RSS
Comments by StupidShouldHurtMore
Page 1 of 23 | Next
Posted on December 31 at 7:19 p.m.
L_O_L,
Here we go again. Do we really need to rehash the fact that the information was indeed provided? Do we really need to rehash the fact that Cindy Wilson admitted under oath that she did indeed receive the information in question? Do we really need to rehash the fact Wilson and Waldrep were WRONG in their actions ... WRONG enough to warrant a temporary injunction pending a final ruling?
No ... I didn't think so.
Score another point for the good guys (and gals) of Anderson County.
T-minus two years . . . and counting.
- SSHM
Posted on December 26 at 10:44 p.m.
That's the problem goat34.
We all know that the lake generates revenue. That much is not in question. What is in question, and what has never been recorded before, is exactly HOW MUCH revenue that lake generates and at what point does it stop generating revenue/adverse effects on the local economy/etc.
Ask the Corps or anyone with any sort of economic interest in the lake. NO ONE can supply accurate data to determine the impact other than "alot."
- SSHM
On Corps of Engineers agrees to study economic impact of Hartwell Lake on local economy
Posted on December 16 at 11:31 p.m.
It is my understanding that while Bosch supplies parts to many of the major car companies across the globe, the largest customer for their parts remains GM.
Grim ... very grim ...
- SSHM
Posted on December 3 at 4:32 p.m.
Quoting JustSusan:
". . . Council's attorney said there was no breech . . ."
... hence the term ANTICIPATORY BREACH. Time for a lesson:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictio...
From the website:
"when a party to a contract repudiates (reneges on) his/her obligations under that contract before fully performing those obligations. This can be by word ("I won't deliver the rest of the goods" or "I can't make any more payments") or by action (not showing up with goods or stopping making payments). The result is that the other party does not have to perform his/her obligations and cannot be liable for not doing so. This is often a defense to a lawsuit for payment or performance on a contract. One cannot repudiate his obligations and demand that the other person perform."
Did you catch that part? The part that said "by word?" Did you stop to think that all the soundbites, quotes, and general blathering of the incoming council could indeed be interpreted as "anticipatory breach by word?"
I tend to think so . . .
- SSHM
Posted on November 30 at 9:33 p.m.
Quoting from the article:
“I’m not comfortable that the new council agrees with Mr. Cunningham’s appointment on the basis of this council does not have the authority to appoint administrators for a term of office for the new (incoming) council,” Waldrep said. “That’s my understanding of the law.”
It's interesting that Rip van Waldrep's interpretation of the law runs counter to the past twelve years. If we hop into "the way-back machine," you will see a council with FIVE members and not SEVEN members.
Think about that for a moment. JRP was County Administrator in 2000 with a FIVE MEMBER COUNCIL. In 2001, County Council changed to a SEVEN MEMBER COUNCIL. JRP was the County Administrator in 2000. JRP was STILL the County Administrator in 2001.
Rip van Waldrep's "interpretation" is both moot and inappropriate. If between 2000 and 2001, the size of council can grow by two members, and the contractual matters of JRP (or for that matter, ANY administrator) are not an issue, YET in 2008 and soon to be 2009, three new members on a seven member council are opting to make an issue of this ... well ... to say the least, the precedent does not exist.
Stop crying over spilled milk and MOVE ON.
- SSHM
On Preston, Cunningham contracts on Tuesday agenda for Anderson County Council
Posted on November 30 at 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Oracle,
You just made my point for me. Allow me to quote you:
"He hasn't been representing my or the citizens best interests, he has been representing Preston."
It is NOT the job of the County Attorney to represent you or the body politic as a whole. In fact, if you read the following from the article, you might get a clue ...
“The county attorney is hired and fired by the county administrator,” Thompson said. “That has nothing to do with the County Council. It is up to the administrator who is hired and fired.”
Allow me to drive a related point home (this will sting) . . .
Contrary to what many from "the opposition" think and feel, County Council can NOT fire County Employees. That power rests ONLY with the County Administrator. Now, if the County Administrator opts not to fire an employee, they have very little form of recourse.
Well ... there is ONE thing they CAN do ... (and I hope they are taking careful notes).
County Council, in addition to being able to hire and fire two people (Clerk of Council and County Administrator) can defund/eliminate positions from the budget, IF, and ONLY IF, the law allows for it.
