O Lawd, I ain’t never...

Editorial submitted by Conrad Doyle

 It has come to my attention that someone took offense to my siting of HB-195 and on FaceCrap, oh I mean FaceBook, claiming I missed the mark when describing the purpose of said House Bill.

 If my purpose was to discuss the bill in its entirety with all of the corrections, re-votes, further rewording and re-voting, maybe I missed the mark…

 If my purpose was to give proper credit to those who supported and voted for it, maybe I missed the mark…

 If my purpose was to mention the members of our elected state representative’s that voted for the bill, maybe I missed the mark…

 When the same summation was printed in a much larger publication, and it drew no retort, maybe I missed the mark…

 I was told a “retraction” would be in this week’s opinion piece so as not to disappoint all of the readers who “will not read the trash printed in this paper” let me offer to you my most sincere apologies…

 For not giving you the credit you felt you should have been given, I apologize for missing the mark…..

 For not regurgitating all of the verbiage of said HB-195, I do apologize for missing the mark…

 For not giving the retraction you expected, I do apologize for once again missing the mark….

 For not being completely transparent in the intent of my opinion piece, I apologize and will correct my missing the mark…

 So, thank you for encouraging clarification on the exact point of the piece. I will try not to miss the mark…

 My point was to draw attention to the tax payers and to encourage them to question what is being hidden by using the terminology of line:

5100 PROTECTION TO PERSONS AND PROPERTY for which we are paying more than SEVEN MIL- LION...$7,206,300.00.

9400 FRINGE BENEFITS-EMPLOYERS SHARE: tax payers are the employer and are paying more than A MILLION AND A HALF... $1,667,000.00.

 I understand you thought I was in some way speaking of, or for you, when I mentioned “local leaders”.

 Oh Lawd, I ain’t even going to put myself in that position, you need no help.

 I do apologize that I do not consider you a local leader nor did I ever intend to speak on your behalf.

 I do apologize that you felt the need to interject yourself into anything said because, and I do say this sincerely, it was not about you.

 The entire opinion piece was about the tax-payers right to know.

It was about our Senior Citizen’s and their right to know.

 It was about the portion of taxpayer’s who either do not get or cannot afford computers and phones and their right to know.

 The two captions were to point out that if the local leaders are going to take advantage of not printing in full what the taxpayers are being taxed for, then these leaders must abide by and meet the requirements and include in their 6 column paper posting information that “must include a mailing address and physical address where a copy of any related documents may be obtained, a telephone number for local government, and the Web address including the U.R.L of if the document is available online.

- Any internet posting including advertisements must be readily and easily located and retrieved via the local government’s homepage or first page of the notice Website.” (as worded by Rep. Miller)

 If the local leaders are not following HB-195 then why are we not being told what we are paying for when we pay both current taxes and those yet to be announced?

 So, if I “missed the mark” because I think we, the tax payers of Meade County, have the right to know what we are paying for, I do not, and will not, apologize.

 But you can rest assured I will continue to push for the tax payers right to know, and to voice my opinion, for as long as allowed.

 We may not be able to afford all the gadgets and perks afforded those not on a fixed or limited budget, but we can vote. I can vote.

 Did you also discuss the $300,000,000 Revenue Bond that once issued the proceeds will be funneled to NUCOR?

 Did you discuss who, what, when, would be “buying” these bonds?

 Did you discuss the why or who would benefit?

 Did you miss that mark?

21 views0 comments