To the Messenger: I am writing concerning the reporting on the insurance issue with Judge Haynes. It’s ironic that once again things are reported with no attempt to get the other side of the story. Your paper even went as far as to make the statement that you wished we would explain our side on the vote concerning Judge Haynes’ insurance. However no one ever tried to contact me via telephone, fax, or email. First of all I do agree that it was a complete conflict of interest for the Judge to have voted on this issue. There is no question about that. Since you further state that the County Attorney was minding the store, I would like to state that I disagree, as the County Attorney nor any one from his office was present at the Fiscal Court meeting to watch over the legalities of court to prevent this from happening. Concerning the issue of insurance I will make a statement then explain my vote. It is clear that our county government is lacking in policy and procedure as I have brought up many times. An example is there are no driving records checked on employees that have access to county vehicles, such as no one checks for DUI’s, speeding tickets, or accidents before they are given keys to our taxpayer’s vehicles. This is a huge driving factor in our rates for our insurance. Likewise, there is no policy or procedure written for elected officials and county insurance and there should be. An elected official who is a temporary public servant is not in the same category as a permanent county employee. My contention is, if any elected official had paid into their insurance for 30 years as Judge Haynes had and opted to cancel his insurance to take county insurance then tried to buy insurance in the private sector after they left office, their premium would be about $5,000 per month. That would be for the rest of his life. His premium was $181 per month and had he have taken County insurance the County’s portion for his premium would have been more than his $181 per month. If any elected official, (temporary position) had paid into insurance and had a rate cheaper than the county would be paying then I say that it would need to be seriously considered. Another scenario, suppose he had taken County insurance and dropped his insurance then developed a medical condition during his four years, think what his rate would be then. I believe if you want to attract quality candidates to office, then you need to seriously look at issues such as this. I believe my point is valid whether you agree or disagree with my position. We need debate in county government instead of yes mans. I bring debate to the table, agree or disagree there is always another side to the story. I also am curious as to why things that involve hundreds of thousands of dollars in local government waste are swept under the rug and hidden to the public and such an issue was made about an $8,000 decision. Could it be the paper has a political agenda? Theresa Padgett
|
