I think your "meat ax" approach to this problem is extreme and unnecessary. It is also grossly unfair to put either Johnson or Dunn in the same category with Ms. McKinney. There is no comparison to the good that both of these gentelman have done and the harm that McKinney has caused.

The irony here is that the trouble you refer to can be stopped without even resorting to the ballot box. If you have followed the story here and elsewhere, you would see that the solution is so simple it is almost unbelievable. If the sheriff complies with county procurement policy and procedure (as the judge is now requiring) for both acquisition and disposal of property 90% of this stuff goes away instantly. No more controversy, no more legal fees, it ends. How simple is that? Dunn gets quiet, and Randall's legacy remains intact. The only issue remaining is the Marshal's situation which is currently under appeal,but should be settled soon.

Despite what some believe, I am not anti-Johnson. I am pro doing things according to the rules. That means everybody, all the time.
No special favors, no special interest groups, no bending of the rules because it is politically expedient. That is what Greg Dunn and this commission is known for today. He should stay there and finish what he has started.

Randall needs to stop his surrogates from ruining his reputation as an outstanding law enforcement officer for three decades. He does that we can all chill out.

I agree with you in part at least. The rules should be followed and Randall does need to stop what's going on with at least one of his surrogates, Bruce Jordan! Most of these problems would simply not exist if Jordan was reeled in. Randall is a great asset to our community and will leave behind a great legacy if he takes care of this problem.

Time to ground Air Jordan One.

Great thougts. Yes, greater people indeed. Let's talk to Steve Brown about running against one of them. Greg? Randall? Which one?

Hamster,

Either you have changed your tune, or your sarcasm is too subtle for this forum. Now you want to get rid of Randall? I am really surprised. Dunn already has a personal injury attorney, Ken Nugent, I mean Eric Maxwell, running against him. Is it just me or is there just a touch of irony that at personal injury lawyer is running on a platform of reducing legal fees by adding in house counsel? It just illustrates how far Mr. "I'll Sue" will go to make himself look like something he is not. Shades of Bill Clinton.

Eric Maxwell's specialty at all if not to attempt to discredit his campaign?

And, are you telling us that you can't separate private enterprize and earning money as a trial lawyer from wasting taxpayer money on unnecessary lawsuits. Issues that could and should have been settled with debate and cooperation.

As a business man myself, I would expect Maxwell to promote his practice any way he wants. As a citizen, I would expect Maxwell, when elected, to conserve the peoples assets by not wasting.

I do not have to discredit Maxwell's campaign. He is doing a good job of that all by himself. First he comes down solidly on the sheriff's side of that controversy, which is being proven, in the courts to be wrong. Secondly, at the Republican Party breakfast earlier this month, he officially announced his candidacy for the post held by Greg Dunn. He chose that forum to chastise three of the four sitting commissioners for not attending Robert Horgan's swearing in, claiming he was embarrassed for the county. He gave us a glimpse at several things in that statement. 1) He did not take the time to find out that the swearing in ceremony is usually a private affair to which only friends and family are invited. 2) He did not know that there was less then 24 hours notice to anyone about the swearing in, if they wanted to attend 3)Greg Dunn was out of town. (Horgan knew because Dunn called him). When told (by Dunn) Maxwell responded, "Oh I did not know that". No he did not, because he was more interested in taking a shot at the commissioners than learning the truth. 4) Linda Wells owns her own business and could not alter her schedule with only 24 hours notice. 5) Peter Pfiefer is an executive with a local company and he was simply not available.

What this shows me is that Mr.Maxwell is a "shoot (off his mouth)first and ask questions later" kind of guy. He is only interested in framing events to his advantage, good for a politician, not so good for a public servant. He comes across as someone whose decision making is more emotional than factual and this county cannot afford that type of personality in any elected position.

Nevertheless, they are both clowns and I could easily live with either or both being gone. But that leaves the real question - who would you replace them with? Yea, I know a preposition at the end of the sentence is bad, but so what? Just answer the question. Who is better and who will run? And why?

replacing Dunn on the Fayette County Board of Commissioners. You're really stretching to try and discredit a fine citizen of Fayette County, who has lived here some 38 years, in favor of a genuine control freak who will do anything to nourish his own aging ego.

If I recall correctly, I was told that Linda Wells was in fact at one time a law student herself, so the notion that you can use a vanity plate, "I'll Sue" to impugn the abilities of Eric Maxwell to represent the best interests of this county is asinine.

