Ridgeland Police Chief and Jimmy Houston announced his resignation last night at a Ridgeland Board of Aldermen meeting. The Clarion-Ledger reported: Houston made the announcement Tuesday night at a regular Board of Aldermen meeting at City Hall. Houston decided to resign instead of dropping out of the sheriff's race.
"Ridgeland Police Chief Jimmy Houston, a candidate for Madison County sheriff, said he is resigning effective May 10 to avoid violating the federal Hatch Act.
Well, that is not exactly the entire story. Mr. Houston received a letter from the Feds last week notifying him a Patricia Crook had filed a complaint against him under the Hatch Act. Mrs. Crook is the wife of former Ridgeland Alderman and Madison County Chancery Clerk Mike Crook. This correspondent confirmed Mrs. Crook filed the complaint in a recent phone call with her husband. The couple settled a lawsuit last year against Ridgeland over an arrest of Mr. Crook several years ago. The complaint was not filed anonymously so Mr. Houston knew the identity of the complainant.
The issue of the Hatch Act in regards to Mr. Houston's candidacy arose several months ago. An earlier post stated:
"The Office of Special Counsel states on its website a covered employee is:
"An officer or employee of a state or local agency is subject to the Hatch Act if, as a normal and foreseeable incident of his principal position or job, he performs duties in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by federal funds. Coverage is not dependent on whether the employee actually administers the funds or has policy duties with respect to them. However, an employee may have other duties in connection with federally funded programs or activities, and thus may be covered by the Hatch Act, even though he does not apply for or administer federal loans or grants or have any authority or discretion over the federal funding." Special Counsel FAQ's, Federal Law"
The Ridgeland Police Department received the following grants from the federal government:
$1.6 million grant in 2004 in the Law Enforcement Technology Program
$1.5 million grant in 2006 for COPS program
$10,240 grant in 2010 to convert a FEMA trailer to a mobile command center.
The Madison County Journal interviewed Mr. Houston in January about a possible violation of the Hatch Act:
"There are federal statutes in the "Hatch Act" that prohibit certain city employees from running for public office while serving in an appointed position that receives federal funding in any way.
However, Houston points to several opinions from the state Attorney General's office that allowed similar situations where a police chief ran for sheriff.
"I cannot campaign while on duty and I can't utilize anything that belongs to the city while trying to get elected," Houston said. "I'll be very careful to maintain that and I believe there is enough time nights and on weekends between now and Aug. 2 to run for sheriff.
"I assure you the city of Ridgeland and its citizens will no be hurt by me running for sheriff," he continued. "I take my job very seriously."
However, Mr. Houston's statement did not exactly coincide with the law or the facts as stated in an earlier JJ post:
"It would have been interesting if Mr. Watson had actually cited some actual opinions because a quick review of several opinions does not support Mr. Houston's claim. The Attorney General stated in Opinion No. 2009-00425 (2009):
"The Hatch Act is a federal law under the jurisdiction of the Office of Special Counsel. We do not interpret federal law by way of an official opinion.
Generally, the Hatch Act restricts political activity of individuals principally employed by state, county, or municipal executive agencies who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. State and local employees may be candidates for the public office in nonpartisan elections.
Whether an individual is covered by the Hatch Act and whether a covered employee has violated the Hatch Act must be determined by the Office of Special Counsel." (The AG emphasized this last sentence.)
If there is one consistent theme in requests for AG opinions about the Hatch Act for decades, it is the Attorney General does not interpret federal law and refers all questions to the Office of Special Counsel although Mike Moore did state in 1995: " Also, municipal employees covered by the federal Hatch Act would be prohibited from being candidates in partisan elections."(Opinion No. 95-0338 in 1995). One opinion even states an employee can avoid violation in a non-partisan special election for Alderman but ironically would have to resign to run for re-election since it would be partisan with party primaries. A 1979 opinion declines to interpret the Hatch Act when a police officer asked if it allowed him to run for Sheriff.
Thus it is very interesting Mr. Houston points to several AG opinions according to Mr. Watson when the Attorney General specifically and repeatedly states his office will not interpret federal law. Since we are discussing the interpretation of the Hatch Act, lets take a look not at what the Mississippi Attorney General thinks but instead at what the U.S.Office of Special Counsel thinks. The Counsel says covered employees can not even take a leave of absence:
"f you are covered by the Hatch Act, taking a sabbatical or leave of absence will not allow you to be a candidate in a partisan election. State and local employees subject to the Hatch Act continue to be covered while on annual leave, sick leave, administrative leave, furlough or any other paid or unpaid leave.
