Only a few citizens were in attendance at last night's budget hearing. From what was said, parents are use to having notices sent home from school in addition to the required legal publications. After hearing from the public, perhaps Dr. Pulley will re-institute this practice. We also asked these notices be placed on the Tunica County School District website.
We, the citizens, also have to read the legal publications more carefully. Those few of us who attended went straight to the Elementary School Auditorium...where we always go. The notice said in the Board Room.
From the presentation:
We learned that $14,590,143 is being budgeted for Salaries. Bob asked for a break-down into Teaching, Support and Administration. Dr. Pulley was kind enough to ask Ms. Austin to put this information together and Ms. Austin and Bob will get together about the same this coming week.
We learned that all teaching vacancies have been filled by licensed and certified teachers. There may be some vacancies in the Special Education Department (SPED).
We learned that there is a public meeting at noon next Fri, 14 Aug 2015 to finalize the 2015-2016 Budget.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Not impressed with the Tunica Times...AGAIN
And here is why:
In the 24 Jul 2015 issue of the Tunica Times on page 8 there is a continuing story from the front page about the Primary. The byline is Tunica Times publisher, Brooks Taylor.
On page 8 there is the following statement: "On 16 July 2015, the Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed the Tunica County's DEC's appeal 'for failure to pay the cost of appeal'" I didn't think this was correct. So, I asked for and received a copy of the receipt paying the fees that were asked to be paid at the Circuit Clerk's Office. I made another copy for the Tunica Times and I personally handed this copy to Brooks and asked for a retraction. Now, let me say this. There is more to this story then a supposed failure to pay the cost of appeal and that information is readily available on the Supreme Court's website.
Why wasn't this retraction in this weeks issue of the Tunica Times?
In the this week's Tunica Times (7 Aug 2015) on page 8 again, there is a continuing story from the front page about Voting. The byline is again Tunica Times publisher, Brooks Taylor.
"At presstime Wednesday, Democratic Party Executive Committee members were overseeing a canvass of affidavit ballots. By mid-afternoon, some had been rejected, because the poll managers failed to sign the outside of the ballot envelopes."
The DEC has a contract with the Circuit Clerk's Office to train poll workers and the County pays the Circuit Clerk to train these people. So, if anyone has a beef with the quality of this training, take it up with the Circuit Clerk, not the DEC.
"This newspaper received reports on August 4 of confusion at the polls over voters from the town of Tunica. Voters reported to us that they were sent to two or more polls, after their names were not found on the precinct rolls."
Let's be clear, the DEC has nothing to do with the voter rolls. These responsibilities belong to the Circuit Clerk and the Election Commission. Just how many times are Tunicans going to sit in Board of Supervisors' Meetings and listen to me report about the Election Commission and not understand that our rolls have not been purged? For Pete's sake, the Beat 3 Election Commissioner doesn't even have her own address correct on her voter registration. She's using her mother's address at 1040 Cedar and her address is 1055 Cedar. I don't see anybody but me at the Election Commission Meetings. So, everyone who is not trying to get this problem fixed, stop complaining because you are not helping to get this problem fixed. Just how long are you willing to sit there and not help?
"The names of many town voters who should have been listed in the library precinct of District 2 were not found on that list and those voters were, in some cases, directed to vote in District 5 at the Tunica Elementary precinct."
Again, it is the responsibility of the Circuit Clerk to provide the updated rolls at each polling place and the County pays for this under election supplies.
"Others said they insisted on voting at the library precinct by affidavit ballot, including a former elected official who has lived in the same house on School Street in town for over 40 years."
This is a Circuit Clerk's problem both in training and voter rolls. The DEC has no responsibility for the training or the voter rolls. Simply put, the Circuit Clerk supplied incorrect voter rolls to some precincts.
"While this reporter was voting at the elementary school precinct, one of the voting machines ran out of paper and there was no supply at the poll to refill the machine."
This is a Circuit Clerk's problem and these supplies are paid for by the County. Ask her why the machine ran out of tape.
"It was also reported that three poll boxes arrived at the courthouse Tuesday night without required seals."
Yes, this happened and was reported by the DEC as they opened each bag and they documented and were able to reconfirm each missing seal during the affidavit process. How do I know? Because I took the time to attend this part of the vo,te counting and I asked the independent score keepers as each box was unsealed to count the affidavits.
"There were other reports that poll materials were removed from the courthouse the night before Tuesday's voting."
Say what? Who is reporting this? This is the first time I've heard about this.
"Police were called to the library poll, where other problems were occurring."