Dunn's inability to work with other elected officials, city councils, judges and constitutional officers has made him vulnerable and will bring him down.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

I said that Eric Maxwell is showing his mind set and approach to his chosen profession in his vanity plate. He did, in fact, sue the county over the sign ordinance. The ordinance said that you could have only one sign in your yard and he sued to allow for more than one. The ordinance was changed it before the suit came to court. However, FYI, Maxwell sued so he could put up more than one sign..how many did he put up? One and only one. So he sued for the heck of it. This from someone who says that the county spends too much on legal fees and then he does what he can to make sure the county has to spend more. A disingenuious approach at best, hypocritcal at its worst.
You say that I impugn Eric abilities. Not sure where you see that, but I do think that there is no evidence that Maxwell will represent any interests other than his friends the developers, and special interests, that have been part of the good old boy network in this county for the last 38 years and before. We have no need in this county for more of the good old boy nonsense. You have consistently claimed that Dunn is a control freak with little evidence to support your contention other than the situation with the sheriff. The sheriff claims Dunn is trying control his department. Dunn wants the sheriff to comply with the rules. The court has agreed (at least temporarily) so what you call controlling is merely trying to get somebody to play by the rules.

And what other elected officials, judges et al. do you refer to here?
George Wingo? The commission finally solved his problem without his help. The PTC "give them sewer and they will build "city council? The "annex at all cost" Fayetteville City council? All the county commissioners have done is to express their disagreement with the annexation and increased densification of development in this county. That is all, under the law, that they can do. You should be glad that some group is looking out for the land use plan. I believe that most residents are glad that they fight so hard to preserve what we have here. If you took the time to go to a commission meeting and watch them work, instead of letting others form your opinions for you, you might change your mind. Maybe you would be happy with a return of the good old boy network regaining control? Add Maxwell to Horgan and that is precisely what you will get.

And by the way, what in the world does Linda Wells once having attended law school have to do with anything? Talking about asinine statements. Your agenda is clear. You would like to see Dunn gone.
You are entitled to your opinion, even when you are wrong.

you think will do a better job than Sheriff Johnson? Why haven't they run for office? Do you have them lined up to run next time around? And why does Fayette County have the lowest crime rate in the entire state?

If I understand the situation, the Sheriff's job is to keep the county safe and Dunn's job is provide the budget and stay the hell out of the way!

To Robert M: Why Sheriff's Candidates are Quiet
Because Bruce would fire them or reassign them to the Airport. That is reality. If you know anything about local law enforcement, you know that to be true.

Most other candidates for office have no fear of losing their job. In fact, Trial Lawyer Maxwell will get free publicity like Ken Nugent. Maxwell gets free advertising if he runs. Who can run for Sheriff ? It has to be someone in law enforcement that lives in Fayette County. But if you are a Deputy under Randall and they found out you wanted to run when Randall retires, they would make your life difficult. Jordan can't win. Comments to Pulliam like "You, my friend, have just earned a night in jail", show that he thinks he can do the punishment and not the courts. He can't win. So what Randall will do is run one last time, then quit and get Bruce appointed Sheriff. Their strategy is that it will be easier for Bruce to win after being "Sheriff" for 3 1/2 years on the appointment.

But the reason why you don't hear any names popping up is because of job insecurity.

This

The reason why Bruce Jordan was not there was because Randall knows that he can not keep his mouth shut and will write a check that Randall can not cash. People are afraid of "bullying politics" that goes on in the sheriff's office and both of them need to go and NOW.

Pandora,

Thanks for bring that comment into this discussion. I had read the same thing, but I had been reluctant to mention it, since I am already considered anti - Randall by some on this site.

I am no fan of the AJC. Often times it is a typical liberal media fish wrapper. However, Kevin Duffy should be applauded for doing what neither local paper seems to be willing to do. Say that the emperor has not clothes....Randall Johnson and his surrogates are wrong in this controversy with the County, and this rule by intimidation and harassment will not work here.
I do not agree with the editorial in the same paper that lumped Johnson in the same company has Sidney Dorsey and Victor Hill. He is much much better than either of those two political hacks that pass as sheriff. That being said, Johnson is demonstrating some of that old style sterotypical red neck sheriff behavior with these kinds of comments and actions. It may have worked 30 years ago, but this is a new century and those tactics do not work here anymore.
The commission should be applauded for finally reeling him regardless of the political fallout from those actions. That takes courage.

