Paulding Co. taxpayer funded background checks of citizens.

stradial said:
I'm Floored said:
I've actually seen this list and the map. I can't remember now where I saw it, or if it was the person who received it who shared it with me. So, I can confirm it exists. All I can say will allow myself to say is....not cool.

As for the background checks, I wish someone somewhere would release the info. I'd like to know what the truth is about the situation, and it seems easy enough to verify. They don't even have to be released to the public. Just let the commissioners know.

Folks, this stuff is out in the public eye, and I don't mean here in Paulding. We have friends from other parts of the state who have approached us about this issue. It's making us look bad. Paulding is becoming a mockery, and it seems easy enough to put the issue to rest.

I've kept quiet about a lot of things, and I think the admin's story is plausible. (I've been known to research things on my own, too.) But if that is the case, I don't think it should be swept under the rug. Let's get it out there and put an end to it - one way or another.
Click to expand...

My suggestion is, that the names on the list of those who had background checks run on them at taxpayer expense, be shown to the BoC.
If the BoC feels there is more to be investigated, then they can do whatever they think is the best next step.
If the names are what Mr Jones said they were, checks on people he thought may have been behind threats made toward him, then they can say that and end this.
Click to expand...

I would have to say that I agree with IF and his story is plausible, and sort of agree with StRadial. The problem I see with showing the names to the BoC is that I know some talk. I have heard it with my own ears. It needs to be someone outside of the issue or someone that is not allowed to talk. My reasoning for this? If the story is correct and he was checking people known to him on a hunch it was someone close to have the info they did, why hurt that person? Now he knows it was not, and I so not care if he is hurt (by using the card or the person knowing what he did), but an innocent person should not be. If the names get out everyone, and we know this is an issue far reaching, will know that the admin thought his ___________(fill in the blank, MIL, FIL, Best Friend, etc...) was doing this, do not think that will not hurt that person and possibly damage their reputation. :( That is not fair.
 
ShoeDiva said:
The problem I see with showing the names to the BoC is that I know some talk. I have heard it with my own ears. It needs to be someone outside of the issue or someone that is not allowed to talk.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine releasing the names to anyone other than the BOC. They are the officials elected by the people. At this point, we have gentlemen on both sides of the major issues in the community, so it seems there's a good balance in place to make sure it's confidential.
 
I'm Floored said:
ShoeDiva said:
The problem I see with showing the names to the BoC is that I know some talk. I have heard it with my own ears. It needs to be someone outside of the issue or someone that is not allowed to talk.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine releasing the names to anyone other than the BOC. They are the officials elected by the people. At this point, we have gentlemen on both sides of the major issues in the community, so it seems there's a good balance in place to make sure it's confidential.
Click to expand...

I think that the minimum that should be done is that the BoC should have this information.
Why?
Because it was charged to the county expense.
Taking into the account that Mr. Jones has apparently been extended a $45,000 consulting job with our county, I think would be derelict of the BoC not to investigate this and get the information on the who, what, when, where and why.
Depending on those answers, the BoC should make the decision on what steps, if any, to take next.
 
I'm Floored said:
ShoeDiva said:
The problem I see with showing the names to the BoC is that I know some talk. I have heard it with my own ears. It needs to be someone outside of the issue or someone that is not allowed to talk.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine releasing the names to anyone other than the BOC. They are the officials elected by the people. At this point, we have gentlemen on both sides of the major issues in the community, so it seems there's a good balance in place to make sure it's confidential.
Click to expand...

I am thinking a judge or DA or someone that can not talk. Elected by the people makes no difference in them trying to appease certain people or get others on their side. There being a balance of anti/pro people does not seem to me a reason that it would remain confidential. :dunno How much stuff have you heard that you never thought you would? One slip, and in all honesty it could be unintentional, to someone, oh it was his______, no worries. Next thing that innocent party is damaged. I just do not see taking a chance with someones reputation that is innocent, with people that are not bound by confidentiality. Unless they are and I just am not aware of that. (That could be.)
Just my opinion, but so many have been hurt by things in the last year or so, why add someone innocent?

stradial said:
I'm Floored said:
ShoeDiva said:
The problem I see with showing the names to the BoC is that I know some talk. I have heard it with my own ears. It needs to be someone outside of the issue or someone that is not allowed to talk.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine releasing the names to anyone other than the BOC. They are the officials elected by the people. At this point, we have gentlemen on both sides of the major issues in the community, so it seems there's a good balance in place to make sure it's confidential.
Click to expand...

I think that the minimum that should be done is that the BoC should have this information.
Why?
Because it was charged to the county expense.
Taking into the account that Mr. Jones has apparently been extended a $45,000 consulting job with our county, I think would be derelict of the BoC not to investigate this and get the information on the who, what, when, where and why.
Depending on those answers, the BoC should make the decision on what steps, if any, to take next.
Click to expand...

