Friday, April 25, 2008

POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT REQUIRED AT COMMISSIONER MEETINGS

Brian Messmore is an employee of Dearborn County. As such his pay from the county comes from the taxpayers of the County. It is unseemly that he would author a silly screed against one of his employers, Christine Mueller.

Mr. Messmore referred to Indiana Code 36-2-2-15 as mandating the presence of a uniformed officer at executive sessions such as the county commissioners’ meetings.

The following is the exact wording in regard to the presence of an officer at a meeting such as the County Commissioner Meeting. This is Indiana Code 36-2-2-15 (d) It seems very simple, simple enough that my 8 year old granddaughters could easily read and comprehend it.

(d) The county sheriff or a county police officer shall attend the meetings of the executive, if requested by the executive, and shall execute its orders.

Nowhere does the code demand a uniformed officer to be present. This bogus use of Indiana Code is serious business in that the county administrator has either misread the code or perhaps has a problem comprehending what he read in the code. A more egregious possibility, in my opinion is that the code was intentionally misstated. Either of these possible explanations would indicate that the man is unsuited for the job. It is wrong for citizens not to be able to trust the word of a county employee, an employee whose job carries serious responsibilities.

It is time for the county commissioners who appointed Mr. Messmore to stand tall and demand the man’s resignation. Dearborn County deserves better than this.

Alan S. Freemond, Sr.
Tanners Creek Farm
Jackson Township
Dearborn County

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

As vain as Messmore is, do you really expect him to go public and clarify whether he is a prevaricator or just simply a dumb ass?

Anonymous said...

Will Messmore ever even have the "stones" to try to take on Ewbank, Maxwell, Rozow, etc., in a public forum, such as our local paper, as he unsuccessfully tried to take on Mueller?

Doubt it!

Anonymous said...

Well, Crazy Al is at it again.
First of all, executive sessions are not open to the public, only public sessions are.
Secondly, the officer is required by state law, if requested by the commissioners. So, if the commissioners request it, it is manditory.
Now Crazy Al might have an issue with the request or requester, but the presence is required under the described conditions afore mentioned .
Crazy Al's agenda is getting in the way of his logic! Again!

Anonymous said...

So, if the commissioners request it, it is manditory.

The presence of an officer is only "mandatory" on the sheriff's office if the executive should request such presence.

Messmore was clear in his rebuttal to Mueller's column that he or any other shill did not have the discretion to have an officer at Commissioners' Meetings.

Which was either a mistake on Messmore's part or a lie.

But keep spinningn your lies...sweetheart.

It just adds to all your other unbecoming attributes.

Anonymous said...

but the presence is required under the described conditions afore mentioned .

Which gets right back to someone had to "request" the sherrif's presence, dumb ass!

Who requested such presence, Sherlock?

Mueller?

No!

Messmore is a dupe or a liar.

You choose.

Anonymous said...

OMG...Messmore does not even have the dignity to admit he either mispoke, was mislead by his resident shyster, or he fibbed!!!

Anonymous said...

"Crazy Al" will still be around next year as Messmore cleans out his office and spends his days on Monster.com.

Anonymous said...

messmore does he work out in gym or just hang out in the showers with the real men.

Anonymous said...

If you read the Thursday, April 24, 2008 Register, you will see Brian 'messed up more' than just the alleged requirement for an officer in the Commissioners' meetings.

Maybe all that time he spends in the health club is further diluting his capabilities. After all, didn't he win recognition for his high level of attendance?

However, he won't resign and Ewbank's pets won't dump him, Ewbank would chastise them mightily!

Craz-e Al said...

Well the operative phrase in IC 36-2-2-15(d)is "IF REQUESTED."
What part of "if requested' doesn't Messmore understand?

Anonymous said...

I took Magna Carta to the prom. She kept going on and on about some place called Runnymede...

Anonymous said...

"I took Magna Carta to the prom. She kept going on and on about some place called Runnymede..."

I heard before the prom that Magna dumped Bob Ewband because they did not share the same interests!!!

