Following is a letter Tunicans for Transparency in Government sent to the Tunica Times late last year. So, why is this being brought up now? Well, because a quick read, not a thorough study, but a quick read over the handouts from the presentation on redistricting made by "Concerned Citizens for a Better Tunica" and Southern Echo this morning contains at least one glaring thought. This thought is that these groups feel they are not being fairly represented by the decisions made by our Board of Supervisors.
What prompted the letter was an action taken by my Supervisor(Beat 2) in his appointment to the Board of Directors of the Battle Arena. Not only did the person he appointed not live in his Beat but this African American Supervisor appointed a White resident of Beat 5. And, if my memory serves me correctly, my very own Supervisor couldn't exactly remember the name of the gentleman from Beat 5 and had to be prompted by the Board Attorney.
So, here's the letter that was sent to the Tunica Times back in Nov 2010:
"Is it political or representational?
Recently the Transparency Committee asked for and received a list of all of the Boards of Directors that are appointed by our Board of Supervisors along with the members thereof.
What we found was not what we expected. What we wanted to know was who represented each Beat on the various Boards. What we found was these appointments appear to be political and not representational. This is to say there are too many appointees from one Beat (Beat 5) and we didn’t see any representation from Beat 3. Isn’t this interesting?
When we asked about this at this morning’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting, the Supervisor from Beat 3 said they didn’t have to appoint from their own Beat. What? Do you mean to say there isn’t anyone within your Beat you would appoint to each of these Boards? Hello…the residents of Beat 3 put you in office so represent them."
So, can anyone tell me why my Supervisor from Beat 2 would appoint a resident of Beat 5 to anything? No, I didn't think so.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Today's Board of Supervisors' Meeting
This morning's meeting was more then a bit disturbing both in content and presentation. I'm still studying the handouts provided by "Concerned Citizens for a Better Tunica" and an organization named Southern Echo. These groups had an appointment with the Board of Supervisors. Actually, what they did was to make a presentation of another plan for the Redistricting of Tunica County.
First of all, I don't believe they should have been allowed to make the presentation. This type of presentation needs to made at a Public Hearing. However, the Board of Supervisors set a precedent when they held a separate and special meeting with the residents of Tunica Cut-Off who were displaced by the recent floods. In my opinion, neither meeting should have taken place.
What needed to happen was to schedule another Public Hearing so that the displaced residents could hear what everyone else had to say and we could hear what they had to say. The folks from "Concerned Citizens..." and Southern Echo were in attendance at the last Public Hearing so why didn't they make their presentation then? Who knows.
I am going to make a thorough study of the handouts from this morning's meeting and will write more later.
First of all, I don't believe they should have been allowed to make the presentation. This type of presentation needs to made at a Public Hearing. However, the Board of Supervisors set a precedent when they held a separate and special meeting with the residents of Tunica Cut-Off who were displaced by the recent floods. In my opinion, neither meeting should have taken place.
What needed to happen was to schedule another Public Hearing so that the displaced residents could hear what everyone else had to say and we could hear what they had to say. The folks from "Concerned Citizens..." and Southern Echo were in attendance at the last Public Hearing so why didn't they make their presentation then? Who knows.
I am going to make a thorough study of the handouts from this morning's meeting and will write more later.
Candidates' Report of Receipts & Disbursements
Previously, this blog posted the names of incumbents who had not filed the above report as of 9a on 23 May 2011. Today, our committee delivered a Freedom of Information letter to the Circuit Clerk's office asking for the names of those who filed after the 10 May 2011 deadline along with the date of filing. Unfortunately, there are still some candidates with outstanding reports.
