Concerned Citizens have verified with the Tax Office, County Commissioner Terry Ramey made his first $320 payment on his agreed upon payment plan, on September 29th, 2022. Cory Villaincourt stated correctly the total payoff is $2,122.84 as a previous Haywood Happenings article reported but that is the only truth to this article. Lying Cory Villaincourt is just now posting the true payoff amount which was falsely stated as $2,500 in a Smoky Marxist News prior article and also falsely insinuating he owed thousands and thousands of back taxes. These past taxes were all on equipment and vehicles used in Terry's wrecker business under the name of Ram Dog. Ram Dog was disolved in 2012. As stated before, he had a dispute with the tax office that took some time to reconcile. County Commissioner Terry Ramey has a valid payment plan and is in good standing with the Haywood County Tax office as stated previously in Haywood Happenings.
https://smokymountainnews.com/news/item ... tax-issues
Come Support County Commissioner Terry Ramey at the County Commissioner's meeting Monday, February 6th at 9:00 a.m.
-
Forum Member
Come Support County Commissioner Terry Ramey at the County Commissioner's meeting Monday, February 6th at 9:00 a.m.
Last edited by Forum Member on Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Forum Member
Re: Another False Article from Smoky Marxist News Cory Villiancourt Slandering County Commissioner Terry Ramey
Here is the Mountaineer Newpaper's opinion piece about Terry Ramey's $2,000 tax bill. Nothing was stated in this article about the first $320 on his balance being paid in September before the election. He set up a payment plan with interest. He was in good standing with the Haywood County Tax Department before the election, he was in good standing when the commissioners slandered Terry Ramey and he is currently in good standing with the tax department. Stand up for Terry Ramey and come to the Monday, Feburary 6th County Commissioner's meeting to speak out in support of County Commissioner Terry Ramey.
Ramey's tax bills not only actions worth examination February 2, 2023
Kathy Ross
Whatever Haywood County citizens feel about Commissioner Terry Ramey and his $2,000 property tax bill, the actions of his fellow commissioners also merit a hard look. Ramey’s unpaid taxes have come under scrutiny since his fourth -- and, this time, successful -- attempt to win a seat on Haywood County’s governing board. At issue was a long list of county tax bills that he is now paying incrementally under arrangements he made after the election. He has given several explanations for the unpaid bills, stating a number of the property taxes were on vehicles that were no longer in use and that some bills were simply put into a pile that he disregarded for some time. Ramey’s explanations should raise some questions for taxpayers. It is fair to ask whether a commissioner charged with approving the county’s annual budget is qualified to make such decisions if he treats his tax obligations so carelessly. But there is another issue unfolding in this drama, in the manner in which four other county commissioners responded to questions about Ramey’s actions.
Earlier in January, those commissioners – Kevin Ensley, Brandon Rogers, Tommy Long and Jennifer Best – responded to inquiries from another newspaper about Ramey’s unpaid tax bills. Together they issued statements on the issue without Ramey’s knowledge. Their set of joint responses said the voters elected Ramey as a county commissioner and that he would have to answer to those voters, that citizens could take advantage of the public comment sessions at county board meetings to make opinions known. The joint response of these four commissioners was not discussed in a public meeting, but handled with telephone conversations and emails between Commissioner Chairman Ensley and the other three. Ensley discussed the issue with each one, put responses in writing and checked back with them before releasing the answers to the press, according to his account.
