The drug money is not income you can count on, on a regular basis.

Then why is it listed as a source of revenue in the 2006 Fayette County Budget?

From the state Fayette County estimates receiving some $19,000 and the Federal contribution is close to $540,000.

Those numbers are in the published 2006 Fayette County Budget report you can access via the WEB.

Here ya go: http://www.admin.co.fayette.ga.us/finance/info_budget.htm

You have had a lot to say, however, you continue to avoid the subject about violating the B.O.C. Ethics Ordinance-
That ordinance was written to hold the Commissioners "accountable" for their actions-
You say that any person could have found the "Invoice" with the officer's wife's name on it- But that is untrue.
The person would have had to file An Open Records Request before they could go near the files. Such a request was NEVER made and you know it- Linda Wells abused her position and has been outed for it-
If your blog is what you consider "food", you need to change your diet, because your "food" smells foul-

uh oh!

I believe judge Ison just told you and the other two gumpy amigos that you have no responsibility to "oversee" the spending of the sheriff's budget once it has been given him, indeed, he even said that you "cannot" control or dictate how the sheriff spends the budget once you have approved.

Why in hell don't you stop trying to spin, phool?

Well, I didn't want to write any more about the commission election, but I have read so much that I find frustrating. Although it is only a handful of people, I find discussions on this website to be very one-sided and close-minded.

Code words for the fact do not agree with you since there are a number of people posting on both sides of this issue.

I had previously read, on this site, that the purpose was to get people thinking and to express different points. that is just what I want to do - get people to think and to see that there is always more than one side to any story.

There have been.

I see statements made under the guise of "factual information" which are not always "fact". I'm not necessarily saying they are untrue- just that certain things cannot be claimed to be true or untrue at this point in time.

Really?

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that as far as Randall Johnson's ability in law enforecement goes, I don't think we could find any better. Because of him and his dept. Fayette County has the reputation of being one place you don't want to commit a crime, and certainly not be caught. I commend the department on doing an exceptional job.

And yet, you are going to criticize him.

I think many confuse the duties of law enforcement & general business regarding the county/sheriff. The sheriff is given a generous budget to do as he sees fit to most effectively run the dept.

Right.

The commissioners are responsible to the citizens for overseeing the spending.

No. Not for the Sheriff's Dept. They do not require Commissioner approval.

The Commisssioners' power resides in what they will budget to the Dept. Not how each penny is spent.

Yes, they can cut the budget. But then they have to face the voters. Which two are, with one paying the price of erroneous actions and the other in trouble.

There are procedures in place for acquiring bids, purchasing, etc.

The Sheriff's Dept had its own books and procedures in place. Not under Commissioner control

The Temporary order of the Judge made them abide by Council established procedures, which have proven why they did not need to be under the those procedures.

And the judge has recognized that. Thus the Commissioners lost.

Also, the dispute between the sheriff's dept. & the commissioners is about MUCH more than just the drug money. No one says that money is not theirs, and no one wants to tell them how to spend it.

The Three Amigos most assuredly did want to control it.

One issue related to this is the purchase of a helicopter(s). The agreement to purchase was in place before any of the commissioners were aware of it.

So? It did not require Commissioner comment or approval.

Yes, it may have been purchased with drug money, but there is much more to it. The drug money is not income you can count on, on a regular basis. To operate a helicopter you need a place to keep it, you need a pilot to fly it, you need maintenance personnel to maintain it, fuel to keep it running, and insurance. Was the "drug money" going to cover all of this? NO. All of this financial responsibility would fall on the county (us). Therefore, it was not out of line for the commissioners to express concern over this purchase. Why don't we ever hear that side of it?

They went well beyond 'concern.' They wanted to control the money and have to approve expenditures.

Not enough money to keep it going from the county budget? Then it mothballs until there is again.

Easy, simply answer. Not the Commissioners taking over administrative control of the Dept.

Wiggle as much as you want. But that is what you are getting at. Commissioner oversight and approval. Which is a non-starter.

The State, Feds and court found no wrong doing by the Sheriff. But sure did by the Commissioners.

That is your food for thought here. They messed up, legally, not the Sheriff.

And it IS about legalities.

Next, as far as Linda Wells and Greg Dunn revealing the identity of the officer regarding a questionable purchase, it is my understanding that this officer was not an unercover agent and that his wife's name was on the invoice.

You want to share this info on him not being undercover, when all that was published said he was?

The invoice is public record, so anyone who cared to look, would have discovered the name.

If the accounting people had no issue with the bill, and the suggestion to look came from Commissioner(s), there is a lot more to this than you are trying to paint.

So, do you really think it necessary for your tax dollars to be paying for an officer's Starter Jacket at a cost of a few hundred dollars? Why does everyone overlook this point?