Following is the report we received from the Circuit Clerk:
Candidates who filed after May 10, 2011:
McKinley Daley: 11 Mary 2011
Cedric Burnett: 11 May 2011
Henry "Lil Sonny" Nickson: 11 May 2011
Louise Linzy: 11 May 2011
Calvin (K.C.) Hamp: 17 May 2011
Glenn D. Grant: 18 May 2011
Robert Hall: 23 May 2011
Byran Vaughn, Sr.: 23 May 2011
Recelle R. Siggers: 23 May 2011
Kelvin L. Hibbler: 24 May 2011
Lil Joe Anderson: 24 May 2011
Arthur "Hot Shot" Ankston: 24 May 2011
Larry D. Ball: 24 May 2011
Bobby E. Williams: 24 May 2011
A. L. Steele: 25 May 2011
Paul Battle: 25 May 2011
Jerry Gentry, Sr.: 26 May 2011
William E. Pegram: 26 May 2011
Tommy Gibbs: 27 May 2011
Eugene Bridges: 27 May 2011
Candidates who have not file their Report of Receipts and Disbursements as of 9a on 31 May 2011:
Lawyer Porter, Jr.
Tammie Turner
Tyrone "T.Y." Hall
Christopher Thomas
Casey L. Johnson
Charles B. Graves, Jr.
"Big" Brian Smith
Curtis "Rerun" Jackson
Thanks to the Circuit Clerk and her staff for her help in gathering this information.
Following is the report we received from the Circuit Clerk:
Candidates who filed after May 10, 2011:
McKinley Daley: 11 Mary 2011
Cedric Burnett: 11 May 2011
Henry "Lil Sonny" Nickson: 11 May 2011
Louise Linzy: 11 May 2011
Calvin (K.C.) Hamp: 17 May 2011
Glenn D. Grant: 18 May 2011
Robert Hall: 23 May 2011
Byran Vaughn, Sr.: 23 May 2011
Recelle R. Siggers: 23 May 2011
Kelvin L. Hibbler: 24 May 2011
Lil Joe Anderson: 24 May 2011
Arthur "Hot Shot" Ankston: 24 May 2011
Larry D. Ball: 24 May 2011
Bobby E. Williams: 24 May 2011
A. L. Steele: 25 May 2011
Paul Battle: 25 May 2011
Jerry Gentry, Sr.: 26 May 2011
William E. Pegram: 26 May 2011
Tommy Gibbs: 27 May 2011
Eugene Bridges: 27 May 2011
Candidates who have not file their Report of Receipts and Disbursements as of 9a on 31 May 2011:
Lawyer Porter, Jr.
Tammie Turner
Tyrone "T.Y." Hall
Christopher Thomas
Casey L. Johnson
Charles B. Graves, Jr.
"Big" Brian Smith
Curtis "Rerun" Jackson
Thanks to the Circuit Clerk and her staff for her help in gathering this information.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Special Meeting on Redistricting
And so what was the purpose of the Public Hearing on Redistricting if the Supervisors are not even going to consider the desires of the public they were elected to represent?
Let's face it Tunica, these Supervisors are only interested in protecting their re-elections. They are not even going to consider what any of us thinks. Nor do they care.
And what the heck is the meaning of holding a "special meeting with the Board of Supervisors" and Tunica Cut-Off residents? We all know these folks were displaced by the flood and I don't think anyone would object to holding yet another Public Hearing on Redistricting as long as everyone is included.
The 2010 Census says Tunica County, MS is 23.7% White; 73.5% Black and 2.8% Other.
To restate the Supervisors' plan for redistricting Tunica County, here it is:
District 1 has an African American Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 1 is:
White: 15.4%
Black: 81.4%
Other: 3.1%
District 2 has an African American Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 2 is:
White: 15.7%
Black: 82.1%
Other: 2.1%
District 3 has a White Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 3 is:
White: 21.7%
Black: 74.3%
Other: 4.1%
District 4 has a White Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 4 is:
White: 31.5%
Black: 65.9%
Other: 2.6%
District 5 has a White Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 5 is:
White: 34.1%
Black: 63.6%
Other: 2.3%
Do these guys really think the Department of Justice is going to let them get away with this? They will unless we start saying something about it.....
Let's face it Tunica, these Supervisors are only interested in protecting their re-elections. They are not even going to consider what any of us thinks. Nor do they care.
