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 105917 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #180 on: March 26, 2008, 06:12:34 PM »

Share/Bookmark


Offline murfyzlaw

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +156512/-29
  • Gender: Female
  • My beautiful grandsons
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #181 on: March 26, 2008, 06:40:01 PM »
Is 911 automated too?  I never call it, so I don't know.  As far as prressing 1 for English, they better NOT do that here. 

I'm with you on that,  Did you know Walmart"s Pharmacy number says " to hear the options in english press one"?  P_sses me off every time.






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 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #182 on: March 26, 2008, 08:02:27 PM »
YT, but your talking about a County that has most likely done some planning before the situation got so bad that they started talking about layoffs.  I can foresee Ransdal putting LE on the ballet, but a large chunk will go to pay for the position he wants to do such planning and/or development. 

Bottom line is that the LE sales tax initiative needs to spelled out that it all goes to LE.  I know they have talked about 100% to the SD and another plan for 50% to the SD and 10% to each of the five cities in County.  I believe that should be voted on by the citizens and not left up to Ransdal.  I also believe that if they don't protect a portion of the current budget the SD gets that Ransdal will move it to other departments which would make passing the tax like pissing into the wind.

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #183 on: March 26, 2008, 08:39:29 PM »
That reminds me. Wasn't Ransdall asking for a secretary. Why is it now an economic development person? Is it so he can pay more, justify it further, or what? Did he change the description of the position because of the flack he got for the term secretary? This is looking like smoke and mirrors to me again.. Isn't it really just someone to do his job for him?
 
 
 
YT, but your talking about a County that has most likely done some planning before the situation got so bad that they started talking about layoffs.  I can foresee Ransdal putting LE on the ballet, but a large chunk will go to pay for the position he wants to do such planning and/or development. 

Bottom line is that the LE sales tax initiative needs to spelled out that it all goes to LE.  I know they have talked about 100% to the SD and another plan for 50% to the SD and 10% to each of the five cities in County.  I believe that should be voted on by the citizens and not left up to Ransdal.  I also believe that if they don't protect a portion of the current budget the SD gets that Ransdal will move it to other departments which would make passing the tax like pissing into the wind.

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #184 on: March 26, 2008, 08:40:57 PM »
How can you justify a flat 10 percent per city, all of these city populations vary dramatically.
 
This is a very important subject to me, and I will speak up when you screw it up Commissioners. That you can count on..



YT, but your talking about a County that has most likely done some planning before the situation got so bad that they started talking about layoffs.  I can foresee Ransdal putting LE on the ballet, but a large chunk will go to pay for the position he wants to do such planning and/or development. 

Bottom line is that the LE sales tax initiative needs to spelled out that it all goes to LE.  I know they have talked about 100% to the SD and another plan for 50% to the SD and 10% to each of the five cities in County.  I believe that should be voted on by the citizens and not left up to Ransdal.  I also believe that if they don't protect a portion of the current budget the SD gets that Ransdal will move it to other departments which would make passing the tax like pissing into the wind.

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #185 on: March 26, 2008, 08:47:10 PM »
YT, but your talking about a County that has most likely done some planning before the situation got so bad that they started talking about layoffs. 

Nope.  We had an old farmhouse that was converted into the Sheriff's Office/Jail.  It was falling down, small and dangerous.  2 separate taxes were asked to be put on the ballot and passed.  1/2 cent for jail construction with a sunset clause. 1/2 cent for Law Enforcement. It was mainly looking to the future besides replacing the antique office/jail.


Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #186 on: March 26, 2008, 10:56:58 PM »
O2Tundra, thank you. My point all along. Unless the sheriff's dept. retains the current tax, plus the new tax, it won't go far, with JB's plans. Depends on what sheriff wins and what they do. Another 500,000 is a lot of money for new cars and things for the men and women. However, it is not when you talk about expanded services. And, with a county as poor as ours the commissioners will most likely use the current 1.4 or 5 million (whatever the current budget is) for other things. So, the sheriff's dept. would get 1.8 or 1.9 million and the county use the other. That is what could occur, but in fairness I don't know that for sure. I do know as a past commissioner, when you are looking at fiscal impossibilities and lay offs, you do what you can.
The jail: we need a new one through bonds and a careful plan. We worked a lot toward that and was meeting regularly with specialist in this area. This is a very expensive endeavor. 10 or 15 million dollars. What scared us when we worked on it wasn't building the jail as much as paying for the staff. The new staff would cost about half of the current counties budget (the general rev. budget). Then I was de-elected (I don't think that's a word, but you know what I mean) and I don't know what happened, but Tony, Dennis and I worked very hard on that jail problem.

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #187 on: March 26, 2008, 11:44:59 PM »
Gary your right as usual.  If the Sheriff wants a new jail, that would be a bond issue.  Building it is the cheap part, staffing and maintaining it is where the big dollars are in the long run.  And Tundra I seem to recall JB and Farnsworth being the ones that recommended the 50/50 split.  Maybe the work that was done on this a few years back has provided information that explains why Thornsberry is so set against it.  Maybe the commission should establish a nonpartisian committee to research this and make recommedations.  One thing is for sure, this won't go away after the 08 elections. 

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #188 on: March 26, 2008, 11:56:02 PM »
Correct this issue will not fade away. As we fiddle and do nothing to increase revenue in 2008 all I can say is wait until the 2009 budget bites us in the -----.
Next year we will lay off employees. Maybe only 2 or 3 but we will lay off. Each person gone is a lost part of service by the county.
Since I have seem to have been the leading voice in calling for new taxes I naturally lean toward a LE tax. If you want to change that to a 1/2 cent save the county general revenue tax then so be it, scrap the LE tax. Vote for the General Revenue tax.. But we must have more money in the county bank.
        JB

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #189 on: March 27, 2008, 12:03:17 AM »
Gracious offer JB.  Even with your offer, I would be nervous about how the ballot language would read.  JB, Gary what did you think about my idea for a nonpartisian committee to look into this?.  Sounds like a lot of the research has already been done.

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #190 on: March 27, 2008, 02:08:16 AM »
We looked at a bond issue and opted for the 1/2 cent with a sunset claus.  Worked fine and is going to fade away.  Then the jail will be paid for.  Far as staffing, operations etc.  That is where federal contracts come in.  We had just a US Marshall contract.  Within 2 years the jail was running in the black.  The red years weren't bad because the income was still there just had the initial stuff to be paid for. It has been in the black since.  Down here we not only have the US Marshall contract but could seek an ICE contract and also one with the military.  For the naysayers who state we are too far from Federal Court I say baloney! We were over an hour away and got the contract with no problems.  And the best part is the federal inmates were less of a problem than the local boys and girls.

It can be done if people would just be bipartisan and want to do it.  But that's pretty hard to do when the Commissioners wouldn't even hire another paper service Deputy that would have been a revenue positive poisition. 

We need forward thinking people in those offices no matter what party they are and this County will make progress like it has never seen. 

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #191 on: March 27, 2008, 02:42:54 AM »
Fedup, I concur 100 %. A nonpartisian committee and a "White Paper" of sorts. Identify the problem (s) first, then work on solutions.
Yankee Trader, you are right in theory. However, we thought of that too. Dennis called several friends in some of the counties who used that exact premise when building their new jail. The results were good in some areas, dismal in others. There are only so many federal prisoners. That could be part of the White Paper. I know when Tony, Dennis & I were researching this we found we need to build a 150 bed facility. But, we believed we could only afford a 75. We had people come in with plans that could easily be expanded over the years. We looked at various cells and services; laundry, food, medical and so on. To manage a 75 bed facility takes a lot of staff.
I think it should be researched and a plan made. I agree. And, getting the federal inmates is important.

Offline nelsonjoe

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +5/-6
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #192 on: March 27, 2008, 03:22:49 AM »
Nope JSB....they are not incompetent.  I stand by my statement that the ones that I trained are the best in the region. If they were'nt then they didn't stick around.  But they were trained as Law Enforcement dispatchers.  Only EMS I required was CPR certification.