Did you check this out before going to print? Well, I did. I went by the police station on Wed morning, 5 Aug 2015 and asked who sent them to the library. The call came through dispatch and the officer stated, as he did on Tue when he arrived at the library, that he had no idea why they were called. No one was causing problems and there are witnesses to that fact.
I'm sure you know that someone called the Secretary of State's Office to ask that I be removed as a Poll Watcher at Precinct 4. Why? Because of the candidate I was watching for? I had credentials. This was harassment, pure and simple and it has been reported.
In the 24 Jul 2015 issue of the Tunica Times on page 8 there is a continuing story from the front page about the Primary. The byline is Tunica Times publisher, Brooks Taylor.
On page 8 there is the following statement: "On 16 July 2015, the Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed the Tunica County's DEC's appeal 'for failure to pay the cost of appeal'" I didn't think this was correct. So, I asked for and received a copy of the receipt paying the fees that were asked to be paid at the Circuit Clerk's Office. I made another copy for the Tunica Times and I personally handed this copy to Brooks and asked for a retraction. Now, let me say this. There is more to this story then a supposed failure to pay the cost of appeal and that information is readily available on the Supreme Court's website.
Why wasn't this retraction in this weeks issue of the Tunica Times?
In the this week's Tunica Times (7 Aug 2015) on page 8 again, there is a continuing story from the front page about Voting. The byline is again Tunica Times publisher, Brooks Taylor.
"At presstime Wednesday, Democratic Party Executive Committee members were overseeing a canvass of affidavit ballots. By mid-afternoon, some had been rejected, because the poll managers failed to sign the outside of the ballot envelopes."
The DEC has a contract with the Circuit Clerk's Office to train poll workers and the County pays the Circuit Clerk to train these people. So, if anyone has a beef with the quality of this training, take it up with the Circuit Clerk, not the DEC.
"This newspaper received reports on August 4 of confusion at the polls over voters from the town of Tunica. Voters reported to us that they were sent to two or more polls, after their names were not found on the precinct rolls."
Let's be clear, the DEC has nothing to do with the voter rolls. These responsibilities belong to the Circuit Clerk and the Election Commission. Just how many times are Tunicans going to sit in Board of Supervisors' Meetings and listen to me report about the Election Commission and not understand that our rolls have not been purged? For Pete's sake, the Beat 3 Election Commissioner doesn't even have her own address correct on her voter registration. She's using her mother's address at 1040 Cedar and her address is 1055 Cedar. I don't see anybody but me at the Election Commission Meetings. So, everyone who is not trying to get this problem fixed, stop complaining because you are not helping to get this problem fixed. Just how long are you willing to sit there and not help?
"The names of many town voters who should have been listed in the library precinct of District 2 were not found on that list and those voters were, in some cases, directed to vote in District 5 at the Tunica Elementary precinct."
Again, it is the responsibility of the Circuit Clerk to provide the updated rolls at each polling place and the County pays for this under election supplies.
"Others said they insisted on voting at the library precinct by affidavit ballot, including a former elected official who has lived in the same house on School Street in town for over 40 years."
This is a Circuit Clerk's problem both in training and voter rolls. The DEC has no responsibility for the training or the voter rolls. Simply put, the Circuit Clerk supplied incorrect voter rolls to some precincts.
"While this reporter was voting at the elementary school precinct, one of the voting machines ran out of paper and there was no supply at the poll to refill the machine."
This is a Circuit Clerk's problem and these supplies are paid for by the County. Ask her why the machine ran out of tape.
"It was also reported that three poll boxes arrived at the courthouse Tuesday night without required seals."
Yes, this happened and was reported by the DEC as they opened each bag and they documented and were able to reconfirm each missing seal during the affidavit process. How do I know? Because I took the time to attend this part of the vo,te counting and I asked the independent score keepers as each box was unsealed to count the affidavits.
"There were other reports that poll materials were removed from the courthouse the night before Tuesday's voting."
Say what? Who is reporting this? This is the first time I've heard about this.
"Police were called to the library poll, where other problems were occurring."
Did you check this out before going to print? Well, I did. I went by the police station on Wed morning, 5 Aug 2015 and asked who sent them to the library. The call came through dispatch and the officer stated, as he did on Tue when he arrived at the library, that he had no idea why they were called. No one was causing problems and there are witnesses to that fact.
I'm sure you know that someone called the Secretary of State's Office to ask that I be removed as a Poll Watcher at Precinct 4. Why? Because of the candidate I was watching for? I had credentials. This was harassment, pure and simple and it has been reported.