So much for campaigning while "off-duty". The Hatch Act will not allow a covered employee to campaign at all or run for office while an employee regardless of whether he is off-duty or not "on the clock". Period. The Special Counsel has a few more things to say about the application of the Hatch Act :
"If my candidacy is found to be in violation of the Hatch Act, can I relinquish the duties that cause me to be covered by the Hatch Act, and thus negate my violation?
Answer: No. A person is in violation of the Hatch Act when, at the time he engaged in prohibited conduct, he was covered by the Hatch Act. It has been held that candidacy begins when preliminary steps are taken to establish a candidacy, not just when a formal announcement is made. For example, canvassing voters, polling for name recognition, or meeting with campaign managers are preliminary steps taken that would be viewed as candidacy for purposes of the Hatch Act (even if a formal candidacy is not declared). If such steps are taken by someone who is covered by the Hatch Act, a violation of the Act will have occurred. A change in duties at a later time will not negate the already existing violation."
The website further states:
"An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than a 30-day suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board."
Mr. Houston dropped the ball. Mr. Houston could have requested an advisory opinion from the Counsel's office. Mr. Houston then could have simply told the MCJ he requested an opinion and was waiting for an answer. Mr. Houston instead referred to several opinions from the Mississippi Attorney General allowing him to campaign while "not on the clock" when in fact, the AG refuses to issue such opinions as they involve federal law. Mr. Houston thus left the door open for a former plaintiff to file a complaint against him. Whether such things matter to Madison County voters will be decided on election day.
Hatch Act website
Earlier post
73 comments:
JJ.....the tone of your article clearly smells of partisan politics; this along with the PAID ads from another candidate for Madison County Sherriff on your website. You have no way of knowing what Houston knew or didn’t know about the Hatch act months ago. Maybe he was depending on the advice of his lawyer; but you DO NOT KNOW! As for Mike Crook; the name says it all. That guy, in my opinion, is a low-life and if he is against Houston for Sheriff, then I’m for him.
Go fuck yourself. Mr. Harbour's campaign approached me months ago and asked if they could purchase an ad after they saw Mr. Whitwell's. There is NOTHING stopping any of the other candidates in this race, including Mr. Houston, from purchasing an ad on this website, which includes limited posting of their commercials and other info. Just because someone advertises on this site does not mean I favor them, not that you are smart enough to realize that because you obviously aren't.
The fact is either Mr. Houston did not check the AG opinions (because they all say the same thing: The AG does not interpret federal law, please refer to office of US Counsel.) or checked and told the reporter wrong information. Mr. Houston could have requested an advisory opinion back in January when this issue was first raised. Mr. Crook is controversial and has had problems with the Ridgeland PD, however, if there was no basis to the complaint, then there is no grounds for stepping down. Mr. Houston left himself open for a complaint.
Fish, Fish, Fish.
There is no need for vulgarity.
BS. Comes on here and accuses me of being on the take, I'll hit him in the mouth as hard as I can and make it as bloody as possible.
Wow, KF. Apparently, 8:18 hit a nerve with you....that, however does not warrant such foul language. My teenage daughter reads blogs, and I would rather her not read such vulgarity. Whether right or wrong, as a blogger you invite opinions on each topic you post. I don't know Mr. Houston, Mr. Crook, or you, and I don't know anything about the Hatch law, but as my granny used to say, "the last thing an ignorant person has in his defense arsenal is vulgarity”.
My teenage daughter reads blogs, and I would rather her not read such vulgarity.
Both of you are free not to read anything here if you find it offensive. The power to choose is yours.
9:28, does your teenage daughter go to see movies rated PG-13? I don't know Kingfish either, and it's great that your daughter is interested in local issues at such a tender age, but this is an adult-oriented blog...not in the sense of the average hip-hop song or a hundred other things on network television today, but in the sense of adult-themed issues. From time to time, the actions of drunks, adulterers, embezzlers, burglars, and politicians are examined here. So he let some salty language fly...I'm sure he'll understand if you decide to prohibit your daughter from visiting his blog in the future. He is absolutely responsible for his words and actions, but not the choices you and your daughter make about her exposure to today's media. Also, the quote from your granny doesn't make a point consistent with the rest of your post.
