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 106001 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #90 on: May 01, 2007, 04:46:38 AM »

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

You heard exactly right.  I had 2 officers on and 1 available at the time.  Luckily they were able to help out and not tied up on their own calls. We were lucky that tonight was the slowest of the last 3.  And we were talking.....school gets out in 2 weeks and then we will be busier than now.

It is going to be a verrry long summer!

Offline Law101

  • Global Moderator
  • **************
  • Posts: 1432
  • Karma: +691373/-13
  • Gender: Female
  • Big Piney Community Activist
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #91 on: May 01, 2007, 01:29:39 PM »
If you had a scanner you would be hearing about lack of Officers being available all the time. 

During the last two yard sales that Watson and the Smufettes did, we talked to a lot of people regarding the problems the PCSD has and the need for an LE Tax.  As you can tell by the money that has been donated already, a lot of people agreed with us.  We will reach a lot more at Frog Fest and other functions that are coming up in the near future. 

We always ask everyone we talk to if they will go back to their neighbors and discuss the need of an LE Tax with them.  We are slowly but surely getting the word out and will continue to do so.

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #92 on: May 01, 2007, 06:29:57 PM »
If you had a scanner you would be hearing about lack of Officers being available all the time. 

During the last two yard sales that Watson and the Smufettes did, we talked to a lot of people regarding the problems the PCSD has and the need for an LE Tax.  As you can tell by the money that has been donated already, a lot of people agreed with us.  We will reach a lot more at Frog Fest and other functions that are coming up in the near future. 

We always ask everyone we talk to if they will go back to their neighbors and discuss the need of an LE Tax with them.  We are slowly but surely getting the word out and will continue to do so.

All good initiatives, however, until the commissioners put the LE tax on the ballot it's just like taking a leak into the wind.  The voters need to start beating up the commissioners about supporting the LE tax. 

Offline mrsp

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #93 on: October 22, 2007, 01:35:48 AM »
For those of you who are really wanting to help, we are looking for donations to help with the fundraising event to be help in late April. The money will be for the purchase of the Amber Sticks which a Code Amber sponsored item. We are also looking for people to help work the event. Here is everyones chance to help. The fundraising money will go for local law enforcement and programs like Shop with a Cop. As well this next Sunday we will be doing a bake sale for shop with a cop. Please send an email if you have any questions or would like more information.

Offline exclusive

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 66
  • Karma: +3069/-7
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #94 on: December 06, 2007, 05:05:45 AM »
Ok I was going to keep my mouth shut on this one but as we all know, the old commissioners sold a boat to JT Roberts for $1.00. ok well that boat belong to the State of Missouri. The Sheriffs Department when JT was in office barrowed it from the state. So our elected officials sold property of the state that they had no right doingbut even more the amount they sold it for was NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTY. From what I heard JB requested an audit where that boat was found to not be in county posession. So the state will do what they see fit but we can do something as well. See commissioner have to live be rules and people keep talking about standing up to the commissioner then lets do it. We have to show them we mean what we say so her is the direct words of the Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 49
County Commissions and County Buildings
Section 49.500
County contracts to be inquired into on petition.
49.500. Whenever any fifty resident, solvent and responsible taxpaying citizens of any county in the state shall have good reason to believe, and do believe, that any contract made and entered into by the county commission, with any person or corporation, affecting or concerning any public building, lands, moneys or property of the county in any manner whatever, or any extension of any such contract, was not made and entered into in good faith, or for a just consideration, and with due regard for the best interest of the county, or that any such contract previously entered into has not been carried out by the parties thereto in good faith and according to the terms of any such contract, they may bring a suit in the circuit court of any such county, praying that the matter may be inquired into, and thereupon the circuit court shall make a full investigation of the matters alleged, and shall have power to set aside, reform or cause to be enforced any such contract, or any extension of any such contract, as the court shall deem best under the law and the facts. Should the petitioners fail to sustain their petition, they shall pay the costs; and all such proceedings shall be governed by the law relating to civil practice in circuit courts. The said petition shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of said county; and thereafter the death, removal or disability of any one or more of such petitioners or plaintiffs shall not abate or affect the said suit."

