Starkvillians - what's up with this?...

[Southern Law Dawg]

I hate to burst your bubble but Lynn has been open for YEARS! Her wife is known in town. This isn't a new revaluation. Tell your "GUY" to keep fishing. The only thing "coincidental" is that she was removed shortly after an ELECTION where people elected new leadership to take the town in a new direction.

Fair enough man. It was news to me. In response to your other post, I do understand that MS is a right to work state and no explanation is required to fire somebody from any job, I just hate when the government, no matter what level, is not transparent with their actions. If someone is seemingly doing a good job, which as far as I know this lady was, I expect as a voter to be informed as to why it happened, especially considering the circumstance.

If there is one thing that I will quickly vote someone out of office for, second on my list is a lack of transparency after clear discriminatory attitudes/policies. Due to my lack of knowledge as to what this lady has specifically affected, a simple explanation, almost no matter what, would be enough for me.

When you say that she stepped on a lot of toes, that sounds like she angered the good ol boys club, which is actually a plus in my book. Are you close to Starkville politics or just knowledgeable? You sound like you have a really personal stake in this.

 

[drail14me]

Fair enough man. It was news to me. In response to your other post, I do understand that MS is a right to work state and no explanation is required to fire somebody from any job, I just hate when the government, no matter what level, is not transparent with their actions. If someone is seemingly doing a good job, which as far as I know this lady was, I expect as a voter to be informed as to why it happened, especially considering the circumstance.

If there is one thing that I will quickly vote someone out of office for, second on my list is a lack of transparency after clear discriminatory attitudes/policies. Due to my lack of knowledge as to what this lady has specifically affected, a simple explanation, almost no matter what, would be enough for me.

When you say that she stepped on a lot of toes, that sounds like she angered the good ol boys club, which is actually a plus in my book. Are you close to Starkville politics or just knowledgeable? You sound like you have a really personal stake in this.

Starkville is my home. This community, and it's growth means a lot to me. Starkville has improved leaps and bounds over the last decade as the City, County and University have slowly started to work together but we're still a long way from where we need to be as a community.

Because of my deep love for Starkville, I pay very close attention to what goes on in town both in and out of the public eye. I'm not a politician but I do listen and pay attention when I'm around ALL sides of a situation. I too believe in a transparent and honest government that serves the will of the people. I wasn't seeing this from the past administration. It appeared that a lot of things were done based not on the will of the people but the will of the few in power. When the voters turn down a project at the polls, officials shouldn't push forward and do the project anyway and in a way that deceives and manipulates the people. My opinion!

Like I said earlier, you can't piss on a candidate or candidates in an election and expect them to be your best friend when they get elected to be your boss. As a Bureaucrat, you don't openly pick sides in a campaign and expect to come out clean when the other side wins. Just saying.

 

[vorticityDawg]

There is one BIG hole in your explanation

I hate to burst your bubble but Lynn has been open for YEARS! Her wife is known in town. This isn't a new revaluation. Tell your "GUY" to keep fishing. The only thing "coincidental" is that she was removed shortly after an ELECTION where people elected new leadership to take the town in a new direction.

Only two of the aldermen voting against Lynn are new. The other three had to suddenly reverse their opinion not long after they awarded Lynn with an award for exemplary work. I do not know the aldermen's reasons, but I do know that some of their supporters were uncomfortable with how "progressive" Starkville politics had become. It may have been ok to have a nice lesbian working in town for years, but after some imaginary tipping point, it was decided that ALL progressive types must go...at any cost. Keep in mind, "progressive" does not mean Democrat here. Lynn is likely only the tip of the iceberg. It seems there are several other illegal and/or unethical acts that have yet to be fully uncovered by the guys coordinating and funding the collusion.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

And that lady doesn't have overwhelming support. She has a small group that is VERY vocal and they have tried some underhanded maneuvers and continue to do so so they can to hold on to power for her while. The majority of the people sit at home quietly happy that she's gone. Do you think Alderman would have voted like they did if the overwhelming majority of their Ward didn't want her gone?

Do you have any evidence that there's some kind of silent majority that's glad she's gone? That goes against everything I've ever heard about her. I suspect that certain conservative/Tea Party types are glad she's gone, while everyone else is miffed.

And of course the aldermen don't care if their constituents are mad -- no one will remember this in 2017 when they're up for reelection again.

Finally, if she can demonstrate that a government entity fired her because of her sexual orientation, she will win if she sues them. It would be a very difficult thing to prove, though.

 

[drail14me]

Do you have any evidence that there's some kind of silent majority that's glad she's gone? That goes against everything I've ever heard about her. I suspect that certain conservative/Tea Party types are glad she's gone, while everyone else is miffed.

And of course the aldermen don't care if their constituents are mad -- no one will remember this in 2017 when they're up for reelection again.

Finally, if she can demonstrate that a government entity fired her because of her sexual orientation, she will win if she sues them. It would be a very difficult thing to prove, though.

Do I have any evidence that I can present to you here on a sports message board that there is a silent majority? No. Can you present any evidence that there isn't a silent majority? All I can go off of is what I'm hearing in town with everyone I talk to on a daily basis and that's a LOT of people including politicians. The majority have either been happy that she's gone or just didn't give a crap. I've only talked to a few people that were upset that she was gone and they are some of the sames ones that continue to push the issue.

Again, she was NOT fired because of her sexuality. Take that to the bank!

