These issues come mostly from the 20 Mar 2015 issue.
1. The article Candidates can appeal Dems' ruling has no by-line. I believe the article was written by Monica Coleman as she was the reporter in attendance at the DEC certification meeting. The article Police nab suspect has no by-line.
2. The list of Tunica County Debt & Loan Payment Schedule in the newspaper and in the 4 Mar 2015 handout did not mention that the Series 2013 bond for $9,510,000 and the Series 2012 bond for $5,140,000 are refunded (refinanced) bonds that originated prior to 1 Jan 2012. These bonds were refinanced to attain a lower interest rate.
Perhaps I am being a bit picky here. However, there are many Tunicans who are bent on pinning our financial woes to the current Supervisors from Beats 3, 4 and 5 when the facts clearly show previous boards and the current Beat 1 and Beat 2 carry this responsibility.
3. I have a disagreement with the Tunica Times Publisher about the debt for Schultz and GTA. At the 2014-2015 budget hearing, I believe the Publisher stated that we are not responsible for the debt for Schultz and GTA. I believe if either or both of these companies goes belly up, the debt reverts to the citizens of Tunica County. If I am wrong in my statement or if I have misstated the Publisher's statement at the budget hearing, I am waiting to be corrected.
4. In the 20 Mar 2015 issue of the Tunica Times there are 3 color pictures of Sheriff Hamp. Two of the pictures are of promotions and one is of a retirement. This is the problem: Prior to this issue I do not remember pictures of this type showing up regularly in the newspaper. This is a problem because the sheriff is up for reelection. Unless the Tunica Times wants to come out and openly endorse the current Sheriff, I am bothered by this.
Additionally, it needs to be noted that Leron Weeks was moved from Command Staff to street duty for what appears to be no good reason. So, Commander Weeks found employment elsewhere. A loss to Tunica County. Again, I stand to be corrected on this statement.
5. Although the 20 Mar 2015 issue of the Tunica Times did not contain the back page color ad for Globally Competitive Student Artwork the 13 Mar 2015 issue and many weeks prior to this date did contain this ad. This "ad" may be construed as a campaign ad for the current Superintendent. Who is paying for this "ad"? Tunica County School District? Is the current Superintendent's picture necessary in this "ad"? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to show the children's pictures? Is the Tunica Times endorsing the current Superintendent?
Just my thoughts....
No comments:
Post a Comment