Latta Action Does Not Pass The Smell Test

To The Editor:
The recent action taken by the Latta Town Council does not pass the smell test. The fact that Mr. Barrentine agreed to continue taking the minutes of the meeting, after the council voted 4 to 3 not to renew his contract, and also agreeing to remain until a replacement could be hired speaks loudly about his character and his continued desire to serve the community.
Mayor Brigman was quoted as saying “Ernest Barrentine has performed his duties as Clerk/Treasurer for the Town of Latta satisfactorily.” “…we have had a favorable audit report at the end of each year.” These annual audits are required by law and are conducted by an independent outside firm.  The Mayor’s statement along with the auditor’s favorable reports over the last four years clearly indicate that Mr. Barrentine is qualified and competent to perform the duties required of the clerk/treasurer. His prior service to our community includes  six and a half years as a judge and before that he volunteered his time as a paramedic with the Latta Rescue Squad. Mr. Barrentine’s commitment to serve the citizens of our community is well established. This level of commitment is not replaced.
Councilman Stoops is quoted as saying that his reason for voting nay was “based on interaction with the clerk over the past few months.”
Having had the privilege of serving on council for eight years I am familiar with the responsibilities of clerk/treasurer. The only elected official who can “tell” the town clerk to do something on a day to day basis is the Mayor. Individual members of council may not “tell” the clerk to do something but an individual member of council may not “tell” the clerk to do something or “ask” that their request be handled immediately.
When a member of council, on a day to day basis, “ask” the clerk/treasurer to do something their request should not be allowed to interfere with the clerk/treasurer’s responsibilities as outlined in the job description. The clerk/treasurer is not a secretary for individual council members yet there are members of the current council and previous councils who have used or attempted to use the clerk/treasurer in such a way.
Imagine what would happen if the clerk/treasurer had seven bosses and each “boss” wanted something and wanted it now!
He/she would have to choose between doing what the law requires in his/her job description or doing what his seven “bosses” ask or tells him/her to do.
“Interaction” smells like “you don’t jump when I say jump.” If the other council members who voted nay cannot provide valid reasons for their action, based on job performance as outlined in the qualifications and job description for clerk/treasurer, then it must be assumed that their reason for voting nay falls in the category of “interaction.” Councilman  Stoops is also quoted as saying, “Seeing how the vote went, however, I would think a majority of us were in agreement.”
History has shown us time after time that not all of the decisions made by the majority have been the right decisions.
I trust that Mr. Barrentine will ask for a public  hearing so the “four nays” can explain their decision and why they appear to want to politicize the office of the Latta Clerk-Treasurer.
The person holding this position should not have to “kiss up” or “brown nose” certain members of council in order to keep their job. The person holding this position should perform their duties with integrity and honesty as Mr. Barrentine has done.
Gerry Fleming
Latta, S.C.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email