Can we even believe Barlow?
After reading the article about Brown vs. Barlow I had to respond.
First, the article says, “Barlow contends if Brown wants to publish his title with such writings, he should get input from his fellow commissioners before sending them, or instead simply sign it in his individual role as ‘Fayette County Commissioner.’”
Since when does someone with a title have to ask others if he has permission to use it? Is this in the rules somewhere or is Mr. Barlow just making up things as he goes?
He was not saying the board agreed or disagreed with him, just posting his title, which he has every right to do.
Why does Mr. Barlow think that anyone needs his permission or his approval? Has he brought this up in a board meeting where other commissioners have a voice or is this just what Mr. Barlow “thinks” should be done, in which case Mr. Brown is under no obligation to comply.
Second, the quote, “Barlow, citing unnamed sources he has spoken to privately, counters that Brown is despised by his counterparts at the ARC to the point where they do not want to work with him on Fayette projects.”
Unnamed sources — really? Is this third grade? Unless you can present a complaint that is legitimate then you have none. Unnamed sources do not qualify as legitimate. You have given no examples of problems you say he’s caused with ARC, so this is another example of Mr. Barlow trying to make one of his coworkers look bad.
Mr. Brown disagrees with Mr. Barlow, and Mr. Barlow takes things out of context to make Mr. Brown look bad. I cant imagine any one of us that would like to have people in the shadows accusing us of things, and we have no way to defend ourselves. Mr. Brown should not be put in this position either.
The only time I’ve seen people use this type of attack is when those saying these things are cowards, using someone else, or there are no “others” at all.
It has been my experience that there is a personal issue between these two. For Mr. Barlow to use the paper to air that is what is not professional.
I had an issue where something was approved, a commissioner went out of town and Mr. Brown was trying to help. Mr. Barlow jumped in and said all kinds of things that was not true, and misrepresented other things. All because Mr. Brown was involved and he was trying to make him look bad.
Again, a personal issue between these two, that appears to be quite one-sided, that was being played out in the public arena.
Why don’t we look at Mr. Barlow’s record? What has he done in 2013? What about the water issue? Mr. Brown was right, Mr. Barlow not. Did Mr. Brown, by being right, insult Mr. Barlow’s ego? Is that what this is about?
I would suggest that Mr. Barlow do what the bible says, since he is so fond of quoting scripture. You wont see anywhere that taking pot shots at people in the shadows or using anonymous sources is ever condoned.
If Mr. Barlow thinks that Mr. Oddo would be a better chairman, fine, he has a right to support him. Mr. Oddo is a fine man and would do a good job; that’s not the issue.
If Mr. Oddo votes against Mr. Barlow, or if Mr. Oddo is right and Mr. Barlow wrong, will he be out talking about him like he is Mr. Brown?
There is no need to attack Mr. Brown on a matter of opinion, just support who you want. Using this to show the world personal bad feelings about a coworker is not professional at all.
Now, I’m sure I’ll be on the hit list next, but Mr. Brown has been more than helpful to a lot of people and doesn’t deserve this at all.