Replies

Folks,
Below is the response I sent to the Herald. We will see what they do with it. The more I interact with Chairman Mims, the less I like his approach to governance.

All,
Jim Rockwell here. Thank you for your coverage of this issue, I think it an accurate interpretation of the meeting as far as they went. I would also like to thank the folks who came out to express their opinions on this topic. The vast majority of who were against the ordinance. With all due respect to chairman Mims, If the majority are silent, how do you know what they want and need. The majority of the folks that I have heard on this topic were against it. My understanding is that the majority of email and other correspondence were against it as well. These are his words, not mine. In the last work group meeting on this ordinance he said (and I paraphrase here) “The majority of email comments were against the ordinance. But, a lot of the responses were forwarded form letters and so I think it’s 50/50.” I’m sorry Mr. chairman, not everyone who has an opinion has the time or the literary craft to express their views. If they forwarded a document to you that expresses their opinion, they have sent you guidance and a vote it is your job to represent them. I will also point out that the last statement followed the opening words by chairman Mims in that same meeting “The school has them (referring to the residents of Johnston County) for a few years, but we have them from cradle to grave.” How arrogant can you get. It is clear that chairman Mims considers his constituents to be no better than children and incapable of making decisions for themselves and who would surely be lost and die a horrible death without his psychic power to hear the unspoken voice of the people. I don’t know how the county has survived so far without his august and omnipotent person at the helm.

Now on to the issue at hand. This ordinance is a knee jerk response to the “arguably” justifiable complaint from some of the attendants of the public hearing. The one thing that was not obvious in the article was the overwhelming objection to the ordinance. There were several supporters but the vast majority of attendees were there to show their objection. I believe that this overwhelming objection to the ordinance was also expressed in email and other correspondence with the commissioners. I base this on comments made by the chairman in one of the work group meetings.

The objections are numerous and profound. The summary is below.

1. Most important: It is clear that the process by which this ordinance was passed was tainted by personal agenda. If you watch the video of the public hearing you will see the chairman repeatedly trying to get people to admit that they agree with or can live with the ordinance. This was the same in the work group meeting and is also consistent with comments made by some of the citizen members of the work group; namely “they are going to pass something all we can do is minimize the damage,” or words to that effect.

So, in spite of the fact that the number of complainants is fewer than 0.3% have passed an ordinance that restricts the activities of the remaining 99.7% or the residents in the county. These numbers are not hyperbole, they are based on the sheriff’s office reports of an average of about 500 complaints/yr. over the last two years of shots fired. Which leads to the next problem.

2. The data from the sheriff’s office was only made available at the last work group meeting and consisted of simply the number of complaints. There was no data on the nature of the complaints or any resulting citations. Nor, did it identify multiple complaints from the same person for the same reason.

Without identifying the nature of the complaints and therefor the problem (if any), there is no way to come up with a reasonable solution. This also supports the idea that there was an agenda other than solving a problem.

What has resulted is a poorly written ordinance that is just as likely to allow un-neighborly people the ability to harass their law abiding neighbors as it is to ever prevent a stupid person from doing something stupid (which seems to be the problem that initiated this whole thing).

This perspective is also born out by the county attorney’s attempts during the public hearing to tighten up the language so that non-profit events (and the like) would not be excluded from the sobriety and reckless and heedless clauses of the ordinance. If you look at the video, his attempts were too broad sweeping and would have undone the exception clauses. If the county attorney (who is an educated and experienced fellow) has a hard time making sense of the language, how do you think the common person or a deputy in the field will deal with it.

3. There are many more specific issues, not all of them were brought up during public hearing and that hearing went on for hours, Some of this issues included: the county redefining firearms, noise is already covered under the noise ordinance singling out guns makes this gun legislation, enforcement issues and risks to citizens and law enforcement officers, second amendment issues, forth and fifth amendment issues, potential law suits and much more.

I said that I would be brief, and I fear I have already failed at that.

Given the lack of data to even define the problem properly, to pass an ordinance that’s punishment might cost a person hundreds of dollars or land them 30 days in jail is irresponsible. Add that to language that even the county attorney has a problem reconciling and you have to ask some questions:

1. Who pushed this ordinance through in spite of its obvious failings and why?

2. If this is the nature of how ordinances are created with this group of commissioners, what else is being done?

3. Does the lack of deliberation among the commissioners at the end of the public hearing and their not asking for more time to consider the concerns expressed in that meeting demonstrate a form of contempt for the people who gave up their time to be at multiple meetings, lent their talents to help identify and fix the problem and/or email, fax and call the commissioners with their opinions.

4. Is this group of commissioners being responsive to desires of their constituents or are they driven by personal, social or political dogma that is inconsistent with the needs and desires of Johnston County.

I have obtained some data from the sheriff’s office or calls over the last two years, I will try to cross reference that with data from the clerk of the court to see if we can get to the source of the problem. I will publish the raw and compiled data. I have also requested the commissioners reverse themselves at the next meeting. Hopefully we can get this fixed.

I encourage you to contact the commissioners and express your opinions and desires. It is their job to respond reasonably to us and our job to make sure they do or vote them out.

Respectfully submitted.
Jim

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” - Thomas Jefferson