behind more industrial development such as Interroll. But they see how foolish this administration is, and how they react, when you consider they chased Jamie Gilbert away and basically have shut down the Economic Developemtn plans for the future. These guys are all successful, and have 12, 15, 25, etc. employees, who are very well paid by Paulding standards.

 

Who is marketing the land in the industrial park around Interroll ?

I know Jamie had researched this in depth, and had a handshake deal with a very, very reputable nationwide firm and only needed THE FIRM to finalize the contracts.....over a year ago.

Why wasn't this accomplished, and these guys turned loose to sell or lease that industrial park ?

 

Can you say because of the totally inept leadership of the IBA and the Boc, and depending on THE FIRM to take care of the contracts?

Its obvious THE FIRM is far more interested in litigation against McKnight and the others suing the country over various airport topics. They can really suck hard on that county teat running up those litigation hours. More than enought to make up for their drop in real estate closing fees.

 

But why is nothing taking place to market our potentially successful industrial parks, and the development of the property around the airport ?

 

Why ? Because our leadership under the Austin administration insists on continuing to do the same thing the same way over and over and over again, all the while expecting different results. Trun INSANITY according to Dr Einstien.

 

You, I think, are the first person I've seen criticize the IBA/AA board members for not "doing their job." What, exactly, have they been doing or not been doing?

 

Boards like these are designed to have a staggered schedule for replacing board members. That setup allows each iteration of the organization tasked with naming board members to have the ability to name at least one board member during their time in office. The setup also allows the board to have a mostly consistent and knowledgeable makeup, meaning you don't have a majority of your board members with experience leaving all at once.

 

The latter reason is the problem with a proposal to replace several board members at once. In doing so, you're kicking out members with several years of experience, likely replacing them with individuals with little to no experience. Even if the proposed replacements have experience in aviation, business or other related fields, there's a definite learning curve that will have to be overcome when you add that many new faces — they have to be taught procedures, the history of the organization and its dealings, and overall brought up to speed. There may also be a need for training.

 

Now, if there were some actual malfeasance that could be proved, as in some criminal activity, then there is a reason to replace so many members at once. Your compatriots whine that the voters had spoken when they elected the three anti-airport commissioners last spring, but replacing board members named during the previous administration undermines the will of the voters who elected the commissioners who named those board members.

 

You can't have every new administration "clean house" on every board, especially when the terms of each board member are already spelled out in a charter or some other document.

 

===

 

And as far as Jamie Gilbert being "chased away," don't you think the anti-airport group had something to do with it? When you have individuals and potentially businesses funding billboards in your county that speak out against a certain development in your community, don't you think that would scare off someone tasked with actually developing the community? Seeing anti- people swarm county meetings and speak out against those tasked with promoting the county, from the Chamber to most government leaders, also definitely indicates that you're working in a less-than-supportive community.

[glassdogs]

 

Indeed, I could shut the site down and get out of the publishing business if I choose to do so. Hell, I could sell the paulding.com domain to those folks in Ohio

 

 

 

Please, oh, please...promise us that you'll make it a package deal and they HAVE to take Eddie? pretty please?

[surepip]

 

You, I think, are the first person I've seen criticize the IBA/AA board members for not "doing their job." What, exactly, have they been doing or not been doing?

 

Boards like these are designed to have a staggered schedule for replacing board members. That setup allows each iteration of the organization tasked with naming board members to have the ability to name at least one board member during their time in office. The setup also allows the board to have a mostly consistent and knowledgeable makeup, meaning you don't have a majority of your board members with experience leaving all at once.

 

The latter reason is the problem with a proposal to replace several board members at once. In doing so, you're kicking out members with several years of experience, likely replacing them with individuals with little to no experience. Even if the proposed replacements have experience in aviation, business or other related fields, there's a definite learning curve that will have to be overcome when you add that many new faces — they have to be taught procedures, the history of the organization and its dealings, and overall brought up to speed. There may also be a need for training.

 

Now, if there were some actual malfeasance that could be proved, as in some criminal activity, then there is a reason to replace so many members at once. Your compatriots whine that the voters had spoken when they elected the three anti-airport commissioners last spring, but replacing board members named during the previous administration undermines the will of the voters who elected the commissioners who named those board members.

 

You can't have every new administration "clean house" on every board, especially when the terms of each board member are already spelled out in a charter or some other document.

