THESE ARE THE MAJOR POINTS THAT ATTORNEY ELKIND PROVIDED IN THE RESPONSE FOR THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS RELATING TO DR. MILLER’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI .
CHARTER WHICH PROHIBITS INTERFERENCE BY INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND, AS SUCH, THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WERE OBSERVED? YET IT IS ALRIGHT FOR RHETT BULLARD WILLIE JEFFERSON AND TONJA BROWN TO INTERFERE AT ANY TIME.
the “Charter”) provides that a sitting council member may be removed from office for certain reasons more particularly discussed in Section 2.03(a)8 of the Charter provides the procedure for removal and it states, in full, as follows:
The Charter only requires that “[t]he Council … shall notify the affected Council Member in writing of its intent to declare the seat forfeited for any of the reasons
The notice specifically referred to Sections 2.03(a)2 and 2.03(a)6 of the Charter, which are two of the seven “reasons referenced above” as required by Section 2.03(a)8 of the Charter. No other notice is required by the Charter. IN OTHER WORDS THEY ARE STATING DR. MILLER WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY EXPRESS PROHIBITION OF THIS CHARTER AND FOR MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY STRETCHING THE MATTER TO FIT THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS’ CONVICTION OF DR. MILLER EVEN THOUGH TWO OF THE POWER OF THREE DID NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT “MALFEASANCE” MEANT. SINCE WHEN CAN’T A COUNCIL MEMBER REQUEST HELP FROM STAFF WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT STAFF SHOULD ASSIST COUNCIL MEMBERS SO THESE CLAIMS ARE AMBIGUOUS AND FALSE IN THE LEAST?
Miller also complains that she should have received the “Statement of Charges” earlier than she did.
This statement was not required by the Charter and was given merely as a convenience to all involved in the hearing process1. A “Statement of Charges” is not mentioned anywhere in the Charter and was simply a title that attorney conducting the hearing for White Springs’ put on the document [Appx. Tab 41, Page 16, lines 13-17]. IT HOWEVER IS IMPLIED BY REASON OF STATING THE AFFECTED COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL HAVE SEVEN DAYS….FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO THE COUNCIL’S INTENDED ACTION.
FURTHER DR. MILLER’S ATTORNEY HAD THE RIGHT AS WELL TO THOSE CHARGES AND THE TOWN DID NOT PROVIDE ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY STATED THEY DID, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO DR. MILLER BEING APPOINTED POINT MAN ON THE JUVENILE PROGRAM.
RHETT BULLARD HIMSELF HAD STACY TEBO READ THE CHARGES SINCE HE IS A WEAK INDIVIDUAL WITH POOR CHARACTER WHO WISHES EVERYONE ELSE TO TAKE THE BLAME. THEN MS. TEBO PLACED THE CHARGES IN NEWSPAPER AND THEN THE CHARGES WERE CHANGED.BY THE TIME THE HEARING WAS A WEEK AWAY.
FURTHERMORE WE DID NOT EVEN NEED A HEARING BECAUSE THE COUNCIL AS JUDGE AND JURY (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MCKENZIE) HAD MADE THEIR DECISION WELL PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND THE POWER OF THREE MADE THEDETERMINATION THAT THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO CHARGE HELEN MILLER AS GUILTY WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN LISTEN TO HER STATEMENTS WHICH SHOWED SHE WAS INNOCENT. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT CHARGES ARE PLACED AGAINST THEM AND WHAT THE COUNCIL DID WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG BUT THE POWER OF THREE DID THE SAME THING TO MR. PITTMAN OUR FIRE CHIEF AND GAVE HIM ONLY FIVE MINUTES TO RESPOND TO PETTY CHARGES..
White Springs limited the presentation of evidence to Charter violations that had occurred during Miller’s then current term of office [Appx. Tab 41, Page 6, lines 20 to 25]. NOW THE POWER OF THREE IS IMPLYING THERE WAS MORE EVIDENCE OF WHICH THEY DID NOT PROVIDE TO LIMIT THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. WHAT LIARS THEY ARE. THEY HAVE STATED THE CHARGES WERE THE SAME AS CITED IN THE NEWSPAPER BUT THE BEAUTIFUL DREAMER AWARD BANQUET WAS A CHARGE MADE AGAINST DR. MILLER WHICH OB VIOUSLY WAS REMOVED BECAUSE IT WOULD CAUSE HAVOC AMONG THE BLACK CITIZENS WHO were provided THE BANQUET YEARLY. TO COVER THE SEPARATE BANQUET, IT APPEARS THE BEAUTIFUL DREAMER AWARD WILL NOW BE GIVEN ON MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.’S HONORARY DAY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WISH TO DO ANY MORE FOR THE CITIZENS THAN THEY HAVE TO….WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COVERING STACY TEBO’S AND POWER OF THREE’S ASSES.
