Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • littlebit: Makes sense.
    July 16, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Boards will stay open for a place people can find history information longer. I am not allowing anyone to sign up for now because of so many foreginers just wanting to promote their business..
    December 10, 2016, 05:10:27 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Not sure why didn't look, I may be shutting down these message boards..
    November 17, 2016, 12:42:43 AM
  • ~kathy~: rick why is the timestamp showing up a day in advance?
    September 13, 2016, 12:27:46 AM
  • Valor7: What I tried to say is that the actual money would not be there that quick. But a loan against that would work if they are willing to do that.
    August 08, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Why so long before it comes online? 911 took out a loan or bond with the known guarantee payment and began building..
    August 08, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
  • Valor7: Actually no it is not, a dependable Revenue stream will not come on line until the 4th quarter of 2017 so 2018 budget will be up in the air, not quite sure what they will have. By 2019 budget all will be well.
    August 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM
  • Valor7: You mean that tax that the Commissioners would not put on the ballot for so many years? Strange things happened when the citizens got a chance to vote on that issue.
    August 03, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Back up is now available withe the new tax..
    August 03, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
  • Valor7: Thanks a lot Ladies!!
    July 29, 2016, 01:16:13 PM
  • littlebit: ((*(*&
    July 27, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
  • ~kathy~: lol
    July 15, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
  • Valor7: A guy could get killed around here while waiting for backup!
    July 13, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
  • Lepard LLC: You are not alone..
    July 13, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
  • Valor7: I just hate it when I talk to myself!!!!
    July 08, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
  • Valor7: I could have worded that better, we talked details, options, the pros and cons of each, in  order to arrive at the best ballot language to present to the voters. Hope that makes this clearer.
    April 15, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
  • Valor7: sorry about the typos still working with just one arm in action
    April 13, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
  • Valor7: Yes and no. We talked details and options until we were blue in the face but I never heardbring it over, it was always the time was not right for the issue to pass. Glad to see the time in now right and I for one shall vote yes on the ballot. I would urge all others to do the sameour county is busting at the seams crimewise and no matter how many bad guys we send off there always seems to someone to replace them. The Sheriff's Office needs the help.
    April 13, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Is that true Valor? Did he ask you what you wanted?
    March 01, 2016, 04:55:37 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Gene Newkirk Rick I have waited for a Sheriff to bring it to me on what he wanted. I have pushed Mr long for a while to get it to me. He told me he was close to having or done. Now hopefully the people will get to decide on it. I spoke with Steve about this a few times.
    March 01, 2016, 04:54:54 AM
  • Kimberly: Wow- I have a new name..........
    February 23, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Works on mine, improvements are being done here. I may kick back into her a lot and post but working on different technologies right now. Seeing how things interact.
    January 18, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
  • Valor7: Yes it is working. If you need a laugh the wife showed me how to correctly use the silly thing.
    January 04, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
  • Valor7: Think so, mine is trying to work but it is now user and password protected and I dont know mine
    December 17, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
  • "DJ": Is there still a working android app for the PCSD
    December 14, 2015, 08:14:53 PM

Author Topic: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT  (Read 105907 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
« Reply #120 on: March 22, 2008, 09:39:16 PM »

Share/Bookmark

Fort Wood Hotel

Boards

Devils Elbow

Attractions

Sports

St. Robert

Waynesville

PC Daily

Dixon

Menu Guide

Fun Links

Homework

Crocker

Fort Wood

Swedeborg

Big Piney

Laquey

Classifieds

Restaurants

Richland

Fort  Hotels

From my recollection of the BOAT event. JT lost the sheriff's race, had county equipment stored on his property, waited several months then presented the Commissioners a bill for storing said property. In an effort to not have to pay this storage fee it was decided that they sell JT the boat for 1 dollar.. I also recall that Farnham was not in attendance at this meeting.

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #121 on: March 22, 2008, 09:44:20 PM »
Then Ransdall's remarks on this matter to the media are incorrect? He could have voted for this Tax? I am confused now.. LOL
 
I thought it odd that how could he ever be a tie breaker, if neither of the other two ever seconded any motions.
 
Rick, yes he does. Also, when a commissioner makes a motion and the other associate commissioner does not second said motion the presiding can simply allow the motion to die, or he can vote. Missouri law says (RSMO 49.070) when the two commissioners disagree the decision of the presiding shall stand as the decision of the commission.