And what the heck is the meaning of holding a "special meeting with the Board of Supervisors" and Tunica Cut-Off residents? We all know these folks were displaced by the flood and I don't think anyone would object to holding yet another Public Hearing on Redistricting as long as everyone is included.
The 2010 Census says Tunica County, MS is 23.7% White; 73.5% Black and 2.8% Other.
To restate the Supervisors' plan for redistricting Tunica County, here it is:
District 1 has an African American Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 1 is:
White: 15.4%
Black: 81.4%
Other: 3.1%
District 2 has an African American Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 2 is:
White: 15.7%
Black: 82.1%
Other: 2.1%
District 3 has a White Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 3 is:
White: 21.7%
Black: 74.3%
Other: 4.1%
District 4 has a White Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 4 is:
White: 31.5%
Black: 65.9%
Other: 2.6%
District 5 has a White Supervisor.
The plan for Redistricting District 5 is:
White: 34.1%
Black: 63.6%
Other: 2.3%
Do these guys really think the Department of Justice is going to let them get away with this? They will unless we start saying something about it.....
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Attention All Candidates...10 May 2011 @ 5p
Does this date ring a bell???? No?
Remember the packet of information you were given by the Circuit Clerk's Office when you paid your fee to run in the upcoming elections? Still no connection?
Okay here it is:
Part of your election packet contained a "Candidate Report of Receipts and Disbursements 2011 Election" from the MS Secretary of State's Office. "All candidates and political committees must submit Periodic Reports by 5:00 p.m. on" 10 May 2011. This report is listed as "Mandatory" and covers the period of 1 Jan 2011 through 30 Apr 2011.
Not having anything better to do yesterday morning, I thought I'd just drop by the Circuit Clerk's Office to see who had and who had not filed their reports.
A total of 18 names were given to me by the Circuit Clerk's Office. Let's leave the new candidates out of this for the moment and let's just talk about the incumbents. Following is a list of those candidates who are now serving and did not turn in this "MANDATORY" report as of 9a on 23 May 2011:
Superintendent of Education: Jerry Gentry
Justice Court Judge: Souther District: Ellis Darby
Constable: Northern District: Eugene Bridges
Constable: Southern District: Joe Anderson
Beat 3 Supervisor: Paul Battle, III
Beat 4 Supervisor: Bobby Williams
Beat 5 Supervisor: Billy Pegram
County Attorney: Charles B. Graves, Jr.
This is ridiculous!!!!
31 May 2011: There is new information regarding this situation posted on this date.
Remember the packet of information you were given by the Circuit Clerk's Office when you paid your fee to run in the upcoming elections? Still no connection?
Okay here it is:
Part of your election packet contained a "Candidate Report of Receipts and Disbursements 2011 Election" from the MS Secretary of State's Office. "All candidates and political committees must submit Periodic Reports by 5:00 p.m. on" 10 May 2011. This report is listed as "Mandatory" and covers the period of 1 Jan 2011 through 30 Apr 2011.
Not having anything better to do yesterday morning, I thought I'd just drop by the Circuit Clerk's Office to see who had and who had not filed their reports.
A total of 18 names were given to me by the Circuit Clerk's Office. Let's leave the new candidates out of this for the moment and let's just talk about the incumbents. Following is a list of those candidates who are now serving and did not turn in this "MANDATORY" report as of 9a on 23 May 2011:
Superintendent of Education: Jerry Gentry
Justice Court Judge: Souther District: Ellis Darby
Constable: Northern District: Eugene Bridges
Constable: Southern District: Joe Anderson
Beat 3 Supervisor: Paul Battle, III
Beat 4 Supervisor: Bobby Williams
Beat 5 Supervisor: Billy Pegram
County Attorney: Charles B. Graves, Jr.
This is ridiculous!!!!
31 May 2011: There is new information regarding this situation posted on this date.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Redistricting Public Hearing 9 May 2011 @ 6p
Tunica County Courthouse:
The meeting started with a presentation from the company hired by the Board of Supervisors, Bridges and Watson, to plan our redistricting. If you didn't catch it at the 6 Jan 2011 Public Hearing or any of the Board of Supervisors' Meetings since then, it was made perfectly clear at this 9 May 2011 meeting that the Board of Supervisors' plan was to make sure each incumbent Supervisor remained in his own District.