Once again, you don't piss on candidates then expect them to take care of you when they get elected and become your boss. Obama didn't keep Bush's people. This Board didn't keep all the last Boards people. Simple as that.

 

[natchezdawg]

If there is a silent majority, why are they so silent? I don't live in Starkville, so I don't know much about it.

 

[Crucifictorious]

If it really centered on her "pissing on people" during this last election, then why did Carver day he has been "praying about this for years." ? Since you seem to know the real reason she was fired, and you claim it's not her sexual orientation, just come out with it (no pun intended) and tell us why.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

That is actually what "Freedom of Speech" is.

The first amendment is about things the government cannot infringe upon the people. People try to apply it to some many situations, but this the only true meaning of the amendment. I think Alderman are part of the government. Hence you can "Speech" about them "Freely". Twitter is speech. The Gestapo better stop their investigation now.

 

[drail14me]

What reason do they have to NOT be silent? The ones that don't care, don't care and aren't going to say anything either way. The ones that do care are happy that she's gone and are moving on with their lives. What do they need to say?

 

[drail14me]

Sometimes people just WANT something to be wrong when it's really just something very simple.

By your "Big Hole Theory", you are assuming that all 5 had the same reason for wanting to let her go. All 5 don't have to have the same reasoning as to WHY they want to let her go, they just need 5 people to want to let her go at the same time. That happened.

We already know one didn't want her cause he said he's be praying about it. If Spruill then starts pissing off other alderman during the campaign and election, then the numbers start adding up. From what I saw, it's my opinion that she did it to herself. As an appointed Bureaucrat, it's an unwritten rule that you don't get openly involved in a campaign. If you do, you're taking a gamble. She took that gamble and lost. She should have stayed out of it and not pissed off those extra votes it took to release her. It's just that simple. You can either accept that it's that simple or you can keep conspiring that there's more "Juice" to it. Up to you.

 

[drail14me]

If it really centered on her "pissing on people" during this last election, then why did Carver day he has been "praying about this for years." ? Since you seem to know the real reason she was fired, and you claim it's not her sexual orientation, just come out with it (no pun intended) and tell us why.

I've already told you why. Sometimes people just WANT something to be wrong when it's really just something very simple.

You are assuming that all 5 had the same reason for wanting to let her go. All 5 don't have to have the same reasoning as to WHY they want to let her go, they just need 5 people to want to let her go at the same TIME. That happened.

We already know one didn't want her cause he said he's be praying about it. I don't know his reasoning but I expect that it probably has something to do with him being Republican and the Mayor and his administration being Democrat. You can pick from the list of different points of view there. I do know that the way the Mayor and his administration handled the new City Hall project upset a lot of people, especially Republicans and they were looking for a change in the administration.

Maybe another one also wanted some change in administration.

If Spruill then starts pissing off the other alderman during the campaign and election, then the numbers start adding up. From what I saw, it's my opinion that she did it to herself. As an appointed Bureaucrat, it's an unwritten rule that you don't get openly involved in a campaign. If you do, you're taking a gamble. She took that gamble and lost. She should have stayed out of it and not pissed off those extra votes it took to release her.

She already had some that wanted change and she pissed off others right at the time when they had the opportunity to vote on Department Heads. She just pissed off one to many people at the wrong time.

It's just that simple. You can either accept that it's that simple or you can keep conspiring that there's more "Juice" to it. Up to you.

 

[DancingRabbit]

Everything is fine, nothing to see here

 

[drail14me]

One other point people need to understand. The Board and those 5 members didn't just decide "lets go fire Lynn at this next meeting!" the vote on whether or not to keep her was required by law.

The meeting where this happened was the first meeting of the term of the new board. At the first meeting of the new term, the Board is REQUIRED by law to vote on the reappointment of Department Heads at THIS meeting for the reappointment for the Boards 4 year term.

So it appears that Lynn pissed off to many extra Alderman at the wrong time. Had she stayed out of the election and not pissed off those extra votes, she probably would still be there.

Don't know how many of you followed this last election in Starkville but there were two wards that were highly contested. One is still in the court system last I heard and the other came down to a run-off because of some shady ballots and some shady methods of throwing out ballots. There was some pretty nasty stuff going on. Some of it made it into the paper and some didn't. Some people should have stayed out of it.

 

[natchezdawg]

So enlighten us as to what exactly she did to piss off the extra votes.

 

[Southern Law Dawg]

One other point people need to understand. The Board and those 5 members didn't just decide "lets go fire Lynn at this next meeting!" the vote on whether or not to keep her was required by law.

The meeting where this happened was the first meeting of the term of the new board. At the first meeting of the new term, the Board is REQUIRED by law to vote on the reappointment of Department Heads at THIS meeting for the reappointment for the Boards 4 year term.

So it appears that Lynn pissed off to many extra Alderman at the wrong time. Had she stayed out of the election and not pissed off those extra votes, she probably would still be there.

Don't know how many of you followed this last election in Starkville but there were two wards that were highly contested. One is still in the court system last I heard and the other came down to a run-off because of some shady ballots and some shady methods of throwing out ballots. There was some pretty nasty stuff going on. Some of it made it into the paper and some didn't. Some people should have stayed out of it.

So the aldermen were vindictive that she didn't support their campaigns?

 

[Lawdawg.sixpack]

No case either way. I would bet that law enforcement isn't spending much time trying to crack this caper...