Corruption continues . . . why are they so scared of Billy Pegram?

Billy Pegram is a proven leader.  He was willing to face hard issues and deal with them.  When he left office four years ago, the County had money in the bank (millions of dollars).  He left the new board with resources to be able to continue to operate the County effectively.  Under Billy Pegram the County's finances were able to be audited.  Why is it that James Dunn is fighting so hard to keep an honest, proven leader who won the election off of the Board?  Why doesn't James Dunn want a man with integrity on the Board?

Another blog has posted in part the following:

“Tonight's [January 14, 2016] meeting began with Board Attorney John Perry explaining his research surrounding the Beat 5 Supervisor position.  Perry has also requested an Attorney General's Opinion on the same.

From what Perry reported, it was clear that Billy Pegram is not the Supervisor for Beat 5. . . . . “

James Dunn will do whatever is required to keep Billy Pegram out of office.  What is James Dunn trying to hide?  He is attempting to manipulate the election process.  James Dunn would rather do away with elections and just anoint himself “President” of Tunica County.  How can Mr. Pegram win the election and be certified and ANYONE think it is right that the LOSER is continuing to serve?  If Mac Daley is paid anything, James Dunn and the others who vote to pay him should be required to reimburse the County.  Tax dollars should not be used to paid those who lost the election.  What would James Dunn and crew be saying if Mac Daley had won the election and Billy Pegram was sitting at the table voting? 

James Dunn has been around for decades.  Surely, by now, he knows the law.  He simply has no excuse for violating any law.  The taxpayers have paid tens of thousands of dollars for Mr. Dunn to attend literally hundreds of meetings and seminars about government and laws.  Mr. Dunn himself solicited an opinion from the Attorney General in order to verify that the Board acted illegal with regard to the housing program.  Check out this link from the Attorney General’s website:

https://govt.westlaw.com/msag/Document/Ia66db6f8a02111e498db8b09b4f043e0?contextData=(sc.Search)&rank=2&originationContext=Search+Result&navigationPath=Search%2fv3%2fsearch%2fresults%2fnavigation%2fi0ad70f700000015245dd1efaee3955f9%3fstartIndex%3d1%26Nav%3dADMINDECISION_PUBLICVIEW%26contextData%3d(sc.Default)&list=ADMINDECISION_PUBLICVIEW&transitionType=SearchItem&listSource=Search&viewType=FullText&t_querytext=dunn+tunica&t_Method=WIN

JAMES DUNN KNOWS HOW TO GET AN ATTORNEY GENERAL’S RULING.  (Another topic for another day – should James Dunn himself be involved in housing in Tunica County as he is a Supervisor and his non profit has dealings with Tunica County?  Hmmmm?)

So, why did James Dunn not get an Attorney General opinion back in November?  Why would he wait until now?  An “informal opinion” (telephone call) is meaningless. 

Oh, and by the way, the Attorney General should NOT be issuing any opinion anyway at this time.  Not only should Mr. Dunn know this, but we would all think Mr. Perry, our Board’s FIFTH attorney in 3 years, would know this.  All you have to do is read the Attorney General’s webpage (assuming you don’t want to take the time to look at the actual law).  From the Attorney General’s webpage:

“The Attorney General is required by Section 7-5-25 to provide an opinion in writing to certain public officials and agencies “when requested in writing, upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.”

Section 7-5-25 limits the Attorney General’s responsibility and authority to provide official opinions in several respects:

1.      Official opinions are provided only to the public officials or boards or agencies designated by statute.

2.      The Attorney General may only address questions of law related the office of the requestor, not questions of law which relate to other officials or their offices.

3.      The question of law must relate to future action.

4.      The matter which is the subject of the request must not be in litigation.”

Don’t believe us - here is the link so you can read it yourself:  http://www.ago.state.ms.us/divisions/opinions-and-local-government-2/

Someone needs to make sure the Attorney General’s office has all of the facts this time including that the action of the Board has already been taken and is being litigated. 

It seems as though incompetent (at the best – more likely criminal) public officials with less than competent advice will continue.  Sad, very sad.

Needed: competent, honest leadership

It is a new year - will anything change?  Our first blog ever was on the topic of the FY14 audit.  The "prior" county administrator was hired because he was a licensed "CPA" and a forensic auditor.   He frequently spoke of "potential" red flags and mismanagement. 
We pointed out back in October, 2015 that the County had no audit for year ended September 30, 2014 (not a typo - 2014).  To our knowledge nothing that Michael Thompson has EVER done has been able to be audited.  Now, the taxpayers will suffer the consequences.  How will Tunica County be able to move forward on any meaningful project and realize savings through refinancing debt when it has all but lost it bond rating. 
This is what came out from Standard and Poor - it is very sad.  Notice the very problems that we raised back in October are the driving force for Tunica County losing is "A" rating.  Standard & Poor understands counties facing difficult situations.  How a county handles the difficult situation is what matters. 
Tunica County has no effective leadership - the Board President is complete ineffective.  The prior administration was incompetent.  Right now is the time to demand accountability.  Every citizen and taxpayer should be demanding answers as to why Tunica County has no audit.  What are the Supervisors trying to hide?  
So, from Standard & Poor:




"Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said it lowered its rating three notches to BBB from A on Tunica County, Miss.'s general obligation debt and placed it on CreditWatch with negative implications.

"The downgrade is based on our view of the county's deteriorating financial position, reflected by its very weak budgetary flexibility and budgetary performance, as well as vulnerable financial management practices," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Oscar Padilla. "The CreditWatch action follows repeated attempts by Standard & Poor's to obtain timely information of satisfactory quality to fully access our rating on the securities in accordance with our applicable criteria and policies."

The basis of the analysis is fiscal 2013, the county's latest available audited information. While the county has provided budgeted information for fiscal 2014, 2015, and 2016, the absence of audited information for fiscal 2014, following material financial deterioration in fiscal 2013, means there is insufficient information of quality to provide clarity on the county's fiscal position.

Failure to receive the requested information within 90 days will likely result in withdrawal of the affected rating, preceded by any change to the rating that it considers appropriate given available information.

The bonds are secured by the full faith and credit of the county, and the pledge of a direct and continuing tax to be levied annually without limitation as to rate or amount upon the taxable property within the limits of the county."