Anonymous said...

Ewband = Ewbank

Maybe I was thinking of just what a bland date Ewbank would be...

Anonymous said...

well now that we've had our revolutionary history lessons...
let's vote

Nobody Knows said...

POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT REQUIRED AT COMMISSIONER MEETINGS
Brian Messmore is an employee of Dearborn County. As such his pay from the county comes from the taxpayers of the County. It is unseemly that he would author a silly screed against one of his employers, Christine Mueller.

Mr. Messmore referred to Indiana Code 36-2-2-15 as mandating the presence of a uniformed officer at executive sessions such as the county commissioners’ meetings.

The following is the exact wording in regard to the presence of an officer at a meeting such as the County Commissioner Meeting. This is Indiana Code 36-2-2-15 (d) It seems very simple, simple enough that my 8 year old granddaughters could easily read and comprehend it.

(d) The county sheriff or a county police officer shall attend the meetings of the executive, if requested by the executive, and shall execute its orders.

Nowhere does the code demand a uniformed officer to be present. This bogus use of Indiana Code is serious business in that the county administrator has either misread the code or perhaps has a problem comprehending what he read in the code. A more egregious possibility, in my opinion is that the code was intentionally misstated. Either of these possible explanations would indicate that the man is unsuited for the job. It is wrong for citizens not to be able to trust the word of a county employee, an employee whose job carries serious responsibilities.

It is time for the county commissioners who appointed Mr. Messmore to stand tall and demand the man’s resignation. Dearborn County deserves better than this.

Alan S. Freemond, Sr.
Tanners Creek Farm
Jackson Township
Dearborn County

Holey Moley let's start over

Anonymous said...

Don't be picking on Bryan Messmore...he is Development's "pretty boy!"

And the odds are he was relying on the county's resident shyster for his legal information.

Where legal truth wavers in some "Twilight Zone" of relativity, upside down, wrong equals right, if it buttresses the local development crooks!

Anonymous said...

Messmore is the "poster child" for the need of less development and more education in this county.

Anonymous said...

"It is time for the county commissioners who appointed Mr. Messmore to stand tall and demand the man’s resignation. Dearborn County deserves better than this."

It is time for the Commissioners who appointed Mr. Messmore to resign. Dearborn County deserves better than what they have to offer.

Anonymous said...

"It is time for the Commissioners who appointed Mr. Messmore to resign. Dearborn County deserves better than what they have to offer."


Don't worry, the voters will soon be correcting that particular mistake.

Anonymous said...

messmore does he work out in gym or just hang out in the showers with the real men.

Like Madeline Kahn when she inspected the men's "junk" to see who would escort her for the evening in the "History Of The World, Part 1?"

"No,no,no, YES, no,no,no, no, Yes!"

Anonymous said...

Hoog and Scott along with Thompson will fix the past mistakes.

Anonymous said...

"Brian Messmore is an employee of Dearborn County. As such his pay from the county comes from the taxpayers of the County. It is unseemly that he would author a silly screed against one of his employers, Christine Mueller."

Brian is also a tax payer in this County. He still has the right to stick up for himself when Chris Mueller is writing personal attacks. There is no reason why she should be able to write things about his personal life but he can't rebut her columns. By the way how does she know when he works out, where he runs and what he does when he does it? To me that sounds like a stocker. Chris Mueller may want to be careful how close she gets, she is getting a little to close to people's personal lives. She is getting close to being brought up on stocking charges.

Dracula said...

Hey idioto! First of all the term is stalker not stocking or stocker.

So you're telling us that Chris Mueller is a WHAT????????

The problem is that this corrageous anonymous poster has a vote as good as the one for intelligent people

HHM said...

Brian has the right as a Citizen to rebut Chris's or anyone's Comments in the newspaper. However, when responding as the County Administrator, he should make sure that his responses are accurate and correct. If you have read the comments on this blog and the rebuttal by Thom Hammond, Mr. Messmore was neither.