 

===

 

And as far as Jamie Gilbert being "chased away," don't you think the anti-airport group had something to do with it? When you have individuals and potentially businesses funding billboards in your county that speak out against a certain development in your community, don't you think that would scare off someone tasked with actually developing the community? Seeing anti- people swarm county meetings and speak out against those tasked with promoting the county, from the Chamber to most government leaders, also definitely indicates that you're working in a less-than-supportive community.

Sorry, you are way off base with your analogies.

 

It might be a mistake to clean house and totally replace a sitting long term SUCCESSFUL Board, but that's not what we are dealing with is it?

 

Calvin Thompson has been on the board, and/or chairman since when? 2002? Let Calvin pay to cover the losses. If he was running a business as he has run the AA, it would have been bankrupt and gone a long, long time ago.

And please explain to me the background successes and batting averages of the various members. None have a knowledgeable background with any kind of airport except I guess Blake and the airforce. But what does that have to do with a private commercial entity?

 

1] Airport is not going to cost paulding county one dime.

Wrong. It has cost us millions and millions not reimbursed by the feds, state, or FAA. We are talking $25,000,000 to $50,000,000 or more.

 

We don't know exactly how much because this board you think is doing such a FINE job, cannot freaking tell us how much has been spent, how much over budget, why, or anything else. According to Mr Tom Cable of the illustrious THE FIRM answers freedom of information requests to the AA concerning money with a terse reply that they don't have the necessary records to be able to provide that information. Again, Where is the business plan ?

 

Say WHAT?!?!?

2] This airport will never, ever, never be commercial.

Wrong, the same mouthpiece is now heading the program to go commercial. Chit on me once, shame on you. Chit on me twice, and again and again,.....shame on me.

 

3] We need commercial to make MRO money and attract other businesses.

Wrong. No reason for a 139 certificate except to handle scheduled commercial flights.

Spending $40Million more to do this will never break even. We can have all the MRO and other such businesses as a General Aviation Airport.

 

4] It willl bring jobs.

Wrong. Show me. We are paying $250,000+ a year for the 2 jobs. That does not compute with black ink. Only losing more and more money. The only jobs lost by NOT going commercial is for whatever fly by night commercial airline the AA is going to try to partner with using Propeller.

 

I worked closely with Jamie Gilbert. Have refered many potential businesses looking to North Georgia.

 

Why does Blake Swafford, the AA, and the IBA have to be involved in every move the Economic Development Group did ?

 

Why us the Economic Development Office waiting for the contracts to be done by Tom Cable and THE FIRM to hire a real estate firm to market the land in the industrial parks and at the airport ?

 

Who is running the search for potential tennants and industrial developers now that Jamie bailed ? And yes, they gave Jamie a job to do and then tied both his hands behind his back. He was doing quite well.

 

Do you suppose Blake and his fiefdom were feeling a bit threatened by Jamie's success ? Why else would they keep throwing up roadblocks to obviously good deals.

 

Who does Blake have lined up to sell the lots ? Mark Taglieber, his buddy and David Austin's daughter's [real estate partner?] who got paid the real estate commission for the acreage bought for the water tank at the airport !!!!?!?

 

Why was an agent needed at all? One seller, one buyer who could use Emminent Domain, and no other property had the elevation required. Why pay a $5000+ fee?

 

Because the AA looks after those it feels are in need?

 

Pull the wool off of your eyes, youv'e been drinking entirely too much Kool Aid. The croneyism is just going to keep on until a way is found to replace them all. And the Paulding tax payers will keep paying out millions and millions in litigation, overspending for needless equipment at the airport, while Parks and Rec can't seem to get enough funding to cut the grass.

[WHITEY]

And the first thing the 3 that won did was ditch honest, transparent and ethical government by ramrodding in a slam-bam thankyou mam introduce at 10 and pass at 2 measure. (See vindictiveness above - got them suckers so clap and yell.)

 

What was that I was saying about PR, I mean propaganda, I mean politicians saying what they want you to hear?

 

pubby

 

BTW: I would amend the (2) that you said: Ran on "The Guys In There Are Doing Good, Let's Stay With Their Program, With Some Procedural Adjustments". to say, something more like, "We are committed for better or worse so lets not blow the sumbitch up and instead make the best of it ... limit it (referendum for expansion of runway) ... but lets institute some procedural adjustments that slow things down so there is discussion.

 

I know it is a more complex and nuanced approach but it frankly is and was the right approach.

 

pubby

And the one that is most vocal, and seems to know it all today was also the lowest vote getter of all the candidates in the race

[Nice Green]

It might be a mistake to clean house and totally replace a sitting long term SUCCESSFUL Board, but that's not what we are dealing with is it?

