I haven't been in town much lately due to my work, but I was in the CVS recently and got an earful while standing in line. I actually heard a council member defending Mr. Hailey and urging the person they were talking to to vote for him in the next election. I wanted to ask the person if they were crazy or just on drugs, because no one with common sense would endorse a person convicted of assault.
Since I'm not from here, and I don't know all the traditions or social rules I'm just bluntly going to ask: Just what does a person have to do to booted from the council?
Wife beating doesn't seem to qualify a person for removal. Would baby sacrifices or being a online porn star? What exactly is the limit a person has to go before they can no longer represent our town?
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Things around town
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Okay, so come on Brookneal Blogger, name names!! LOL
I'm placing my money on Champ being the person you overheard. Am I right????
As for the limits, limits come with integrity, morals, & honesty. Qualities which seem to lacking in a few of our council members.
I have lived here my whole life and cannot believe Hailey is still on the council. I can see not doing anything pending the appeal, but after that was over, he needed to go--no questions asked.
Yeah, I agree, it had to be Champ defending him.
Was his mother around when this conversation took place?
HAILEY NEEDS TO BE GONE!!! TO GO!!! Yes, I am shouting that. AND anyone who defends him needs to be gone, too. Maybe we just need to go back into the county.
Why should anyone be suprised he's still on council when you have a convicted felon as town manager?
And by the way....whatever happened to "advertising" for a town manager?
Anonymous said...
"Why should anyone be suprised he's still on council when you have a convicted felon as town manager?"
Funny you should mention our resident felon in charge. Did anyone see the Union Star's people talk question this week? "Should a convicted felon be allowed to vote?"
I guess the majority of people don't think a convicted felon should be allowed to vote but it's okay for a convicted felon to run a town and handle a budget just under a million dollars.
Do you think the Union Star had a motive behind the question? Has Mr. Crews had his voting rights restored? I know that this was high on the Mayors' list of priorities this year. Hmmmm....
If anyone expects The Union Star to 'follow up' on a story.....from what I've seen you can forget it!
With all the errors it makes one wonder if anything is correct....ie: the story featuring Foster, Poindexter & Ward Burton about the Staunton River...in one pargaraph it uses the letter "u" instead of spelling out the word "you" and in a paragraph using the last names of the people organizing the meeting, it used the last names of three all except BURTON!....it said "Foster, Poindexter, WARD"....pitiful!
What ever happened to the lawsuit against the town.....with the former town clerk???? Did the town have to shell out any funds for that???
Sure it's creepy to have convicted felons and abusive men on the council. Traditionally politics has long welcomed scoundrels with a wink and a fraternal punch in the deltoid. Of course it's scandalous, but well within the bell curve of business as usual. "Vote the bastards out!!!"
What haunts me is that some people base their votes on such things as how well a candidate keeps their yard, whether they attend church. All that tells us is that they know how to put up a front!
If I were to take on such a task as participating in town government, you'd certainly see my grass get tall!
There's epidemic southern blurry don't-ask-don't-tell politeness that (I hear tell) worked for my parents' generation, but seems to cover much corruption in it's modern guise.
Maybe it used to be that you could judge a person by their yard. Come to think of it, that's exactly how my parents judged people. I don't think it actually worked that well for them.
I wonder if my messy yard indicates a character flaw deeply laid in myself. I do sometimes start a project before I finish the previous one. I eventually, almost always get them all done. I enjoy it immensely. To me, that is a sweet freedom. The freedom to be a work in progress. Freedom from having to be that perfect picture.
which brings me to my real point: What are our priorities as a town? (I don't live in town, but I have a business there. I don't think that entitles me to a vote.)Do we want our facades re-facaded? Do we want to just maintain at this level? Is there a vision for Brookneal?
Does anybody know who bought the Dan River place?
As for Mr. Crews getting his voting rights back, it ain't gonna happen.
I was told by someone in the know that the law won't allow a 3 time felon or one with a distribution charge to appeal to have their voting rights reinstated.
Mr. Crews has 2 possession and 1 distribution charge to his record.
Maybe a pardon by the Governor himself, but I don't think that's going to happen, and it also may not be possible.
Case closed!
As for the "Onion Star" paper, the writing is a disgrace.
No editing, no spell checking, nothing!
In the article on the top right of last weeks paper (same issue as the Ward Burton, Foster article) the writer had the exact same paragraph printed word for word in the first column on the second page, then again in the second column.
I have notified Mr. Davis that I will no longer be subscribing to the paper after my suscription runs out this time, and I've been getting the paper for 40 years+.
So call Womack Publishing in Gretna and let them know how you feel; Ask for Tim Davis.
