Here's Your Chance to Shut Down the Informer
Here's your opportunity to do what other's have been threatening to do for the longest--you can shut down this blog. I didn't give in to threats, lawsuits, egging of my car, or even when I was threatened by a police officer, but the one thing that will shut me down is the facts. I have been posting for over a year, and have been called everything except a child of God. Wait a minute, I was called a child of God and then they said I was a hypocrite. Interesting. I've been threatened with being put out of church and the library, but still I rise. Some people say that I've been threaten with banishment because there are so many people that hate me. . since I don't know who most of the anonymous posters are I don't know if that is true or not, but I do know that there are some that support what I do and there are some that don't. . pick a corner and stay there. This blog is not for everyone, you can either like it, lump it or leave it. However, I still don't understand how illiterate individuals are getting upset with me because of my blog post; especially since they haven't invested in learning how to read. But that's another subject for another day. I also don't understand why people get upset with me because of comments left on the blog. Whenever I want to say something, I put it in a post. I still do not understand why I am being held responsible for what other's have to say. I've seen some very hurtful post on the Hattiesburg American website, but I don't think people are blaming the staff of the Hattiesburg American for the comments people post. WTBS, I was supposed to be telling you how to shut down this blog.
For months I've stated different laws regarding how things are done at city hall. Recently, the board failed to override a mayoral veto, but that's not the first time that happened. When the board failed to override the mayoral veto of Lindsey Carter, the board overlooked the law and put Carter back on the city's payroll. Section 21-3-15 of Mississippi Law requires 2/3 vote of the total number of the board of aldermen regardless of the absence of any members of the board. In a municipality with a five member board of aldermen, four of the five aldermen must vote to override the mayor's veto in order to achieve a successful override even when the mayor pro tempore is serving in the absence of the mayor. WTBS: if someone can provide a copy of the law that indicates something different that what I have accessed from the attorney generals website, I will be more than happy to shut down the Lumberton Informer. I don't want you to relay a conversation you had with someone at the attorney generals office, I would like an "official" opinion and if the official opinion show that a mayoral veto expires after a certain period of time, I promise you that the Lumberton Informer will step away from the keyboard and ride off into the sunset. So, who's up to the challenge?
So, in the overrides in question, when one of the aldermen was serving as mayor pro tempore, how did the aldermen vote? Did the MPT withhold his vote? Or, out of the five aldermen, one being MPT, did all five vote and fail to get a 2/3 majority? MS Code 21-3-15 does not include the line "regardless of the absence of any members of the board." So I don't know if you can interject that statement without more than that code reference. Also, since when is 2/3 of 5 equal to 4? Do politicians get to round up when no one else can? I'm not being facetious, it may be that anything over the whole number automatically rounds up when it comes to voting on a political Board. But in most cases, we cannot round up 3.35 to the number 4. I have worked with five member, non-political (albeit governing boards like water boards, parks and rec boards) for years, and when three of the five voted together, the vote held. So this is a confusing question. This really intrigues me though, because I have access to a database of attorney general opinions through a law firm I do contract work for, so I could provide an attorney general opinion if one exists. However, to pose the correct query, I need a clearer idea of what the question really is here.
ReplyDeleteI really don't know how the question is supposed to be framed, but I will give you some more details. . . Last night, at the special call meeting there was an agenda item to hire Laci Lawler as deputy clerk at a pay rate of $8.50/hour. Just the other week the board failed to override the mayor's veto to hire Laci Lawler for deputy clerk at a pay rate of $7.25/hour. Since the board didn't have the votes needed to override the mayoral veto, they just put it back on the agenda at a different pay rate. My point is they will never have enough votes to override the mayoral veto until the mayor returns, and the mayoral veto was not about pay rate it was a veto against hiring Laci Lawler as deputy clerk. So, is there an expiration time for a mayoral veto and can a vetoed item be changed in order to have it put back on the agenda. WTBS, the board didn't change anything on the agenda item regarding the termination of Lindsey Carter and they never overrode the mayor's veto but he's still on the City of Lumberton's payroll.
ReplyDelete