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #122 on: March 22, 2008, 10:09:49 PM »
Rick, any two commissioners are a quorum. If you, Fedup & I are commissioners, with Fedup being the presiding; and you make a motion to pave road xyz, I can not second the motion or vote against it. Then Fedup can just let the motion lay, or can vote with you and road xyx gets paved. Sorry for the confusion, I was explaining the "break-the-tie" concept. Also, per RSMo 49.070 when the presiding is absent the county clerk may appoint one as presiding for that meeting.
 
I know nothing of the boat and do not know if they did anything wrong. It is usually better to have all three commissioners present for votes, just as a matter of good business, but it isn't illegal.

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #123 on: March 22, 2008, 10:17:41 PM »
Yes he per RSMo 49.070 can vote to make the decision since the other two disagree.

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #124 on: March 22, 2008, 10:40:36 PM »
So we have now concluded that no one slaped the wrong dog?

With only three I'm sure it seems like that.  But procedures are used even though it doesn't seem like it.  Ransdall only votes to break ties.  Therefore, if Farnham makes a motion, Thornsberry needs to second it, if he doesn't, no vote.  If Farnham and Thornsberry agree, doesn't matter what Ransdall thinks, the motion is carried.  If we're going to slap the dog, let's make sure we slap the right one.  Gary feel free to jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong.

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #125 on: March 22, 2008, 11:23:31 PM »
Rick, there are some people who think the intent of the law is for the presiding to only vote "Only" to break a tie. County commission laws are quite vague and very gray. I have heard opinions that the presiding should not vote, except to break a tie. However, isn't it the same? In other words leaving the motion lay without a second, isn't that in an inactive way deciding. This happened to me a lot, it still kills the motion. But, RSMo 49.070 is quite clear that the presiding may make the decision when both associate commissioners disagree. Now, in fairness to Bill, he may think that he shouldn't vote. If that is his practice then it is what it is. Many of the "older school" politicians do believe that is the intent of the commissioner law. Therefore, Fedup in what many believe is the "purest" intent of the law, is correct, at least in theory.
 
By-the-way Rick, you realize passing that tax will help the county as much as the sheriff's dept. don't you? If passes that puts what 1.4 1.5 mil. back in general rev. ?

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #126 on: March 23, 2008, 12:38:56 AM »
Yes I am well aware that they were earmarking some of it for other things.. Go figure.. It would, however, be nice to have that spelled out in detail before time to vote. There is also the possibility that it will be doomed by something a Commissioner adds to the package beforehand, and maybe even done to doom it intentionally. That way they can say I told you so.............. This is where I hope Farnham steps up to cover our butts...
 
Rick, there are some people who think the intent of the law is for the presiding to only vote "Only" to break a tie. County commission laws are quite vague and very gray. I have heard opinions that the presiding should not vote, except to break a tie. However, isn't it the same? In other words leaving the motion lay without a second, isn't that in an inactive way deciding. This happened to me a lot, it still kills the motion. But, RSMo 49.070 is quite clear that the presiding may make the decision when both associate commissioners disagree. Now, in fairness to Bill, he may think that he shouldn't vote. If that is his practice then it is what it is. Many of the "older school" politicians do believe that is the intent of the commissioner law. Therefore, Fedup in what many believe is the "purest" intent of the law, is correct, at least in theory.
 
By-the-way Rick, you realize passing that tax will help the county as much as the sheriff's dept. don't you? If passes that puts what 1.4 1.5 mil. back in general rev. ?

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #127 on: March 23, 2008, 02:02:43 AM »
It has to be worded correctly, which Bill is trying to find out, according to the newspaper. You have to be careful with these. When I was a commissioner we started looking into this and it was necessary to word it to insure where it went. I don't know. I do not think it will fix many problems, but it will make a lot of people feel better. It will also depend on who is sheriff and what their particular management plan is. Under JB it won't go far.

Offline okie the thread killer

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 4857
  • Karma: +2619917/-766
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #128 on: March 23, 2008, 02:43:32 AM »
Can you explain to us what you meant there?
I have it on good authority that the Hokey-Pokey really IS what it's all about.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #129 on: March 23, 2008, 01:31:10 PM »
It has to be worded correctly, which Bill is trying to find out, according to the newspaper. You have to be careful with these. When I was a commissioner we started looking into this and it was necessary to word it to insure where it went. I don't know. I do not think it will fix many problems, but it will make a lot of people feel better. It will also depend on who is sheriff and what their particular management plan is. Under JB it won't go far.