Sounds to me like a Tucker camp scenario. Many unfounded rumors flowing from their camp.
The good news I see here is that the guy who endorsed Daniel Soto's tactics right up until the minute he got caught is gone. Now, let's please try to make sure he doesn't get elected Sheriff.
This is more of a reason to vote for Randy Tucker!
@9:28- your teenage daughter probably does plenty of things that you don't know about. She probably even uses the verb you're so upset about in your comment. She might even *gasp* do worse things.
Tend your own garden.
10:48 - I agree 100%. Randy will be a great Sheriff and who we need in Madison County. He is a great guy and I think he will do an awesome job as our Sheriff. Tim C.
KF, using this language puts you in bad company, you are better than this.
I don't come here for sanitized news nor sanitized language. I reckon daughter dearest will grow up fast.
Fuck 'em, 'fish.
Bad company? Alongside whom?
Donald Trump, the mayor of chicago, every major league athlete ever, the vast majority of his constituents, and every hard working man that's ever smashed his thumb..
get the fuck over yourself...
KF, while you may not be in the tank just because someone advertises on your site, there is absolutely no question that you have opposed Jimmy Houston for months. And your post does show that hatred. I'm not accusing you of posting it because Harbour pays you for advertising, but I am - without a doubt - stating that you post it because you have a total dislike of Houston.
This ruling by DOJ is a left-field response by them. Houston doesn't fit the guidelines of the Hatch Act restrictions, and if he appealed he would probably win. (Question is direct benefit, supervision, discipline, etc. of those that use the funds.) The three deputies all are guilty of Hatch violations, much more than Houston. Because Crook - appropriately named, I might add - filed a complaint for revenge against Houston and it caused DOJ to look into Houston, someone should file a similar complaint against the three deputies. That way we could see if they are in violation. Since you are always 'in the fight' against such corruption it would seem fitting for you to file such a complaint and see if DOJ thinks these three should resign their positions as well.
Because Crook - appropriately named, I might add - filed a complaint for revenge against Houston and it caused DOJ to look into Houston, someone should file a similar complaint against the three deputies.
What is stopping you?
12:45, Well why don't you call the 3 Madison Co. deputy's out on JJ and ask them if they would step down to pursue their position as sheriff?
11:03 -- exactly.
Considering how rude the RPD was to my wife when she spoke to them recently, I can't say I'm impressed with the ship Houston's been running. I don't see any reason to elect him sheriff.
I can't tell if you're Kingfish haters or Randy Tucker lovers, but those of you who are critical of him for posting this publicly available information need to step back for a minute. This is his blog and he can say what he wants for or against who he wants. This particular report is factual. It's not something Chief Houston will appreciate, but that doesn't change the facts. How you feel about the Hatch Act doesn't change the facts. There was a complaint filed and Chief Houston chose how he would respond. Kingfish reported it. End of story. Like several of you have already said, you don't have to read it if you don't want to. I'm sure there will be ample opportunity for all of us to get in our licks for our candidates between now and August 2. Bill Billingsley
Bill not sure if your glasses are clean, but i can clearly see who is a KF and RT lover. I will vote for Randy and maybe he will elect KF has chief.
Quick question: wasn't there a Ridgeland police officer who resigned in disgrace after committing perjury during a trial, and fled to a new job in Tennessee?
Which current candidate for sheriff hired, supervised, or covered up for him?
Everyone is susceptible from time to time of losing their tongue, including me. That's why I'm not going to just stop reading this blog. JJ is a very informative (although sometimes slanted) blog. But isn't that what blogging is?
I just hope KF doesn't make a habit of the four letter responses to comments. It is a turn-off.
KF will have a better day tomorrow. Keep up the good blog posts KF. To most of us your blogs are more informative than the newspaper.
Four of the candidates fall under the Hatch Act and all four need to resign. They cannot take a leave of absence because they are still covered under the Act. Please feel free to read the Act and it will plainly state it. If they would like to know what they can expect if they don't, please ask them to contact a person that ran for alderman in Canton several years ago and what they did to her. She lost wages, etc. and found that she was in the wrong for running as she was a state employee.
Geez guys. You should see KF's facebook posts... MF bomb on here ain't nothing.
I'm not sure who I want to vote for as Sheriff. Don't know enough about the candidates. Crime is so low in Madison (minus Canton) that all I know is that they must do a pretty good job.
