The Good Egg Gazette is my online forum for the folks of Stuart, Iowa. Here you can respond to comments about the issues Stuart is facing (i.e. the West Central Valley new school debate, the Stuart City Council, new developments in town and near I-80, Hawkeyes vs. Cyclones, etc.) or anything else that's on your mind. Please be respectful, but say what's on your mind! And don't forget...it's still ok to post anonymously.
The mayor just caved in to the intimidation of a few in this community. She is not a leader, just someone who took what she thought was the easy way out. Now she and the council are going to have to face up to what they have done and accept the consequences. The consequence is that we the tax payers will have to pay the reward of the lawsuit.
Anonymous on
January 18, 2007 3:18 pm
In my eyes that’s why she was reason enough she was fired. The mayor only listed the times she was written up.
Anonymous on
January 18, 2007 3:19 pm
I’m sure there will be a lawsuit eventually, but I doubt it will come from Carol.
Nate Westre on
January 18, 2007 3:25 pm
3:18, don’t you think if it really happened it’s serious enough to warrant some type of written documentation? And I’m not talking about a comment on a blog that can’t be traced back to anything.
Anonymous on
January 18, 2007 4:59 pm
whos rayburns lawyer?
Anonymous on
January 18, 2007 7:25 pm
Is the rule for no smoking for all city employees? If the council is going to have this rule then it needs to be enforced on all city workers not just the police dept. Just this week I saw a city employee smoking in a city truck.
Anonymous on
January 18, 2007 9:04 pm
Well, just to shed some light, if it does go to a law suit for wrongful termination, the city should have insurance to cover that law suit. It’s called Employment Practices Liability, if they have a good insurance agent, the should have sold them that coverage. So the tax payers should have already “paid” for the law suit. If they don’t have it, get a new insurance agent. Their is your insurance 101 lesson for today!!
Anonymous on
January 18, 2007 10:39 pm
If they do in fact have insurance and a claim has to be paid then in the future we can expect a much higher insurance premium. That will come from our taxes.
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 8:32 am
Nate, if a first hand account of something isn’t credible then there is a real problem. That would mean people who seen an accident or a crime would have to prove they were there before their statement could be made. There isn’t a way that it’s ok for one thing and not for the other.
I really doubt Josh Pruitt would lie about that, especially considering it’s about a guy he was in a fight with and doesn’t like.
Nate Westre on
January 19, 2007 8:42 am
I doubt Josh would lie about it either, but unfortunately there’s no way to prove it was actually Josh who wrote that on this site (from my side). I’m pretty sure it was him, but I can’t prove it.
Maybe I wasn’t very clear earlier, but the point I was trying to make was if the council used the statement from Josh as a reason to fire Rayburn then they should have said that. That at least would be something concrete.
Rayburn giving out confidential information makes a lot stronger case for the council than Rayburn not patrolling enough.
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 9:16 am
Look at it from the councils point of view. They don’t want to drag her entire personal file out into the open. That would have just caused a lot of drama and problems for not only Carol, but for them as well. Cheryl reading the basics of why she was written up was sufficient enough and pretty much self explanatory.
Take the smoking one for example. She was told at the council meeting that she and Stout were no longer allowed to smoke in the building or in the cars. The council also passed an ordinance against the smoking in city builings & vehicles. It was within that next week that Carol and Stout were both written up. That is pretty much a slap in the face to the council.
If your boss told you not to smoke in the office and you lit one up within the next few days, don’t you think you’d be fired? You would. Carol was just given a warning. The council was a lot more lenient with her than most others in their situation would have been.
Nate Westre on
January 19, 2007 9:21 am
Depends on the boss I guess. My boss smokes in the office. It smells like a bar in here.
Nate Westre on
January 19, 2007 9:24 am
I think the smoking issue is a cop-out anyway. It doesn’t really relate to her job performance.
