Wayne Hannah declines to respond to Citizen questions

Tue, 07/01/2008 - 5:10pm
By: The Citizen

Hannah, Wayne mug4web

Wayne Hannah declined to respond to the questions posed by The Citizen.

Following is text of a letter submitted and signed by all four candidates in the sheriff's race: (scroll down further to read the questions authored by The Citizen)

“The candidates for the Office of Sheriff of Fayette County have discussed your invitation to participate in the online candidate forum being hosted by The Citizen. Unfortunately, we have decided unanimously not to participate in this forum, in this format.

“While we have chosen not to participate in this forum, please understand that we are not opposed to discussing our positions on issues or responding to citizens’ questions involving the sheriff’s election. Citizens with legitimate questions or concerns may attend any of the published candidate forums or contact us via email or telephone information, which is published on our individual websites.

“The blogs on the online edition of The Citizen contain many slanderous and baseless attacks on the character of each candidate for office. Many things are reported as fact when, in fact, they are little more than rumor or biased personal opinions transparently disguised as fact.

“We are more than willing to discuss issues related to our campaigns in an open forum where a sense of responsibility on the part of the questioners in important.

“In several threads from various posts online about each of the candidates for sheriff, there have been countless attacks that are completely outlandish, untruthful and defamatory to say the least. We believe that participating in a forum of this type will only invite more of these type comments and be unproductive.

“Besides, we are all busy campaigning for office and responding to baseless anonymous attacks would consume an enormous amount of time which we feel would be better spent on more constructive business.

Sincerely,
Barry Babb
Wayne Hannah
Thomas Mindar
David Simmons”

THE QUESTIONS:
Questions for ALL candidates for Fayette sheriff:

1. What is the extent of Fayette County’s “gang problem” currently and how do you specifically plan to address it?

2. Are the department's responses to crime in Fayette right now just about right or do they need improvement?

3. What are the department’s biggest weaknesses and how do you specifically plan to address them?

4. What are the department’s greatest strengths, and how will you build on them?

5. Three of the four candidates work for the sheriff’s department now. After the summer primary, should the unsuccessful deputies start looking for other jobs? What is your philosophy on dealing with in-department opponents after you win?

6. Describe in detail how you will do things differently than Sheriff Johnson has done them. Or do you intend NOT to do things differently?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Questions for specific candidates:

TO DAVID SIMMONS:

1. Some have questioned your credentials after your website did not mention your time working for the Georgia Building Authority. Tell us why that was omitted and provide details of your job title and day-to-day duties. Also provide details of why you resigned/quit/were downsized or fired from the position.

2. You have touted your FBI training as proof that you are better prepared. Please explain what aspects of that training you want to apply to the way the sheriff’s office enforces law in Fayette County.

3. Previously, you had a testimonial on your website from Ike McKinnon, who served as chief for several years while you were his chief of staff at the Detroit Police Department. After a blogger started questioning Mr. McKinnon’s motives in an apparently scandal-plagued police department, Mr. McKinnon’s testimonial was removed from your website. Could you explain why, in detail, you decided to remove the letter of recommendation from Mr. McKinnon, who called you a good friend?

4. You have alleged that Fayette County has had a dramatic spike in commercial and residential burglaries, but according to the sheriff’s office Fayette is on track to have just 13 more burglaries this calendar year compared to last calendar year. Assuming those numbers are accurate, how do you explain how your data is “off”? Or do you feel comfortable your data is correct and charge that the sheriff’s department’s data is inaccurate?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TO WAYNE HANNAH:

1. Will your wife continue to work for the sheriff’s office if you are elected? If so, how do you plan to address the inevitable problem of conflict of interest, whether real or perceived?

2. Have you — as charged by some — been campaigning in uniform and using your department vehicle for campaign work? If so, how do you justify the use of a taxpayer-funded vehicle? Did you get permission from the sheriff to do so?

3. Please explain your side of the scenario where you went to a man’s house to talk to him about political sign issues; (this issue was detailed in a letter to the editor several weeks ago); the letter writer accused you of attempting to intimidate him but a blogger said you actually know the letter writer and that he is a neighbor you are acquainted with.

4. Please explain your alleged recent “visit” to the sheriff’s department’s roll call in terms of who requested it and what it accomplished? Was the same opportunity extended to all candidates?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TO BARRY BABB:

1. You have been accused of being “too religious” by some observers, and one blogger said you have bible classes at the sheriff’s office. Is this true and why do you consider it to be appropriate?