Your honor, I was doing 60 mph in a 35 but I didn’t think anyone would report me so I thought it was ok to violate the law.
Your honor, I know I was driving drunk but I did not think anyone would catch me so I just had 6 beers.
Your honor, I shot my wife in the house where no one could hear the gun fire and I thought no one would catch me.
Voters, I violated the Hatch Act and knew I was doing it but it wouldn’t apply unless someone reported me, so I resigned to save the City of Ridgeland money over a battle that I caused.
They all sound ridiculous don’t they? My grandmother told me a story once about a neighbor. He came over to borrow an axe to split some wood. Grandma said, I can’t loan it to you cause I’m making soup. The neighbor asked, well what does me wanting to borrow the axe have to do with you making soup? Grandma said, ANY EXCUSE IS ANY EXCUSE.
I don’t know Jimmy Houston very well, but if I did, I think I would be astonished at his response. Houston, according to his own words, has spent 38 years in policing and served 3 cities and 5 mayors and knew about the Hatch Act and his responsibilities to it. By his resignation, he admits his violation of the act and his willingness to violate it until he got caught.
Based on this information alone I would not make Houston the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for any county. I believe that we citizens need to be able to know that we can trust law enforcement officers to follow the law & tell the truth always. How else can we then trust them to be the enforcers of the law? If you know the Chief is willing to ignore the law in hopes that he doesn’t get caught, then the greater question is can we trust him in an office of law enforcement period. I hope your resounding answer is NO.
Remember, ANY EXCUSE IS ANY EXCUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All I have to say is Jimmy Houston has always had a problem with telling the truth. I am so glad that Ridgleand P.D. got rid of him and I know they are too.
Chief Houston continuously allowed his police officers, specifically Daniel Soto, to lie and harass citizens. I'm glad he's gone and good riddance. I just hope he doesn't get replaced by someone worse.
you Harbour people must be really scared to bash this man this way
With all the uproar and accusations against Jimmy Houston on this blog, I have to wonder why they are only on a blog and have not been public. Did none of these "victims" go complain anywhere official? I have not seen these accusations in the mainstream media.
Also, if Houston has to go, they all should have to go from their current jobs because of Hatch.
Which of these candidates is a RINO?
Why bash the next sheriff of Madison County?
KF…regarding your post at 0927… ”BS. Comes on here and accuses me of being on the take, I'll hit him in the mouth as hard as I can and make it as bloody as possible”…
You might want to read MS Code 97-45-17…which states:
97-45-17. Posting of messages through electronic media for purpose of causing injury to any person; penalties.
(1) A person shall not post a message for the purpose of causing injury to any person through the use of any medium of communication, including the Internet or a computer, computer program, computer system or computer network, or other electronic medium of communication without the victim's consent, for the purpose of causing injury to any person.
(2) A person who violates this section, upon conviction, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years or a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both.
You just committed a felony! Now, I have to decide whether or not I want to go sign an affidavit against you and have a warrant issued for your arrest. Dont bother deleting the post. I have already copied it. Let’s see you post this one.
A screen name makes said statement to an anonymous poster on the internet.
Go ahead, make my day.
KF, I'll say it for you "F" you too! (7:43)
2:29: Have nothing against Randy. I don't know any of the candidates. Never met any of them. This site is not pro-Harbour or anti-Tucker or pro-anyone in this race. Harbour campaign purchased advertising, its disclosed to everyone, and ALL of the other candidates can purchase the same type of advertising. We are all capitalist pigs on this website. I won't refuse paid ads from too many candidates. I'm sure you can figure out which ones they are: Hint: a few Hinds County and Madison County supervisors but I don't think I'll have to worry about Tim Johnson and Robert Graham trying to buy ads here anyway.
If any of the other candidates for MCS get busted on Hatch Act violations, it will be mentioned here.
"I have not seen these accusations in the mainstream media."
Welcome to the Clarion-Ledger.
... Lisa, that's who my wife spoke to, I think. Thanks for the info!
7:43, I'd run your little notion past a lawyer before doing anything about it. Malicious prosecution is a tort. Free advice!