In the hearing. Miller complains that she should have received this earlier, even though she was not entitled under the Charter to have received any documents. AGAIN THIS IS WRONG.
On May 9, 2017, the Town Manager of White Springs reported violations of the Town Charter to the Town Council during a Council meeting. On June 13, 2017 the Town Council initiated the procedure of removing Miller and provided Miller with notice of right to request a hearing in her defense. On October 25, 2017 the Town Council held a hearing pursuant to the provisions of their Town Charter and voted to remove Miller for violations of the Town Charter.
2 Per the Charter, White Springs had absolutely no obligation to present any witnesses or testimony, that being the obligation of Miller. THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS OPERATES NOW AS A DICTATORSHIP AND IT MAKES ONE WONDER IF IT IS PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BECAUSE THESE OFFICIALS WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OATH TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION CERTAINLY DO NOT, EXCEPT IF IT BENEFITS THEM SOLELY. AS RHETT BULLARD STATED TO NICOLE WILLIAMS, HE DOESN’T GIVE A DAMNED ABOUT THE BLACK AND POOR SECTION OF TOWN.
While Miller may have had the best of intentions in her actions, she nevertheless violated a basic tenet of the council-manager form of government. Inherent in that system is the idea that the council shall act collectively as a collegial body, and no one member has the authority to involve herself in the daily administration of the government in the manner she alone deems appropriate. THIS DEFINITELY IS A FALSE STATEMENT BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT INVOLVED HERSELF IN THE DAILY ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT BUT RATHER ASKED FOR ASSISTANCE WHICH SHE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO. IT IS WITH HATE AND MALICE THAT THIS IS BEING DONE TO DR. MILLER. THIS IS ESPECIALLY UNBELIEVABLE SINCE SHE WAS THE ONE THAT INITIALLY FOUGHT FOR STACY TEBO’S SEVERANCE PACKAGE WHEN NONE WERE INITIALLY IN FAVOR OF IT. YET RHETT BULLARD IS THE DICTATOR AND HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OR in the rights of HIS PEERS.i
THE TOWN COUNCIL CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE PROHIBITION IN THE CHARTER WHICH PROHIBITS INTERFERENCE BY INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND, AS SUCH, THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WERE OBSERVED.
This chain of command is essential to imbue the manager with the authority to effectively manage her subordinates. This is why charter provisions prohibit elected council members from interfering with day to day operations of the city. “It is the manager who is the chief executive and who is responsible to the council for the proper performance of virtually all administrative functions. THE TOWN MANAGER MAY BE CONSIDERED THE CEO BY THE CHARTER BUT SHE HAS TO ANSWER AT LEAST TO ONE COUNCIL MEMBER AND SHE ANSWERS ONLY TO THE POWER OF THREE. IT IS HER DUTY TO RESPOND TO THE COUNCIL AND SHE BARELY CAN READ INFORMATION AT MEETINGS. SHE HIDES HERSELF IN HER OFFICE, BUSY WITH HER OWN LAWSUIT IN DEBARY AS WELL AS TRYING TO FIND DIRT ON OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL AS READING THE WHITE SPRINGS JOURNAL. SHE SPEAKS TO NO ONE EXCEPT THE POWER OF THREE AND MANAGES ONLY BY E-MAIL SO SERIOUSLY WE WOULDN’T EVEN NEED A MANAGER ON PREMISES BECAUSE SHE CERTAINLY IS NOT EFFICIENT AND LIED ON HER APPLICATIONS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY SHE CANNOT DO WHAT SHE SAID SHE HAD DONE IN HER PAST EXPERIENCE.
This administrative responsibility is matched by the manager’s authority to appoint and remove all department heads who report directly to him. In almost all council- manager cities, council members, both collectively and individually, are enjoined by charter from dealing with department heads except through the manager.” Council-Manager
With this backdrop, the Court must analyze the specific prohibition against interference in the White Springs Charter. Section 3.02(l) of the Charter provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Neither the Council nor any Council Member shall interfere with the conduct of any department head, officer or an employee in the discharge of his or her duties.
The definition numbered 3 above – “to enter into or take a part in the concerns of others” is precisely what Miller did in this instance. At the risk of being repetitive, Miller’s intentions are immaterial to this analysis. Miller seems to argue that if her actions did not prevent in some way the Town employees from doing their jobs, then there can be no interference as prohibited by the Charter. Whether this is a Charter prohibition is not only reasonable, it is consistent with the dictionary definition of the term “interfere.” This is total BULLCRAP AND EVEN THE ATTORNEY WRITING THIS MUST REALIZE HOW STUPID THIS ENTIRE MATTER IS….BUT LET’S FACE IT ELKIND WAS HIRED TO HANDLE THE HEARING BY REASON OF DEFENDING STACY TEBO. HE WAS NOT HIRED BY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO HANDLE THIS RESPONSE FOR THE TOWN. WE NOW HAVE A TOWN ATTORNEY WHO COSTS FAR LESS THAN MR. ELKIND. JUST FOR MR. ELKIND DRIVING BACK AND FORTH TO HIS OFFICE TO AND FROM WHITE SPRINGS COSTS US $1,250 MUCH LESS HIS TIME COMPLETING HIS FILING AND DISCUSSING WITH THE TOWN AND TEBO. THE TOWN DOESN’T CARE HOW MUCH MONEY THEY SPEND ON LEGAL AFFAIRS, JUST SO RHETT BULLARD IS CORRECT.