The accountants and audit deal with that. The issue here is making public names that were not to be made public.

Then, the event with the cars, which were the property of the County -the sheriff's dept. decided to take it upon themselves to trade in the cars without the knowledge of the county. They didn't even hold title to the cars. Then the sheriff's dept. proceeded to intimidate county staff who were just doing their job.

Ten year old cars that were undependable are not a problem? They were falling apart?

I saw one broke down on 74 two weeks ago.

I did not contact any commissioners to obtain the above information.

What information. You simple made declarations on how you felt. And made errors doing it.

I have tried to stay informed as the events took place. Lastly, it was recently written (regarding Wells, I think) that if you have nothing to hide you should be open about everything. The same goes for the sheriff's dept. If there is nothing to hide, why is it such a big deal to have business questioned? Just some food for thought.

Exactly what has the Sheriff's Dept. hidden?

Doing their operations according to law is not hiding anything.

Commissioners do not have to go public and explain every action they take. But when they have pulled stunts like this, they most assuredly owe the public an explanation.

The Sheriff's Dept. was cleared by court. They hide nothing.

The revealing of the cop's name is still cloaked in mystery. We simply know, unless the reporter lied, he was urged into this by a commissioner.

Dunn says he didn't do it. Wells won't speak.

Who is hiding things.

Fine, you don't like the way the Sheriff's Dept. is run. Your right.

But don't try to spin election issues off of Wells onto the Sheriff.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Your letters are tough enough to read on their own. A two page paragraph is just unbearable.

The fact that Highgreen and the rice man are your only supporters on this blog gives me pause before responding. I believe that alone speaks volumes about the volumes of nothing in your blog but I have to make a couple of points.

Peter you have lowered yourself to just plain lying to the public. The purchase of the helicopter was approved by Dunn before it was purchased. I know you were initially lied to about that but I also know, you know the truth now. Now you're trying to make the public believe tax payer dollars are paying for the maintenance, fuel and ongoing cost of the operation of the helicopter and you know that is not true as well. What well read citizen would believe the Commission would have paid a dime towards the helicopter?

Lastly you want to try and convince the public that you were not influenced on how to vote by Dunn. Peter please.

You might want to remember that one of the great accomplishments of the Sheriff's helicopter has been its ability to track down Alzheimer's patients.

You make some excellent points there, Mr. Weasel.

Sadly, political discussion on this forum gets co-opted by our own version of Laurel and Hardy, Git "Laurel" Real and PTC "Hardy" Guy.

These two posters take it as a personal affront when your stated opinion does not coincide with their own. One or the other typically floods thread after thread with post after post in a craven attempt to drown out quality thought with quantity drivel (don't believe me? do a search on "VOTE JACK SMITH"...Git Real's frequent kneejerk response).

Sadly, the immaturity of these two has cheapened the meaningful exchange of ideas here.

I completely agree with your analysis of Sheriff Johnson...he seems big on big shiny capital purchases for his dept and seems not at all concerned about sticking taxpayers with the cost of maintaining his new toys.

Like you, I don't feel that Armageddon is Nigh simply because Mike Pruitt's wife got her name in the paper. I recognize the whole affair as typical of the tit-for-tat that seems to be going on regularly betwen the control-resistant Sheriff's dept and their civilian masters.

My personal opinion is Mike Pruitt had a moment of weakness where he felt himself above the law (not unlike undercover agent Donnie Brasco's shoplifting incident) and attempted to defraud the county by submitting his wife's clothing purchases for reimbursement. I feel this way because his own wife said they never re-submitted the claim after it was initially turned down...if things were aboveboard, why didn't they resubmit their claim with the appropriate documentation?

The fact that one or more Pruitts have posted over and over about this every week of so in the weeks leading up to the election indicate to me that they have a political axe to grind. If Mrs. Pruitt feels as unsafe as she claims to, perhaps her husband should look for alternatives within law enforcement. I'm sure she'd feel a lot less threatened if her husband was a crossing guard at Starr's Mill High.

On second thought, maybe not...have you seen how those kids drive? I'd hate to see Mrs. Pruitt in here months from now railing against the Board of Education for failing to provide a raincoat for her husband, putting him and her at risk of pneumonia on rainy days....

Crime has increased in Fayette County (especially in the towns) considerably in recent years. The reasons make no difference, the crime is there to contend with all of the time. Your thoughts about the helicopter and autos of course are right on, and were simply a mistake by the sheriff's department; they should have admitted it and gone on with no problem, otherwise it looks like they want to create a power grab. Chances are that if the helicopter, and buildings, and its ongoing expenses, and the auto trades, had been cleared, there would have been no different results, than we have now. Not liking a commissioner just makes the job of sheriff harder, not something he can avoid.