  " Under JB it wont go far"  ?????????

                    Huh?
      " Under JB it wont go far" ????????

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #130 on: March 23, 2008, 02:52:16 PM »
JB, not saying any of these are wrong and any sheriff might do these, so the initials could be JB, JT, BA or TR  I don't know what the others would want to do. You already do and plan on maintaining your own full service dispatch center, a detective corp, you are starting your own SWAT team even now, you want to develop a expanded jail corp, a narcotics division, expanded pay and benefits, a new jail and decent benefits. You need a entire fleet of new cars. OK you know the math as well as anyone. I just believe that after all of the dichotomy caused in this county that the people will be disappointed. I think they have this false impression that this sales tax will fix all of the problems and you and I both know it will not. It can help with basic needs but it will not do what you want. They should know the truth. The only way you can expand is that tax PLUS the money you know have. The county cannot afford that.
 
Did you see the news from Springfield? They are laying off twenty officers and cutting services. They are closing one fire station.

Offline peon

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: +3378/-154
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #131 on: March 23, 2008, 04:07:22 PM »
JB, not saying any of these are wrong and any sheriff might do these, so the initials could be JB, JT, BA or TR  I don't know what the others would want to do. You already do and plan on maintaining your own full service dispatch center, a detective corp, you are starting your own SWAT team even now, you want to develop a expanded jail corp, a narcotics division, expanded pay and benefits, a new jail and decent benefits. You need a entire fleet of new cars. OK you know the math as well as anyone. I just believe that after all of the dichotomy caused in this county that the people will be disappointed. I think they have this false impression that this sales tax will fix all of the problems and you and I both know it will not. It can help with basic needs but it will not do what you want. They should know the truth. The only way you can expand is that tax PLUS the money you know have. The county cannot afford that.
 
Did you see the news from Springfield? They are laying off twenty officers and cutting services. They are closing one fire station.

I think JB can do anything he puts his mind to, and I think that the plans that he has are for the betterment of this county, and I am not so stupid to believe that this tax will make the department rich, but it will be a step in the right direction, instead of running aground, it will buy us time to do more, and all the money he gets now cannot be taken away, the commission still has to support the department with funding from the general fund, it will be less of a chunk than what he is getting now, but not that much less.

Offline murfyzlaw

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +156512/-29
  • Gender: Female
  • My beautiful grandsons
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #132 on: March 23, 2008, 04:07:49 PM »
di·chot·o·myplay_w("D0205000") (d-kt-m) n. pl. di·chot·o·mies 1. Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions: "the dichotomy of the one and the many" Louis Auchincloss.2. Astronomy The phase of the moon, Mercury, or Venus when half of the disk is illuminated.3. Botany Branching characterized by successive forking into two approximately equal divisions.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Remember that no matter how bad things are in your life, there are others dealing with much worse obstacles, and be thankful for what you have.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #133 on: March 23, 2008, 04:10:19 PM »
Why can't the county afford it?  They are paying now and should continue to pay, not just depend on the tax itself.  The tax should be in addition to what the county contributes and that should still be plenty.  And the commissioners should not control this money either.  I trust Bill to do the right thing as far as I can throw a building.  The only thing right for him is what is right for his good old boys friends.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #134 on: March 23, 2008, 04:32:58 PM »
JB, not saying any of these are wrong and any sheriff might do these, so the initials could be JB, JT, BA or TR  I don't know what the others would want to do. You already do and plan on maintaining your own full service dispatch center, a detective corp, you are starting your own SWAT team even now, you want to develop a expanded jail corp, a narcotics division, expanded pay and benefits, a new jail and decent benefits. You need a entire fleet of new cars. OK you know the math as well as anyone. I just believe that after all of the dichotomy caused in this county that the people will be disappointed. I think they have this false impression that this sales tax will fix all of the problems and you and I both know it will not. It can help with basic needs but it will not do what you want. They should know the truth. The only way you can expand is that tax PLUS the money you know have. The county cannot afford that.
 
Did you see the news from Springfield? They are laying off twenty officers and cutting services. They are closing one fire station.

   OK, you are back in good grace with me. While you might have worded one or two parts of that a little better your basic concept is right on the money. I may be guilty of wanting to provide first class service to the citizens of this county and that will take a lot of money. And if I am guilty then so what? What is wrong with wanting to give them first class service? I think they deserve first class instead of the maybe class they can get now. The basic idea of 2 officers on duty at any time to cover this huge county is stupid. But that is the current budget amount. I try to find them but there are very few guys who work for free.