Natural,

Thank you for the civil debate on this matter. We will probably have to agree to disagree. Please don't get me wrong on this issue, I think that the Sheriff (and those whom he has appointed to speak for him) could have handled things better. That having been said, however; it certainly seems to me that things did not reach this crescendo until Mr. Dunn became chairman. There is a fishy smell to that!

As for the shrinking responsibility, that really never goes down even though some of the cities are annexing in more and more land. Most of the land that is being annexed was not populated, but now is. In addition, the land in the unincorporated county is also becoming more and more populated (ughhh). This means that even though the Sheriff's Department may have fewer square miles to cover, they still have a growing population. This in and of itself demands that more deputies be assigned to patrol. I am sure that you understand that. You seem like a very intelligent person.

I know as well as you do that no one has mentioned "PUBLICALLY" that they would like to form a Police Department. It is just a little absurd for you to say that you will back down on your position if I can show any public comments. While it has not been mentioned publicly, there still is an agenda for that. I have seen it before. If your eyes are not open to that, then you are studying this through blinders and you have tunnel vision. You must at least admit that.

I suppose that I must disclose that having worked for both a county Sheriff's Department (yes Fayette) and a county Police Department, I can see the politics of this and the direction this is headed.

I think that this is getting a little out of hand, and the ones who suffer the most are the taxpayers who are forced to pay for attorney's fees. The group that really benefits are the attorneys while we are left holding the bag. At least you can agree with that?

You seem very educated on these matters, and I would love an opportunity to debate these issues further with you. It is still my opinion that the county commission is overstepping their boundaries just a little, but it does seem that both could stand to "take a chill pill" and resolve this matter and let's move on. Unfortunately, it will probably take the election cycle of 2006 and maybe 2008 for the citizens of Fayette County to voice their opinion on this matter. I don't even know if anyone has announced they will oppose Mr. Dunn. If they have, I would like to know who they are, and their stand on these issues.

It really boils down to this, the Sheriff is most likely serving his last term, and that is too bad for all of us. The election in 2008 (if Sheriff Johnson does not run) will be a fiasco in the primary season. It should prove to be interesting, but maybe Greg Dunn will be looking at it from the sidelines. Just my opinion.

If I lived in his district maybe I would run. Maybe I will run against Peter Pfeifer, who knows?

Have a great day.

I agree that these things seem to have escalated since Greg Dunn was elected the second time. Dunn had been chairman for two years by then, if memory serves. The timing of the escalation, as I noted earlier, has it's roots in a budget dispute. Unaccustom to the affrontry of being denied his budget requests, Randall (or more likely Jordan) retaliated, through a series of passive aggressive and then overt efforts to thwart the commission. I would welcome any example of where the commission has tried to extend it's authority beyond the role it serves under the law. Try as I might, I cannot find an area where they have "over stepped their bounds". By contrast the courts have already held that the sheriff has done so. That is the crux of this problem is it not?

Your point about the need for more deputies to cover a smaller patrol area is well taken. However, please note that, the evidence that I can find, additional patrol deputies have never been refused by the commission. The dispute about the drug enforcement staff additions really got the ball rolling. It was then that Bruce Jordan went to the newspapers and claimed that the commission did not care about the drug war and he would blame the commission for any deaths of innocent people caused by his lack of staff. Now that is some serious escalation.

I appreciate your candor in revealing your previous affiliations. I am serious though, I really have never heard anything about a police department in this county, publically, or privately. I am not saying that it has not happened. I have not heard it, so I cannot comment.
I am sure you see some similarities in your experience to what is going on here, but I have not.

We agree about the taxpayers being the victims here. I would love to see this stuff disappear along with it's $100k (not $500k) price tag.
It can happen easily enough. Everybody puts their ego in the background, withdraw the suits, tear down the helicopter hut, admit arrestees into the jail regardless of who arrested them and comply with county rules. It ends, the lawyers are out of the mix and good government prevails.

Mr. Dunn does have opposition. A personal injury lawyer by the name of Eric Maxwell. He has already come down solidly on the side of the sheriff, but has made the ridiculous assertion that the suits between the sheriff and the commission are costing the taxpayers $500k. It is less than 20% of that. But then he is a competitor in the market place of the current firm used by the county and would love to see them disappear. He claims that he would replace them with in house counsel, but if you have experience in other counties you know how expensive that can be, rather than cheaper.

