Letters To The Editor

Please review Letter to the Editor policy before submitting letter. The policy is found in the information column on the left hand side of this page.

This letter is in response to a letter mailed to the Leagueville Water Supply members by Conley Owen, a Leagueville Water board member, in regards to the upcoming election for the current position on the Leagueville Water board.

As to the accusations against any person with the noble intention of running for the position as board member for Leagueville Water Supply, with only good faith intentions and integrity, insults to that person from a board member are unprofessional and malicious.

You stated that your intentions for your letter were not about "power or prestige", yet you clearly have an animosity towards anyone who questions your authority and direction. Although you do not personally know the person running against you, you have made inaccurate judgments and disparaging remarks.

There have been decisions made solely by Conley Owen or greatly and unfairly influenced by him against specific board members. This is against policy that any board member has that authority on their own to make decisions and/or give independent direction. This violates the integrity and trust that the Leagueville Water Supply members have placed in a board member. You make claims in your letter of not making decisions "all over the map".

Making decisions that are not even on the map (policy) or allowed by the federal government are an abuse of power and not equitable to any member on the water system. Mainly by continuing to provide free water (minimum monthly water bill + overages) that were suppose to only include the minimum water bill. That contract was due to end in 1985. Overages have never been billed, in the past or present, and the minimum monthly water bill continue to be provided for this member at no cost.

When a board member was made aware of this activity and wanted to put an end to what is not allowed by the federal government and is not just and fair to the current members, Conley Owen defended this action for the better of the water system and refused to stop that action.

He mentions in his letter that one of the five board members has "selfish motives" that "would take our operation in a direction that would be detrimental to our system", I can only assume this as a personal vengeance against a board member who tries to make sure that all members are treated with the same fairness and integrity as the next. This is one of many decisions that are "detrimental to our system".

One statement made by Conley Owen is accurate, being a board member is not about the money. It is about providing quality water and keeping costs at a minimum to provide that service. We do not get paid for the position as board member, but when one member thinks they have more authority or make decisions without all board members being involved, they are abusing the trust and privileges placed in them by Leagueville Water Supply members.

Employees should not be allowed to contact one board member for decisions or direction independently, as the reliability and purpose of forming a water board has been desecrated. Serving as a board member for Leagueville Water Supply has been one of the most trying and difficult tasks for me and my family.

Inappropriate comments and actions have been made toward a specific board member that were erroneous and unwarranted. Making sound, legal, and fair decisions has become more complicated when acting against such an authoritative personality, even if it's with a smile.

Serving on a water board, or any board, should be a unity of the members working and striving for excellence for all involved, unselfishly, and without prejudice or malice.

A Concerned Board Member, Sandra Duke, Murchison

Dear Reader:

In response to stacks of letters that were signed by Sandra Duke and left in area churches on Sunday, March 30, 2008 and also to a letter from her that may well be running in this issue of The Statesman, I offer this:

I serve on the Board of Directors of Leagueville Water Supply Corporation (LWSC), a small utility co-op that supplies water to about 600 meters in the Leagueville, Brownsboro, Murchison (West to Murray Hill) area.

For several months now the Board of Directors has experienced less than the normal and expected cooperation from one of its directors, namely, Ms. Sandra Duke. While the Board appreciates her willingness to serve, her uncooperative spirit is at best, difficult to deal with. The Board has made extensive efforts to listen to the input of this director concerning different matters. Sandra gets upset when the Board does not adhere to her point of view. It is at these times that she is not very rational. I have given this a great deal of thought. Although this is simply "the rule of majority prevails", I believe that Sandra considers it a personal rejection when she is outvoted and she doesn't handle rejection very well. Let me be clear and not misunderstood; academically, Sandra is very bright, but I believe she is lacking in reason and judgment which are two of the main ingredients of wisdom. She typically speaks very well but does not excel in listening. Most of the time when an issue for discussion and action arises at the board table, she appears to have already decided how she is going to vote before all input from other directors has been voiced. She becomes contentious and even pouts which makes for some "less than pleasant" meetings.

I will not fault Sandra's work ethic. She teaches in the Brownsboro Independent School District and maintains a regular bus route for BISD. That is admirable. She is also a process server for the Henderson County Sheriff's office.