If they were to be the central dispatch agency they would be required to have EMD certification, 40 hr cert and much more.  I would go as far as requiring them to be certified as First Responders and if had the funds for training even EMTB. The training required is higher then LE. 

But you know it boils down to attitude, professionalism and desire.  No matter how much training and certifications one has it will not substitute for staying on top of things like paying attention to ALL the radio frequencies, the MULES printer, talk on the phone and to people at the window perhaps all at once besides all the assigned tasks that have to be done.  You have to treat it more than "just a job".  And that attitude has to be in the entire center. 


You are so wrong. Rolla Central Dispatch is by far the best in the region. you could learn a few things from them.

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #193 on: March 27, 2008, 03:59:13 AM »
We built a 120 bed facility.  Had a jail administrator, 2 transport officers, 8 fulltime jailers (I may be a couple off), nurse that made regular visits for medical, 1 fulltime cook, 1 part time cook (covered FT days off). That's it.  Dispatch controlled the doors but we weren't even 25% as busy as here.  The cook was assisted by 2 of the work release guys cooking only.  There were no inmate trustees so no problems as such.  The midnight jailer did all the laundry. 

As you said Crazy Horse it has to be researched.  There are good jail builders and lousy ones.  Best to have all the ducks in line before asking for the money. 

Offline nelsonjoe

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +5/-6
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #194 on: March 27, 2008, 04:28:42 AM »
I have noticed that a quite of few people on here are screaming for the commissoner to place the tax on the ballot. Alot of you are very disatisfied with the way Ransdall is handling his job. A bunch of you are on here complaining that nothing is being done and are wanting the voters to decide. This is all great but... What have you all done to make your voices heard? One person has went to the meetings and expressed thier views. ONE. There are things we the people can do. We must remember we are the ones who voted the people in charge. We have the right to demand action. We have the right to expect the public officials to do what the people want. When they dont we cant just sit around and wait til the next election. We voted them(or him) in and we can vote him out just an easy. We all must go to the meeting and voice our concerns. Let our voice be heard, not one but many. I will be at the next meeting, Will you? Enough complaining! If Ransdall wont do what we want then we can make him hear what the people want. Together as one. Lets do it people.

Offline jsb66763

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: +1007/-5
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #195 on: March 27, 2008, 07:21:51 AM »
Matrsnot,
In my post where I alleged there would be 50K in savings, I said each department would enter their own MULES. Therefore allowing dispatch to dispatch. 

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #196 on: March 27, 2008, 09:47:14 AM »
I stand corrected.

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #197 on: March 27, 2008, 02:21:47 PM »
Many good points, the problem is still getting our Commission to support the issue.  Couldn't the matter be voted on in general?  Voter's support or don't support the need for a LE Sales Tax and then start the planning to ensure controls are inplace on the money, so it can only be used for the intended purpose?  Or as I believe, you must have that planning completed prior to the vote?  That's how our elected officials continue to put the screws to us, they allow this type of situation to go on for years until the citizens rise up and ask for action, then because there has been no proper planning, they give themselves the means of pulling these funds for other uses or just changing the whole issue!  I support the need for the tax and also know that we must make damn sure we don't allow any wiggle room in the paperwork for any funny business!!!!!!!  I speak from experience of seeing the same type of stuff before, here in Pulaski County.  Many of you know exactly what I'm talking about!

Offline peon

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: +3378/-154
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #198 on: March 27, 2008, 05:50:17 PM »
while you all discuss this, no one's butts are in the seats, no one's voice is being heard.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #199 on: March 29, 2008, 12:18:51 PM »
while you all discuss this, no one's butts are in the seats, no one's voice is being heard.