WOW is all I can say that the City of Ridgeland has allowed this to happen. I am a City of Ridgeland homeowning tax payer and have been so for years. I have to agree with 4:56. With Houston's 38 years experience he knew he was breaking the law and the City knew he was breaking it too. I don't care if it is criminal or civil. The law is the law and no one is above it. I am very disappointed that the City of Ridgeland did not make him resign when he registered to run for Sheriff. If he is so proud of his city then why is he so anxious to leave it? It seems to me as a Ridgeland citizen that he has no loyalty to us the residents of Ridgeland and thus I am glad he is gone. But what I am surprised in is that the City would allow him to stay knowing that he was violating the law, and yes people he it knew from the beginning. I guess he was going to milk the city until someone called him on it. Why would the City allow the taxpayers to be taken advantage of like this? I just hope the City does not sit on its hands for three months and re-hire Houston if he does not win the primary. That would be a mistake. You can only pull the wool over the citizens' eyes for so long. We need a police chief that will have the best interests of Ridgeland residents at heart.
7:43 - andrew necomb has returned...
Anderson:
Soto has been gone from the RPD since early 2010. If you search for "Soto" and "Tequila" on this blog, you'll find tons of interesting information about him. If he was the one who stopped your wife, he would have given her a DUI even if she was stone cold sober. He wanted to be DUI cop of the world.
Lisa
10:25 and several others -- Houston did not "know" he was breaking the law. In fact, many legal scholars and other legal types as well, argue that he was not breaking the law. Just because someone made the accusation earlier, and after a hearing the DOJ STAFF decided he was in violation does not in any way mean that "he KNEW" he was breaking the law.
That is why DOJ conducts a hearing - by the way, a hearing before triers of fact in which he was not allowed an attorney - to determine whether or not he was in violation. After a hearing, the staff ruled that he was. And that ruling could be appealed, but Houston chose not to appeal it and therefore jeapordize the City of Ridgeland.
Now, after this ruling, the three Deputy candidates all DO KNOW that they are in violation. I don't see those of you that claim Houston KNEW he was in violation calling for them to resign their positions. It appears they are waiting for someone to file a complaint and hope they can ride out the time.
The Hatch Act is not perfectly clear on this issue, and this latest interpretation is likely to cause a great deal of issues throughout the state. Many, many local candidates are in violation of this staff opinion - one which is a totally new sweep of this Act.
Point is - the issue was raised; Houston, based on legal advice, didn't feel it applied; Crook filed a complaint; KF pushed the point on this blog; DOJ held a review and found that he was in violation; Houston resigned.
Again, now that we know DOJ's opinion on this matter, point your accusing finger at the other candidates that haven't resigned, even in light of this most recent MS office of DOJ's opinion.
Hate to say but J. Houston is shit out of luck winning the election. The only hope he has is for a few big wigs in Ridgeland pay some people off or have people vote illegal. There are very few people showing support outside of Ridgeland and that being said it would not surprise me to see Houston drop out of the race and try to regain what little respect he has in Ridgeland.
All of the Houston haters are running scared, candidates from inside the sheriffs office split their vote; Houston wins
After reading all this, I have to get in my gratuitous "Shit" - all this over the Sheriff of Ridgeland?
Let's get back to Soto. That is a bigger hurdle than the DOJ interpretation of Houston having to resign when it comes to my evaluation of his creds.
Remaining ignorant or feigning no knowledge is OK with me when it comes to politicians. I am used to it. Go watch the Telco Comm video in the next post - I'm still wondering what the "Hell" was actually accomplished. Although, I did like the hang up.
Also hope that Byram was able to get the "Damn" Official Submission information so that they can move on from the Hinds BOS "Bullshit".
12:54 the concern 10:25 and others have had is not for the other candidates at this moment. Now if you think any of them are in violation by all means call them out. The issue 10:25 had is with Houston and his dedication to the residents of the City of Ridgeland. He should have taken the high road and asked for his own opinion, or at the very least the City of Ridgeland should have required him to obtain one for their protection if they were not going to ask him to resign when he signed up to run for Sheriff. You cannot tell me or anyone else that he was completely ignorant to the Hatch Act Law and the guidelines for a violation of said law. You are talking out both sides of your mouth. You cannot say on one hand Houston "did not know" he was in violation while stating the three deputies running in the race "all know" they are in violation. "THE OLD SAYING ITS EASIER TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THAN FOR PERMISSION" does not get it in this case. He chose not to obtain said opinion himself in hopes no one else would hold his feet to the fire. But regardless of what I, or anyone else thinks for that matter, the DOJ found him in violation and because of said violation he resigned. Now Ridgeland can move forward and find a new Chief of Police that will be loyal to its residents. Residents that I have talked with see this as a great opportunity for the police department and the City of Ridgeland.