Sandra's attendance record of director's meetings is less than austere. She has not done well in this area. When we addressed this issue with a letter to her last year (by letter because she had failed to attend the three previous board meetings) she became angry. She immediately started comparing her attendance records to other board members. We have three board members who are retired from their professional life but still choose to donate their time to LWSC. Two of these members travel frequently and always keep the board and the employees informed of their schedules in relation to director's meetings. Another of the retired board members spends a great deal of time with her husband who deals with extensive health problems, admirably, I might add. She too, keeps us informed of her schedule, when she can be there and when she can't.

Sandra keeps us informed of very little. Since she came on the board in April of 2004, she has attended 39 of 56 meetings, failing to attend 17 meetings. All board members are made aware of these meetings one month in advance and again reminded shortly before the actual meeting. There are always legitimate reasons for missing a meeting; however, there is absolutely no excuse for not keeping fellow board members and staff informed.

LWSC elects its board of directors on a rotating basis, each elected term being 3 years. I am up for re-election this term. It is usually good when we have members who are willing to run for the board in hopes of serving, if elected. When I first learned of Fred Kurtz' candidacy, I was pleased. Then I read his biography where he stated "If you see the merit of having a determined gatekeeper of operating cost and efficiency, then please support me with your vote". That statement was like a slap in the face to the members presently serving on our board. He insinuates we are not running an efficient operation. He has never attended a meeting and he certainly has not requested to be on our agenda to voice any concerns. I do not personally know Fred, but have strong reason to believe he is running at the urging of Sandra. As I stated in my campaign letter, I believe she is intent on getting others with the same motives elected to the board.

At this point, I realize that Sandra is making an all out effort to get me off of the board and out of her way. Under normal circumstances this would not bother me, but knowing her irrational behavior, it does concern me. When she first came on the board, she wanted to discuss free water for board directors. I listened to everyone's input on the subject and personally discouraged it. By stated policy, board directors cannot be compensated. Free water is compensation. She has continued to bring this subject up, at least two times since then. So far, other board members and myself have prevented her from getting it on the agenda for discussion and action. This is important information. Sandra waters her lawn heavily and her water usage is very high most months. She has stated openly before the board many times that "I'm gonna keep my yard looking good no matter what it costs". One can easily see why she wants free water for the directors.

In her letter, Sandra refers to decisions made by the board "not allowed by the federal government are an abuse of power" specifically free water to a member. Let me address this issue. In 1966, a couple donated land to drill LWSC's first well and to locate the plant site. In return for the land donation, the couple was to receive their water without charge for a stated period of time. They were later granted an extension of time to receive water without charge. The elderly lady (now widowed) still lives adjacent to the plant site, has her water metered, uses less than the minimal usage and still receives water without charge. The board's reasons for this decision were and are legitimate and we make no apologies for this action. Any member of LWSC is welcome to get on the agenda for one of our meetings and receive details of this arrangement. Sandra has been angry about this arrangement since she was made aware of it. She was immediately angry. It is my belief that because she can't have free water, she is determined that this elderly woman be charged for hers. The board has discussed this several times and the arrangement with the widow will remain intact until she no longer resides there. After that time, any water metered will be charged.

LWSC has also been engaged for some time in trying to purchase additional land surrounding our present plant site. The owner has declined all offers made to this point in time. Sandra has insisted that this item be added to the agenda of our next monthly meeting. She is insisting that we initiate eminent domain proceedings against the landowner to take away his land by force. I am vehemently opposed to this measure and intend to oppose it with all measures at my disposal. I will never willingly be a part of taking anyone's property from them against their will. The next time around, it could be your land, or mine.

As for the totality of Sandra's negative statements concerning me and my participation on the board of directors of LWSC, I would ask you to do this-If you are a member of LWSC, or even if you are not, and would like to know how I participate in these meetings, I would ask you to talk to Tony Volentine, Max Jordan, Durie Joe Gray, W. D. Lewis, Joe Cantrell or John Miller. These are ALL of the former directors with whom I have served in the past that are still living. Also, ask Brenda Smith, Bobby Taylor and Sam Armstrong. These are the directors I presently serve with, along with Sandra. I am confident that should you ask any of these men or Brenda, they will paint quite a different picture than Ms. Duke.

