Comments on: So…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:47:00 +0000

Josh may get a letter demanding his appearance in a court room. Im guessing it will boil down to with the city.

By: Nate Westre

Nate Westre — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:42:00 +0000

New topic? You got it!

By: ew

ew — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:10:00 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:18:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:10:00 +0000

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.

By: Nate Westre

Nate Westre — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:53:00 +0000

By “you” I mean anyone who wishes to contribute.

By: Nate Westre

Nate Westre — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:53:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:43:00 +0000

i meant demeanor

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:42:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:24:00 +0000

But she was told point blank do not do it and she went ahead and did it anyway. It was insubordination.

By: Nate Westre

Nate Westre — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:53:00 +0000

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.

By: Nate Westre

Nate Westre — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:24:00 +0000

I think the smoking issue is a cop-out anyway. It doesn’t really relate to her job performance.

By: Nate Westre

Nate Westre — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:21:00 +0000

Depends on the boss I guess. My boss smokes in the office. It smells like a bar in here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:16:00 +0000

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.