Randall Johnson has served the county for many years, but since he has retired in place for the last several years and left things to Bruce Jordan, it has deteriorated and tarnished his legacy. That is too bad.

When Greg Dunn wins this race and completes this term he will likely retire. Who knows maybe we will be running in the same race some day.

Dalmation,

You ask a fair question here. Why are things different than in previous county commissioners' tenures. What has changed or rather who or what changed first, that started all this nonsense. The sheriff goes before the board of commissioners for budget money. Same as always. Does not get all he wants. Not same as always. Suddenly, he decides that the Marshal's are not properly constituted law enforcement officers and he will not take a DUI arrestee into "his jail". That will show those short sighted commissioners who is in charge! The fact that it is your jail, you as a taxpayer is not relevant is it? So to get the sheriff to take properly arrested perpetrators into YOUR jail, the county has to sue the sheriff and pay his legal expenses. With me so far? Then he (or his surrogates) promulgates an untruth that the county is going to start a police force, and he has to start protecting his territory by withholding information regarding drug expenditures to the point where they cannot be certified as is required by law. Then the sheriff buys a helicopter, (with federal drug money which is his right), but then asks the county to foot the bill for fuel and insurance. The county says no to the fuel, because it is not in the county budget (or the sheriff's) but yes to the insurance because they are responsible for the safety of the citizens and they must be protected.

So the sheriff bought his helicopter and then built a shed to put it in. He put it on county property without complying with any of the same rules and regulations governing construction in the county. You try that and he will put you in jail for it. Ok for him, but not for you. The county tells him, the law says you cannot do this,take it down or we will have to .....he sues because the bad ole county commission will not let him do as he pleases. I could go on, but what is the point. It all culminates in the sheriff sending 14 police cars to apprehend three county employees(who are doing their job according to the rules) to retrieve cars that he traded in that he did NOT OWN. So what if he had done this in the past. It was wrong before, and still wrong now.

Ask yourself, if this is good stewardship. Randall traded in a car with 36,000 miles on it simply because he wanted a new car. Ok, after thirty years...he can do that. He traded in three cars, two of which had less than 40,000 miles on them,(the other had about 100k) and got only $10.0k in trade. Would you do that? Ask yourself why Bruce got a "used car" right after Randall got his new car, and Bruce's used car had 27 miles on it. Not 270 or 2700...27! How many "used cars" have you bought with 27 miles on them. Does that not feel weird to you? The change has been in attitude, arrogance and flaunting of the rules. Who is doing that? The commission or the sheriff?

So consider what has changed. The trees, the forest or what?

Now, you have brought up some interesting points. The Sheriff may have been protecting his turf a little too vociferously when he went after the Marshal's Office. I will grant you that. However, if you look around at some of our neighbors, you will find that a Police Department was started not to do a better job protecting the citizens, but to give the elected commissioners more control. There is no other way to read what happened in Henry County, and if we are not careful, the same thing is going to happen here. We do not need a Police Dept., and if you don't think that that is where it is headed with all of this rhetoric, then you have your head buried in the sand.

The Sheriff is a Constitutional Officer in Georgia. He requests a budget and it is granted by the county commissioners. After that he can spend that money any way he sees fit without having to ask for a modification of the budget. By contrast, if we had a Police Department, that agency head would need to ask permission to buy an extra box of pencils if the budget for office supplies had been exhausted. That brings us to the real reason for the tussle between the Commissioners and the Sheriff. The not so covert agenda is to have a Police Department here in Fayette County, and Sheriff Johnson knows it. It is obvious to mony others as well. Sheriff Johnson is doing the right thing in fighting this. WE DO NOT NEED A POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I do not know of any information that has been witheld from the Commissioners about how much money has been seized. It appears to me that the Commissioners want to control what it is spent on, and they will do that by being passive aggressive and not signing the required forms. The next thing to watch for is for the Commmission to know the amount of seized money and start to whittle away the budget so that the Sheriff must spend drug money for operating expenses instead of buying items and tools that will help protect us that would ordinarily not be available to us due to budgetary constraints.

If you guys don't believe we have a Meth problem in this county, you have your head still stuck in the sand. We need more resources to combat this and other drug use issues here. We can't do that while the county Commission continues to act sophmoric about their responsibilities.

Both sides need to resolve this and resolve it now, but it should begin with the Commission.