Could it be that the county already knows? Did they all not agree to extend this consulting job? Maybe they do know and are just not talking because it was not just anyone but people Jones had close contact with, and if that is the case, I applaud all of them for keeping the answers quiet.

I really do not have answers. I just do not want to see innocent people hurt.
 
I still believe that the people, that the backgrounds were run on, should be told, along with an explanation from Mr. Jones, himself.
 
ShoeDiva said:
Could it be that the county already knows? Did they all not agree to extend this consulting job? Maybe they do know and are just not talking because it was not just anyone but people Jones had close contact with, and if that is the case, I applaud all of them for keeping the answers quiet.

I really do not have answers. I just do not want to see innocent people hurt.
Click to expand...

I am 100% in agreement with you on the innocent getting hurt.
As far as the county knowing, I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the county has stated that they have no records of who these searches were done on.
I take that to mean that, no, they do not know the names of the people that were checked.
That bothers me for several reasons, one being that it is customary when charging to a company credit card, to fill out a report and attach detailed copies of what the charge was for.
Apparently this was not done. (it may not be normal procedure, and if not, I think it should be)

As far as the consulting job goes, it is my understanding that the Chairman of the BoC can spend up to 50K without approval and that is where the consulting job came from.
Now I have no idea if having Mr. Jones as a consultant is a good thing or a bad thing for the county.
I have to presume that it is a good thing, otherwise why would he have been offered that position.
But because he does have that position, if he indeed does, then it is (IMO) even more important to get this information about the background checks.

One last note, I could be waaaaaaay off base on this, but I think I understand that because the charges were done on a county credit, the records showing the details of these charges are subject to the open records act (or whatever that deal is) and thus the county is obligated to release those records to those who file the proper requests.
I could be totally wrong on this, but I think I am right. (sorta)

My thought was by showing the BoC the records and names, that would possible keep those names out of the mass public and thus help keep innocent people from being hurt.
 
stradial said:
ShoeDiva said:
Could it be that the county already knows? Did they all not agree to extend this consulting job? Maybe they do know and are just not talking because it was not just anyone but people Jones had close contact with, and if that is the case, I applaud all of them for keeping the answers quiet.

I really do not have answers. I just do not want to see innocent people hurt.
Click to expand...

I am 100% in agreement with you on the innocent getting hurt.
As far as the county knowing, I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the county has stated that they have no records of who these searches were done on.
I take that to mean that, no, they do not know the names of the people that were checked.
That bothers me for several reasons, one being that it is customary when charging to a company credit card, to fill out a report and attach detailed copies of what the charge was for.
Apparently this was not done. (it may not be normal procedure, and if not, I think it should be)

As far as the consulting job goes, it is my understanding that the Chairman of the BoC can spend up to 50K without approval and that is where the consulting job came from.
Now I have no idea if having Mr. Jones as a consultant is a good thing or a bad thing for the county.
I have to presume that it is a good thing, otherwise why would he have been offered that position.
But because he does have that position, if he indeed does, then it is (IMO) even more important to get this information about the background checks.

One last note, I could be waaaaaaay off base on this, but I think I understand that because the charges were done on a county credit, the records showing the details of these charges are subject to the open records act (or whatever that deal is) and thus the county is obligated to release those records to those who file the proper requests.
I could be totally wrong on this, but I think I am right. (sorta)

My thought was by showing the BoC the records and names, that would possible keep those names out of the mass public and thus help keep innocent people from being hurt.
Click to expand...

I just do not know, the only I do know is as a county we are so far gone it is ridiculous. I am at the point where I am tired of the back and forth, the hatred, and most all of the major players (elected and citizens) on both sides stating so and so is horrible, a crook, thief, or bad person. I am tired of the condescending attitude of all acting like they know better than the other person when it comes to issues. None of the players are innocent in any of this when it comes to how they are playing and I, as I am sure others, are over it. I know each side is proclaiming with all their heart that they are right, and I believe they believe that, but no one seems to want to hear the other side or meet in the middle, on anything. It just is tiring to rehash the same ole thing over and over and nothing is accomplished.
 
ShoeDiva said:
I just do not know, the only I do know is as a county we are so far gone it is ridiculous. I am at the point where I am tired of the back and forth, the hatred, and most all of the major players (elected and citizens) on both sides stating so and so is horrible, a crook, thief, or bad person. I am tired of the condescending attitude of all acting like they know better than the other person when it comes to issues. None of the players are innocent in any of this when it comes to how they are playing and I, as I am sure others, are over it. I know each side is proclaiming with all their heart that they are right, and I believe they believe that, but no one seems to want to hear the other side or meet in the middle, on anything. It just is tiring to rehash the same ole thing over and over and nothing is accomplished.
Click to expand...