I have been reading this blog for some time and feel the need to address something that is bothering me. Mr. Crews has been referred to by some very uncomplimentary names. As I understand it, he came to work for Brookneal via a work-release program; therefore, his background was known. If there was a question as to whether he could or could not do the job he was hired for, then he should have not been taken on the workforce. Since he was hired, he passed that hurdle. Again, as I understand it, he was a good trusted worker. As time passed and town personnel changed, he was approached about taking on the added responsibility of assisting with town management. Again, (and I hate to keep repeating this but) as I understand it, this was primarily because he was in and out of the town office and was available when no one else was. Now, he was asked to do this and the people who asked were aware of his past. It was brought before town council; a motion was made and seconded, and voted on with the outcome being to ask him to do this job. If there was a problem with his past, should this not have been discussed then? Obviously, it was not a problem. Even Ms. Meisenbach voted for this. I have looked at the minutes.
Again, as I understand, it was brought up to increase his salary and benefits because of his added responsibilities. The process of voting repeated itself and was approved. Still there was no public mention of his past. In my business, personnel matters are discussed in a closed meeting; therefore, it may have been discussed. The bottom line is it was voted on and passed.
Now, what I do not understand is why after all this Ms. Meisenbach has chosen to go public. She voted for the two motions. Is this not hypocrisy to vote for and then denigrate? What is her motivation for this? What I do not understand is why all the derogatory statements and name-calling. What specifically has Mr. Crews done in the performance of his job that is directly related to his past? I know there was an issue about guns but that was investigated and resolved. All right, his record prohibits him from voting. A number of people who can vote elect not to do so--look at the percentage of voters who vote in any election. He is acting town manager but he did not actively seek that position; he was sought for that position. Why crucify him for holding a position he was asked to take? This makes no sense.
It appears to me that he has been unjustifiably besmirched. Have we not as a Christian nation been admonished, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? There is probably not one responder to or reader of this blog who is not guilty of some wrong-doing; albeit, most have not been tried or convicted. However, Mr. Crews has been tried by a court of his peers, found guilty, and paid the price of that conviction. He has reformed his life, found gainful employment, become a producing citizen, and should be allowed to put that phase of his life behind him.
Those people who can do better should step forward, seek a seat on council and rectify the perceived wrongs of the present elected officials. Maybe it is easier to sit back and criticize because if a person puts his/her hat into the ring and is elected, then he/she will be subject to the same public criticism and recrimination. Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, “You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time.”
No, I am not going to address Mr. Hailey and his situation. All I will say is Mr. Crews has admitted his wrongdoings and paid the price. Mr. Hailey is in denial and has paid nothing.
"...If there was a question as to whether he could or could not do the job he was hired for, then he should have not been taken on the workforce..."
Have you ever had Mr. Crews write a letter for you? He is an uneducated, ignorant, blubbering mess. Seriously, watch him being interviewed, he is anything but articulate. Have him write a letter, any second grader could compose a better letter.
Perhaps you don't think this is important and maybe you are okay being represented by someone that sounds as though he barely graduated elementary school, but I'm not.
"Again, as I understand it, he was a good trusted worker."
Do you really know Mike? I do, and I have known him to lie to save his own butt many times. He also uses town equipment for his own personal use. For many years his personal computer at home belonged to the town. He did not seek approval to use it, as a matter of fact he asked the few that knew to please not say anything. He has regularly used the towns lawnmower for his own yard and everyone is aware of his freedom to personally use the town truck to haul his family around or make trips back and forth to the high school to pick up his daughter or go to football games.
Maybe none of this matters to you. Maybe your definition of trustworty is a lot grayer and fuzzier than mine. But I think it is wrong for a public servant to abuse his office in this way and feel as though the taxpayers money is his own.
Mr. Crews has no regard for how much he has cost the town just with all of the gas he guzzles for his own personal use. Gas that was paid for by tax payers money!!
"...Now, he was asked to do this and the people who asked were aware of his past. It was brought before town council; a motion was made and seconded, and voted on with the outcome being to ask him to do this job. If there was a problem with his past, should this not have been discussed then?..."
Agreed! But all that tells me is that the town council is a pathetic, corrupt, inept group of people that should be voted out of office. Honestly, while Mr. Crews had worked his way up to public works director, what moron in their right mind would think he was remotely qualified for the position of town manager. He has limited education, and is a bumbling idiot when it comes to public speaking. Have you looked at the job description for town manager? He wouldn't even be in the running if he applied for this job anywhere else. Sure, it was okay to have him fill in temporarily but this has turned into a full time job with NO effort being made on the councils part to find a real town manager. Sooner or later Bill Gillespie's arm is going to get tired and when he pulls it out Mike Crews' butt the whole charade will collapse. Really, Mr. Crews would not have been able to even give the appearance of half way doing the job had it not been for the fact that Bill was there to tell him what to do. Oh, and let's not forget Mrs. Waller up front. How many things has she fixed and covered up for with him?
