The Bloody Truth
For some time now, I have held my tongue about what I have observed at our County Council Meetings. With all of the disinformation and distortions of fact that are running rampant in our community, it’s time to tell the truth – the bloody truth.
Bathrooms, The Old Courthouse, and You
This has to be one of the biggest distortions and lies that is being reported. Let me start by saying that at no time during ANY of the meetings that I have attended has anyone been barred or restricted from using the facilities. I am happy to report the bathrooms are clean and accessible.
What the bathrooms are NOT intended for is anyone coming in from off the street to use. If you are at the old courthouse, on business, feel free to “answer the call of nature.” If you are out on your morning jog and think the bathrooms at the old courthouse is the place to stop – think again. Why the distinction? It’s really simple: Safety. Does your place of business allow ANYONE in to use the bathroom? No. Why should county employees have to endure a higher level of risk?
The Dog Ate My Resolution …. No Really
Specific to last nights meeting of 1 April 2008, I was appalled at the lack of preparedness by two of our county council members – B. Waldrep (aka the D1 Placeholder) and M.C. Wilson (aka the Political Neophyte). Let us begin with Mr. Waldrep:
Ordinances – First Reading #2008-010 – Mr. Waldrep failed to present a printed copy of his ordinance pertaining to access to public records. In fact, Mr. Waldrep was so flippant towards the whole process
Loading
313 views
The Bloody Truth
...
What the bathrooms are NOT intended for is anyone coming in from off the street to use.
-SSHM
Why? Anyone coming in from of the street helped pay for them.
Does your place of business allow ANYONE in to use the bathroom? No. Why should county employees have to endure a higher level of risk?-SSHM
Private businesses aren't covered by the same laws as public buildings....and the typical private business doesn't have armed guards.
Security in a bathroom........Hmmm, gives new meaning to Stink-BOMB, doesn't it?
And speaking of distortions, it is perfectly appropriate and legal to go through a first reading of a proposed ordinance "in name only" in order to get the process started.
I've been to many meetings where that was done: An ordinance is entered into the record, Council approves a cursory first reading, then the matter goes to committee for details and language to be hammered out.
Part of why Anderson County Council seems so inept is they have failed to master the fine art of "burying hot issues in commitee" to let them cool down before dealing with them again after cooler heads have had time to review them. (It's sort of like pouring scalding hot coffee into a saucer to let it cool before you try to drink it.)
If it had gone to committee, it could have lingered at least until the Attorney General issues his opinion (assuming anybody has asked for that opinion yet) without any danger of it suddenly being brought out of committee at a full Council meeting until then.
Now, it can crop back up at any time, just like a bad case of athlete's foot.
Indeed, SSHM, send Anderson County Council a copy of Roberts Rules. I don't think some of them have ever read 'em. And send the County Attorney a copy of Home Rule. I don't think he's read that yet, either, although, in fairness to him, I don't think he's unaware of the concept of "first reading in name only."
Indeed, SSHM, send Anderson County Council a copy of Roberts Rules. I don't think some of them have ever read 'em. And send the County Attorney a copy of Home Rule. I don't think he's read that yet, either, although, in fairness to him, I don't think he's unaware of the concept of "first reading in name only."- JDTippett
Save your money, SSHM, I was at a council meeting not too long ago when Michael Thompson gave each member a copy of the latest edition of Robert's Rules.
Point of Order! If it can't be read at the meeting, it's not a first reading. If it's not ready for the public, leave it in committee until it is ready.
Failure to comply by the basic principles of parliamentary procedure causes a great deal of problems at council meetings. Doing things casually, "the way we've always done it" doesn't make it the right way to do things. RRoO is intended to keep a meeting flowing with minimal interruptions, ensuring all parties are abreast of each issue being discussed. Trying to do things casually just allows people to do things that aren't up to scrutiny. The rules have been used for a very long time because they've worked well. Not following those rules, opting for "the way we've always done it" ensures we'll continue to get the same mediocre results. Not to mention the fact that anyone that comes to a council meeting leaves thinking it's being led by a bunch of backwoods hicks that haven't even heard of RRoO, let alone read it.
As for the bathrooms, your tax dollars paid for the bathrooms at Hanna, but I bet they wouldn't let you through the front door there to use the restroom either. Just because something was built with public funds does NOT entitle the public unrestricted access to the building and that includes the restrooms.