“… The commission and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the city manager and neither the commission nor any member thereof shall give orders to, nor make requests of, any of the subordinates of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any such dictation, orders, requests or other interferences upon the part of a member of the city commission with the administration of the city shall constitute ground for recall of such commissioner.” [emphasis added] IF THE CITY OR TOWN MANAGER IS UNAVAILABLE AND HIDING BEHIND A CLOSED DOOR TO HER OFFICE, THERE IS NO WAY ONE MAY DEAL WITH THE TOWN MANAGER. THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO HER IS THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OR THROUGH THE CITY CLERK. WE SHOULD KNOW BECAUSE SHE WILL NOT RESPOND TO CITIZENS, MUCH LESS TO EMPLOYEES AND FEELS E-MAILS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO HANDLE MANAGEMENT.
Miller’s intentions in her actions are immaterial to this Court’s inquiry. The only question is whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the conclusion that she “entered into or took a part in the concerns of” city staff members. This there obviously was. As one example, Miller went directly the town clerk and asked her to pay invoices (not to mention that it would have been (not to mention that it would have been DR. MILLER WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORIZATION AND AUTHORITY BY STACY TEBO TO HANDLE THIS MATTER. ALTHOUGH THE E-MAIL WAS MISSING ON PURPOSE, HELEN MILLER HAD SAVED HER COPY AS PROOF.
THIS TOWN IS RIDICULOUS AND AS LONG AS RHETT BULLARD IS MAYOR AND TONJA BROWN IS VICE MAYOR WITH WILLIE JEFFERSON AND STUART LOFTON HANDLING THE BALANCE OF THE COUNCIL, THE CITIZENS WILL NO LONGER HAVE RIGHTS. THIS IS WHY LOFTON WAS CHOSEN ABOVE MARSHALL AND MOORE who would BE FAIR AND WORK TOWARD THE CITIZEN’S GOALS.. FURTHERMORE ARTHUR NATTEAL IS TOO BRIGHT AND SOONER THEN LATER, HE WOULD NOTICE WHAT THE POWER OF THREE; NOW FOUR; WILL BE DOING TO THE CITIZENS. DON’T LET THE LOFTON QUESTIONNAIRE FOOL YOU. THEY HAVE NO REAL INTENTION OF HELPING ANY OF YOU.
It is improper for the clerk to have paid the invoices regardless of who asked her to do it). This alone constitutes interference in violation of the Charter. The following questions and answers are taken directly from the transcript of the hearing before the Town Council: SINCE DR. MILLER WAS POINT MAN, SHE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO ASK FOR A CHECK. IT IS UP TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE A REQUISITION TO THE TOWN MANAGER BECAUSE ANY SUCH REQUISITION NOW INCLUDES “STAFF NAME” NOT COUNCILOR’S NAME on the form FOR WHICH HELEN MILLER HAS BEEN BLAMED FOR AS WELL.
White Springs limited the witnesses to town employees so that they could be compelled to appear at the hearing as a condition of their employment. “Due process is a flexible concept and requires only that the proceeding be ‘essentially fair’.” Id. Miller was afforded not only the due process which the general law requires, but she was afforded far more Process than what the White Springs Charter required. DR. MILLER WAS NOT PROVIDED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE DECISION TO OUST HER OR FORFEIT HER SEAT WAS DETERMINED WELL PRIOR TO THE HEARING WHICH WAS IN ACTUALITY A KANGAROO COURT.
Karin for the blog
Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties.Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election. Dr. Miller DID NOT commit an unlawful act nor did she affect the performance and official duties of the Town Manager or Staff who are not efficient in the first place.
Tortious interference would have to be cited by the Town to be unlawful. It is also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else’s contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm.
Helen Miller did NOT intentionally damage someone else’s contractual or business relationships causing economic harm to the Town; however, with the protection of our Town Manager by the power of four now, that is causing economic harm to the Town and as such these four councilors should forfeit their seat or be recalled by reason that they have caused Malfeasance which is unlawful.
Note “Tortious” Interference was not mentioned, only “interference” which apparently the Town is stating a council member may not ASK for anything from staff or the Town Manager, even though as a body they hired the Town Manager. If Tortious Interference is not cited, how can Dr. Millers seat be forfeited, since technically she did not do anything unlawful and therefore Malfeasance does not apply nor violation of any express prohibition.