   And even worse the HMS Pulaski Titanic continues to take on water below decks. The impact with the iceberg several years ago left a huge gash in the ships side below the financial line. The ships pumps cannot keep up with the incoming bills and water. The ship has slowed to a complete growth stop and the current is starting to push the ship backwards. The lifeboats on the upper deck are ready to launch but many of them have 200,000 plus miles on their oars.  Stand by for updates. Stand by for the blame game.

     Chief Boiler operator JB
         

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #200 on: March 29, 2008, 02:53:58 PM »
Oops! Got to brush up on terms related to the sea and ships. Or better said do not post funny stuff early in the morning. The term HMS stands as a reference to a Royal Navy warship, His/Her Majesty Ship, such as HMS Hood.  For the Titanic I should have used the term RMS Titanic.
My apology to all history fans.
      JB

Offline ATSME

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +11/-2
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #201 on: March 29, 2008, 02:55:32 PM »
I just have to say this, after reading the couple daily guide articles about this, to include Thornsberry walking out of the meeting (he just couldn't take anymore) and Mr. Ransdall putting in the daily guide that its not a matter of if they (commissioners) support LE or not, and their little 'polls' or 'survey's or their 'Oh my God lets see it will pass and what if does, what will we do' attitude, I did post under the one article and ask Mr. Ransdall IF it is a matter of them believing in LE to please read these postings (on both county websites) and to please put it on the ballot so these people will know he means it when he says he believes in LE.  Because if it doesn't go on the ballot, no one is  going to convince me that those words are true.  Granted, they may already read these websites, or they may not. But, you KNOW they read the comments under the articles that are about them, and they cant say people don't want it on the ballot.  Polls, (surveys) are a joke in my opinion. The upcoming Chamber one Mr. Ransdall already said he doesn't know who will be 'invited' to participate.  If thats not a crock, what is? Who participates then?  The ones they KNOW will say NO???
 

Offline tpgunbiz

  • B.M.F.
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2455
  • Karma: +687862/-35
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #202 on: March 29, 2008, 08:26:51 PM »
this surveye was posted in a no name publication. I did not see it nor did most of you Ill bet. It like they are going out of their way to make sure it doesnt have to go on the ballot.
Biscuit

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #203 on: March 29, 2008, 08:39:49 PM »
I believe you can be a strong supporter of cops and still disagree on fiscal responsibility issues. A good cop may not necessarily be a good business manger or organizational manager.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #204 on: March 29, 2008, 08:52:45 PM »
I just have to say this, after reading the couple daily guide articles about this, to include Thornsberry walking out of the meeting (he just couldn't take anymore) and Mr. Ransdall putting in the daily guide that its not a matter of if they (commissioners) support LE or not, and their little 'polls' or 'survey's or their 'Oh my God lets see it will pass and what if does, what will we do' attitude, I did post under the one article and ask Mr. Ransdall IF it is a matter of them believing in LE to please read these postings (on both county websites) and to please put it on the ballot so these people will know he means it when he says he believes in LE.  Because if it doesn't go on the ballot, no one is  going to convince me that those words are true.  Granted, they may already read these websites, or they may not. But, you KNOW they read the comments under the articles that are about them, and they cant say people don't want it on the ballot.  Polls, (surveys) are a joke in my opinion. The upcoming Chamber one Mr. Ransdall already said he doesn't know who will be 'invited' to participate.  If thats not a crock, what is? Who participates then?  The ones they KNOW will say NO???
 

   Over the past three years the Commissioners have called me into their office many times to blindside me with some issue or person critical of my work and office. This was done despite the fact they know they cannot tell me how to do my job. My only conclusion is that they want me out of office and will work to see that happen. But despite all the negative remarks they sent my way I did not walk out because I could not take it any more. And if anyone had a right to walk out it just might be me.

                 JB

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #205 on: March 29, 2008, 10:26:07 PM »
Gary your right.  And that applies whether your law enforcement, pilot or whatever.  I've bashed Thornsberry more than most in here, but here's a thought:  Thornsberry knows what the budget limitations are, he knows the money just isn't there. and he may of been frustrated because the entire year's tire budget was spent.  I understand buying in bulk, but how do you know in advance which tires your going to need?  It's like busting the annual budget on road salt buying it in 50 lb bags instead of by the truck load. Heaven knows I don't defend Thornsberry but is it possible he's just frustrated and tired of Farnham's mistakes/mismanagement?