For the 197 Tunicans who voted for the former Superintendent: A pox upon your house.
Who does that? Who wastes their vote on a Superintendent who has been removed from office by the State of MS? If you are one of this gang of 197, you owe the rest of us an explanation.
This is what I know:
You were not one of the people who worked for our children and our County by getting the former Superintendent and three of the School Board Members out of the way so that we could get headed in the right direction.. Can you even imagine the work that went into this project and the personal money that was spent on behalf of our children and all of Tunica County?
You do not care about our children or our County.
You do not care about the individuals and families and careers that were damaged by the former Superintendent's actions.
You have not read the court's decision in favor of Dr. Jeremiah Burks on this blog nor do you care about how much money we will have to pay Dr. Burks for his suffering. Money I might add that should go to our children.
You do not care that we will not be able to attract enough businesses to make a financial improvement in our County until we have a successful school system. So, if you are one of this gang of 197 don't complain to anyone about not having jobs in Tunica because your vote proved that you are a part of the problem.
To this gang of 197, my picture is on this blog so you know what I look like. If you should come upon me out and about in the County, spending my time in an attempt to get you to wake up and look around you. to give you a convenient place to find facts and present facts of your own...well should you come upon me...just walk on by...I don't want to be around such ignorance.
To the rest of us who voted for either Coach Dace or Dr. Davis, I thank you for doing your due diligence and casting your vote for either candidate.
This is what I know:
You were not one of the people who worked for our children and our County by getting the former Superintendent and three of the School Board Members out of the way so that we could get headed in the right direction.. Can you even imagine the work that went into this project and the personal money that was spent on behalf of our children and all of Tunica County?
You do not care about our children or our County.
You do not care about the individuals and families and careers that were damaged by the former Superintendent's actions.
You have not read the court's decision in favor of Dr. Jeremiah Burks on this blog nor do you care about how much money we will have to pay Dr. Burks for his suffering. Money I might add that should go to our children.
You do not care that we will not be able to attract enough businesses to make a financial improvement in our County until we have a successful school system. So, if you are one of this gang of 197 don't complain to anyone about not having jobs in Tunica because your vote proved that you are a part of the problem.
To this gang of 197, my picture is on this blog so you know what I look like. If you should come upon me out and about in the County, spending my time in an attempt to get you to wake up and look around you. to give you a convenient place to find facts and present facts of your own...well should you come upon me...just walk on by...I don't want to be around such ignorance.
To the rest of us who voted for either Coach Dace or Dr. Davis, I thank you for doing your due diligence and casting your vote for either candidate.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
UPDATED 7 AUG 2015: Affidavits....
Before I get started posting my notes for the DEC count of the affidavit ballots from yesterday's election, I want to say something about the residents from Beat 2 who showed up on the Beat 5 voter rolls that were used at the polls.
The roll that I was using during my poll watching duties was pulled on 27 Jul 2015. By this late date, the voter rolls needed to be as correct as possible. Were they???..NO! Were the voter rolls purged? NO they were not. I have been at each Election Commission Meetings since Mar and I will tell you in no uncertain terms, this job is not getting done for Tunica County.
Additionally, I AGAIN made a report to the Board of Supervisors on this very problem. It is the duty of the BOS to do the Election Commission's job if they are not doing it. The BOS took no action either.
Back to yesterday:
When all of this confusion started happening at the Library. I took a look at the Superintendent of Education location and found some of these folks on that roll. Additionally, the Poll Managers were calling the Circuit Clerk's Office to help voters find their correct precinct. The Library Poll Managers were being told to direct these folks to the Superintendent of Education location. Then in the afternoon and with no explanation from the Circuit Clerk, voters started coming in and asking to vote affidavit. Does the Circuit Clerk think your poll managers are mind readers? AND, in addition to this, the Circuit Clerk was on the ballot yesterday AND she had an opponent so why was she on duty? IMHO, the Circuit Clerk needed to take the day off to avoid any hint of prejudice. The Circuit Clerk needs to answer to the public about these mistakes. Will she? I'd be pleasantly surprised.
Now we get to the affidavit count this afternoon and the Circuit Clerk tells the DEC that there was a mistake and those folks who were incorrectly on the rolls at the Superintendent of Education location were actually in Beat 2. HOWEVER, the affidavit ballots were not correctly completed and the poll manager signed them anyway. Result? All 27 affidavit ballots were rejected and all of these voters were...as one rejected voter put it...disenfranchised.
I'm tired of all of this...here is the info from my notes for the Precincts.