We all will be patient and wait for November.

Ask yourself why Bruce got a "used car" right after Randall got his new car, and Bruce's used car had 27 miles on it. Not 270 or 2700...27! How many "used cars" have you bought with 27 miles on them. Does that not feel weird to you?

What difference does it make that his county car had 27 miles on it?

I suspect you're trying to make people think he personally profited from some arrangement with the car lot. You'd like people to think you're referring to Bruce Jordan buying a personal car, right?

You really are completely without shame.

FR,

Again, I raise a series of questions. Again you answer a question with a question. No answers, just a different question.
I never implied anything about this being Bruce's personal car. Even the most casual reader would not draw that conclusion. I am not implying that Bruce profited personally by this. Not at all, not now, not ever. But you ignored the other components of this scenario, the trade-ins of cars they do not own and therefore cannot dispose of legally, the perception of a low trade in value for the three vehicles etc. I am sure that Bruce did not personally profit from this transaction. It does sound like a pretty sweet deal for the dealer. Dealer gets cars that appear to be worth more than the trade in value given and Bruce gets a "used car" that bears a striking resemblance to a new car if you an I bought it. The question is, did the county get the "biggest bang for the buck" in these transactions? That we will never know, because they did not follow the proper procedure for disposal of county property. Do you get a new car every 36,000 miles? Do you have access to opportunities to have a car (no matter how it is paid for) that is considered used with 27 miles on it? It just does not feel right to me. Simple as that. I am not willing to give anyone a pass on following the rules because they have been doing a great job for 30 years. The world does not work that way.

Hi TN, I'm back... I have been "under the weather" for a while and haven't been online for almost 3 weeks...I'm flattered that you give me credit for the Rhino's comments though!

I'm not sure who that is, but most likely knows B.J. VERY well.

It's nice to see you're keeping up "the fight"... a lot has happened in the last few weeks. I'm not going to take this stuff too seriously anymore... it's bad for my health. Someday, possibly after Maxwell takes office, we'll sit down for a cup of coffee and have a good laugh!

FR

Sorry you have not been well. You are right when you say this is not worth your health. You need to take care of yourself so you can vote and make yourself heard in July. I would be willing to have the cup of coffee no matter who wins. Take it easy.

So that's what the FR stood for. I was reading it as "fat rhino" until I saw her refer to someone else the same way.

I'm not going to take this stuff too seriously anymore...

I will be leaving the board as well, as it's become more like an aol chat room full of children - with tn popping up in various disguises to answer her own questions and post charges even more ridiculous than the ones before. [[[[[[[EDITED}}}}}}

Certainly I will not be answering the same ludicrous charges over and over again as she seems to hope. They've been answered credibly in the past and to say the same thing over and over just makes one look as unstable as the person who initiates. I had hoped to figure out what she's babbling about on the 27 miles, but she doesn't seem to know.

I will trust that this nonsense is as transparent to the voters as it appears to me. We'll see in July.

And remember to vote in July, people! If you wait until November, it'll be too late. The winner of the Republican primary will surely be elected in November.

There are some strong feelings in the north Fayette Democratic community about the last election where Horgan won because he was white - and yes many actually believe this.

Their strategy has 2 important steps. The first would be to get Eric Maxwell to beat Dunn in July. The second would be to run against Maxwell in November and since he's not an incumbent and has taken the wrong side in the Dunn-Johnson feud, he might be beatable.

One thing is certain, Fayette County can do an election with the lowest attendance anywhere, so a few votes do make a difference.
meow

I would actually prefer that you delete my entire post (as you deleted most of the posts it refers to) rather than make that edit which gives the impression I'm the one being inappropriate.

This is one loathsome, little echo chamber you have here - with a fairly naked agenda. I don't think you do the community any favor by helping to disguise what this group is and what they're willing to do.

A case of mistaken identity. Fayette Resident and I have been having a some times loud debate on the issues. I mistook your postings for his being posted under another name. That happens here sometimes.

First things first. I have never posted anything to this site under another name. If you read statements from others on here that concur with my opinion, you can be assured that it is someone else. There are many people in this county that share my opinion on this situation. I just happen to be a bit vocal. [[[[[[[EDITED]]]]]] I only comment about those things that I have verifiable information on...nothing else. I am also not interested in the private life of anyone in any event.