Speaking for Tunians for Transparency in Government, I believe we made our point. This redistricting has nothing to do with them (the current Board of Supervisors) and everything to do with us, the citizens of Tunica County, Mississippi.
Let's be clear about which Supervisors attended the meeting. The District 1 Supervisor was there. The District 2 Supervisor was there. The District 4 Supervisor was there. The District 5 Supervisor was not there due to a death in his family. Oh, I missed the District 3 Supervisor. The District 3 Supervisor was not there. The District 3 Supervisor was not in attendance at the 6 Jan 2011 Redistricting Public Hearing either.
The meeting started with a presentation from the company hired by the Board of Supervisors, Bridges and Watson, to plan our redistricting. If you didn't catch it at the 6 Jan 2011 Public Hearing or any of the Board of Supervisors' Meetings since then, it was made perfectly clear at this 9 May 2011 meeting that the Board of Supervisors' plan was to make sure each incumbent Supervisor remained in his own District.
Speaking for Tunians for Transparency in Government, I believe we made our point. This redistricting has nothing to do with them (the current Board of Supervisors) and everything to do with us, the citizens of Tunica County, Mississippi.
Let's be clear about which Supervisors attended the meeting. The District 1 Supervisor was there. The District 2 Supervisor was there. The District 4 Supervisor was there. The District 5 Supervisor was not there due to a death in his family. Oh, I missed the District 3 Supervisor. The District 3 Supervisor was not there. The District 3 Supervisor was not in attendance at the 6 Jan 2011 Redistricting Public Hearing either.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Two articles in the Tunica Times
This letter was sent to the Tunica Times. I don't expect this letter to be published as I am a candidate for office also. So, here goes:
This letter to the editor is being written to object to two separate articles that appeared in this newspaper.
The first article appeared in the 8 Apr 2011 edition and was titled: “Clubs partner to clean up community”. The second article appeared in the 29 Apr 2011 edition and was titled: “Residents work to keep community beautiful”. Neither article contained the byline of anyone…that is neither article stated who wrote either article.
What is objectionable about these articles is not cleaning up our community. It is not objectionable that groups of children were encouraged to help with the project. Our children should be asked to help keep their community clean and even shown just how much work it is to clean up trash that should have been disposed of properly in the first place. What is objectionable is the sponsor of this project and that the “sponsor” was named and is a candidate for office in our upcoming election.
Had this community project been sponsored by say…the Tunica County Board of Supervisors this would not be objectionable because although all current Supervisors are running for re-election, this sponsorship does not use the name of any particular candidate. Additionally, what does cleaning up our community have to do with the Chancery Clerk? Nothing. This was a not very well hidden way of getting free advertising.
Since I am also a candidate for office, let’s see if this letter gets published.
This letter to the editor is being written to object to two separate articles that appeared in this newspaper.
The first article appeared in the 8 Apr 2011 edition and was titled: “Clubs partner to clean up community”. The second article appeared in the 29 Apr 2011 edition and was titled: “Residents work to keep community beautiful”. Neither article contained the byline of anyone…that is neither article stated who wrote either article.
What is objectionable about these articles is not cleaning up our community. It is not objectionable that groups of children were encouraged to help with the project. Our children should be asked to help keep their community clean and even shown just how much work it is to clean up trash that should have been disposed of properly in the first place. What is objectionable is the sponsor of this project and that the “sponsor” was named and is a candidate for office in our upcoming election.
Had this community project been sponsored by say…the Tunica County Board of Supervisors this would not be objectionable because although all current Supervisors are running for re-election, this sponsorship does not use the name of any particular candidate. Additionally, what does cleaning up our community have to do with the Chancery Clerk? Nothing. This was a not very well hidden way of getting free advertising.
Since I am also a candidate for office, let’s see if this letter gets published.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)