Precinct 1: Robinsonville Community Center: 12 affidavits; 10 accepted; 2 rejected
Precinct 2: Bankhead/Hamrick: 10 affidavits; 8 accepted; 2 rejected
Precinct 3: Pritchard: 4 affidavits; 4 rejected
Precinct 4: Tunica Library: 27 affidavits; 27 rejected
Precinct 5: Mhoon Landing: 0 affidavits
Precinct 6: New Sub Park: 6 affidavits; 3 accepted; 3 rejected
Precinct 7: White Oak Rec: 14 affidavits, 8 accepted; 5 rejected; I missed one ballot
Precinct 8: Tunica Auditorium: 9 affidavits, 9 rejections
Precinct 9: Win Job Center: 5 affidavits; 4 accepted; 1 rejected
Precinct 10: Superintendent of Education; 15 affidavits; 15 rejected
Precinct 11: West End Store: 0 affidavits
Precinct 12: Two Mile Lake: 6 affidavits, 6 accepted
Hmmm, when it is all laid out, there seems to be a pattern here. But what is the common denominator?
UPDATE: The following is a list, supplied by the Circuit Clerk's Office, of the Poll Workers.
It looks like we had problems in 4 Precincts: Pritchard, Tunica Library, Tunica Auditorium and the Superintendent of Education building.
The next questions are:
1. Were these people properly trained by the Circuit Clerk?
2. Have these people worked elections prior to 4 Aug 2015?
3. Were there problems in prior elections where these individuals were working for the County?
Precinct 1: Robinsonville Community Center: 12 affidavits; 10 accepted; 2 rejected
1. Earl Hendrick: Bailiff
2. Jevetta Siggers: Manager
3. Evelyn Paige: Manager
4. Megan Burnette
Precinct 2: Bankhead/Hamrick: 10 affidavits; 8 accepted; 2 rejected
1. Catherine Pickett
2. Josie Voss: Manager
3. Natassia Joiner
4. Andria Sanders: Bailiff
Precinct 3: Pritchard: 4 affidavits; 4 rejected
1. Leonard Granberry: Manager
2. Martini McNeal: Manager
3. Latoya Gibson
4. Yoyo Anderson: Bailiff
Precinct 4: Tunica Library: 27 affidavits; 27 rejected
1. Mary Carter: Manager
2. Charlesetta Logan
3. Trequita Spears
4. Ruby Jones: Manager
5. Martha Jones: Bailiff
Note from Blogger: I witnessed a gentleman working there also and he is not on the Circuit Clerk's list. I will attempt to learn his name. Know his face but not his name.
Precinct 5: Mhoon Landing: 0 affidavits
1. Susie Dorsey: Manager
2. Roshon Dorsey: Manager
3. Joyce Mitchell: Bailiff
4. Felisha Burks
Precinct 6: New Sub Park: 6 affidavits; 3 accepted; 3 rejected
1. Nadia Gills: Manager
2. Andrianna Crawford: Bailiff
3. Chandrika Daniels: Manager
4. Evelyn Simmons
Precinct 7: White Oak Rec: 14 affidavits, 8 accepted; 5 rejected; I missed one ballot
1. Beverly Clark: Manager
2. Nikki Clark:
3. Jasmine Hodges
4. James Colbert: Bailiff
5. Shonda Taylor: Manager
Precinct 8: Tunica Auditorium: 9 affidavits, 9 rejections
1. Marilyn Gordon: Manager
2. Annie L. Moore: Bailiff
3. Dante Gordon
4. Roderick Pickett
Precinct 9: Win Job Center: 5 affidavits; 4 accepted; 1 rejected
1. Regina Kirtz: Manager
2. Robert Kirtz: Bailiff
Precinct 10: Superintendent of Education; 15 affidavits; 15 rejected
1. Diana Jackson Mille: Manager
2. Patricia Hopkins: Manager
3. Frederick Robinson: Bailiff
4. Keisha Hibbler
Precinct 11: West End Store: 0 affidavits
1. Sharon Jackson: Manager
2. Rhonda Smith
3. Joyce Anderson: Bailiff
4. Vary McKinley: Manager
Precinct 12: Two Mile Lake: 6 affidavits, 6 accepted
1. Damien Jackson: Manager
2. Kiana Hawkins:
3. Rasheda Hawkins: Manager
4. Chrishonda Simpson: Bailiff
In conclusion:
To all of you who had your ballot rejected for the 4 Aug 2015:
I have provided you with the information to start your own investigation into our broken process. What are you going to do about this?