I am interested in which of the issues I have raised you consider to be ludicrous and which of them have been answered credibly. I am also unclear as to which of this "nonesense" should be transparent to the voters. We certainly do agree that voting in July is critically important and I am sure that you and I will vote then, as we did on March 21.

It is indeed a tiresome and useless debate between 2 control freaks - neither of whom (at least lately) have any idea of what a public servant is. The 2 are elected officials who are supposed to be loooking our for the citizens of Fayette County instead of acting like third-graders fighting over toy cars.

Is this the first time ever that a county has spent drug forfiture money? I think not. How about we find out what other counties do, how to account for the money and any purchases and who is in charge, the sheriff, the commissioners or someone else. And while we are at it - let's see if we can handle this without going to court and spending all the taxpayers money on all that goes with that. And keeping out of the newspaper and solving these problems like grownups would be a nice goal as well.

We do have an election this fall where we can change at least one of these children.

RWM,

You and I agree that this is very tiring. But I am not sure that we agree about the public servant comment. Randall Johnson has had his way in this county for thirty years. He is trying to keep things his way in a county that is hugely different than it was when he first came on the scene. Dunn is merely trying to get the sheriff to comply with the law as it has been on the books for years. The sheriff is of the mind that, because he has been around for 30 years, he can do as he pleases. Dunn is acting in the interest of the public by demanding accountablity. The sheriff is acting in his own self interest by refusing to comply with the law. That is what the judge said yesterday.
I cannot say with certainty that this is the only county with this problem, but I know that the sheriff in Clayton county was told the same thing recently about his spending and procurement processes. Johnson was granted an exception (by a friend at the federal level) to the requirement that the forfeiture monies go through the county and that the county commission chairman sign off on his drug forfeiture expenditures. That has happened only in the last year or so. Last I heard he was the ONLY sheriff in the state granted such an exception. Why? Because the federal person in charge decided that it was a local matter to be solved and granted an exception.

The county commission has been trying to resolve this issue out of court for two years. The sheriff will not cooperate, and continued to violate the law and resort to harassment and intimidation to get his way. The county had no choice but to go back to court. All other avenues had been exhausted.

Go back at look at the newspaper comments. The sheriff (and his surrogates) are always the first to go to the paper and complain.
The county commission is always in the response mode, not the instigation mode until there is no alternative. Sounds like good public service on the commission's part to me and poor mangement by the sheriff of his responsibility and his resources.

One doesn't need to read these boards long to learn that facts are very fluid things for you, tn. You lay out the "facts" as you want them to be, then someone comes along behind you to tell the real story.

I can give you a little background on this one. Bruce Jordan inititated Fayette County's involvement in the drug money program about 2 decades ago (if memory serves) because that's the kind of proactive guy he is. He was very proud to have found a program that helped equip the Sheriff's Dept. without costing the taxpayers a dime.

Then a few years ago Greg Dunn came along and found there was money in his kingdom that wasn't being controlled by him and he made a grab for it. Because that's the kind of guy he is. And if you read the above article closely, you will note that Greg Dunn refused to sign off on these monies believing that would stop them from coming in altogether. Because, again, that's the kind of guy he is. If he can't have it - no one will. Just wait until he succeeds and we taxpayers are paying to equip a Sheriff's Department to deal with a growing population. Then Greg Dunn will be the only one who's happy as we pay higher taxes and he runs his little fiefdom passing out money to those who please him and suing those who don't.

Hammer, FR, Rhino, which ever name you choose to use the person is the same so I will answer as such. Leave it to you to take a case from a bunch of Conneticut dummies and the Supreme Court and make this leap of logic of comparing that situation with what is going on with the sheriff. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you will do anything to deflect from the issue at hand. I asked you where I was not accurate with the facts. You talk about eminent domain. The issue is a constitutional officer following the same rules and regulations as anyone else in this county. Not D.C., not CT....here.

I did not say that the past thirty years of Randall's career did not matter. I said they were not relevant to the issue at hand. Can you discern the difference? We are dealing with issues today, not thirty years ago. What worked thirty years ago, does not necessarily work today. It is a different world with different criteria for the way things should be done. Remember we are not talking about law enforcement and public safety here. We are talking about bad management, intimidation of people simply doing their jobs, abuse of power and shoddy bookkeeping. You can keep people safe and still have problems.