           JB

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #135 on: March 23, 2008, 05:07:42 PM »
matrsnot, the reality is that isn't going to happen. The county is on the verge of lay offs and worse. I think Bill is trying to do the best he can. Most commissioners have, there is not enough money.

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #136 on: March 23, 2008, 05:12:13 PM »
ML, dichotomy is a division. There is currently a lot of dichotomy in our county over this issue. Good or bad, it is there. One group for and one against therefore equals a division or dichotomy. It makes me sad as I had hoped for an opportunity for things to be better.

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #137 on: March 23, 2008, 05:15:41 PM »
JB, does duplication equal first class service?

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #138 on: March 23, 2008, 05:29:08 PM »
Thanks Gary, for showing that I was correct in what I said.  I still Thornsberry could stand up and be counted one way or the other.  After all, Farnham, Thornsberry and JB are all Republicans, looks like they would stand together.  For those who haven't figured it out this is rock throwing at Thornsberry.
Now, about the tax.  As a fiscal conservative, I think EVERYTHING should be done to bring in additional funds BEFORE an elected official stands up and asks for additional taxes.  Several options have been mentioned in the past, none of which have been acceptable to JB because they don't provide all the funding he wants in one lump sum.  Sometimes you have to take things in increments to get the total.  JB doesn't contract with service stations for gas, says in the paper he has the contracts in the drawer but nobody will bid.  Ask for a "price at the pump" bid (in other words 1 or 2 cents less than listed) and see what happens, and exclusive for that station.  The owner would make up in volume what he loses per gallon plus sodas, sandwiches the deputies may buy while gassing up (no it's not a donut joke). Cities and Counties all across the country do that all the time, at least those that don't buy their own gas in bulk.  It won't save big dollars but with the miles the county department has to drive over a year, it would save quite a bit.  Matching grants also help.  Yes you may have to take $50K from your budget to get $100K or $150K but it's free money.  If Rick had someone walk into his store and offer him $100 for $50 I doubt he would turn it down.  Lastly, a porno tax was mentioned sometime ago.  I think JB should support that, again, it wouldn't give him all the dollars he needs, but every dollar you take from Louie is a dollar you don't have to take from me.  Add all those together and you still don't have the dollars necessary but you have worked ALL the options and it's fewer dollars the taxpayers have to come up with or additional dollars to get that first class service.  After all, it's MY money your wanting.  And this is not a bash JB post so we can set that straight now.  It's a point from one taxpayer but I firmly believe quite a few voters feel the same way I do.
 

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #139 on: March 23, 2008, 05:47:11 PM »
Thanks Gary, for showing that I was correct in what I said.  I still Thornsberry could stand up and be counted one way or the other.  After all, Farnham, Thornsberry and JB are all Republicans, looks like they would stand together.  For those who haven't figured it out this is rock throwing at Thornsberry.
Now, about the tax.  As a fiscal conservative, I think EVERYTHING should be done to bring in additional funds BEFORE an elected official stands up and asks for additional taxes.  Several options have been mentioned in the past, none of which have been acceptable to JB because they don't provide all the funding he wants in one lump sum.  Sometimes you have to take things in increments to get the total.  JB doesn't contract with service stations for gas, says in the paper he has the contracts in the drawer but nobody will bid.  Ask for a "price at the pump" bid (in other words 1 or 2 cents less than listed) and see what happens, and exclusive for that station.  The owner would make up in volume what he loses per gallon plus sodas, sandwiches the deputies may buy while gassing up (no it's not a donut joke). Cities and Counties all across the country do that all the time, at least those that don't buy their own gas in bulk.  It won't save big dollars but with the miles the county department has to drive over a year, it would save quite a bit.  Matching grants also help.  Yes you may have to take $50K from your budget to get $100K or $150K but it's free money.  If Rick had someone walk into his store and offer him $100 for $50 I doubt he would turn it down.  Lastly, a porno tax was mentioned sometime ago.  I think JB should support that, again, it wouldn't give him all the dollars he needs, but every dollar you take from Louie is a dollar you don't have to take from me.  Add all those together and you still don't have the dollars necessary but you have worked ALL the options and it's fewer dollars the taxpayers have to come up with or additional dollars to get that first class service.  After all, it's MY money your wanting.  And this is not a bash JB post so we can set that straight now.  It's a point from one taxpayer but I firmly believe quite a few voters feel the same way I do.
 