The roll that I was using during my poll watching duties was pulled on 27 Jul 2015. By this late date, the voter rolls needed to be as correct as possible. Were they???..NO! Were the voter rolls purged? NO they were not. I have been at each Election Commission Meetings since Mar and I will tell you in no uncertain terms, this job is not getting done for Tunica County.
Additionally, I AGAIN made a report to the Board of Supervisors on this very problem. It is the duty of the BOS to do the Election Commission's job if they are not doing it. The BOS took no action either.
Back to yesterday:
When all of this confusion started happening at the Library. I took a look at the Superintendent of Education location and found some of these folks on that roll. Additionally, the Poll Managers were calling the Circuit Clerk's Office to help voters find their correct precinct. The Library Poll Managers were being told to direct these folks to the Superintendent of Education location. Then in the afternoon and with no explanation from the Circuit Clerk, voters started coming in and asking to vote affidavit. Does the Circuit Clerk think your poll managers are mind readers? AND, in addition to this, the Circuit Clerk was on the ballot yesterday AND she had an opponent so why was she on duty? IMHO, the Circuit Clerk needed to take the day off to avoid any hint of prejudice. The Circuit Clerk needs to answer to the public about these mistakes. Will she? I'd be pleasantly surprised.
Now we get to the affidavit count this afternoon and the Circuit Clerk tells the DEC that there was a mistake and those folks who were incorrectly on the rolls at the Superintendent of Education location were actually in Beat 2. HOWEVER, the affidavit ballots were not correctly completed and the poll manager signed them anyway. Result? All 27 affidavit ballots were rejected and all of these voters were...as one rejected voter put it...disenfranchised.
I'm tired of all of this...here is the info from my notes for the Precincts.
Precinct 1: Robinsonville Community Center: 12 affidavits; 10 accepted; 2 rejected
Precinct 2: Bankhead/Hamrick: 10 affidavits; 8 accepted; 2 rejected
Precinct 3: Pritchard: 4 affidavits; 4 rejected
Precinct 4: Tunica Library: 27 affidavits; 27 rejected
Precinct 5: Mhoon Landing: 0 affidavits
Precinct 6: New Sub Park: 6 affidavits; 3 accepted; 3 rejected
Precinct 7: White Oak Rec: 14 affidavits, 8 accepted; 5 rejected; I missed one ballot
Precinct 8: Tunica Auditorium: 9 affidavits, 9 rejections
Precinct 9: Win Job Center: 5 affidavits; 4 accepted; 1 rejected
Precinct 10: Superintendent of Education; 15 affidavits; 15 rejected
Precinct 11: West End Store: 0 affidavits
Precinct 12: Two Mile Lake: 6 affidavits, 6 accepted
Hmmm, when it is all laid out, there seems to be a pattern here. But what is the common denominator?
UPDATE: The following is a list, supplied by the Circuit Clerk's Office, of the Poll Workers.
It looks like we had problems in 4 Precincts: Pritchard, Tunica Library, Tunica Auditorium and the Superintendent of Education building.
The next questions are:
1. Were these people properly trained by the Circuit Clerk?
2. Have these people worked elections prior to 4 Aug 2015?
3. Were there problems in prior elections where these individuals were working for the County?
Precinct 1: Robinsonville Community Center: 12 affidavits; 10 accepted; 2 rejected
1. Earl Hendrick: Bailiff
2. Jevetta Siggers: Manager
3. Evelyn Paige: Manager
4. Megan Burnette
Precinct 2: Bankhead/Hamrick: 10 affidavits; 8 accepted; 2 rejected
1. Catherine Pickett
2. Josie Voss: Manager
3. Natassia Joiner
4. Andria Sanders: Bailiff
Precinct 3: Pritchard: 4 affidavits; 4 rejected
1. Leonard Granberry: Manager
2. Martini McNeal: Manager
3. Latoya Gibson
4. Yoyo Anderson: Bailiff
Precinct 4: Tunica Library: 27 affidavits; 27 rejected
1. Mary Carter: Manager
2. Charlesetta Logan
3. Trequita Spears
4. Ruby Jones: Manager
5. Martha Jones: Bailiff
Note from Blogger: I witnessed a gentleman working there also and he is not on the Circuit Clerk's list. I will attempt to learn his name. Know his face but not his name.