So this means as pulasi county residents we can bring a civil lawsuit against the commissioners, do you think that this will make a statment, I think so. Here is way we can stand up and let our voices really be heard. We can also go as a group to a meeting instead of one or two. I would suggest a few weeks out. Maybe we should meet the day before and go over a few things cause I have been doing research and have alot of stats and such to bring to their attention.   
 

Offline exclusive

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 66
  • Karma: +3069/-7
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #95 on: December 06, 2007, 05:06:19 AM »
oh yeah and if the suit is won then criminal charges can be made here is the statutue for that

"Penalty for violating section 49.140.
49.150. Any county commissioner who shall violate any of the provisions of section 49.140 or who shall do any of the acts or enter into any of the contracts prohibited or declared unlawful in said section, shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor. "

This would sure get their attention and for MR. Farnham who is one the good guys side voted not to sell the boat so he would be free from prosecution. We have to stay informed of our rights as taxpaying residents and know our what to do about it.


Offline Smokey

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: +52/-4
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2008, 05:46:21 PM »
It sounds like a good firefighter and law enforcement fight is getting ready to start with the fire department going part paid. It will be interesting to see who has the strongest support.

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2008, 06:51:56 PM »
Fire department doesn't have to worry as the Commissioners control ZERO for them.  Shouldn't be a fight.  Everyone needs it.  What people don't understand is growth and progress.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2008, 08:36:59 PM »
People look down on the military and law enforcement, UNTIL THEY ARE NEEDED.  That is what is happening here.  We are putting up with arrogant officials now.  Hopefully , we can get rid of them soon.

Offline 02Tundra

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 662
  • Karma: +9924/-20
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #99 on: February 19, 2008, 09:26:25 PM »
A lot of people say they support the LE Sales Tax, but I just wonder how many are willing to support more taxes!  Talk is cheap, I say let the voter's decide.  I for one will support the tax, because we need to pay these people a living wage.

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #100 on: February 20, 2008, 03:23:54 AM »
Curiosity....Rick what do you charge sales tax % at your store?  JB posted on the DG Blog over the weekend about only St Rbt Blvd has the high tax.  I forgot it was in such a small area. 

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #101 on: March 21, 2008, 03:00:17 AM »
I understand JB's need for additional funds.  Pointing the finger at Ransdall is not necessarily correct.  As presiding commissioner, he chairs the commission.  Those who are familiar with parlimentary procedure understand the chair cannot second a motion.  In other words, Thornsberry is the one that needs to second Farnham's motion.  Once it's seconded, they vote on it with Ransdall voting ONLY in the event of a tie.  The question that all should be asking is why a Republican Sheriff can't get two Republican commissioners to agree on the motion.  I'm not picking on any political party, just asking a valid question.

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #102 on: March 21, 2008, 01:34:46 PM »
You mean they actually use parlimentary procedure in their meetings? Hahaha

Offline murfyzlaw

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +156512/-29
  • Gender: Female
  • My beautiful grandsons
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #103 on: March 21, 2008, 02:29:54 PM »
You mean they actually use parlimentary procedure in their meetings? Hahaha

Exactly,  I've only read in the paper, but it seemed more like good ole boy procedure.
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 ATSME

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +11/-2
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #104 on: March 21, 2008, 02:43:49 PM »
exclusive, so you mean it was the Commissioners who sold the boat, and shouldn't have for that price?

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #105 on: March 21, 2008, 03:45:31 PM »
They couldn't sell the boat period.  It was Federal Surplus Property.
Yes, it was the commissioners who sold it.

Offline ATSME

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +11/-2
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #106 on: March 21, 2008, 04:24:31 PM »
They couldn't sell the boat period.  It was Federal Surplus Property.
Yes, it was the commissioners who sold it.
Thank you for that reply, but If the commissioners couldn't sell it period, how did they then?  Who were the commissioners at that time?