Failure to comply by the basic principles of parliamentary procedure causes a great deal of problems at council meetings. Doing things casually, "the way we've always done it" doesn't make it the right way to do things. RRoO is intended to keep a meeting flowing with minimal interruptions, ensuring all parties are abreast of each issue being discussed. Trying to do things casually just allows people to do things that aren't up to scrutiny. The rules have been used for a very long time because they've worked well. Not following those rules, opting for "the way we've always done it" ensures we'll continue to get the same mediocre results. Not to mention the fact that anyone that comes to a council meeting leaves thinking it's being led by a bunch of backwoods hicks that haven't even heard of RRoO, let alone read it.
As for the bathrooms, your tax dollars paid for the bathrooms at Hanna, but I bet they wouldn't let you through the front door there to use the restroom either. Just because something was built with public funds does NOT entitle the public unrestricted access to the building and that includes the restrooms.
FYI: The correct way to reference Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th edition (which is the offical parliamentary authority for Anderson County) is RONR. As a parliamentarian, I am frequently appalled by the way parliamentary procedure is followed (or not followed). But do be aware that it takes much intensive study and review to be able to apply and interpret RONR for others. If you are interested in learning more about parliamentary procedure there is a parliamentary study group in Anderson--the Tri-County Parliamentary Study Unit. This group meets at the Anderson County Library the 4th Tuesday. I will be glad to provide additional contact information to any one who is interested. I do not belong to this group at the present due to other commitments.
And speaking of distortions, it is perfectly appropriate and legal to go through a first reading of a proposed ordinance "in name only" in order to get the process started.- JDTippett
While it may be both appropriate (that's up for debate) and legal, is it far from prudent. This is putting the cart before the horse. If you want to "get the process started," specifically dealing with laws and matters of a legal nature, get a LEGAL OPINION! Use the process: Follow-up with public input after that. Finally, you take the legal opinion and the public's wishes and combine them into legislative material (i.e., resolution, bill, ordinance, etc).
That JD, is what you bring up for first reading. Not an arbitrary "the dog ate my resolution" agenda item. Does it really take that much effort to follow through the items I listed above? If you're lazy, yes - that's a mountain to climb. If you are a motivated individual and truly care about the law, the "rule of law," as it was put forth last night, is it not prudent to follow these steps?
I've been to many meetings where that was done: An ordinance is entered into the record, Council approves a cursory first reading, then the matter goes to committee for details and language to be hammered out.
Part of why Anderson County Council seems so inept is they have failed to master the fine art of "burying hot issues in commitee" to let them cool down before dealing with them again after cooler heads have had time to review them. (It's sort of like pouring scalding hot coffee into a saucer to let it cool before you try to drink it.)- JDTippett
The informal introduction would work if there was a committee/sub-committee structure in place. We have no such animal at the present time.
Indeed, SSHM, send Anderson County Council a copy of Roberts Rules. I don't think some of them have ever read 'em. And send the County Attorney a copy of Home Rule. I don't think he's read that yet, either, although, in fairness to him, I don't think he's unaware of the concept of "first reading in name only."- JDTippett
Based on the piss-poor use of parliamentary procedure by M.C. Wilson and B. Waldrep last night, I'd have to infer that their quest for the Cliff Notes for RONR has yet to yield anything.
...
What the bathrooms are NOT intended for is anyone coming in from off the street to use.
-SSHM
Why? Anyone coming in from of the street helped pay for them.
Does your place of business allow ANYONE in to use the bathroom? No. Why should county employees have to endure a higher level of risk?-SSHM
Private businesses aren't covered by the same laws as public buildings....and the typical private business doesn't have armed guards.- StringCheese
Scalwag counters with . . .
As for the bathrooms, your tax dollars paid for the bathrooms at Hanna, but I bet they wouldn't let you through the front door there to use the restroom either. Just because something was built with public funds does NOT entitle the public unrestricted access to the building and that includes the restrooms.- scalwag
I await the latest CAVE stunt ... this time played out at a local High School or Middle School campus.