Precinct 5: Mhoon Landing: 0 affidavits
1. Susie Dorsey: Manager
2. Roshon Dorsey: Manager
3. Joyce Mitchell: Bailiff
4. Felisha Burks
Precinct 6: New Sub Park: 6 affidavits; 3 accepted; 3 rejected
1. Nadia Gills: Manager
2. Andrianna Crawford: Bailiff
3. Chandrika Daniels: Manager
4. Evelyn Simmons
Precinct 7: White Oak Rec: 14 affidavits, 8 accepted; 5 rejected; I missed one ballot
1. Beverly Clark: Manager
2. Nikki Clark:
3. Jasmine Hodges
4. James Colbert: Bailiff
5. Shonda Taylor: Manager
Precinct 8: Tunica Auditorium: 9 affidavits, 9 rejections
1. Marilyn Gordon: Manager
2. Annie L. Moore: Bailiff
3. Dante Gordon
4. Roderick Pickett
Precinct 9: Win Job Center: 5 affidavits; 4 accepted; 1 rejected
1. Regina Kirtz: Manager
2. Robert Kirtz: Bailiff
Precinct 10: Superintendent of Education; 15 affidavits; 15 rejected
1. Diana Jackson Mille: Manager
2. Patricia Hopkins: Manager
3. Frederick Robinson: Bailiff
4. Keisha Hibbler
Precinct 11: West End Store: 0 affidavits
1. Sharon Jackson: Manager
2. Rhonda Smith
3. Joyce Anderson: Bailiff
4. Vary McKinley: Manager
Precinct 12: Two Mile Lake: 6 affidavits, 6 accepted
1. Damien Jackson: Manager
2. Kiana Hawkins:
3. Rasheda Hawkins: Manager
4. Chrishonda Simpson: Bailiff
In conclusion:
To all of you who had your ballot rejected for the 4 Aug 2015:
I have provided you with the information to start your own investigation into our broken process. What are you going to do about this?
Monday, August 3, 2015
UPDATED: ALERT New Voter Registration Cards Issued...
There is no way for me to begin investigating this information as it is the day before the election. What I am hoping will happen from this post is for people to be aware and to report any similar activities.
This morning I received a phone call informing me that a handful of residents had just received new Voter Registration Cards with an issue date of 31 Jul 2015. These new cards indicated the residents no longer voted in Beat 1 but now voted in Beat 4. The caller stated these same residents appeared on the Beat 1 Voter Rolls as late as Mar 2015. This would indicate the change in district was not be a result of redistricting.
This is a big problem for individual candidates and the whole election process. If this has happened to any residents please let me know by sending an email to tuchelsgal@bellsouth.net or posting in the comments section of this blog.
UPDATE: Due to the problem between the Beat 2 and the Beat 5 voter rolls on Election Day, 4 Aug 2015, I decided to dig up the documents I used to write the Beat 2 report for the Election Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Both written reports were presented to both the EC and the BOS. The voter roll used for this report is dated 24 Feb 2015. While writing this report, I was concerned with:
1) Who had not voted since 2004. If a voter has not voted in 10 years they are placed in the inactive list. In Beat 2, there were
2) Who had a voter registration date that was more recent then the last time they voted. There could be legitimate reasons for this to occur. One reason would be that the voter voted elsewhere in MS and moved into Tunica since they last voted. When the voter roll for Beat 2 contained 17 such instances, there is cause for investigation.
3) Who has a PO Box as their listed address on the voter rolls. In Beat 2 we had 6 such instances. The physical address must appear on the voter roll. This is a problem to be fixed by the Election Commission and the Circuit Clerk. If they don't make these corrections then this responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Board of Supervisors.
This total report is in the Public Records as a part of the Board of Supervisors' Minutes and I personally took a copy to the Election Commission. There is no excuse anywhere for these corrections not to have been made.
Now, while writing this report I didn't pay too much attention to the names of the voters unless a name was triggered for one of the three reasons stated above.
This is what I have discovered: I went back to the 24 Feb 2015 voter rolls and looked for a few names that were on the Beat 2 voter rolls and wound up on the Beat 5 voter rolls on the report printed 27 Jul 2015. And here is the question: How did these people wind-up on the wrong list when they were on the right list earlier in the year?
The Circuit Clerk needs to explain herself to the public. This has nothing to do with redistricting so don't even go there. Too many people lost their right to vote because of this problem and she needs to answer for it.
Although I am certainly not being paid to do this investigating, I am spending my time and our money to make these facts known to you, the public. You want to do the same? Go for it.
You want to complain? I'm not listening. You want to present opposing facts? I'm all ears.
I'm going to use an analogy that is often attributed to Taylor Swift's song writing...don't treat her badly because she will write a song about you and you won't like it.