She used to gripe about him all the time and comment on how she couldn't understand how such an uneducated person got that job.
"...It appears to me that he has been unjustifiably besmirched...."
Okay, so let's leave the felony conviction out of this then.
Do you think it is okay for a man in his position, or any man for that matter, to lay his hand on a woman? Mr. Crews has sexually harassed several women around town. Yet Mayor Campbell and crew cover for him. Guess his wife is okay with it too. What about the comments he makes to women? No thank you Mr. Crews, I don't want you to perform my yearly physical. And Mr. Crews, do you still think the lady that worked at the bank looks like a black woman, I mean, she isn't pregnant now and her ass and boobs aren't getting any bigger.
Those are the kind of things Mr. Crews feels free to say to the women of this town. Guess you're okay with that. Maybe you wish he would say them to you. I, for one, am embarrased by this.
You bring Christianity into it. Since you are judging people's faith, why not judge Mr. Crews? Is it the Christian thing to do when you harass women? Is it the Christian thing to do when you lie about others? Is it the Christian thing to do to steal from the town that employs you?
Please let me know what church you attend because if these are the teachings there, I want to be sure to go elsewhere.
Anonymous ( WHY are we not surprised it's anonymous) wrote:
(my replies are in bold
> Again, as I understand it, he was a good trusted worker.
Have you seen his evaluations from previous town managers? Did you speak to the previous mayor about him? If not, then how can you make such a statement?
>Now, he was asked to do this and the people who asked were aware of his past.
I can honestly, with my hand on the bible, state that his past was NEVER spoken about to me, when I got on the council, by another council member. When I first heard it I thought the person was kidding. Mr. Crews has never specifically told me about his past.
>It was brought before town council; a motion was made and seconded, and voted on with the outcome being to ask him to do this job.
This is where the public misperception occurs. What job are you referring to? If you're talking about town manager then you need to review the town minutes, because he was never given that position by the sitting council. He was given extra duties, but it was not voted on to give him the title "Interim Town Manager". That title was given to him by the newspaper.
> Even Ms. Meisenbach voted for this. I have looked at the minutes.
Then if you looked at the minutes you know it was never voted on to give him the title: Interim Town Manager.
>In my business, personnel matters are discussed in a closed meeting; therefore, it may have been discussed. The bottom line is it was voted on and passed.
No, the bottom line was that we voted to give him some extra duties until we hired a new town manager. We were told at the time that we would start that process before the end of 2006. Now it's two years later and we still can't get the process started. I NEVER voted for the town to have an interim town manager for two years. I have repeatedly brought up, and requested, that we start the process and it gets ignored. You're citing surface crap and not citing my repeated requests to get the town a full time, and educationally qualified, town manager.
>Now, what I do not understand is why after all this Ms. Meisenbach has chosen to go public.
Public with what? You must have missed the part where Sheriff Gaddy was the person that first expressed concern about Mr. Crews past and that Sheriff Gaddy was the person the instigated the investigation, not me. I merely spoke to WSET after the investigation was already in place, and I didn't even know there was an investigation until WSET called me.
>She voted for the two motions. Is this not hypocrisy to vote for and then denigrate?
I voted to give someone extra duties and compensation for those extra duties. I did not vote to make ANYONE an Interim Town Manager, nor did I vote to drag this issue out for two years. Do you not think it is hypocrisy and outright lying to tell a council that a process will be started to find a new town manager and have it drag out for two years? If you actually read the minutes and have issue with the vote then you need to be pointing the finger at the people that didn't follow through with their promise to get this town a new manager.
>What specifically has Mr. Crews done in the performance of his job that is directly related to his past? I know there was an issue about guns but that was investigated and resolved.
The issue was tabled, it is not resolved.
>There is probably not one responder to or reader of this blog who is not guilty of some wrong-doing; albeit, most have not been tried or convicted.
Like say, a person who posts anonymously because they like to cast stones from the bushes and not step up and show who they really are?
Try reading Job 31:33
If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:
It's called cowardice, which is another form of hypocrisy. Careful where you cast those stones.
> Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, “You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time.”
Actually it was John Lydgate who said that. Abraham Lincoln said:
You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
You can't fool people by hiding behind an anonymous post either.
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
http://thehorsediary.net/ (updated 7-28-2008)
I Know What You Did wrote:
>Sure, it was okay to have him fill in temporarily but this has turned into a full time job with NO effort being made on the councils part to find a real town manager
I HAVE made the effort to get a new town manager. I have been repeatedly out voted and shouted down whenever I bring it up. I am only one vote and despite the efforts of myself and a few other council members we can NOT get around the fact that there are people that will not vote to get a new town manager.
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
http://thehorsediary.net/ (updated 7-28-2008)
Post a Comment