My apologizes to you admc, you were not "nit-picky". I addressed the reply to two posters, and the other one stated that we were "nit-picky".

As to your request, some of the law as it is spelled out is as follows:
O.C.G.A. 21-2-153
(e) Each candidate for party nomination described in subsection (a) of this Code section shall file an affidavit with the political party at the time of his or her qualifying stating:

(7) That he or she is eligible to hold such office;

The law states no employee is eligible to serve.

If the code specifically said that she can under oath state that she WILL be eligible at a later date, then I'd agree, but it states at the time of of her qualifying.

Hope this better explains this very harsh, but plainly worded statute.

With Warmest Regards

But why can't you or the people who wrote the law look at the common sense application of it?

Many employed by the school system may decide to run in the Spring when they are working for the school system, but would not renew their contract in the summer or fall if elected - but should certainly have the chance to go back to being a teacher or whatever if they were not elected.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is trying to keep qualified ( meaning educational professionals) out of elected school board offices. That says to me if you know too much about education, you are not qualified to oversee educators. Is that stupid or what?
meow

Next time I get stopped by a traffic cop for speeding or some other infraction I will tell him that "technically" he may be correct, but he should use a common sense application of law. Think that would work?
I thought I read that two other candidates were educational professionals.
Shouldn't a candidate check out the requirements before running for office? Or maybe it is better to just blame it on whoever catches them. Would that candidate check out questions to come before the Board of Education ahead of time? Or just go in blind?

Dear Loowanda and admc,
You call the decision nit-picky? Would you prefer that we summarily ignore the law and the advice of our counsel and just arbitrarily allow any and all candidates to run regardless of what the law states?

I do not have code section in front of me this morning. However, the code you quoted was what lead me to originally believe that she could still run for office. As I mentioned in my other post, I was confident that she would not be ineligible, because I read this law similarily.

However, the Board's attorney studied the law and brought to our attetion the other codes which specifically said that the candidate for BOE was required to do two things. One pay a qualifying fee and two, sign an oath that states that on that date she was ELIGIBLE TO HOLD and to SERVE the OFFICE for which she seeks at the time that she signs the oath. Which means at the time she signed the oath she was an employee and was therefore ineligible.

(Interestingly, the code says that if a candidate's check had bounced, they would be ineligibe to run as well. What if this, or any other candidate bounced a check for the very first time in their lives, and it was because they forgot to transfer money into the account because of a sick relative....I mean you could insert any reasonable explanation into this story as an excuse, and you would still have a law that was clearly read to say that a bounced check makes the candidate ineligible, regardless of the reasonableness of the excuses. Should this board insert our own feelings of what reasonablenss is into the text of the statute? I use the bounced check story as another example, because the law is clear, but seems a bit harsh and "nit-picky" too.)

Our Board doesn't have the authority to override the law with our own feelings. We have to follow the plainly written law. If she appeals, a Superior Court, or perhaps more certainly an Appellant Court can look at the law and wave a wand over it, to say that a literal and reasonable interpretation is unnecessary. Judges do that all of the time. That's why many of us are angry at our Judiciary for being activist in that they find a way to do that which many of you have suggested, and that is for us to ignore the law and do what we "feel" is right. I think an activist Court could find its way into "feeling" that this just doesn't seem right and to allow her to remain on the ballot, even though the law on its face is clear. But again, that is not for us to do. But until the Georgia General Assembly adds an additional law into the books which affords the Board of Elections the authority to do what we feel is right predicated upon if we think the candidate would make an excellent Board of Education member, then we will continue to just do what our oath of office requires, and that is to follow the law.

Activist Judges have given us decisions as in Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and the pledge of alliegence ruled out of our schools. They also helped cause the 2000 Election to get so out of hand when they refused to follow the written law and decided to make arbitrary and caprious decisions predicated upon what they decided the law should be. I hope you don't want this board, or any other to have that much power.

With Warmest Regards,

Lawyers aren’t as honorable as they used to be. The issue came up as to why the candidate Miss Seabolt had to be disqualified and why couldn’t we wait. Apparently one of those lawyers made the comment that “ballots are being printed as we speak”. Actually, this was not really true because we vote electronically. Why would a lawyer A big problem is that we have too many lawyers. 30 years ago, lawyers were more honorable. They wouldn’t take bad cases like they do today. Now these lawyers will sue over anything. I had to ask my daughter what those lawyers were suing about called “soft tissue.” She told me that it is one those minor fender bender where there is not even any real missed work or injuries but we make twelve jurors miss work to hear that nonsense. We live in a different age I guess.

Mrs. Fran Sheldon

Thank you for your explanation. I, too, had wondered why Ms. Seabolt could not run. I know of her and think she is highly qualified. But, the citizens owe you and the board thanks for handling this situation professionaly and according to the law. We would want nothing less.

I agree that two is not a groundswell. I would suggest to all criminals and liars that if caught to tell that two complaints backed up by 6 other eyewitnesses is not nearly enough to convince a judge. The judge should take the accused's word for it that he did not commit the crime. Wouldn't that be sensitive of the judge? Never mind the law - the codes are merely guidelines. After Clinton, Rule of Law doesn't mean a thing.

You are proof positive that animals should not be allowed to vote. Believe in skirting the law? Thank goodness there are folks who believe in following the law. It would be easy to do nothing.

The only person in the county with a bigger head and hunger for power than our local politicians is Marilyn Watts and her vindictive leadership desires. This lady has proven herself over the years to be just plain nasty to folk who are in her opposition. Her goal is to put her people in no matter who she mows down. Just wait....she's grooming her little boy for office. He's coming and that will be scarier than what we are now faced with.