To those who do Tunica wrong and I find out about it, you may just wind-up in a post on this blog. You don't want to be here. Stop lying and cheating. You want to write about me, go right ahead. Just tell the truth and spell my name right.
This morning I received a phone call informing me that a handful of residents had just received new Voter Registration Cards with an issue date of 31 Jul 2015. These new cards indicated the residents no longer voted in Beat 1 but now voted in Beat 4. The caller stated these same residents appeared on the Beat 1 Voter Rolls as late as Mar 2015. This would indicate the change in district was not be a result of redistricting.
This is a big problem for individual candidates and the whole election process. If this has happened to any residents please let me know by sending an email to tuchelsgal@bellsouth.net or posting in the comments section of this blog.
UPDATE: Due to the problem between the Beat 2 and the Beat 5 voter rolls on Election Day, 4 Aug 2015, I decided to dig up the documents I used to write the Beat 2 report for the Election Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Both written reports were presented to both the EC and the BOS. The voter roll used for this report is dated 24 Feb 2015. While writing this report, I was concerned with:
1) Who had not voted since 2004. If a voter has not voted in 10 years they are placed in the inactive list. In Beat 2, there were
2) Who had a voter registration date that was more recent then the last time they voted. There could be legitimate reasons for this to occur. One reason would be that the voter voted elsewhere in MS and moved into Tunica since they last voted. When the voter roll for Beat 2 contained 17 such instances, there is cause for investigation.
3) Who has a PO Box as their listed address on the voter rolls. In Beat 2 we had 6 such instances. The physical address must appear on the voter roll. This is a problem to be fixed by the Election Commission and the Circuit Clerk. If they don't make these corrections then this responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Board of Supervisors.
This total report is in the Public Records as a part of the Board of Supervisors' Minutes and I personally took a copy to the Election Commission. There is no excuse anywhere for these corrections not to have been made.
Now, while writing this report I didn't pay too much attention to the names of the voters unless a name was triggered for one of the three reasons stated above.
This is what I have discovered: I went back to the 24 Feb 2015 voter rolls and looked for a few names that were on the Beat 2 voter rolls and wound up on the Beat 5 voter rolls on the report printed 27 Jul 2015. And here is the question: How did these people wind-up on the wrong list when they were on the right list earlier in the year?
The Circuit Clerk needs to explain herself to the public. This has nothing to do with redistricting so don't even go there. Too many people lost their right to vote because of this problem and she needs to answer for it.
Although I am certainly not being paid to do this investigating, I am spending my time and our money to make these facts known to you, the public. You want to do the same? Go for it.
You want to complain? I'm not listening. You want to present opposing facts? I'm all ears.
I'm going to use an analogy that is often attributed to Taylor Swift's song writing...don't treat her badly because she will write a song about you and you won't like it.
To those who do Tunica wrong and I find out about it, you may just wind-up in a post on this blog. You don't want to be here. Stop lying and cheating. You want to write about me, go right ahead. Just tell the truth and spell my name right.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Use your head...think before you vote
Just spent a few minutes on FB blocking a few ladies who just wanted to curse at me rather than discuss our problems and/or offer just one idea to help improve Tunica County.
Yes, I am for change in Tunica County. Yes, I hope the Beat 1 Supervisor is replaced. He's been on the Board of Supervisors too long. Following that, I think we need term limits for Supervisors. The Beat 1 Supervisor was a member of the BOS when a Congressional Hearing told us not to set our local governments up based on gambling revenue. They did it anyway. The Beat 1 Supervisor voted for Schultz, GreenTech and Feuer with no jobs specified for Tunicans. More recently, the Beat 1 Supervisor applied for HUD money for his Foundation when we have a Housing Dept that could have used this money and he sees no conflict of interest in having done so. The Public Records will show that this Supervisor consistently votes to not fund the Housing Dept.
There are many other specific reasons that I hope the residents of Beat 1 will elect a different person to represent them. I don't have a vote in Beat 1 so all I can do is report to you what I have found.
Where I do have a vote AND a voice is in Beat 2. Over the past years, I have written extensively about the Beat 2 Supervisor. He seems to have a lot of supporters but do these supporters take the time to find out how he has voted and how his votes have hurt our County? Are they attending meetings to see for themselves how he votes? If you are a County employee, do you know that this Supervisor consistently votes against authorizing to payroll?
The Beat 2 Supervisor was on the BOS when Schultz and GreenTech and Feuer were voted on and the documents included no job requirements for hiring Tunicans. He was on the BOS when all of these component units were set up as 501C3. Can anybody tell me why we would want these facilities set up as non-profits? And what about the Bonds we owe? This Supervisor's vote has left us with huge debts.