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 9:53 am
I admit, the smoking was probably one of the weaker excuses but it’s still a violation. I have family members whose athsma can be triggered by cigarette smoke. You never know who’s going to be in the police offices or city buildings and you never know what medical conditions they have or how sensitive to smells they are. A public official has to be accomidating to all types of people.
Nate Westre on
January 19, 2007 11:00 am
I agree with that, that a public official needs to be accommodating. There’s not really a debate there.
We need to be careful though when we start comparing the smoking violation to any other. Driving 73 mph and driving 103 mph on the highway are both violations, but are they the same?
Smoking in a public building is on a little higher level, but I don’t think we can just say a violation is a violation. I’d be pissed if I got fired because I got caught jaywalking.
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 11:24 am
But she was told point blank do not do it and she went ahead and did it anyway. It was insubordination.
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 11:42 am
Ok. Let’s get rid of the smoking. Let’s discuss her attitute and her not so approachable demeanot. I know of a business man in town who’s property was vandalized. He went in to talk to her and see what she could do about it and she went off on him. Then Carol had the audacity to insinuate it was his fault. He was extremely insulted and said he would never deal with her again. He took the matter to county instead.
This isn’t the only case I know of that she treated people like criminals instead of like the victims they were.
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 11:43 am
i meant demeanor
Nate Westre on
January 19, 2007 11:53 am
By “you” I mean anyone who wishes to contribute.
Nate Westre on
January 19, 2007 11:53 am
I don’t know Rayburn personally, but feel free to keep discussing. Maybe some stories of when you thought she was helpful, when you thought she wasn’t, that type of stuff.
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 1:10 pm
Here we go with the hearsay again, I know a guy. As far as the smoking, I do believe that she complied with the directive, after it was given. Many times I drove by the police department when she would be OUTSIDE smoking, just like the rest of the city employees who had been smoking in City Hall.
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 1:18 pm
Oh my God. Not EVERYTHING is hearsay. If you hear it from the mouth of the person it happened to it’s a TRUTH. If you SEE it but it happened to a friend, it’s still a TRUTH even though you can’t say “I did…” or “that happened to me…”
Also, she only complied AFTER she was given the written warning.
ew on
January 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Actually, “Hearsay” is defined as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Just an fyi for all you out there. Everyone throws that term around and really has no idea what it means.
I think this horse is sufficiently beaten, I think we need a new topic Nate. This one is bringing the morale down.
What does the Stuart cop do really, anyway?
Nate Westre on
January 19, 2007 3:42 pm
New topic? You got it!
Anonymous on
January 19, 2007 3:47 pm
Josh may get a letter demanding his appearance in a court room. Im guessing it will boil down to with the city.
The mayor just caved in to the intimidation of a few in this community. She is not a leader, just someone who took what she thought was the easy way out. Now she and the council are going to have to face up to what they have done and accept the consequences.
The consequence is that we the tax payers will have to pay the reward of the lawsuit.
In my eyes that’s why she was reason enough she was fired. The mayor only listed the times she was written up.
I’m sure there will be a lawsuit eventually, but I doubt it will come from Carol.
3:18, don’t you think if it really happened it’s serious enough to warrant some type of written documentation? And I’m not talking about a comment on a blog that can’t be traced back to anything.
whos rayburns lawyer?
Is the rule for no smoking for all city employees? If the council is going to have this rule then it needs to be enforced on all city workers not just the police dept. Just this week I saw a city employee smoking in a city truck.
Well, just to shed some light, if it does go to a law suit for wrongful termination, the city should have insurance to cover that law suit. It’s called Employment Practices Liability, if they have a good insurance agent, the should have sold them that coverage. So the tax payers should have already “paid” for the law suit. If they don’t have it, get a new insurance agent. Their is your insurance 101 lesson for today!!
If they do in fact have insurance and a claim has to be paid then in the future we can expect a much higher insurance premium. That will come from our taxes.