I agree with the Kaptain. The Soto stuff would be a much bigger hurdle if everything comes out. There were way too many victims. Soto should be in jail for committing purjery in court. Chief Houston actually called me in 2010 because he was "trying to build a case against Soto".
7:43am: "You just committed a felony!"
Looks like someone has taken the Donna Ladd course in statutory construction.
I never cease to be heartened by the bravery of any Anonymous. With that sort of exemplary courage, perhaps an Anonymous should run for sheriff. I know I'd feel safer.
@10:26 a.m.- First of all, I sign my posts. Secondly, your spelling is kick-ass. Thirdly, I don't know why you'd expect that post to be from me other than that I've "outed" myself as a lawyer before, and that post appears to quote a statute. Fourthly, there are many, many lawyers on this blog; as many, many lawyers are residents of the Jxn metro area.
Let me dare you to be bold enough to identify yourself. I have a morbid curiosity. I bet you won't. You internet badass, you.
Andrew Newcomb
There is one thing for sure. Jimmy Houston for sheriff appears to be a threat to the thugs of this board. And that Kingfish, have you ever seen anyone so disturbed in your life? I bet if I had a dollar for every time he got his lunch money taken from him in school, I could take you all out to eat...breakfast, lunch, and supper for two years.
Yea, I would want to advertise with such an inconsiderate foul-mouth.
Doesn't Matter: I don't think I have ever seen a more appropraite screen name.......
I bet if I had a dollar for every time he got his lunch money taken from him in school, I could take you all out to eat...breakfast, lunch, and supper for two years.
You've never met the dude then. Because if you had you wouldn't be making that comment.
how was 10:26 being an internet bad ass... andrew you spend so much time defending yourself that i believe that might be your best reflex.
Okay, all you chowderheads that were accusing Kingfish of being a Brad Harbour partisan, he made Harbour pay to post something that one could easily consider newsworthy in light of the interest this thread has generated. If that doesn't show that KF is operating at arm's length, I don't know what will. BB
Too funny. It doesn't matter....
Kinda like the motivational speech of yesteryears...
There is a understood etiquette in debates and just straight manners. Don't dog the host...
Man, y'all are a bunch of clowns! Can't even discuss a topic without turning on each other LOL.
To the people bringing Soto up, you've only know 1/4 of the whole story. The offender in the case that he supposedly "lied" in works for the company that supplies and upkeeps the video system used by RPD, and at the time personally setup and maintained that system for RPD. Soto was told by the person over evidence at RPD, when he requested a copy of the traffic stop video for trial, that there wasn't a video of the stop on the hard drive. Soto stated what he was told at the trial.
The charges were then dropped after the video reappeared on the video system that the offender has full access to. Not because Soto didn't have a lawful reason to stop him and then arrest him for driving drunk.
Soto was forced to resign, not because he did wrong, but because Chuck McRae threatened to basically blackmail RPD.
Houston never covered up for Soto.
I guess if you need a DUI attorney, it's best to get one that has experience getting himself out of DUIs.
As for Houston and the Hatch Act, Tucker, Harbor, and Sandifer are just as guilty as him. The only difference is Mike Crook and his wife aren't pissed off at them and no one else has complained on them.
In my opinion of these four men, they would all make great leaders for Madison County. Some no matter what trash like Mike Crook try to do, Madison County still be the one of the safest places to live in this state.
Kingfish did not make Harbour pay to post the article above about his alleged non-violation of the Hatch Act. As Kingfish explained last week re: a Dick Hall fundraiser invitation that was posted, if a candidate purchases an ad on this site, then Kingfish will post other submissions from the candidate and will mark them as a paid advertisement. I am not sure why there is no opportunity to make a comment under the Harbour advisory opinion post, but I guess we can post our thoughts here.
As to Harbour's alleged non-violation, it appears the advisory opinion is based on Harbour's own version of events as reported to the Office of Special Counsel and on additional information provided by Sheriff Dept. employees who might (or might not, I don't know) have some interest in helping out their preferred candidate. So, do I think Harbour is in violation of the Hatch Act? I don't know, but I think it is still an open question. The circumstances under which this advisory opinion was issued leaves open the question whether it is based on a complete and accurate set of facts.
10:07, I based my post on the statement at the bottom of the Harbour announcement - "This is a paid political advartisement.