2. Should Fayette County continue its practice of aggressively pursuing fleeing suspects at high speeds in vehicle chases, or do you think such actions endanger the motoring public?

3. Of all four candidates, you have lived in Fayette County the longest. Will you be able to set aside your friendships and personal relationships to be a fair and partial administrator? Please explain in detail how you plan to handle such issues.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TO THOMAS MINDAR:

1. A fellow deputy and a former one have called into question several interactions they’ve had with you that call into question your ability to control your temper. Characterize your temperament and your ability to stay cool when things are getting hot.

2. Compared to the other candidates you appear to have the least amount of experience in law enforcement. Others have said you lack any supervisory experience. How do you respond to those observations and how are you prepared to handle the gravity of administrative duties that are the sheriff’s responsibility?

3. On your website you indicate that you want to increase proactive and aggressive patrols. Do you plan to hire new deputies for these positions or do you plan to reassign current deputies to handle that workload? Also, please give us numbers in terms of how many patrol cars are out there now and how many you would like to see on the road.

login to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cal Beverly's picture
Submitted by Cal Beverly on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:40pm.

WARNING to all sheriff’s race posters

The sheriff of this site is warning you to check your personal attacks at the county line.

Political speech has wide latitude, but some of you posters are crossing way beyond the line of taste and fair comment.

Cut the purely personal attacks or get off the site.

Any further rantings about private persons will get you banned.

Cal Beverly
publisher
The Citizen
Fayetteville, Ga.


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 5:59pm.

From Wayne Hannah's website.

1. What is the extent of Fayette County’s “gang problem” currently and how do you specifically plan to address it?

All indications the Sheriff’s Office has indicates that organized gangs do not have a presence of any significance in Fayette County. Gangs are not overrunning Fayette County streets or our schools. The distinction between organized gangs and gang influences is important.We have detected some efforts by gangs from outside of Fayette County to increase their presence here. For example, we have seen drawings on notebooks in schools, tagging or spray painting in some parts of the county and of course the “bathroom fight” at one of the high schools. This is what is meant by gang influences and I am committed to stopping them dead in their tracks.For a number of years, I have been involved with the Fayette County Law Enforcement/Educator’s Committee. This group consists of members from the Board of Education, the District Attorneys Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and each municipal Police Department in Fayette County. We meet regularly have been monitoring increases in “gang influences” and collectively addressing these incidents as they arise. At this point I believe this level of activity is correct because it keeps our law enforcement efforts at appropriate levels and allows us to respond quickly and effectively to the changing environment.

2. Are the department’s responses to crime in Fayette right now just about right or do they need improvement?

I believe that any crime is too much, but we must face reality and understand that crime is going to occur and no one is going to completely prevent crime. The word “response” could be interpreted two ways. For me, one interpretation is – Is the Sheriff’s Office responding to the changes in our community and the influx of criminals from outside? Yes we are. We are constantly evaluating the types of crimes we are experiencing and focusing on how to better address ways of deterring them. It is important for everyone to understand that the criminals are the only ones who know when and where a crime is going to occur. It is the nature of the unpredictable criminal mind that limits and influences the control any law enforcement agency has over predicting and projecting criminal occurrences. Our best defense, and I would argue our best offensive strategy is, along with aggressive law enforcement, is to educate the citizens and business owners on ways to deter crime and not become victims of crimes. The Sheriff’s Office currently does this through our Neighborhood Watch program. I plan to expand this program into a Community Outreach Program to address drug and gang issues, crime prevention and education programs for citizens and business owners of the county. The second interpretation of “response” could well mean issues related to the Sheriff’s Office’s response time to calls for service. I see this information on a monthly basis from data collected by the Fayette County Communications Center. Our response time has increased over the years and we need to re-assess our patrol zones, call locations and/or deputy assignments in order to reduce our response times. As Sheriff, I would consider this as one of my highest priorities and immediately implement this type of assessment and indicated adjustments. It should have already been done by those on the Sheriff’s Office Command Staff charged with this responsibility currently.