I could go on and on here too. Somebody tell me something this guy has done for Tunica County that has resulted in a winner for everyone?
I do get a vote in Beat 2 and since the incumbent has withdrawn, we will have a new Supervisor. But tell me this, if the Beat 2 Supervisor's record is a precursor of things to come, why would we vote to send him to the MS House?
Yes, I am for change in Tunica County. Yes, I hope the Beat 1 Supervisor is replaced. He's been on the Board of Supervisors too long. Following that, I think we need term limits for Supervisors. The Beat 1 Supervisor was a member of the BOS when a Congressional Hearing told us not to set our local governments up based on gambling revenue. They did it anyway. The Beat 1 Supervisor voted for Schultz, GreenTech and Feuer with no jobs specified for Tunicans. More recently, the Beat 1 Supervisor applied for HUD money for his Foundation when we have a Housing Dept that could have used this money and he sees no conflict of interest in having done so. The Public Records will show that this Supervisor consistently votes to not fund the Housing Dept.
There are many other specific reasons that I hope the residents of Beat 1 will elect a different person to represent them. I don't have a vote in Beat 1 so all I can do is report to you what I have found.
Where I do have a vote AND a voice is in Beat 2. Over the past years, I have written extensively about the Beat 2 Supervisor. He seems to have a lot of supporters but do these supporters take the time to find out how he has voted and how his votes have hurt our County? Are they attending meetings to see for themselves how he votes? If you are a County employee, do you know that this Supervisor consistently votes against authorizing to payroll?
The Beat 2 Supervisor was on the BOS when Schultz and GreenTech and Feuer were voted on and the documents included no job requirements for hiring Tunicans. He was on the BOS when all of these component units were set up as 501C3. Can anybody tell me why we would want these facilities set up as non-profits? And what about the Bonds we owe? This Supervisor's vote has left us with huge debts.
I could go on and on here too. Somebody tell me something this guy has done for Tunica County that has resulted in a winner for everyone?
I do get a vote in Beat 2 and since the incumbent has withdrawn, we will have a new Supervisor. But tell me this, if the Beat 2 Supervisor's record is a precursor of things to come, why would we vote to send him to the MS House?
Friday, July 31, 2015
Issue with the Tunica Times...AGAIN
This post is being written in response to a back page article in the 31 Jul 2015 issue of the Tunica Times. Title: Employee appeals discharge.
In my opinion, this article is wrong on so many levels. You could start with the Board of Supervisors' Meeting on 30 Jul 2015. In this meeting, Supervisor Burnett, in his never ending tirade against Road Manager, Joe Eddie Hawkins, tried to bring up this personnel matter in open session. Yada. Yada. Yada.
And now this article in the Tunica Times. At what point did a personnel matter become news? Maybe when it's decided by TC how to settle this appeal? Since when does telling one side of a story stop being news and starts being a manipulation of the public trust? And right before an election no less.
Hey, the Tunica Times did get one thing right: "When Beat 4 Supervisor Henry Nickson offered to help get him a job, he was grateful." And there you have it folks. The employee's Supervisor is Cedric Burnett. Why didn't this employee go to his own Supervisor? People are getting very tired of doing Cedric's job.
And not to miss anther opportunity to inform the public of what a fine job Burnett is doing for Beat 2, he voted against payroll...AGAIN! Ya know, I'm willing to bet that Burnett was behind this Tunica Times story.
In my opinion, this article is wrong on so many levels. You could start with the Board of Supervisors' Meeting on 30 Jul 2015. In this meeting, Supervisor Burnett, in his never ending tirade against Road Manager, Joe Eddie Hawkins, tried to bring up this personnel matter in open session. Yada. Yada. Yada.
And now this article in the Tunica Times. At what point did a personnel matter become news? Maybe when it's decided by TC how to settle this appeal? Since when does telling one side of a story stop being news and starts being a manipulation of the public trust? And right before an election no less.
Hey, the Tunica Times did get one thing right: "When Beat 4 Supervisor Henry Nickson offered to help get him a job, he was grateful." And there you have it folks. The employee's Supervisor is Cedric Burnett. Why didn't this employee go to his own Supervisor? People are getting very tired of doing Cedric's job.
And not to miss anther opportunity to inform the public of what a fine job Burnett is doing for Beat 2, he voted against payroll...AGAIN! Ya know, I'm willing to bet that Burnett was behind this Tunica Times story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)