No gas station would give us a bid. Said things changed to fast. We are working with Farnham to free up one tank at the county shed for bulk purchase. By the way total budget expense for car repair, wrecked cars fixed, oil change, gasoline, everything related to cars in this years budget $130,000.00. Includes insurance deductible with proceeds going to county not us.

We do not have the $50K matching funds for any grant. Works great that's how we got the last 6.5 officers added to the payroll. Besides I cannot find a grant like that for people. Right now the federal push is to fund firefighters. Slim chance for a domestic violence investigator at around $10,000.00 per year for the county share. I will not get that match from the county.

Take all the $$$$ you want from Louie. I expect he will fight back with gold bearing lawyers to protect his interest and in the long run will probably not be worth much to the county.

I have never said it was all or nothing. I will take any increase I can get. I think I do a good job with your $$$. After all I am the first Sheriff in many years to come in under budget. It happened once in 2005 but probably never again.

My goal is to provide first class service to the county. If you do not want that you will tell me at the ballot box.

         JB

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #140 on: March 23, 2008, 06:04:39 PM »
Well JB, if I owned a gas station, I'd sure sign that exclusive contract for one or two cents off a gallon.  Guranteed money is hard to pass up these days especially for a market that changes like petro.  Good luck on the bulk purchase.  Any dollar saved helps. 
As for Louie, that's a risk I'd be willing to take.  As long as we're not taking an inordinate amount of his profit he just might see the folly in pursing it in court.
I want the best service possible.  As Gary said, somethings the county can't afford. 
Lastly, as I said in my last post, this is not a bash JB post.  I was under the impression it's an exchange of ideas so you don't have to get touchy about it.
 

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #141 on: March 23, 2008, 06:48:02 PM »
So, as I am hearing/reading this, Bill gets to earmark all the money currently going to the Sheriff's Office?  I am not in sympathy with these warnings for lay offs.  The commisioners knew what was going on when they made up this budget this year and still, they cannot come in with something solid?  Give me a break.  As long as THEIR salary is not threatened, they just don't seem to be worried too much.  The first thing to go should be their salaries as they certainly don't put in enough hours to actually EARN them anyway.  And they certainly don't want constituents coming to their meetings or they would be holding them when many of us could get there.  I have read Bill's lies enough to know he has an agenda and it includes the downfall of the Sheriff so his buddy can get in.  Meetings with BA have already been noted.  I will be voting for JB.  Period.  I will be voting AGAINST Ransdall when his time comes.  He can then go back and run his farm and his appliance business.  I am also talking to representatives to ensure he is not the one to run the new Veteran's Cemetary.  HE is not a veteran and certainly does not deserve such an honor.  It is imperative the commission be required to present a certain amount to the Sheriff's Office in addition to the tax monies they receive.  Additionally, the commission must have NO discretion as to where that money goes.  It should not be going to some earmark, pet project or another good buddy.

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #142 on: March 23, 2008, 07:40:08 PM »
So, as I am hearing/reading this, Bill gets to earmark all the money currently going to the Sheriff's Office?  I am not in sympathy with these warnings for lay offs.  The commisioners knew what was going on when they made up this budget this year and still, they cannot come in with something solid?  Give me a break.  As long as THEIR salary is not threatened, they just don't seem to be worried too much.  The first thing to go should be their salaries as they certainly don't put in enough hours to actually EARN them anyway.  And they certainly don't want constituents coming to their meetings or they would be holding them when many of us could get there.  I have read Bill's lies enough to know he has an agenda and it includes the downfall of the Sheriff so his buddy can get in.  Meetings with BA have already been noted.  I will be voting for JB.  Period.  I will be voting AGAINST Ransdall when his time comes.  He can then go back and run his farm and his appliance business.  I am also talking to representatives to ensure he is not the one to run the new Veteran's Cemetary.  HE is not a veteran and certainly does not deserve such an honor.  It is imperative the commission be required to present a certain amount to the Sheriff's Office in addition to the tax monies they receive.  Additionally, the commission must have NO discretion as to where that money goes.  It should not be going to some earmark, pet project or another good buddy.
Matrsnot I agree they should have their meetings when the majority of their constituents can participate.  I have been hoping that would happen for about 10 years now but apparently it won't no matter who is in.  Also, I believe the three commissioners have to vote on the budget, so it's not just Ransdall saying where the money will go.  Gary, don't the commissioners vote on the budget?   How about putting on this thread the meetings that Ransdall had with BA and not just rumors.  After all, this is the county government thread and if you have something that will help us understand your point, put it on here.  I see the bottom line as this:  There is a limit to the amount of funds the county collects.  If the outgoing is greater than the incoming, then something, or somethings have to be cut.  Unlike the Federal government the county can't run a deficit.  Gary put it very well, the county can't afford everything listed on this thread that JB wants, even if the LE tax passes.  I want the Sheriff, no matter who it is, to have as much as possible but we also have to be realistic.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #143 on: March 23, 2008, 08:17:35 PM »
Well JB, if I owned a gas station, I'd sure sign that exclusive contract for one or two cents off a gallon.  Guranteed money is hard to pass up these days especially for a market that changes like petro.  Good luck on the bulk purchase.  Any dollar saved helps. 
As for Louie, that's a risk I'd be willing to take.  As long as we're not taking an inordinate amount of his profit he just might see the folly in pursing it in court.
I want the best service possible.  As Gary said, somethings the county can't afford. 
Lastly, as I said in my last post, this is not a bash JB post.  I was under the impression it's an exchange of ideas so you don't have to get touchy about it.
 

