Monday, May 30, 2016

This Week On the Blog

I will be posting several posts per day starting Tuesday so check back often.

This Week:

On the Special Snowflake:

  • I will be asking the questions that this incident beg to be asked and submitting the public records requests that should document what occurred and when.

On Andrew McKay (Real name Andrew Tallman)
  • This week I will explore a bit of Andrew McKay AKA Andrew Tallman's extreme views on the following topics
    • HOW HOMOPHOBIA IS HEREDITARY
    • HOW HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE AND NOT HOW SOMEONE IS BORN
    • HOW HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD GO BACK TO BEING A CRIME
    • HOW THE MORE MONEY A MAN MAKES THE MORE HE HAS DONE FOR SOCIETY

On the Chiefs 
  • I will break down the letter the "Mayor" issued Saturday
  • I will discuss how Human Resources has broken the employee manual, again.
  • I will show how the Chiefs are failing to get the due process they are entitled.
  • I will show how HR is failing the employees

Whew.  Should be a full week for a such a short one!

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can hardly wait...This is the real life version of "Scandal"!

Anonymous said...

fyi......Chiefs (plural)...not chief's (possessive).

Anonymous said...

Should be a very interesting week indeed...Thank you Maren for all of your efforts. Many citizens seem to be outraged with the scare tactics being used by the mayor and his cronies. The wrongful termination of the Chiefs is not going away any time soon. I look forward to checking in frequently to read about all of the things that PNJ won't cover like the Special Snowflakes.

CJ Lewis said...

In their August 10, 2009 letter to the City Council, Charter Review Commission Chairwoman Crystal Spencer and the CRC's general legal counsel Margaret Stopp (writing jointly) addressed City Attorney Rusty Wells' August 7 concerns about many parts of the Charter to include Section 4.01.(a)(1) and specifically which municipal official - Mayor, City Administrator and/or Department Heads, the three possible options - exercised the Charter power to appoint, discipline (to include demote) and remove City officers and employees in the executive branch below the rank of department head, i.e. "non-department heads." Spencer and Stopp advised the Council that the power was vested in the City Administrator - another critical limitation upon the power of the Mayor falling within the scope of this phrase in the Charter's Section 4.01.(a)(1) - "unless otherwise provided in this Charter." This was the understanding of the Council when it approved sending the Charter to voters and the understanding of voters when they voted in the November 24, 2009 Municipal Charter Referendum. If Hayward disagrees, he can ask the Court to provide a declaratory judgment. During the next Council meeting, Council President Charles Bare could ask the Council to direct City Attorney Lysia Bowling to provide her personal opinion. The only documents you need to read are an August 7, 2009 letter from City Attorney Rusty Wells to the Council, Spencer and Stopps' August 10, 2009 letter, the Charter as approved by voters on November 24, 2009 and Hayward's recent letter. Schmitt could not have demoted anyone for two reasons. First, if you believe Spencer and Stopp (both around to be asked) the Charter gives that power to the City Administrator. Second, Schmitt was not a department head because Hayward never nominated him to be one and - by default - the Council never voted to confirm his appointment as a department head. If someone other than the City Administrator demoted Deas, he would seem to have a case to make that his demotion was in violation of the "voter-approved" Charter and he is due his old rank back and back pay too. I wonder if Van Sickle is familiar with the Charter and especially the Charter Review Commission and its work that left behind extensive documents notwithstanding that it refused to subject the draft Charter to an independent legal review and refused to draft their mandatory Final Report. If Bowling comes back with her usual gibberish, the Council should direct her - or retain independent legal counsel - to seek declaratory judgment in the Court. That process might give Schmitt and Glover leverage in a legal claim that their termination was in violation of the Charter. In the meantime, the Council can put I place new safeguards to include requiring the City Administrator to get approval of the Council to terminate certain employees and only do so for just cause.

Anonymous said...

I didn't read a lot of Tallman's (irony) rants. But calling farming an effeminate profession should make him very popular with the north Escambia conservatives.

Anonymous said...

Better be careful Maren. Hayward may send you a cease and desist letter. He's concerned that if you and others keep revealing the truth, the insurance carrier may not want to cover the City.

Anonymous said...


I am compelled to pick up on CJ Lewis' comments, off-subject as they are. I was cleaning out my office last week, a task I take up every decade or two (sometimes I skip a decade), when I came across a political flyer that was mailed to me by the Citizens for Charter Government PAC six long years ago. This flyer highlighted the reasons why I should vote "YES" for charter government. The three reasons the PAC gave for changing our government are quoted as follows.

1. If you want to stop the corruption, backroom deals, extortion and bribery of the past.

2. If you've had enough of career politicians wasting your tax dollars on sweetheart deals for their political cronies.

3. If you want to change the system and take Escambia County back from the special interest(s).

Gee, this new government is sure working out for us, isn't it? Are all of you who voted "YES" proud of the animal you let loose? City employees have not only lost their Civil Service rights but they have also lost the right to appeal being fired to anyone other than the person who wants to arbitrarily fire them.