3. What are the department’s biggest weaknesses and how do you specifically plan to address them?

The Sheriff’s Office is an agency with a single mission. That mission is to provide the highest level of safety, service, and security for the people of Fayette County. That mission is accomplished by different sections tasked with different responsibilities. Although ideally structured to accomplish that purpose, our greatest weaknesses are linked in one way or another to one issue. The greatest issue, or weakness if you will, is the lack of a unified effort to accomplish our single purpose. Each of the various divisions of the Sheriff’s Office operate in different manners, often while performing identical tasks, with little regard for consistency in effort. In short, Sheriff Johnson has not always been well served by all those he has entrusted to accomplish our shared mission. As Sheriff, I will have the advantage of having seen this differing approach to accomplishing our mission from that of a Division Director and then Sheriff. It is my nature to become intimately involved in operational and procedural issues. It is second nature to me to be inquisitive about things that I am told. I feel confident that this character trait will serve me well as I assess the information I am provided and make decisions on how to improve, adjust, or realign policies, procedures, and/or personnel to accomplish our goals and mission effectively, efficiently, and cohesively.

4. What are the department’s greatest strengths, and how will you build on them?

I believe the greatest strength of the Sheriff’s Office is its employees. The current structure of the Sheriff’s Office is five divisions with each division employing personnel who are experts in their particular field of work. I plan to build on this by providing employees opportunities to obtain more training in order to become even more proficient in their jobs. Training builds more confidence in their abilities to better perform their duties. It also has the added bonus of keeping us abreast of the most current and effective strategies to accomplish our goals and purpose.

5. Three of the four candidates work for the sheriff’s department now. After the summer primary, should the unsuccessful deputies start looking for other jobs? What is your philosophy on dealing with in-department opponents after you win?

I am not a person given to making casual statements and promises. I stand behind my statements which I wrote in a letter mailed to all Sheriff’s Office employees in December, 2007. One of my statements was, “I can’t imagine any situation where any employee who follows the department rules and regulations and adequately performs their duties should be concerned about their career at the Sheriff’s Office when I take office.” I further stated, “I certainly hope that you will consider supporting me, but I will understand if you choose to support someone else or no one at all. I will not be offended or hold a grudge. If you never learn anything else about me, please know that I do not hold grudges. I look forward to working with you for years to come!”

6. Describe in detail how you will do things differently than Sheriff Johnson has done them. Or do you intend NOT to do things differently?

In many ways I believe Sheriff Johnson and I share similar goals and objectives and our law enforcement philosophies are very similar. We both want to provide the best law enforcement services we can to the citizens and business owner’s in Fayette County. However, I’m sure our management styles are different in some ways. Since I will be conducting an overall assessment of the Sheriff’s Office’s currently policies, procedures, employee assignments, etc…, I will be working more one-on-one with our employees and I will be more involved in the day-to-day operation of the Sheriff’s Office.

TO WAYNE HANNAH:

1. Will your wife continue to work for the sheriff’s office if you are elected? If so, how do you plan to address the inevitable problem of conflict of interest, whether real or perceived?

Yes, she will. Lieutenant Hannah is a 21 year veteran of the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office who puts her heart in the program she is responsible for. She began the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program at the Sheriff’s Office 15 years ago. This program has been a positive influence on thousands of students and is consistently praised by students, parents, educators and the Superintendent of Schools. I can personally attest to the fact that she is approached on a regular basis in stores and restaurants all around, even out of state while we were on vacation one time, by D.A.R.E. graduates and parents who praise her and the D.A.R.E. program. I definitely plan to not only keep D.A.R.E., but enhance this program and continue to teach our children the harmful effects of drugs, gangs and violence. Lt. Hannah has a very strong work ethic, as I do, and there will be no “conflict of interest”. She will be required to follow departmental rules and procedures like every other employee. I have never intervened in any form with the conduct or treatment of her in the performance of her duties. Her current supervisor is one of the other candidates competing for the Office of Sheriff. He is on record as saying, and confirming I might add, that I have never involved myself into her working environment or conditions. If a disciplinary issue were to ever arise beyond the supervisory, Division Director or Appeal Board levels to the point requiring me to become involved, I would request an outside mediator to intervene on my behalf. I can not imagine it happening, but, if she were to become involved in a disciplinary issue, it would be extremely uncomfortable for me as one can certainly imagine, but her discipline would be no different than anyone else in the same or similar circumstances.

2. Have you — as charged by some — been campaigning in uniform and using your department vehicle for campaign work? If so, how do you justify the use of a taxpayer-funded vehicle? Did you get permission from the sheriff to do so?