   Three years of banging my head against a brick wall have to some degree made me "touchy" with some people. You "aint" one of them. Despite your name of FedUp you have posted some very reasonable ideas on here. Keep on writing.
JB

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #144 on: March 23, 2008, 09:41:25 PM »
Thank you JB.  Like you I want the best for Pulaski County and I want the best for all our LE officers.  I have headaches from banging my head against that Federal brick wall, but like you I keep plugging away.   I hope I can disagree without being disagreeable

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #145 on: March 23, 2008, 10:36:20 PM »
Fedup, yes all three have to vote and approve the budget. It is a very long and difficult process. They are not withholding any money from the sheriff. The money simply isn't there. That is a fact.
Meetings, I made motions several times to have some evening meetings and to meet at least once a month in each major town. I also made motions to record all meetings and make available at a very reasonable fee a tape for any citizen who has to work and can't make the meetings to purchase. I never received support from any person regarding those issues (political person I mean).
I too am for good police services and JB knows that. I do think there are many duplication services that would be fine, provided the basic things are done first and the money is available.
There are very strong feelings among citizens right now about these issues. It is my humble opinion that Mr. Ransdall is trying to balance somehow. I have known Bill since I was a boy and he is not anti-law enforcement at all. I think he is catching a lot of strong feelings on both sides of the issue.

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #146 on: March 23, 2008, 11:41:43 PM »
Please list the duplication of services that are performed better than the Sheriff's Dept. does.  I will save you the time with 3 of them you will state.

Boss I am not going to play nice because I am tired of of it.  If you don't want to the dept. to be identified with me because somebodies precious ego may be hurt and since I still work for free I will understand. Some people just don't have a clue.

Duplications.

1. Dispatch - The only dispatchers that could handle the Sheriff's Dept. volume is St. Robert.  The others in the county can't dispatch their way out of a paper sack and this would get an officer hurt or killed.  When I worked Monday nite I had another local agency state they wished we did their dispatching.  We said it would only take a phone call by his boss.

2. SWAT team.  There is another local team but there is a good reason I am sure that the Sheriff's Dept. team is being reorganized.

3.  Narcotics - We have NO narcotics officers in the County.  MY opinion is Laneg is a waste of the Counties money.  Since a certain officer was let go their presence has disappeared unless I am wrong. 

Ok off my soapbox.

Offline Pete

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1505
  • Karma: +90258/-1279
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #147 on: March 24, 2008, 12:34:12 AM »
All I can say is Mr Farham is our only chance in the wording of the LE Tax. I hate taxes but....BUT will support this tax as long as it is not just to free money for the commissioners to spend freely other places. Face it, if the wording doesn't spell it out to me I will not support it.
If your going to be dumb, you better be tough!

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #148 on: March 24, 2008, 12:59:12 AM »
Yankee Trader, having the dispatch is fine...if he has the money. But, when you don't, then you make due. That could put 5-7 more officers on the road. It is in fact a duplication. I strongly disagree with you. In fact having the 9-1-1 dispatch would save time, duplication and lives. I do not believe any officers life would be in danger. I respectfully, disagree with you.

Offline cowboy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: +89530/-9529
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #149 on: March 24, 2008, 01:01:40 AM »
CH I totally agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.