Because a majority of the board did not meet in person to discuss the issue, and because a majority was not on a conference call at one time, the discussions may not be a technical violation of the N.C. Open Meetings Law. The method of handling this issue, however, was far from a rousing affirmation for open government and raises two serious concerns. First, the board addressed these questions without raising the issue with their fellow commissioner. They excluded him and presented a response representing the majority of the board without Ramey’s knowledge. Whatever commissioners feel about Ramey, and whatever citizens think about his tax history, he is a duly elected commissioner and entitled to be part of discussions involving county policy, even when they involve his own actions. Ramey should not have discovered colleagues’ statements about his behavior by reading them in the newspaper. The second concern goes beyond individual interactions. By consulting via telephone and reaching consensus outside of public sessions, commissioners are setting a dangerous precedent. Consulting each other to release an agreed-upon set of statements comes very close to making a decision that should have been addressed in open session. It could be tempting to try that approach again. County leaders and the public both need to be vigilant to ensure that doesn’t happen. The other four commissioners on the board are entitled to disagree with Ramey, to express concerns about his tax bills, to vote against him, even to criticize him publicly, should they choose. They are not entitled to shut him out of county government’s decision making processes, nor are they entitled to make decisions and issue policy statements based on consensus made via telephone or one-on-one conversations. Votes are required to be made in open sessions. Agreeing to make a statement, or making other decisions without a vote does not exempt leadership from its obligations to the state’s open meetings law or the principles of open governance.
Ramey's tax bills not only actions worth examination February 2, 2023
Kathy Ross
Whatever Haywood County citizens feel about Commissioner Terry Ramey and his $2,000 property tax bill, the actions of his fellow commissioners also merit a hard look. Ramey’s unpaid taxes have come under scrutiny since his fourth -- and, this time, successful -- attempt to win a seat on Haywood County’s governing board. At issue was a long list of county tax bills that he is now paying incrementally under arrangements he made after the election. He has given several explanations for the unpaid bills, stating a number of the property taxes were on vehicles that were no longer in use and that some bills were simply put into a pile that he disregarded for some time. Ramey’s explanations should raise some questions for taxpayers. It is fair to ask whether a commissioner charged with approving the county’s annual budget is qualified to make such decisions if he treats his tax obligations so carelessly. But there is another issue unfolding in this drama, in the manner in which four other county commissioners responded to questions about Ramey’s actions.
Earlier in January, those commissioners – Kevin Ensley, Brandon Rogers, Tommy Long and Jennifer Best – responded to inquiries from another newspaper about Ramey’s unpaid tax bills. Together they issued statements on the issue without Ramey’s knowledge. Their set of joint responses said the voters elected Ramey as a county commissioner and that he would have to answer to those voters, that citizens could take advantage of the public comment sessions at county board meetings to make opinions known. The joint response of these four commissioners was not discussed in a public meeting, but handled with telephone conversations and emails between Commissioner Chairman Ensley and the other three. Ensley discussed the issue with each one, put responses in writing and checked back with them before releasing the answers to the press, according to his account.
Because a majority of the board did not meet in person to discuss the issue, and because a majority was not on a conference call at one time, the discussions may not be a technical violation of the N.C. Open Meetings Law. The method of handling this issue, however, was far from a rousing affirmation for open government and raises two serious concerns. First, the board addressed these questions without raising the issue with their fellow commissioner. They excluded him and presented a response representing the majority of the board without Ramey’s knowledge. Whatever commissioners feel about Ramey, and whatever citizens think about his tax history, he is a duly elected commissioner and entitled to be part of discussions involving county policy, even when they involve his own actions. Ramey should not have discovered colleagues’ statements about his behavior by reading them in the newspaper. The second concern goes beyond individual interactions. By consulting via telephone and reaching consensus outside of public sessions, commissioners are setting a dangerous precedent. Consulting each other to release an agreed-upon set of statements comes very close to making a decision that should have been addressed in open session. It could be tempting to try that approach again. County leaders and the public both need to be vigilant to ensure that doesn’t happen. The other four commissioners on the board are entitled to disagree with Ramey, to express concerns about his tax bills, to vote against him, even to criticize him publicly, should they choose. They are not entitled to shut him out of county government’s decision making processes, nor are they entitled to make decisions and issue policy statements based on consensus made via telephone or one-on-one conversations. Votes are required to be made in open sessions. Agreeing to make a statement, or making other decisions without a vote does not exempt leadership from its obligations to the state’s open meetings law or the principles of open governance.