No I have not. Sheriff Johnson required all three candidates who are employed with him to take a Leave of Absence when we officially qualified as a candidate for Sheriff. I have not been in Uniform since April 26, 2008. My assigned patrol vehicle, which I take pride in and care for, has been garaged and not moved since that day as well. It is important to note, that in my case, my leave of absence created a temporary surplus of one vehicle within my division. I will require the vehicle again once I return to duty from this leave. As there was no need for anyone in my division to have a vehicle to drive, I elected (with the Sheriff’s consent) to garage my assigned vehicle at home as usual. The vehicles turned in by other candidates of the Sheriff’s Office were placed into service with persons in their respective divisions who needed a vehicle. I believe that as in my case, their decision was appropriate given their circumstances.

3. Please explain your side of the scenario where you went to a man’s house to talk to him about political sign issues; (this issue was detailed in a letter to the editor several weeks ago); the letter
writer accused you of attempting to intimidate him but a blogger said you actually know the letter writer and that he is a neighbor you are acquainted with.

Mr. Sims, who lives approximately a mile from me, visited my home on numerous occasions while it was under construction over five years ago. He was always welcomed and I would say we became pretty well acquainted. He was always complimentary on our floor plan and the quality of the construction. He was always a very friendly person. I was shocked to read the letter in the newspapers with his allegation of me personally “stealing” campaign signs. Since I was familiar with the laws regarding the placement of campaign signs and had observed that the majority of Mr. Sims’ candidates’ signs were in violation of those laws, I wanted to assure Mr. Sims personally that I had not been removing any of those signs as he alleged. I knew the Fayette County Marshal’s policy of removing illegally placed signs and that the signs were available at the Fayette County Public Works Department for retrieval. I went to the Public Works Department and counted 17 of Mr. Sims’ candidates’ campaign signs, all of which had been removed from public rights-of ways by the Marshal’s Office. Recounting our previously friendly encounters, and wanting to avoid him thinking incorrectly that I was an unethical person, I then went to visit Mr. Sims at his home. I simply wanted to explain why and by whom those particular signs had been removed. I most assuredly was not on duty, and definitely not in uniform or in a county patrol vehicle. When I arrived, Mr. Sims was working out in his front yard and apparently working on his lawn. It was a casual environment and I approached and greeted him. I told Mr. Sims that I would like to discuss his letter about me in the newspaper. He did not object. Our conversation was fairly in-depth and I might add cordial given the nature of it. I explained the two state laws regulating the placement of political campaign signs as well as the Fayette County Sign Ordinance. We talked about the removal of the sign he had placed inappropriately and how it came to be removed (again, not by me). We talked about campaign sign placement in general. He even questioned me on how to determine the roadway “right of way.” Again, our conversation continued to be cordial. Mr. Sims and I “chatted” about the yard work he was doing and the fact that the wind had damaged a rose bush in front of his house. Mr. Sims saw his neighbor next door and told me he needed to go over and see him concerning a neighborhood meeting later that evening and I left. I want to be clear–At no time during the conversation did it appear that Mr. Sims was uncomfortable with me being there or the topic of our conversation. I can assure you, the intent of my visit was to be friendly and informative and not in any way be intimidating.

4. Please explain your alleged recent “visit” to the sheriff’s department’s roll call in terms of who requested it and what it accomplished? Was the same opportunity extended to all candidates?

