Do people really think it is ok for her to vote on issues that could negatively or positively affect her cash flow ( Chris Sears, her husbands job)? She is utterly disgusting in her lack of ethics.

Why not!, they allowed her to vote when she was an employee at the sheriff office. Remember, she is a County Commissioner, and they all believe they are gods insteads of a$$es.

If any board in this county had ethics, no votes would ever be cast. I did find it disturbing though that she voted on the cost of county health care when she is a member of the county health care system. That clearly violates the ethics of the post she was sworn into. She should also recuse herself from matters that pertain to her husbands employer, be it the sheriff or anyone else.

would you endorse a law disallowing all county employees and their immediate families from running for public office?

GO SEARS!!!

sandy feller wrote:

would you endorse a law disallowing all county employees and their immediate families from running for public office?

I would endorse a rule preventing them from voting on matters that pertain to their immediate financial well being... OOOPS we already have that and she has repeatedly violated it. She is a worthless vermin.

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
I would endorse a rule preventing them from voting on matters that pertain to their immediate financial well being... OOOPS we already have that and she has repeatedly violated it. She is a worthless vermin.

the most important issue for commissioners is the budget. you would deny them the vote. therefore, why elect one in the first place?

Does Berry exclude himself since his daughter works up there? No

sandy feller wrote:

<quoted text>the most important issue for commissioners is the budget. you would deny them the vote. therefore, why elect one in the first place?

I think Sarah is referring to a vote that will benefit a commissioner directly. IE: healthcare vote.

trouble wrote:

<quoted text>
I think Sarah is referring to a vote that will benefit a commissioner directly. IE: healthcare vote.

a commissioner is already in the health program. i wonder if the raise in fees pertains to them. as an aside, it is the most generous i have ever seen. i participated in it for 4 years when i was comm. so it would seem that all of them had a conflict of interest.

Sandy,if the commissioners are covered under the same insurance as the county workers and the commissioners have to approve the budget, how else would the insurance get approved? Now my opinion is that there should be something written that says any increase in benefits covering an approving official cannot take affect for them until 4 yrs has elapsed.

Marion wrote:

Sandy,if the commissioners are covered under the same insurance as the county workers and the commissioners have to approve the budget, how else would the insurance get approved? Now my opinion is that there should be something written that says any increase in benefits covering an approving official cannot take affect for them until 4 yrs has elapsed.

i don't think so.

All of the Commissioners except Mr. Rainer have the count insurance. So does that mean that they should all keep from voting on the issue at hand?

stupid people wrote:

All of the Commissioners except Mr. Rainer have the count insurance. So does that mean that they should all keep from voting on the issue at hand?

That is not true.

stupid people wrote:

All of the Commissioners except Mr. Rainer have the count insurance. So does that mean that they should all keep from voting on the issue at hand?

what do you think?

The law states that Mrs. Sears or her husband would have to receive and increase in compensation. I asked and found out that her husand has not received a raise since she was elected and she has not voted to give herself a raise either. Everything she has voted on has affected all employees not just her and her husband. The same goes for the Health Insurance...all commissioners can vote on this because they are voting on it for all employees. She is the only one that legally should be on county insurance. All the other commissioners are part time and the county does not offer insurance for part time employees. Mrs. Sears is under her husband's policy as he is a full time employee with family coverage. I don't think this county should put the commissioners on the policy it costs too much money and they are NOT full time employees. The same goes for the budget all commissioners are paid from it but they can still vote on it because it is not singling out one commissioner to be paid more or less. It effects them all the same.
Now I said all that to say this, if Sears votes on the jail project it does not financially benefit her or her husband. She or her husband would have to get real money out of the deal before it is illegal. These hurtful allegations should be punishable by law in my opinion. If you don't like her that is one thing but to wrongfully accuse someone of a criminal action is illegal and I hope you get sued.
Sandy Feller is a sad old man with little to no ethical or moral compass. I would not take the information he posts without doing some major research. I for one am glad he lost yet another election.

Read the LAW wrote:

The law states that Mrs. Sears or her husband would have to receive and increase in compensation. I asked and found out that her husand has not received a raise since she was elected and she has not voted to give herself a raise either. Everything she has voted on has affected all employees not just her and her husband. The same goes for the Health Insurance...all commissioners can vote on this because they are voting on it for all employees. She is the only one that legally should be on county insurance. All the other commissioners are part time and the county does not offer insurance for part time employees. Mrs. Sears is under her husband's policy as he is a full time employee with family coverage. I don't think this county should put the commissioners on the policy it costs too much money and they are NOT full time employees. The same goes for the budget all commissioners are paid from it but they can still vote on it because it is not singling out one commissioner to be paid more or less. It effects them all the same.
Now I said all that to say this, if Sears votes on the jail project it does not financially benefit her or her husband. She or her husband would have to get real money out of the deal before it is illegal. These hurtful allegations should be punishable by law in my opinion. If you don't like her that is one thing but to wrongfully accuse someone of a criminal action is illegal and I hope you get sued.
Sandy Feller is a sad old man with little to no ethical or moral compass. I would not take the information he posts without doing some major research. I for one am glad he lost yet another election.

You tell them Charlene

Read the LAW wrote:

The law states that Mrs. Sears or her husband would have to receive and increase in compensation. I asked and found out that her husand has not received a raise since she was elected and she has not voted to give herself a raise either. Everything she has voted on has affected all employees not just her and her husband. The same goes for the Health Insurance...all commissioners can vote on this because they are voting on it for all employees. She is the only one that legally should be on county insurance. All the other commissioners are part time and the county does not offer insurance for part time employees. Mrs. Sears is under her husband's policy as he is a full time employee with family coverage. I don't think this county should put the commissioners on the policy it costs too much money and they are NOT full time employees. The same goes for the budget all commissioners are paid from it but they can still vote on it because it is not singling out one commissioner to be paid more or less. It effects them all the same.
Now I said all that to say this, if Sears votes on the jail project it does not financially benefit her or her husband. She or her husband would have to get real money out of the deal before it is illegal. These hurtful allegations should be punishable by law in my opinion. If you don't like her that is one thing but to wrongfully accuse someone of a criminal action is illegal and I hope you get sued.
Sandy Feller is a sad old man with little to no ethical or moral compass. I would not take the information he posts without doing some major research. I for one am glad he lost yet another election.

Do you think there is a difference in being law abiding and being ethical?

the comments re conflict of interest are overblown. the real issue is whether you are satisfied with her performance over the last three years. if you are you should return her to office for another 4 years.

Law abiding is ethical.