. . . or in the SC Senate Cloak Room (public funds, restricted access)
. . . or in a Municipal Judge's Chambers (public funds, restricted access)
. . . the back room of the SC DMV Office (public funds, restricted access)
It GAULS me the sense of entitlement that these curmudgeon CAVE dwellers feel is somehow owed to them simply because they pay taxes.
Respect for the rule of law ... now there is something every member of that UFO-chasing Tin-Foil Hat Brigade needs to learn.
- SSHM
Point of order, Scalwag and SSHM. Whether a first reading can be carried out "in title only" or not depends on County Council's own rules, not on the S.C. Constitution and Home Rule.
The S.C. Supreme Court affirmed that on Feb. 5, 2007, in a ruling on an appeal of a case involving a citizen's lawsuit againt Spartanburg County Council (Walter McSherry, et al v. Spartanburg County Council , et al, OPINION NO. 26258.)
That case involved a challenge to Spartanburg County's implementation of a road maintenance fee. Seems that on first reading, they didn't even have a TITLE to the ordinance. It wasn't in written form until SECOND reading.
I don't want to confuse anybody by selectively excerpting from a Supreme Court ruling (the Justices obviously weren't comfortable with the fact that Spartanburg did a first reading without having either a title or text for the ordinance in place, but they did not challenge its legality.) So here's the main body of text for that ruling:
Factual/Procedural Background
At a publicly advertised Council meeting in February 2005, council member Ken Huckaby made a motion to adopt a road user fee of $25.00 for Spartanburg County. The county attorney moved to have the “first reading of an Ordinance to adopt the road fee by title only,” and advised Council that he would have something drafted up for the next meeting. At the time, neither the title nor the ordinance was written. By Council’s next meeting, however, the proposed ordinance had been reduced to writing. In late February 2005, Council held a public hearing to discuss the ordinance and the ordinance received second reading. The ordinance received third reading in March 2005. The ordinance became effective July 1, 2005.
Appellants instituted this complaint for declaratory relief, contending the ordinance was not lawfully enacted because it did not exist in written form at the time of the first reading. The circuit court upheld the ordinance, finding Council had sufficiently complied with the three reading requirement of S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-120 (1986). [1]
Appellants filed this appeal, and we certified this case from the court of appeals pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR. Appellants present the following issue for this Court’s review:
Did the circuit court err in holding the road maintenance fee ordinance was properly enacted?
Law/Analysis
S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-120 (1986) sets forth procedures to be used by County governments in adopting ordinances. It provides, in part:
The council shall take legislative action by ordinance which may be introduced by any member. With the exception of emergency ordinances, all ordinances shall be read at three public meetings of council on three separate days with an interval of not less than seven days between the second and third readings.
Id. Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-110 (1986) provides that “council shall determine its own rules and order of business.” Pursuant to § 4-9-110, Spartanburg adopted the Spartanburg County Council Rules of Procedure. Article 9 of those rules provides, in part, as follows:
9-1 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL (4-9-120): The Council shall take legislative action by ordinance. . .
9-2 READINGS: with the exception of emergency ordinances, all ordinances shall be read at three public meetings of the Council on three separate days with an interval of not less than seven days between the second and third reading
I await the latest CAVE stunt ... this time played out at a local High School or Middle School campus.
. . . or in the SC Senate Cloak Room (public funds, restricted access)
. . . or in a Municipal Judge's Chambers (public funds, restricted access)
. . . the back room of the SC DMV Office (public funds, restricted access)
It GAULS me the sense of entitlement that these curmudgeon CAVE dwellers feel is somehow owed to them simply because they pay taxes.
Respect for the rule of law ... now there is something every member of that UFO-chasing Tin-Foil Hat Brigade needs to learn.
- SSHM
- SSHM
...and how does one differentiate between someone who has business in the court house and someone who just wants to use the restroom?
- how they are dressed?
- what radio station they listen to?
- what color they are?
- what they smell like?
- whether they speak English?
- whether they have a job?
- whether they are registered to vote?
- whether they pay taxes?
What if they just want to look at the county maps downstairs on the walls? Is that legitimate?
Under what conditions should you be allowed to use the restrooms in the court house?
...and how does one differentiate between someone who has business in the court house and someone who just wants to use the restroom?- StringCheese
Simple.
You leave it up to the security detail assigned to the building. This is no different than any other building. In a post-911 world, security is not something to be ignored or trivialized.