Offline peon

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: +3378/-154
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #107 on: March 21, 2008, 04:56:06 PM »
survey that was in the paper, word for word, this is the last day it can be filled out and taken in to the guide. Law enforcement tax, yes or no?In light of recent claims by a certain local politician that nobody he’s talked with is in favor of a law enforcement tax to fund the Pulaski county sheriff’s department, and in light of multiple claims to the contrary by anonymous persons on local blogs, the Pulaski county weekly today offers a simple, blatantly unscientific survey of the issue. This survey may or may not settle the issue.  It may not goad mr. ransdall into bowing to public pressure and joining mr. farnham in pushing to put a law enforcement tax on the next ballot.  It simply may throw more fat on the fire. Look at the two questions below, mark your answers yes or no, cut the form out and carry it or mail it back to us by Friday March 21, 2008.  we promise to publish the results in the Wednesday march 26, Pulaski county weekly.
  • are you in favor of the Pulaski county commissioners submitting a law enforcement tax measure to the voters of Pulaski county this year?
  • if you were asked today would you vote yes for no to impose a one-half percent sales tax on all goods sold in Pulaski county, the proceeds from which would go solely to support the equipment, operations and manpower needs of the Pulaski county sheriff’s department?

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #108 on: March 21, 2008, 06:03:46 PM »
When Bill and Dennis are in concert, proper procedure is not being used.  they simply run the county the way they want to without regard to Bill farnham.

Offline ATSME

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +11/-2
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #109 on: March 21, 2008, 06:57:25 PM »
Thank you for that reply, but If the commissioners couldn't sell it period, how did they then?  Who were the commissioners at that time?

does anyone know the answer to this?

Offline Valor7

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2543
  • Karma: +190488/-54
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #110 on: March 21, 2008, 10:50:54 PM »
does anyone know the answer to this?

Tony Crismon & Dennis Thornsberry.

Offline cowboy

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: +89530/-9529
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #111 on: March 21, 2008, 11:12:02 PM »
Peon - I've never heard of the pulaski county weekly.  Any how, since you  have it, would you pls publish the results on the 26th?

Offline Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #112 on: March 22, 2008, 01:40:47 AM »
7.475, sorry hadn't read this until now. Therefore St. Robert Boulevard charges. 7.975, which means they are already at 8 percent. Doesn't seem to bother the shoppers now.


Curiosity....Rick what do you charge sales tax % at your store?  JB posted on the DG Blog over the weekend about only St Rbt Blvd has the high tax.  I forgot it was in such a small area. 

Offline Yankee Trader

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2028
  • Karma: +470557/-165
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #113 on: March 22, 2008, 02:07:43 AM »
Thanks Rick!

So that means Rolla with 7.60% is ahead of St Robert now with the exception of the Blvd. and as Rick said it doesn't bother shoppers now.  I don't go near Walmart on the weekend unless I have to.  It is nuts!  I also see new businesses building there and don't see much if any turnover in the strip malls.

Offline FedUp

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: +7320/-427
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #114 on: March 22, 2008, 05:43:13 PM »
Exactly,  I've only read in the paper, but it seemed more like good ole boy procedure.
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 ATSME

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +11/-2
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #115 on: March 22, 2008, 06:26:56 PM »
Tony Crismon & Dennis Thornsberry.
Thanks JB.  How many commissioners are there at a time?  I thought the way everyone talks there are three, but theres only two? 

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #116 on: March 22, 2008, 06:38:24 PM »
Fedup, you are precisely correct. The presiding commissioner is responsible, just as the title suggest, to preside over the meetings. Then, if the two associate commissioners tie the presiding may break the tie. That is actually Missouri state law and correct procedure.
 
ATSME, there are three county commissioners.

Offline murfyzlaw

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +156512/-29
  • Gender: Female
  • My beautiful grandsons
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #117 on: March 22, 2008, 08:44:03 PM »
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.
When I read the DG about the commissioner's meetings, that is what they sound like to me, no professionalism at all.  And every time the LE Tax is brought up Ransdall brings up his personal poll on the subject and he shoots it down every time. But he has now decided he may have been wrong.
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 Lepard LLC

  • Activist
  • Administrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 6215
  • Karma: +2241359/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #118 on: March 22, 2008, 08:51:10 PM »
So the bottom line is Thornsberry must second the motion. Who is to say that will happen? Has he said he will? If not, all of Ransdall's efforts are null and void.
If the boat was sold with one Commissioner gone from the meeting, does the Presiding Commissioner then have a vote?

Offline crazy horse

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +513416/-1802
    • View Profile
Re: TAXES FOR LAW ENFORCMENT
« Reply #119 on: March 22, 2008, 09:25:30 PM »
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.