As to your comments about the "real" judge. If you took the time to understand this process at all you would know that this judge is the only judge that will hear this and the other related cases. The only reason that most of it has not been settled is because the sheriff keeps appealing the decisions when he loses a ruling. This is ruling is temporary, but I am not naive enough to think it could not change.
Anything is possible, but without evidence to the contrary I cannot see how this ruling will change, but stranger things have happened.
You put the word facts in quotation marks implying that what I said is not true. It is true and you know it. If it were not you would tell me where the facts are in error. Since you can't you bring up some totally unrelated subject and ignore the truth.

FR, I mean Rhino

Praytell where have I been "fluid" with the facts? Where do you see that?
The genesis of the drug program involvement is not relevant to this discussion. We are not talking about what was done two decades ago, but rather what is happening now. Your statement tries to lead others to believe that Dunn et al are trying to spend drug money.
You and I both know that this is neither the case, nor is it possible.
You throw this stuff out to cloud the current issue. The issue is this....the LAW requires that the county commission chairman sign off on the drug expenditure monies indicating that the expenditures are both accurate and valid under the program. Because the Sheriff has refused to go through the county procurement process, there is no way to tell if the expenditures comply with the program or not. The sheriff does not submit the information necessary to allow Dunn,to sign the document, as required by law. Dunn is following the LAW. It seems his refusal to sign off on the drug forfeiture monies was the last resort in an effort to get the sheriff (or Bruce Jordan)to comply with the law without resorting to expensive, time consuming litigation. I would say that doing this is downright courageous of him.

The court held that the sheriff is wrong. Dead wrong and he and Bruce Jordan know it. If they just comply with the law all of this goes away. If the sheriff complies with the law, there is no additional expense, no additional taxes, just good old fashion orderly business in the county.

Lastly, what are you talking about that Dunn passes out money to those he likes? I love these baseless, mindless allegations. And remember who is suing whom for what? Or would you prefer to ignore that part because it does not support you position?

"Your statement tries to lead others to believe that Dunn et al are trying to spend drug money.
You and I both know that this is neither the case, nor is it possible."

TN....you and I both know that is EXACTLY what Dunn wants. Ever heard of a slippery slope? That's exactly what we are headed down if Dunn gets his fingers on the drug money.

First its just, "we want to make sure the sheriff is following the proper purchasing procedures " , then its " sorry Sheriff you can't have that bullet proof vest you need because you didn't have the proper form filled out. You should have had form B-EG-DUNN-F0R-$$ filled out in triplicate and turned in before Tuesday @ 5:00pm....now you're going to have to wait until next month and submit it again."

Mark my words its either Dunn is goingot use it to keep his thumb on the Sheriff like above. or the commissioners will call the drug money something off the wall so they can add it to the bottom line to make it look like they are doing a better job than they are. Look we started the year with this many $$, but see here...we ended with this many $$(not telling everyone that it includes the Drug Seizure $$)...didn't we do a great job !!!

What a joke! King Dunn you may fool some people...But you don't fool 1BIGHAMMER!!!!

I think you dropped that big hammer on your head there FR.

The commissioners cannot have and do not want the drug money. There has never been any indication of that by anyone on the commission. All of the assertions about the commission using the money has been part of the disinformation coming from the sheriff. More importantly, they cannot use the drug money...BY LAW. The LAW regarding the drug money is that it can only be used by the receiving authority, (in this case the sheriff) in the support of law enforcement. You know, firearms, bullet proof vests, survelliance equipment etc. Not to be confused with big screen TV's, satellite TV service etc. That is the law and the commissioners know and respect that. All they have ever asked is that the expenditures go through the county procurement system so that they can be tracked and accounted for properly. The sheriff does not want to do that. Ask yourself why he does not want proper accounting. The judge has now said he must comply with the law, end of story.

There is no "slippery slope" because the law prevents it.
Your scenario of the sheriff begging for money is silly and another example of the kind of tactics used by the sheriff to deflect from the real issue here, accountablility.

The law won't allow us to slide down that Slipper Slope you say? Is that the same law that says Eminent Domain should be used for Public Projects not Private ones? That really held up good didn't it? As long as we have judges that interpret laws however they want, the LAW doesn't prevent anything from happening. Every day in our courtrooms, the Judicial system makes a mockery of the very LAWS that make the USA the great country that it is.

No matter how often you tell us the past doesn't matter, it won't make it true. The past is where we built our reputations. We don't get a fresh, clean slate every day. The sheriff has spent a lifetime and 30 public years building an honorable reputation. You are telling us more than you know when you speak of "disinformation campaigns" and "deflecting from the real issue."