You should file a complaint if you think Harbour is in violation of the Hatch Act. You should bring it to their attention that you believe there are factual misrepresentations ("Harbour's own version of events") and I'm sure the DOJ will be happy to investigate and update their position on Harbour's candidacy. However, it's not right for you to cast aspersions on the advisory opinion if you aren't willing to step up and make specific accusations in public. Bill Billingsley
what a bunch of crybabies and candy asses. i personally think a well-placed F word is the best way to make some points.
Harbour campaign releases advisory opinion
This looks fishy and more fishy
Not able to comment on the Harbour Advisory Story? Bet he's glad to have that kind of protection here.
Protection nothing. He purchased an ad. An ad does not give you the right to comment on it in that ad. Most if not all of the political ads I turn off the comments on that particular ad. Don't like it? Too bad. Jimmy Houston or Randy Tucker buys an ad on this site, they get the same "protection".
After reading the Clarion Ledger this morning and then reading all this crap back and forth on here, it looks like Harbour was the only candidate that did not avoid the Hatch Act question. It looks like he did not want to take a guess as to whether he was going to be in violation or not. So he asked the DOJ for an opinion. The DOJ ruled that he was not in violation. So be it. I really cannot not believe that Harbour misrepresented himself and that other County employees misrepresented their selves to cover up. Sounds a little far fetched in my opinion. And I am sure the DOJ could have read through the lines if that had happened. I was just glad to see at least one of our candidates for Sheriff wanted to make sure he was doing everything lawfully correct. As a voter that means a lot to me. All the other candidates had the same option of obtaining their own opinions and according to the Clarion Ledger chose not to obtain one. I have not really put alot of thought into the Sheriff's race to this point but this caught my attention. A law enforcement officer should not guess if he is doing something correct or incorrect or wait until he is caught doing something wrong to try to explain it away. He has to be honest with himself and honest with the people he is sworn to protect. Plain and simple and that my friends sums this up in a nut shell.
Jimmy Houston will save the county the first day he serves in office. Think of all the money saved when a majority of the department quits because they can't stand to work for him. Then, all that money saved can pay for cameras in all the unoccupied cars, and maybe a nice fishing/patrol boat.
I hope y'all do quit. It's about time that professionalism and accountability were introduced into the sheriffs dept. Change can be uncomfortable -especially when it requires you to grow up. Other than the current sheriff and chief, the "leadership" in place is a joke...a bad replica of something out of Dukes of Hazzard and Boss Hogg.
And for everybody that wants to point to low crime rates in Madison county = great job by the current sheriffs dept, don't confuse Madison the city with Madison S.O. If u wanna take credit for Madison, then I guess u can take credit for canton too...great job guys!
DOJ opinions are like AG opinions, they are not binding law. If someone things there is a violation or conflict, and they are ethical, they should remove the conflict. Will they do the same if elected?
And as far as this message board and its advertising go, ethical, fair? Now really?
Take this message board as you see it. Kingfish has made some significant impact in the area that would have largely gone unnoticed without him. If he wants to use the f-bomb, so what? It's his playground.
Regarding the sheriff's race, the candidates are seated. They are all obviously qualified. It is up to you to find the most qualified, or just who you like for whatever reason.
So what if the DOJ opinion is not binding. At least it is their opinion, it's better than nothing. It seems like the Hatch Act, while well intended, may be a violation of the First Amendment's freedom of speech.
To 10:18 p.m. How dare you speak about the Madison County Sheriff Department's leadership? Do you realize some of those supervisors have been to Field Supervisor Training Part One at the distinguished MLEOTA? A few of them even graduated high school, forgoing their GED, demonstrating that they had the intestinal fortitude to dedicate four years to a task.
I agree with the professionalism and accountability comment also. You had about a one in 100+ chance of pegging me for an unprofessional employee,if indeed I am employed there, and you nailed it right on the head. I can only assume you are clairvoyant or possibly psychic. Obviously, your comment making references to The Dukes of Hazzard means you are an educated person, so I shall bow out gracefully before I am overwhelmed.
This should give you and the 15 patrolman out there covering two square miles something to talk about. I mean, how long can you talk about that time you made a kid call his parents at the movie theater before the awe wears off?
The Sherriff run off consisted of Dumb and Dumber. Dumb won.
Madison County is nothing more than a police state run by Barney Fife wanna be's. God help us all.
Post a Comment