Late afternoon on a Friday (I do not recall the exact date) I received a telephone call stating that some of the deputies assigned to Uniform Patrol Division wanted to know if I would make myself available at 5:30 a.m. (shift change) the next morning to answer questions that some of them had for me regarding my plans if I were to be elected Sheriff. I was told that these deputies had heard from Mr. Babb and Mr. Mindar prior to them beginning their Leave of Absence, as they were attending roll call and being around the Sheriff’s Office, about their plans and now they wanted to hear from me. Since I had chosen not to approach anyone while on-duty about campaign issues, I agreed to attend. Upon arriving at the Sheriff’s Office the next morning I observed Mr. Babb standing inside the roll call room. I concluded that he must have been invited as well. After getting his attention, I motioned for him to meet me in the hallway outside roll call. I greeted him and asked something to the effect of what the plan was. My initial impression was that he was there for the same reason as me. Based on this impression, I did not know if he had already discussed the format for this session, so I asked him how he wanted to go about it. I was surprised at his response to my question because my initial impression was wrong. Mr. Babb proceeded to inform me that he did not think I needed to be there and “put these guys in the middle of this”. I was at a loss for a moment until it was obvious, after he made several other statements, that he had not been invited and was only there to protest my presence. I explained that I had been invited and that I had no intention of “cornering” anyone in roll call and making them listen to a campaign speech. I further explained that it was my intention to simply announce to those who had requested me to be there, and who had questions for me, that I would be in the Training Room and anyone could come there to speak with me. It was not my intention, nor did I give a speech or distribute any type printed material. I was simply there by invitation to answer questions from the deputies which I thought they had the right to ask. Mr. Babb stated he was there because he received a telephone call that I was going to be there. I explained to him again that I was there by invitation and I intended to answer any questions that were asked of me. After getting permission from the Lieutenant in charge, I made a brief announcement that based on an invitation I would be available in the Training Room for anyone who had questions for me. A short time later, a group of approximately 8-10 deputies arrived and began asking me questions. It appeared that some questions were being asked to confirm or deny numerous rumors or even some untruths that were being told around the Sheriff’s Office about my plans if elected. This group asked very good and legitimate questions of me. After about an hour or so they thanked me and left. At that point I left as well. I received word late the following week (I’m not sure of the exact day) that the other two Uniform Patrol Division shifts wanted me to return the following Saturday morning at shift change and answer some questions they had. I honored their request and followed the same format as described above. There were approximately the same number in attendance at the second meeting, but the meeting lasted a shorter period of time. I did not make the request nor pick the day or time for the meetings. I am not aware if these groups invited any of the other candidates or not. As I stated above, they made the invitation, not me.


slider's picture
Submitted by slider on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 6:19pm.

Did the other candidates know in advance that Wayne was stepping forward for the free publicity and answer these questions?
The way I saw it there was a gentlemens agreement NOT to participate.
Is one of the candidates not a gentlemen after all?
Did he not honor his word?


Submitted by grits on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 7:01pm.

You have to have all gentlemen for there to be a "Gentlemen's Agreement." Contrary to what Givemeabreak4507 will tell you and post here, Hannah did agree with the other canidates not to participate in this forum. Of course, afterward, Hannah couldn't take the heat from the citizens criticizing him for not answering, so he didn't honor this agreement. He did answer them on his web site and not on the Citizen web site....I guess that makes it okay. Hannah is out for Hannah, no matter the cost. He "inherited" this trait from Randall...going back on your word and being two-faced is what they know and what they do. And it won't change if he is elected.

BTW: Givemeabreak4507 has been absent lately, I guess he had to return to see his handiwork Eye-wink!

Submitted by GiveMeABreak4507 on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 10:20pm.

Well Grits,

Wayne is a gentleman and he kept his word. In case you need to refresh your memory, the letter they all posted is still available and he did keep his word as did the others. They didn't post their answers here on the Citizen's Web Site.

I am an admitted Wayne Hannah supporter so it is likely that I could not post anything here to change your mind. There are however those who are not involved in this from a candidate's perspective (including supporters) who know what each candidates intentions are and I am hopeful that they might make that known.

That way, hopefully, those who are not so biased (myself included) won't have as much ability to incorrectly influence those who genuinely or peripherally know, or don't know at all, each of the candidates.

You know what the hardest part is, the Sheriff is a good man who has always had Fayette County’s best interests at heart, and now, when he does what he thinks is right, because he disagrees with you; your only response is to attack him.

I looked at every web site again tonight, and except for Simmons, all of the others raved about Sheriff Johnson, including your candidate. So, is your candidate right about Sheriff Johnson, or are you?

It sounds like sour grapes to me from you, but maybe I just did not understand your post.

Oh, yes, I'm done. Maybe we can chat about this next wednesday?

Good night, and may be best candidate be elected to try and fill Sheriff Johnson's shoes.

Submitted by wannabeme2 on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 10:58pm.

Why do you feel it is your duty to defend Wayne Hannah? Maybe you ARE Wayne?
If so, please admit to your disregard to your oath of office, your many violations of policy and lack of honesty. YOU ARE ANYTHING BUT A GENTLEMAN!
Are these words falling on deaf ears, or doesn't anyone care?

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 7:25pm.