And when you weave your elaborate "facts" of what the judge is telling us with this temporary order, well, then you just make me laugh.

in a few short months, so, I wouldn't fret too much about the three amigos getting their hands on the drug money.

Plus, it's nothing but a tempory order. When a real judge hears the whole testimony, the order will be rescinded.

What do you mean a "real judge". What stupidity you display.

Robert M is partly correct. Thus, he is not stupid but nonetheless ignorant. Clayton County explained it to me because that is where the judge in this case came from. Our Fayette judges excused themselves from the case because it involved a lot of local officials. Not a bad idea. Supposedly, this is done a lot. OK--- where does the fill in judge come from? Here's where it gets tricky. The fill in judges come from a pool of retired judges. They work part time when they can get appointed and they don't have any elections. They count on being appointed to hear these cases. Kind of go along. Robert M is wrong in that there will be a real judge. WE got the Senior Judge for the whole case.

Yet another username?

One of Randall's "boys" is Bruce Jordan and he would be a great sheriff. All that takes is Randall stepping down and Bruce picking up the anti-Dunn mantle. Do it soon guys!

Hampster,

I hope this comment is tongue in cheek. Bruce Jordan is the source of most of this stuff now. Surely you are kidding when you say he would make a great sheriff.

I don't like having an extra "p" put into my name or body.

Bruce is indeed the straw that stirs the drink - to quote Jesse or Reggie somebody. Nevertheless, he would be great as sheriff. Who else? Murray? Jackie Barrett? Eldrin Bell? John Hay? Frank Murphy? Ben Thomas? CJ? Dan Lakly? Emory Wilkerson? Keep guessing.

Bruce Jordan is an ambitious, no-nonsense, rigid by-the -book law enforcement official. What else would you want in a sheriff?

At least we agree that Bruce is the source of these issues. If he is so ambitious why has he stayed in Randall's shadow for 26 years or so?
Best answer is because he has been running things for the last several years and Randall has been rubber stamping his actions.
By the book? If that were true he would be in full compliance with the county policies and there would be no lawsuits. There would be no illegal disposal of property. There would be no illegal structures on county property (the helicopter quoset hut). We agree he is no nonsense, it is his way or the highway for anyone that crosses him. You list several names implying that there is absolutely no one who could do the same job as Bruce. No one? Anywhere? Not likely.
Are good public safety and compliance with county rules, mutually exclusive? You and I both know that they are not, but as long as Bruce and Randall are in place they likely will be.

Hamster, I disagree on Jordan. You praised him as "an ambitious, no-nonsense, rigid by-the -book law enforcement official. What else would you want in a sheriff?"

For starters, what we in law enforcement want is cops who play by the rules. Otherwise, the system won't work and we get put in a bad light. I won't trash on Jordan--- I will just share one recent case.

Case goes to trial for murder. Jordan does his usual media overkill, desparately wanting a conviction. He tells the jury that the Defendant gave a "nod" of confession. A former district attorney comes forward and disputes Jordan's story. The jury believes the lawyer; they acquit. Ask them. Jordan can't take losing and can't take the system working so he files an Ethics Complaint against the lawyer. That's not "by the book"; that's vindictive. If the guy shouldn't have been there, the judge would have not let him testify.

Yes, Bruce is rigid and controlling and even has this inexplicable need for media attention - maybe to sell books, but who really knows.

My original question remains - what else do you want or better yet ---who else? Randall may continue one more term, but whether it be then or now - who else, besides Bruce will replace him? Who else could? And the real question - who would actually have the chuptzpa to run for that office and who could get elected?

I've known Bruce for many years and while his temperament may need adjusting at times (whose does not, mine can be horrific at times) his character is impeccable! To answer your question "What else would you want in a Sheriff?" I'd say many of the newcomers to our great county and community these past 5 or 6 years would want someone who can be bought and used at their discretion. That's all I've got to say about that.....

Give me a break!!!! Everyone who knows him would question your statement on his character... I don't know why the Sheriff has kept him around so long because all Bruce is going to do is cost Randall his great legacy. What a shame... but as the old saying goes, one "bad apple" can spoil the whole bunch. Bruce has so many secrets and skeletons hiding in his closet it will actually be amusing to watch IF he runs for Sheriff.