Speaking of that Watts boy.......... he aint that little!! I seen him before in town. Looks to me like he could flatten you, me and that scary looking cat of yours without breaking a sweat......I've been going around telling everyone that will listen to me (By the way, why do people run when they see me????)the Watts family is thbe reason theres no GROWTH here.Gonna use Momma and Daddy's money to remake this county in the image of me, Talbot boy. I'm with you, cat boy. Let's make it a beautiful day......for us.

How ya doin son? I've seen that Watts boy too. You is right. That's one big biscuit and pork chop eatin rascal that boy is. You right about that flatten part. I'm just real concerned about that boy much like you are. We need to take him out and git him a girl and git him away from that momma of his. That womans done gonna mess that boy up if we don't jump in there and save him. That's gotta be one unhealthy relationship there don't you imagine. I remember when my Lion mama done whoope me on the side of the head and said "Boy, quit suckin off others and make your own way now". Best thang momma ever did for me cuz now I got this great job at Mcdonalds as assistant night manager just befo I go to work at the PTC sewage plant keepin an eye on everyone and such. Now how in the world does Mama Watts control the growth around here? You got me on that one though I can bout imagine. Well...this is Cat Boy Lion signing out for now.

With all due respect, I'd appreciate it if you first learned of what the facts were before you started making these rather "vindictive" comments. You can make them, hiding behind your moniker, with impunity, however, that doesn't make them correct.

Since I happened to be at the meeting and I heard the 8 neighbors who came forward and spoke, and I heard Mr. Powers as well, I think I might know a bit more about the facts than you do.

It was obvious from all that were there, that Mr. Powers was not living in his home on Antebellium Way. Numerous people came forward and said he hadn't lived there in months. That he had moved away to his Brooks home long before the qualification period occurred. He admitted to several of them that he had moved. Only after this challenge was made did he return to stay at the home. He could not explain how a happily married man and father would allow himself to "reside" in another home away from his own family. Even his wife changed her voter registration to the new address. He appeared to believe that once elected he could move to the new district and still serve. When we showed him the law where it said his service on the Board of Education would "cease" if he moved, he just scoffed. He even admitted that he "probably" wouldn't live in the District for the entirety of his term, should he be re-elected. So the Board ruled that his residence or domicile was actually where his wife and two daughters lived down in Brooks. The only evidence that Mr. Powers gave was his statement that he lived in both places and called the Antebellium home his residence, and he also gave us a utility bill which showed the minimum amount that can be charged. In other words, the utilities were not showing any usage, as if someone lived there.

As to Ms. Seabolt, I'm sorry that this had to happen. I thought the rules restricting her were harsh and before the meeting, the County attorney and I discussed the law, and we both were of the opinion that she would still be eligible if the law were to be read a specific way. However, at the hearing, the County attorney admitted that he found additional language which stated very clearly that an employee of the board of education was "not eligible" to even "qualify" for the seat. However, we took an oath not to allow our "feelings" to dictate how we decide these matters. We promised to insure that the elections were fair and that we follow the LAW as it is written and not on how we want the law to be.

I believe that on appeal, Ms. Seabolt has a good chance to have a judge rule that the spirit of the law may allow her to remain on the ballot, however, the "letter" of the law was clear and unambigious, and I and Marilyn were bound by our oath to do what the law said, and not what we wanted to occur. We can't re-write/ignore the law merely to accommadate a candidate, no matter how deserving and well qualified the candidate may be. Each of us thought she would be an excellent member of the Board of Education, but our personal opinions have no place in how we should rule on these matters.

So continue to make fun of Marilyn or of me. It comes with the territory. I just would hope that the facts and the truth might find its way into your comments once in a while.

With Warmest Regards,
Richard Hobbs

Yes I do enjoy the benefits of my monicker. Us Lions like to call it a handle. If you knew who the rest of us were it would take all the fun out of it. I'll give you a hint. I write letters to the editor and sign them.

Let's remove my statements from this scenario and assume your right. But I can let them stand on much of her recent actions and her historical nastiness to others in situations where she was in and out of power. And that I'll stand by.

The new picture is better but you really ought to let me pick one out for you. Why don't you give me your password and I'll get you fixed up there buddy.

Were you at the meeting? Do you know the room was full of citizens reporting that Powers had moved long ago and had falsely used his old address. So should the Board of Elections just ignore the citizens complaints? Candidate fraud is a serious matter. Sounds to me like the Board (not just one member) did the right thing.

This is a serious matter indeed. The decision by the Board of Elections that Mr. Powers resides outside the Post 4 District would also mean his current position on the BoE is now vacated since he no longer lives in the Post 4 District.

Looks like he has been drawing a salary for months that he was not entitled to have. Who should do something about this? Does anyone know?
vox

Man.................your taking this law thing way too litterally!!!!! I mean according to Greg, once you get youself elected, its your for life. That Watts woman and Hobbs the lawyer should be ashamed of themselfs, enforcing the Election Code like honorable people. I mean, its just some words on some paper. When I take over and its a beautiful day for us, right after I run Watts and Hobbs outta town on the rail and replace them with Robert Horgan and Greg Powers, Im gonna..........toss the Election Code.....then the land use plan. We have too many laws and not enough GROWTH....

We gotta have a talk now son. I know your tryin to be real funny like but you just gotta leave that to them professionals. Like that there guy interper-a-ting Greg Speak. Now thay's real funny stuff there. Ole cat....I mean Lion.. bout laughed the hairs off his {{{Edited}}} with that one. Problem is we just not sure if he was being funny or serious or what? Get's ya to thinkin dunn't it?