Nate, if a first hand account of something isn’t credible then there is a real problem. That would mean people who seen an accident or a crime would have to prove they were there before their statement could be made. There isn’t a way that it’s ok for one thing and not for the other.
I really doubt Josh Pruitt would lie about that, especially considering it’s about a guy he was in a fight with and doesn’t like.
I doubt Josh would lie about it either, but unfortunately there’s no way to prove it was actually Josh who wrote that on this site (from my side). I’m pretty sure it was him, but I can’t prove it.
Maybe I wasn’t very clear earlier, but the point I was trying to make was if the council used the statement from Josh as a reason to fire Rayburn then they should have said that. That at least would be something concrete.
Rayburn giving out confidential information makes a lot stronger case for the council than Rayburn not patrolling enough.
Look at it from the councils point of view. They don’t want to drag her entire personal file out into the open. That would have just caused a lot of drama and problems for not only Carol, but for them as well. Cheryl reading the basics of why she was written up was sufficient enough and pretty much self explanatory.
Take the smoking one for example. She was told at the council meeting that she and Stout were no longer allowed to smoke in the building or in the cars. The council also passed an ordinance against the smoking in city builings & vehicles. It was within that next week that Carol and Stout were both written up. That is pretty much a slap in the face to the council.
If your boss told you not to smoke in the office and you lit one up within the next few days, don’t you think you’d be fired? You would. Carol was just given a warning. The council was a lot more lenient with her than most others in their situation would have been.
Depends on the boss I guess. My boss smokes in the office. It smells like a bar in here.
I think the smoking issue is a cop-out anyway. It doesn’t really relate to her job performance.
I admit, the smoking was probably one of the weaker excuses but it’s still a violation. I have family members whose athsma can be triggered by cigarette smoke. You never know who’s going to be in the police offices or city buildings and you never know what medical conditions they have or how sensitive to smells they are. A public official has to be accomidating to all types of people.
I agree with that, that a public official needs to be accommodating. There’s not really a debate there.
We need to be careful though when we start comparing the smoking violation to any other. Driving 73 mph and driving 103 mph on the highway are both violations, but are they the same?
Smoking in a public building is on a little higher level, but I don’t think we can just say a violation is a violation. I’d be pissed if I got fired because I got caught jaywalking.
But she was told point blank do not do it and she went ahead and did it anyway. It was insubordination.
Ok. Let’s get rid of the smoking. Let’s discuss her attitute and her not so approachable demeanot. I know of a business man in town who’s property was vandalized. He went in to talk to her and see what she could do about it and she went off on him. Then Carol had the audacity to insinuate it was his fault. He was extremely insulted and said he would never deal with her again. He took the matter to county instead.
This isn’t the only case I know of that she treated people like criminals instead of like the victims they were.
i meant demeanor
By “you” I mean anyone who wishes to contribute.
I don’t know Rayburn personally, but feel free to keep discussing. Maybe some stories of when you thought she was helpful, when you thought she wasn’t, that type of stuff.
Here we go with the hearsay again, I know a guy. As far as the smoking, I do believe that she complied with the directive, after it was given. Many times I drove by the police department when she would be OUTSIDE smoking, just like the rest of the city employees who had been smoking in City Hall.
Oh my God. Not EVERYTHING is hearsay. If you hear it from the mouth of the person it happened to it’s a TRUTH. If you SEE it but it happened to a friend, it’s still a TRUTH even though you can’t say “I did…” or “that happened to me…”
Also, she only complied AFTER she was given the written warning.
Actually, “Hearsay” is defined as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Just an fyi for all you out there. Everyone throws that term around and really has no idea what it means.
I think this horse is sufficiently beaten, I think we need a new topic Nate. This one is bringing the morale down.
What does the Stuart cop do really, anyway?
New topic? You got it!
Josh may get a letter demanding his appearance in a court room. Im guessing it will boil down to with the city.