Reader takes exception to paper practices...

My Letter to the Editor will follow my opening statement along with the Tunica Times "Amplification".  Another long one so grab a coffee and take a seat.

The letter when sent to the Tunica Times was entitled "Untrue Statements".  The new title was selected by the Tunica Times staff.

This letter is being written in response to several articles that have appeared in the Tunica Times. The first article was an Opinion piece and appeared in the 19 Dec 2014 issue.  The second article on the front page of the 30 Jan 2015 issue and is titled “Fleet for roads, other co. departments tops 50.”

Concerning the first article, the Opinion piece, we have written extensively on our blog (www.transparencyintunica.blogspot.com) about the factual inaccuracies in this piece.  Additionally, the Opinion has no byline and is more than 350 words long which is the Tunica Times’ rules for publication.  Therefore, we have come to the conclusion the article must have been written either by the Publisher or the Managing Editor.  Here is another point to ponder:  When these inaccurate facts are proven to be wrong, even in an “Opinion” article, isn’t an apology warranted? 

Concerning the front page 30 Jan 2015 article, again there is no byline.  That makes this article like an unsigned letter.  I am not going to spend my time researching each and every department for the factually accurate or inaccurate listing of the number of vehicles assigned to each department.  That being said, the Recreation Department is listed as having 2 vehicles.  Wrong.

Barbara Tuchel

Tunicans for Transparency in Government

 

 

AMPLIFICATION:

 

The Tunica Times' policy on length refers only to Letters to the Editor.  Other columns and opinions contained on this page are either marked as guest column or written by the editorial staff of The Tunica Times.  A non-bylined opinion is a product of the newspaper's editorial board.  This practice is common in many, if not most, newspapers.  For example, Memphis' Commercial Appeal contains daily opinions of the editorial board which are not signed. Blogger: The Times Daily in Florence, AL runs opinions with the editor who wrote the piece printed below the opinion.  So, who is right and who is wrong on this issue?  I guess I think I sign everything I write and I expect others to do the same.

 

Regarding any factual inaccuracies contained in the December opinion piece, the source material was primarily news stories which had run in 2014 in this newspaper. Blogger: And you took various stories and attributed them to Michael Thompson??????  That is unconscionable and just plain wrong.  Those with direct knowledge of factual inaccuracies should, at any time, speak directly to the editor or publisher and present evidence to the contrary.  The Tunica Times will correct demonstrated inaccuracies.  Blogger: You were in attendance when our 22 Dec 2014 report was presented and you were told where to find this information we had researched to find your errors.  The public is waiting for you to correct the fallacies in your Opinion.  Are you going to apologize for your errors or not?

 

Regarding last week's front page story, "Fleet for road...", it is our usual practice to byline news stories unless they are a compilation of several writers' work, or unless the story is primarily a list or merely a reprint from another source.  In this case, the source was a fuel report  from the county road manager that was given in December 2014.  The story explains that this is not a complete list of county vehicles; it was not meant to imply that the two vehicles listed for the recreation department were the ONLY vehicles being used by Parks and Recreation.  Blogger: So what was the purpose of this report with no by-line?  Now I am going to have to enter the entire "Fleet for road..." article.  This is such a pain.  For Pete's sake, just correct your errors and apologize to Michael Thompson.  The "Fleet for road..."  Article is below the 22 Dec 2014 report.

Blogger: Since the Tunica Times didn't go to the Public Records office and either read the report or get a copy of the report in Book 167 Page 602, where did they get the information?  They didn't get it from the Chancery Clerk.  I asked.  They didn't get it from Joe Eddie Hawkins.  I asked. Since you don't have to reveal your "sources", the public is left to speculate.  Hmmm, my guess is the report came from one of the Supervisors.  I don't think it was the Beat 3 Supervisor or the Beat 4 Supervisor or the Beat 5 Supervisor.  I don't even think it was the Beat 1 Supervisor.  Anyone want to take a guess as to who is left? Anyone else want to speculate?  See what happens when you don't include a by-line?
 

End of Amplification

 

Following is the report our Committee delivered at the 22 Dec 2014 Board of Supervisors' Meeting.  Please note that Brooks and Dick Taylor were present during the delivery and this report is now a part of the BOS's December 2014 minutes.  Highlights show information that was debunked at the meeting. There is a full surgery of this Opinion on this Blog dated 19 Dec 2011.

*******************************************************************

22 Dec 2014: Board of Supervisors’ Meeting @ 5p

Thank you for the appointment this evening.

We have 2 subjects in our presentation tonight. 

The first topic is about the funding you will be voting on tonight.