I was amused by Sandra's statement, "Serving as a board member for LWSC has been one of the most trying and difficult tasks for me and my family." If that is true, why does she keep subjecting herself and her family to this "most trying and difficult task"? It seems to me to be a nobrainer. I've been on the board for 18 years and it has basically been a good time for me. If it ever stops being a good time, I'm outta here. This ain't rocket science folks. It's just a small rural water co-op.

To our members, I say: First, I apologize for the length of this letter and secondly, I plan to keep on serving in the best way I know how. If that suits you, then vote for me. If it doesn't, then vote for Fred or write in a candidate of your choice.

Respectfully submitted,

Conley Owen, President LWSC

City Council - Dick Jarrett

Why I decided to run for City Council: In 52+ years living in Chandler I attended only two City Council meetings until three months ago, and since then I have attended three meetings, making a total of five times.

I read once what one of our signers of the Declaration of In- dependence said, during a time when the British were in control. He said, "If you see something unjust happening, it is your duty to do all you can to correct it." That is why I am running, because I see a lot of things unjust; what about you?

There are three of us running on a write-in ballot. I was hoping someone would run on the regular ballot, someone that I felt would make a difference, but I see that didn't happen.

If you feel as I do, we can make a difference. Remember, I am running on a write-in ballot. Thank you for your support and help.

Dick Jarrett

Chandler

Dear Editor and Henderson County Citizens,

I am responding to the many misleading statements in Mr. Herman Vibrock's letter to the Editor. It could be that he was mislead.

I moved with my family to Henderson County in January 1988, as the Texas Ranger stationed in Athens. We purchased approximately 50 (fifty) acres in the Murchison area and put a home on it. My daughter attended and graduated from the Brownsboro Schools. I devoted the next 17-1/2 (seventeen and one-half) years to law enforcement in Henderson County. I retired in July 2005.

In 2006, my wife and I decided to downsize and sold our property which we had paid property taxes on to Henderson County and the Brownsboro ISD for 18 (eighteen) years. We do own some property in Navarro County. We inherited it in the late 1990s. We had put a travel trailer on it for camping, as it is near a lake. We decided to live there temporarily while my nephew and I built a house on that property. We were there approximately 9 (nine) months. We now use our property there for an occasional weekend getaway.

We moved permanently back to Henderson County and leased our present home on March 1, 2007. It is between Eustace and Athens. When we find the right place, we intend to "once again" be Henderson County property owners. At the same time, we don't feel anyone that rents or leases their home should be discriminated against. They can run for public office having the same rights as property owners. After all, their landlord pays property taxes and people who rent or lease pay sales tax and all other taxes every time they buy anything in Henderson County.

I have only been retired approximately 2-1/2 (two and onehalf) years and still carry a law enforcement Commission in Henderson County. I retired in Henderson County and live in Henderson County. I have been out visiting the citizens in this county, letting them know my plans and listening to their thoughts and needs. I will continue to be out listening to their needs if elected sheriff.

I am qualified, I have my Master Peace Officers License Certification, I have the education and most importantly, I have over 37 years experience in all areas of law enforcement. Mr. Allison, himself, stated at forums that he has never worked on patrol, never worked drugs, never worked a major case.

I will be a working sheriff, working aggressively to stop the criminals that not only have come to our door but have invaded our homes.

Sincerely Ray Nutt, Athens, Texas

LETTER TO EDITOR

When I read last week's Statesman and saw where Moffeit, the City Administrator of Chandler, was quoted as saying what it would cost the City to hold an election was not clear yet. The billboard out in front of City Hall could have been used to let people know when the sign-up and the cut-off date was for the election, but that did not happen. The light needs to shine in on this Mayor and Council so the public knows what is going on inside City Hall. But so far that has not happened and it makes a lot of people wonder what else they have to hide, and maybe that is why so many signed up to run for the three seats on the Council. Or perhaps these folks think the present Council is not doing a good job for the City.

An election is always good; it tends to keep people on their toes and maybe think of all the people's needs instead of just a few of their friends.

Many times on the city elections the City held a forum with all the candidates running so the taxpayers could ask questions of all of them. It would be good to do that at this time as there are some new people running as write-in candidates.

Howard Taliaferro

Chandler, Texas

EDITORS NOTE: Please read the new word limit on `Letters to the Editor' before submitting. All letters are subject to editing.