You should have to sign-in with security, obtain a visitors badge, and head onto your intended destination within the building.
THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, FOLKS.
- SSHM
I agree SSHM, THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE
But one problem brings another.
It may be time for the City/County to install public restrooms about every 2 blocks.
We have all had to go, we have all had kids that had to go. It's not fair to the business owners to have to deal with traffic that public buildings have to turn away for safety reasons.
The City wants more people on it's streets shopping, site seeing, they have to get "people friendly
But one problem brings another.
It may be time for the City/County to install public restrooms about every 2 blocks.
We have all had to go, we have all had kids that had to go. It's not fair to the business owners to have to deal with traffic that public buildings have to turn away for safety reasons.
The City wants more people on it's streets shopping, site seeing, they have to get "people friendly
It amazes me that some people cannot or chose not to see through this bathroom thing. When Stan Welch went in the other day and was accosted by a member of the Park Police, didn't he tell them he was going to use the bathroom? Seems to me that after that, certain people in the County said "we'll show him" and put the sign up so he couldn't use that to get into the building anymore. It's just more of the same old crap over and over.
Lee
Please understand I am neither pro nor con on this public restroom issue, and I try to stay neutral on the JP issue but I am very PRO when it comes to protecting County employees and a historic building.
The Upstate of SC has been lucky to have not had an incident, whether it is terrorist or just some gunslinger with head problems.
Security is expensive and I would rather see our money spent elsewhere, but we all know when that incident does happen, all the money in the world won't make it disappear.
I am sure the old courthouse restroom issue will change to accommodate the public, but we, as citizens will pay with tighter security.
Park police may be or may not be the answer. We may have to fund the Sheriff's Office with 5 or 6 more deputies for each door of the old courthouse just as it is at the one across the street.
If all that money has to be spent because one person needs to have access to any public building then so be it!
Please understand I am neither pro nor con on this public restroom issue, and I try to stay neutral on the JP issue but I am very PRO when it comes to protecting County employees and a historic building.
The Upstate of SC has been lucky to have not had an incident, whether it is terrorist or just some gunslinger with head problems.
Security is expensive and I would rather see our money spent elsewhere, but we all know when that incident does happen, all the money in the world won't make it disappear.
I am sure the old courthouse restroom issue will change to accommodate the public, but we, as citizens will pay with tighter security.
Park police may be or may not be the answer. We may have to fund the Sheriff's Office with 5 or 6 more deputies for each door of the old courthouse just as it is at the one across the street.
If all that money has to be spent because one person needs to have access to any public building then so be it!
The reason for no access to the restrooms is simple, no telling what you might catch JRP doing to some empolyee. When the urge hits him he has to stick it to somebody.
with your fascination over male rear ends and joey prestons sex life...
I am starting to think you wish it were you he was sticking it to...
I am starting to think you wish it were you he was sticking it to...
There are no vagrants (or joggers) getting past the guard at the door. Preston's had all the other exits locked, so there's only one way in and out. Think of another - more believable story, Mr. Jones. That sleeping vagrant thing just won't get airborne. If that guard doesn't want you in the loo - you're not getting in.
JD is absolutely correct about the "in title only" thing. Many annual budgets are passed on first reading just that way.
JD is absolutely correct about the "in title only" thing. Many annual budgets are passed on first reading just that way.
It amazes me that some people cannot or chose not to see through this bathroom thing. When Stan Welch went in the other day and was accosted by a member of the Park Police, didn't he tell them he was going to use the bathroom? Seems to me that after that, certain people in the County said "we'll show him" and put the sign up so he couldn't use that to get into the building anymore. It's just more of the same old crap over and over.- Lee Cole
Lee,
What Stanley demonstrated the other day was the following:
1.) Political Grandstanding.
2.) Civil Disobedience.
Stanley and the CAVE should be careful. While the Park Police may not have formal arresting powers, there are others that will not hesitate to arrest them on charges of disorderly conduct.
Go right ahead: Create a scene - get an arrest record.
I'm still waiting on a CAVE Field Trip to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and have them DEMAND to use the bathroom in the Oval Office ... as we pay taxes on that water closet too.
Some should learn to rise to the level of stupid . . .
- SSHM