You and others keep forgetting that this is a County Administrator form of government. A form of government that is LEGAL and APPROVED under HOME RULE. The council has very limited authority over the day-to-day operations of the county.
Oh, as a sidebar, if you don't like the current form of government, it requires a public referendum to change it.
So, in summary:
1.) The County Attorney owes you nothing, as he does not represent you in any matter.
2.) Council can't fire employees of the county, save two individuals, the County Administrator and the Clerk to Council.
3.) The County Administrator form of government is an APPROVED and LEGAL means by which to run local government under the auspices of Home Rule.
4.) To change the current form of local government will require a referendum.
That, Mr. Oracle, is my point. It is also why the opposition is so sore over the results of the past few weeks.
As it has been said before: Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.
- SSHM
On Tom Martin considers resigning as Anderson County attorney
Posted on November 30 at 11:54 a.m.
Mr. Oracle,
I assure you, I will still be here in 60 days. So will Anderson County Government, sans one or two key players, those being JRP and now, apparently, Tom Martin.
It is a sad day when it appears that we must part the ways with the McNair Law Firm. Now, before the opposition jumps up and down for joy, I think you and others need to understand the impact of the McNair Law Firm, both here in Anderson County and elsewhere.
From the McNair Website:
"McNair’s counseling of governmental entities is a seamless web of experience and capabilities. Just as we understand how state and local governments work at the highest administrative and legislative levels, our professional credibility with these decision-makers enhances our ability to counsel counties, municipalities and special purpose entities throughout the state. If you are a county government official in South Carolina, you have likely worked with a McNair lawyer: we have represented at least 25 of the state’s 46 counties, more than half of the 85 school districts, and dozens of municipalities on some issue of importance to them. We not only serve as general counsel to some of these clients – our lawyers often are special counsel on administrative, environmental, financing, immigration, land use and other matters. At the intersection of multiple local government and business interests, McNair lawyers smoothly direct the administrative and legal traffic so that public purposes and private needs are integrated for the common good."
Did you catch that? Twenty-five of this states 46 counties are represented by the McNair Law Firm. Thats over HALF of all counties in South Carolina. This is a HUGE step BACKWARDS for Anderson County if we choose to show the McNair Law Firm the door.
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe the condition of mind one must be in to send this group packing.
- SSHM
On Tom Martin considers resigning as Anderson County attorney
Posted on November 29 at 4:46 p.m.
Miss Roper,
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
- John Adams (1770)
2nd President of the United States
On Tom Martin considers resigning as Anderson County attorney
Posted on November 26 at 10:27 a.m.
Oracle,
You'll see . . .
<!--end new threaded comments-->
</div>
</div>
<!-- block content -->
</div><!-- /content -->
. . . in EVERY article listed on this site. Block in this instance is not "to obscure" but a "block or a section of text to define placement, i.e., FORMATTING, on the page."
Go take a class at Tri-County. They will teach you how to read HTML, etc.
Again ... claims of conspiracy where there are none to be found.
Ignorance is one thing. If you still cling to your posted opinion after taking a class, well ... let's just say that stupid is forever, sadly.
- SSHM
On Anderson County Council votes to release Preston from his contract for $1.14 million
Page 1 of 23 | Next
Posted on January 6 at 8:28 a.m.
Freebird22,
You are on track here. Let me provide everyone to a "link of outrage."
SC State Salary Database
http://www.thestate.com/politics/stor...
By law, if you are a SC State Employee, and you make $50,000 or more a year, your name will appear in a centralized database, that can be searched by the public. Now, as for these school districts having to cut back, I agree, there is fat locally that should be addressed.
The bigger pig on the block, however, is the Department of Education.
Go to the link I provided. Look for the Department of Education in the listing. You will see the following:
1.) 14 individuals making in excess of $100,000 a year.
2.) 27 individuals making more money annual than the head of the department!
3.) Jim Rex, our State Superintendent of Education and head of the department, makes $92,007 a year.
I guarantee if you were to fire HALF the folks 0n that list, you wouldn't notice a thing.
If you are looking locally to cut fat, target your curriculum coordinators. As I understand, that title is fancy "edu-speak" for "washed up teacher drawing a big salary and teaching nothing."
- SSHM
On School districts consider pending budget cuts