I think that most of the people want to get our employees (elected officials) working together.
I have my own opinions on what is some of the problem and quite frankly, I think ego and stubbornness plays a big part, on all sides.

I have stated several times elsewhere, that the only side I have is the side of the people of Paulding county and what is best for our county today and in the future.
Since I don't really know any of the people on either side, other than what I have mentioned about Todd Pownell, I have no allegiance to anyone, anywhere.

I do know that I have been threatened just for asking if Mr. Jones had resigned his job, which I had read about on social media.
By who? I don't know.
But they have since sent messages to people that know me, (they know they know me because I have mentioned it on a message board) saying that I better watch out or I may get burned.
This crap annoys me, but that's about all.
I have no clue if this person even knows anyone in our county government, but it is strange to think that by just asking such a question I get messages asking who I am and who is feeding me information, etc, along with veiled and not so veiled threats.

All I want is what is best for our county and I am sure I am not alone in that.
 
ShoeDiva said:
I am thinking a judge or DA or someone that can not talk. Elected by the people makes no difference in them trying to appease certain people or get others on their side. There being a balance of anti/pro people does not seem to me a reason that it would remain confidential. :dunno How much stuff have you heard that you never thought you would? One slip, and in all honesty it could be unintentional, to someone, oh it was his______, no worries. Next thing that innocent party is damaged. I just do not see taking a chance with someones reputation that is innocent, with people that are not bound by confidentiality. Unless they are and I just am not aware of that. (That could be.)
Just my opinion, but so many have been hurt by things in the last year or so, why add someone innocent?
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone would select who an unbiased third party would be. In my opinion, you have to trust that those on the Commission - each elected by their constituents - would be responsible with the information provided.

I hope no more innocent people are harmed. This is ugly - uglier than I ever imagined it could be. I am so distraught by the division in our county, and I'm not sure we can truly heal from it.

I can understand your saying that you don't want innocent people harmed by this information, but we also have to look at the fact that that may be unavoidable. If I found out my name was on the list, and I'd been checked for no valid reason - I'd be livid, as I'm sure any other citizen would be! If Mr. Jones looked into these people regarding the investigation around the threats made toward him, I would think it would be easy enough to explain. (If I had a distant relative who had been arrested for threats against another, I could at least understand why my name had been researched.)

Anyway, I don't think my opinion in the matter makes a difference at all. But we have officials elected by their people to represent them, and it's my opinion they should be the ones to handle the matter, considering the person who ran the checks answers to their board.
 
I'm Floored said:
ShoeDiva said:
I am thinking a judge or DA or someone that can not talk. Elected by the people makes no difference in them trying to appease certain people or get others on their side. There being a balance of anti/pro people does not seem to me a reason that it would remain confidential. :dunno How much stuff have you heard that you never thought you would? One slip, and in all honesty it could be unintentional, to someone, oh it was his______, no worries. Next thing that innocent party is damaged. I just do not see taking a chance with someones reputation that is innocent, with people that are not bound by confidentiality. Unless they are and I just am not aware of that. (That could be.)
Just my opinion, but so many have been hurt by things in the last year or so, why add someone innocent?
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone would select who an unbiased third party would be. In my opinion, you have to trust that those on the Commission - each elected by their constituents - would be responsible with the information provided.

I hope no more innocent people are harmed. This is ugly - uglier than I ever imagined it could be. I am so distraught by the division in our county, and I'm not sure we can truly heal from it.

I can understand your saying that you don't want innocent people harmed by this information, but we also have to look at the fact that that may be unavoidable. If I found out my name was on the list, and I'd been checked for no valid reason - I'd be livid, as I'm sure any other citizen would be! If Mr. Jones looked into these people regarding the investigation around the threats made toward him, I would think it would be easy enough to explain. (If I had a distant relative who had been arrested for threats against another, I could at least understand why my name had been researched.)

Anyway, I don't think my opinion in the matter makes a difference at all. But we have officials elected by their people to represent them, and it's my opinion they should be the ones to handle the matter, considering the person who ran the checks answers to their board.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with the highlighted statement.

I also think you are right that your opinion nor mine actually makes a difference in this, but it is nice to at least put it out there. :))
 
honeybunny said:
ShoeDiva said:
honeybunny said:
ShoeDiva said:
honeybunny said:
FREE the Paulding 17 ! ! !


:B_S :B_S :B_S
Click to expand...

Who is being held?
Click to expand...


Background checks on 17 private citizens that were purchased with taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...
So we know that they are all Paulding citizens? I did not know that.
Click to expand...



Release the records (as required by law) and maybe we will find the truth.


:Stick
Click to expand...

I still prefer


Free the Paulding 17!


:))
 
If taxpayer dollars were used to pay for these, they are subject to open records requests. They don't belong to anyone but the taxpayers. People need to think before they do stuff.

These are federal laws, not Paulding county or State of Georgia. Transparency is a requirement of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top