 

 

And who determines whether or not a board is successful? Who is to say there aren't folks who believe the board has been successful?

 

As you point out, Thompson has been on the board for a while, so he's been appointed and reappointed a few times (and by a number of iterations of the Board of Commissioners, I'm guessing). Why don't you ask them if they think he has been successful, since they appointed him?

 

 

Say WHAT?!?!?

2] This airport will never, ever, never be commercial.

Wrong, the same mouthpiece is now heading the program to go commercial. Chit on me once, shame on you. Chit on me twice, and again and again,.....shame on me.

 

You're calling Thompson a mouthpiece, which denotes that he doesn't make the final decision, so if the decision-makers decide to make the airport commercial, then it wasn't really his call.

 

I don't know why you and other folks keep quoting his one soundbite. It's moot now. As I've said before, Gov. George Wallace stood up for segregation, but he ultimately had to back down. Now, I'm sure some of his supporters didn't like his backing down, but in the end, it was the right thing to do.

 

Sorry if you don't like this "chit." (By the way, really? Can't you make an argument without the veiled cursing?)

[NewsJunky]

 

And who determines whether or not a board is successful? Who is to say there aren't folks who believe the board has been successful?

 

As you point out, Thompson has been on the board for a while, so he's been appointed and reappointed a few times (and by a number of iterations of the Board of Commissioners, I'm guessing). Why don't you ask them if they think he has been successful, since they appointed him?

 

 

 

You're calling Thompson a mouthpiece, which denotes that he doesn't make the final decision, so if the decision-makers decide to make the airport commercial, then it wasn't really his call.

 

I don't know why you and other folks keep quoting his one soundbite. It's moot now. As I've said before, Gov. George Wallace stood up for segregation, but he ultimately had to back down. Now, I'm sure some of his supporters didn't like his backing down, but in the end, it was the right thing to do.

 

Sorry if you don't like this "chit." (By the way, really? Can't you make an argument without the veiled cursing?)

I think the taxpayers who foot the bill are the ones who should decide if a board is successful or not. When the Commissioners voted to hand over everything to the Airport Authority they lost me. It was wrong in September and it is wrong today. I think you can see how I would vote on the success of the old Commission and I guess that would extend to the Authorities.

[cookies are sweet]

Sorta off topic (yeh, shocking ain't it), Harry Truman was well known for his salty language.

Once he gave a speech to a ladies club where he used the words "horse manure".

After the speech was over, one of the ladies went up to Bess Truman and told her that she really needed to speak to the president about not saying the word manure.

Bess replied, "Madam, if you only knew how hard it was for me to get him to use the word manure."

[WHITEY]

You, I think, are the first person I've seen criticize the IBA/AA board members for not "doing their job." What, exactly, have they been doing or not been doing?

 

Boards like these are designed to have a staggered schedule for replacing board members. That setup allows each iteration of the organization tasked with naming board members to have the ability to name at least one board member during their time in office. The setup also allows the board to have a mostly consistent and knowledgeable makeup, meaning you don't have a majority of your board members with experience leaving all at once.

 

The latter reason is the problem with a proposal to replace several board members at once. In doing so, you're kicking out members with several years of experience, likely replacing them with individuals with little to no experience. Even if the proposed replacements have experience in aviation, business or other related fields, there's a definite learning curve that will have to be overcome when you add that many new faces — they have to be taught procedures, the history of the organization and its dealings, and overall brought up to speed. There may also be a need for training.

 

Now, if there were some actual malfeasance that could be proved, as in some criminal activity, then there is a reason to replace so many members at once. Your compatriots whine that the voters had spoken when they elected the three anti-airport commissioners last spring, but replacing board members named during the previous administration undermines the will of the voters who elected the commissioners who named those board members.

 

You can't have every new administration "clean house" on every board, especially when the terms of each board member are already spelled out in a charter or some other document.

 

===

 

And as far as Jamie Gilbert being "chased away," don't you think the anti-airport group had something to do with it? When you have individuals and potentially businesses funding billboards in your county that speak out against a certain development in your community, don't you think that would scare off someone tasked with actually developing the community? Seeing anti- people swarm county meetings and speak out against those tasked with promoting the county, from the Chamber to most government leaders, also definitely indicates that you're working in a less-than-supportive community.

Name me one person on the airport board that has any experience training or educational back ground on how to run a commercial or General aviation airport

Name me one person on the Industrial Building authority that has any experience training or educational background that makes them capable of running the Industrial Building Authority?