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #206 on: March 30, 2008, 01:08:35 PM »
After reading the weekly "bash the Sheriff" article, I am thoroughly disgusted with the commission.  The way the article was written, they were accusing the Sheriff of mismanagement.  They also stated they gave the Sheriff everything but 10 new cars.  More lies on top of lies.  They are only trying to keep from putting the issue on the ballot.  They flat out don't like the Sheriff because he is not one of the good old boys.  Not one of theirs anyway.  The commissioiners want power, but no responsibility to go with it.  I look with much disdain on thornsberry and the man who would be king.  They both need to be gone.  One will leave shortly as he won't run again.  the other will be gone at the next voting session where he is eligible for being ousted.  One Term Bill has lied (misspoke) many times and it is getting very tiresome.  I may hae to take some leave from work and go to one of these meetings as they certainly will NOT have meetings where they might have to answer some very tough questions....if they would give straight answers at all.

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #207 on: March 30, 2008, 03:57:01 PM »
Actually after reading the article, it sounds like Farnham is  guilty of mismanagement, yet everyone in here gives him a free pass.  Let's call ALL of this just what it is.  If a commissioner busts his budget, the money has to be made up somewhere and the Sheriff has the lion's share of the budget.  It stands to reason if Farnham messes up on his budget where do you think the cuts are going to come from to make up for it? If your going to have standards in this debate thread, then they should be consistent.  I don't remember Gary Carmack ever busting his budget but he sure got roasted in a lot of ways regardless, much of it unnecessary and untrue.  Now Farnham makes mistakes but he's the teflon kid.  Call a spade a spade.  When Farnham messes up the budget, the Sheriff is going to get more pressure about his budget because the deficit has to be accounted for and the Sheriff has the largest line items.  Just because Farnham makes a motion you like doesn't mean he's the savior on the commission despite his rhetoric.  He's as big a hothead as Thornsberry, but he displays his by making mistakes such as those I've already mentioned.  If the objective is getting more money for the Sheriff's Dept, Farnham's actions aren't helping. 
After reading my last post, it sounds as though I was asking only Gary about the article when I'm actually asking everyone. It is not to put Gary on the spot.

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #208 on: March 30, 2008, 04:13:13 PM »
Actually after reading the article, it sounds like Farnham is  guilty of mismanagement, yet everyone in here gives him a free pass.  Let's call ALL of this just what it is.  If a commissioner busts his budget, the money has to be made up somewhere and the Sheriff has the lion's share of the budget.  It stands to reason if Farnham messes up on his budget where do you think the cuts are going to come from to make up for it? If your going to have standards in this debate thread, then they should be consistent.  I don't remember Gary Carmack ever busting his budget but he sure got roasted in a lot of ways regardless, much of it unnecessary and untrue.  Now Farnham makes mistakes but he's the teflon kid.  Call a spade a spade.  When Farnham messes up the budget, the Sheriff is going to get more pressure about his budget because the deficit has to be accounted for and the Sheriff has the largest line items.  Just because Farnham makes a motion you like doesn't mean he's the savior on the commission despite his rhetoric.  He's as big a hothead as Thornsberry, but he displays his by making mistakes such as those I've already mentioned.  If the objective is getting more money for the Sheriff's Dept, Farnham's actions aren't helping. 
After reading my last post, it sounds as though I was asking only Gary about the article when I'm actually asking everyone. It is not to put Gary on the spot.

   Farnham's Budget is R&B money which is property tax driven, mine is sales tax driven, the two funds do not mix and mingle by law. Two seperate issues.
JB

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #209 on: March 30, 2008, 04:17:19 PM »
JB thanks for keeping me straight.  Unfortunately, my premise still stands, it just means that a different county entity will lose because of Farnham's mismanagement.