At your last meeting, we heard from Lyn Arnold how the Chamber and Economic Development became so closely entangled.  At the time, this may have been a good decision.  However, needs have changed and so has our funding.

Please consider funding Economic Development and not funding the Chamber.  In most communities, funding of a local Chamber of Commerce is obtained through individual, company and corporate memberships.  Our Chamber has been largely funded through our local governments.

As we transition to an Efficient and Sustainable Government, we will need to replace our lost income with other revenue streams and are in need of Economic Development to attain these goals. 

The second topic concerns the recent Opinion piece that ran last week in the Tunica Times.  There is a very long post on the Transparency Blog rebutting a good bit of the Tunica Times offering.  It appears this Opinion blames so many of our troubles on our County Administrator when it is way past time for we, the people of Tunica County to accept the blame for the financial mess we are in and not try to continually transfer this responsibility to someone else.

I will address one of the three “accomplishments” attributed to Michael Thompson in this Opinion. 

“in the biggest debacle for Tunica County, Caesar’s Entertainment abruptly closed the county’s largest resort property, Harrah’s, throwing over a thousand people out of work, shuttering three hotels, a world class golf course, Cottonwoods, and the resort area’s only true convention facility, and putting an end to a successful program of charter (flights) into Tunica Airport, flights which were drawing visitors from far outside the drive-up market.” 

1. May I be so bold as to ask, who built a golf course to compete with Cottonwoods and River Bend?  We did.  Not Michael Thompson.
2. Are you clearly stating that with the closing of Harrah’s, no other casino is bringing charter flights into Tunica Airport? That would be interesting to investigate but again this is not a decision attributed to Michael Thompson.  We the people of Tunica County are the people who allowed this airport to be built without the benefit of a feasibility study.
3. Then there is the statement about “throwing over a thousand people out of work.”  The month Harrah’s closed, Tunica County’s unemployment rate was 17% for Jun 2014.  Jul was 18%.  Aug was 15%.  Sep was 13% and Oct was 12%.  Not much of a change from before Harrah’s closed.  You know what else this might show us?  Not many Tunicans were employed at Harrah.  Don’t know for sure but maybe.

As was stated earlier in this report, there is a more extensive rebuttal on the Transparency Blog.  In closing I would like to ask the Tunica Times to recognize the factual mistakes made in this “Opinion” piece and to run an apology to Michael Thompson in their next issue.  To show you are sincere this apology needs to be front page and above the fold. 

In the meantime, Michael, I would like to offer an apology from the Tuchel household for all of the mean spirited things that have been done to you and said about you since your arrival in Tunica County.

 

End of Report

 

Blogger: It gave me no pleasure to have to take our newspaper to task but there comes a time for them to step up and correct their mistakes.  To say you were not aware, is not true.  You have chosen not to correct and not to apologize.



30 Jan 2015 issue of The Tunica Times

"Fleet for roads, other co. departments tops 50"

 

A partial list of vehicles owned and operated by Tunica County shows that he total for the Road Department is 40; for Maintenance, five; Receiving, 1; Solid Waste, two; the Tunica County Recreation Commission, two; and the Tunica Arena, one, for a total of 51.

 

This total does not include vehicles operated by the Tunica County Sheriff's Department, Tunica County Administration; or any vehicles that may have been added to the inventory since January 1.

 

As of December 2014, the fleet included: six Ford F150 pick ups, four Ford F250 pick ups; four Chevrolet 2500 trucks; one Chevrolet 1500; and one Chevrolet 3500 utility truck.

 

Other vehicles listed in a December 2014 fuel report include: a Mack tractor truck, a Ford bucket truck, a Chevrolet spray/salt truck, and four Mack dump trucks; a CAT motor grader and CAT trackhoe, one Mack and one Peterbuilt garbage truck, a Ford knuckleboom, an Ingersol-Rand packer, a sewer cleaner, two John Deere zero turn movers, a Bobcat loader and a Komatsu loader, two CAT backhoes, a Mack water truck, three John Deere tractors, and a Beauthling packer.

 

Also on the inventory are: a Chevrolet service truck, a Broce mobile broom, two CAT dozers, a Tiger mower, a Rhino air compressor, a Ford bus and Ford transit van, a melter/sealer, and an Olathe chipper.

 

Blogger: So, what is the purpose of this report?  Does it tell us how many vehicles we have? No.  What does reporting on the vehicles that received fuel service in Dec 2014 show us?  Okay, Tunica Times, it's time to fess up.  Who is providing you with erroneous and useless information?  Oh, that's right, newspapers don't have to reveal their sources.  But you still need to apologize to Michael Thompson.