What the Sheriff candidates letter said:
"The candidates for the office of sheriff of Fayette County have discussed your invitation to participate in the online candidate forum being hosted by The Citizen. Unfortunately, we have decided unanimously not to participate in this forum, in this format.

As per grits: "Of course, afterward, Hannah couldn't take the heat from the citizens criticizing him for not answering, so he didn't honor this agreement. He did answer them on his web site and not on the Citizen web site."

grits, are you deef? (spelled that way so grits could understand) The letter read, "Unfortunately, we have decided unanimously not to participate in this forum, in this format."

The letter didn't mention using the candidates’ own web sites. You just ASSumed they intended to not answer at all.

grits, do you know what happens when you ASSume something?


Submitted by ujustgotburned on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 10:56pm.

The only thing that Grits does is ASSume. All you have to do is read his/her blogs to figure that one out. I know exactly what happens when you ASSume something. Grits, you can show support for your candidate without behaving like such a DONKEY!

BTW...Have you noticed that Babb supporters, such as yourself, are the only ones out here continuously slandering another candidate? It sure would be funny if Hannah wins and you have to work for him. What will you do then? I know...turn on the fake smile and pretend as if you never said the things that you said. I guess that will have to be between you and God.

Submitted by GiveMeABreak4507 on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 6:40pm.

They agreed not to participate in the Citizen's Forum on line. Hannah did not. I see sniffles took these answers off of his web site. Hannah also put a letter in this edition of the paper that explains his position. The other candidates have indictaed they are going to answer their questions on other commerical sites than the Citizen.

Submitted by wannabeme2 on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 11:08pm.

1)How do you intend to lead by example, when your personal life has been a lie?

2) What do you think about men that deny their own newborn baby and refuse to support the child?

3) Do you think it is acceptable to break policies on dating subordinates? And what should the punishment be?

These questions should give the voters, especially the single mothers raising children with no help from the deadbeat fathers, some insight to the true you. And remember to answer honestly...

Submitted by ujustgotburned on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 11:34pm.

that you are a woman scorned? Anyone with half of a brain is aware that if a man/woman is ordered to pay child support, and doesn't fulfill that obligation, they most likely will serve some time in jail. Now...how could Hannah not pay court ordered child support and work as a law enforcement officer for so many years? I know that the citizens of Fayette County will see right through you, Grits, and the rest of Babb's blogging supporters. Your comment appears to be an attempt to slander Hannah due to a personal vendetta of some sort. God Bless You!

Submitted by sageadvice on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:43am.

Now the question should not be whether someone was ordered to pay child support or not, but whether there is a child needing child support, now or then!

Things were different several years ago about such things. Actually if everyone who had children around not by a wife were shunned, then we would have a hard time finding politicians!

Also, some things do happen by ignorance by youth! They are more ignorant and naive all of the time, it seems. However anyone over 21 can't continue to be excused for stupidness and has to make thing right sometime.

I hope this is all rumor and lies and did not want o keep it going, but this will not die until someone is determined a liar.

Best to stay out of some jobs if you have a problem people don't like!

Submitted by wannabeme2 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 12:38am.

support because there were no agencies back then. He obviously didn't marry her, and because he denied the baby, it was his word against hers. There were no paternity tests- no DNA, yet...
"It was HIS word" against hers...
HIS WORD is no good!
And you mention "slander"? It's not slander when it is true and facts behind the statements. The only slander were the names Wayne called her to embarrass her-at work! Oh yeah, did I mention she worked for him. She was a subordinate.
It is a shame that even after all this time, he is still trying to forget something he should have made right MANY years ago. Wayne Hannah should not even be running for Sheriff. He does not have the moral and ethical background to hold the office of Sheriff.
I do not have a political agenda here. I don't care who anyone votes for as long as it is NOT Wayne Hannah!

Road Runner's picture
Submitted by Road Runner on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 9:41am.

Back then? How long ago did this take place wannabeme2? What the heck?!?!? Something else swept under the rug? Well Mr. Hannah, explain this one.


ptctaxpayer's picture
Submitted by ptctaxpayer on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 8:55am.

This is out of line folks even for Dice Man. This is way worse than the Monica Limerick Contest that y'all jumped me for.


Submitted by wannabeme2 on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 11:55pm.

You should know that!
If a man is only as good as his word, and his word is no good... let Wayne Hannah stand as a man and answer...
Ask him yourself...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.