Jackson Jambalaya

Jimmy Sue Hood done busted the legislature's butt on this one.

Hood left out Section 27-104-161 from his statement:

No provision of Sections 27-104-151 through 27-104-159 shall be construed as conferring upon the Department of Finance and Administration any authority to review, approve or deny any expenditures or contracts entered into by the Legislature or any of its committees, or to impose any requirement on the Legislature or any of its committees to take any action other than to disclose expenditures and contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2011.

The legislature has disclosed the contract. It is for $250,000

This is going to be fun,Hood has just about announced his canidicy for the Big House, I'm betting on Tater to announce his by Jan.21st.

Ok dufass, the requirement is created by law, not by DFA.

Hood is taking Tate to the proverbial woodshed for a good old fashioned "whupping".

I really hate to agree with Hood. I think he does a terrible job. But in this case - how can the legislature tell me that I cannot see how they are spending my money? This is both arrogant and stupid. It is my money, not theirs. They work for me. I don't work for them. They need to make this right very quickly. The American people just voted to drain the federal swamp. They could be next.

Ha Hood released all his contracts?


Jimmy Hood; What's good for them, isn't for me. Contracts, campaign finance, etc, etc.

Not always, maybe sometimes, but, I can't believe that I am saying this; Conway is way right on this one.

Separate branches of government. There are reasons why the legislature has - at state level in pretty much every state, and the US Congress - different standards of disclosure. The laws of MS have been for decades that these contracts were not disclosed, other than the amounts, purpose and vendor. What the House Management Committee did last week was not to 'close' the window but rather it was an opening of previous practice. It allowed members of the legislature to see the contracts - something that they were not allowed in previous administrations.

Hood's edict is totally without support in MS law. Granted, that has never bothered him before but he cannot direct the legislature in their actions. Maybe before he runs for office again he should go back and study 9th grade civics.

4:31 - your point? The statute referred to says that the laws requiring disclosure do not apply to the legislature. DFA is the body that pays the bills. Section 161 says that DFA does not have the authority to review or approve the bills like DFA does for other expenditures. Section 161 says that the earlier sections (requiring certain disclosures) does not apply to legislative contracts.

Understand now?

State government republicans seem drunk with power. they need to take some deep breaths and ease up some. overall the public, all voters, were outraged at this attempt to make the legislature a supreme open checkbook with no accounting to the public. stupid, just stupid. my representative, Jeff Smith, made a lame statement on facebook that it was a "tradition" that was just formally made a rule, but then quickly pointed out that he wasn't on the rules committee and thus not responsible. I bet he wishes he had handled if differently now...

Hood isn't quite as incompetent as Tate and Gov. Feel, but make no mistake, he is quite inept. The public integrity boys are pretty much laying off any investigations these days because they don't want to get involved in "local politics." In other words, they're willing to ignore corruption because they don't want to piss off any potential voters when General Hood seeks to invade the Governor's Mansion.

7:47, do you understand now?