Jackson Free Press

Good news out of Oxford, Miss., just now. Legislative hopeful Cristen Hemmins and The Oxford Eagle are reporting on their Facebook pages that the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to stop flying the Mississippi state flag until the Confederate canton is gone.

Per The Oxford Eage's Facebook Post:

"The Oxford Board of Aldermen have voted to remove the current Mississippi state flag from all city buildings and approved sending the state Legislature a resolution requesting the state flag be changed."

More than one person posting under the Eagle's post used the word "pansies" to refer to the aldermen. Robin Gittemeier Ware, who works with FNC Inc. Professional Services, commented underneath: "What we have here is a bunch of pansies afraid of "offending" someone. Everyone is offended by something but a flag never killed anyone."

Another commenter, Matt Sessums, took an irreverent approach in response to such posts: "Imagine how crazy some of these people will be when they name Obama as Chancellor."

Yes, he did. The Washington Post is reporting that our esteemed governor, Phil Bryant, blamed working mothers for the problems in the education system:

Bryant was participating in a Washington Post Live event focused on the importance of ensuring that children read well by the end of third grade. In response to a question about how America became “so mediocre” in regard to educational outcomes, he said:

"I think both parents started working. The mom got in the work place."

Bryant immediately recognized how controversial his remark would be and said he knew he would start to get e-mails. He then expanded on his answer, saying that “both parents are so pressured” in families today. He also noted that America seemed to be losing ground internationally in regards to educational outcomes because other nations began to invest more in their own school systems and make progress.

And folks are worried about Chokwe Lumumba's views.

More over, Personhood supporters. Public-education backers are working to put funding the Mississippi Adequate Education Program on next year's ballot—being that the Legislature simply refuses to fully fund it.

The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal is reporting that Jackson attorney Luther Munford has filed the initiative language on behalf of a group called Better Schools, Better Jobs:

The Mississippi Adequate Education Program is the formula passed in 1997 that determines how much funding each school district should receive. It has been traditionally underfunded, however, including a shortfall of more than $1.3 billion during the last six years. This year’s appropriation is more than $250 million below what the formula requires.

The state’s constitution leaves little recourse if legislators don’t fund MAEP, Munford said. The initiative would change that.

It would require Mississippi to use money from economic growth to fill the void. Its language says at least 25 percent of new growth of general fund revenue would go into MAEP over a period of years until it was fully funded. It does not require a new tax.

Rep. Joel Bomgar started the very successful company that still bears his name, although he no longer owns it. The CEO of Bomgar has now come out against House Bill 1523—a bill that the Republican representative supported. Here is Matt Dircks' full statement, verbatim:

Bomgar Corporation was founded in Mississippi 13 years ago, and we are extremely proud of the unwavering commitment to living Bomgar’s core values from our employees who work in our Ridgeland, Mississippi, office as well as our offices around the globe. That’s why I feel it’s important to state that Mississippi’s ‘religious freedom’ legislation, House Bill 1523, is inconsistent with the values and principles that are at the core of Bomgar’s culture.

At Bomgar, we strongly believe every individual has dignity and worth and the right to be treated equally. As Bomgar’s CEO, I’m personally disappointed in any legislation that does not provide equal treatment and rights for all, regardless of color, sex, race, religion, and sexual orientation. Bomgar embraces diversity, and the principles of equality and integrity are at the heart of everything we seek to accomplish and stand for as a company.

Bomgar opposes discrimination, and we respect, support, and welcome all current and future Bomgar employees and customers.

The turn this mayoral campaign has taken is extremely frustrating, especially between the Harvey Johnson and Jonathan Lee campaigns. And from where we sit, trying to get out as much accurate information as possible, we see it all. It is one thing to get good, solid public information from a candidate, supporter or anyone as we did last week when we received an envelope of real information about Lee's business issues—which, in turn, a led to a very revealing interview with the candidate, in which we learned that he actually never has been a business owner. The public has the right to know about all of this, and then decide what they think.

But this week, both campaigns have frustrated us. First, the Lee campaign put out a press release (see below) listing several accusations of the Johnson campaign. When our reporter called them to get backup materials, they refused to give us any. I guess we're all supposed to believe it without proof. (See: lesson in that envelope of documents we got last week.)

We're also frustrated with the Johnson campaign over the same press release, though. They put out a press release in response (also quoted in below story) that referred to our story about Lee's business woes and used the fact that Lee is facing those troubles as a response to the allegations?

Huh?

That is not a response. A response would be actual information about the incidents referred to—on which both campaigns failed epicly. It's as if it is a push-and-shove game on a playground. "Oh, yeah?" "Oh, yeah!"

What the public needs is information: documents, links, sources, people will go on the records. It's what we're in the business of doing: gathering and disseminating facts. We cannot legally put out garbage on people and public officials, and the campaigns should not, either. Granted, the Johnson campaign was responding to Lee based on a factual story about his business problems, but a much better response would be information that refuted and/or gave context to the allegations in the email.

Not to mention how many half-baked accusations are flying around; Lee supporters have been especially fond of floating theories to us about the Johnson administration—which none of them bothered to pitch us over the last four years—but then not being able or willing to back them up with documents or people to talk to.

One case in point: a story someone mentioned to me last Sunday; he told us who to call to get details, which we did Monday; he wouldn't talk unless we knew exactly which questions to ask, which we didn't because it's their story tip; the original source then said he'd provide those Wednesday; we didn't hear from him; texted him last night; he texted back this morning with a 90-minute window we could talk to him in; we were on daily deadline and couldn't; now says he's too busy to talk. I told him to call me when he can so we …

We're trying to find the context of the $294,000/grant accusation in the email the Lee campaign sent out, but wouldn't document. We found the 2008 Clarion-Ledger story that the Lee campaign cited, as well as stories in the JFP. First, the Ledger story.

It was about then-Mayor Melton's abysmal financial management. It mentions the administration's complaints about problems left over from Johnson--which I personally take with a grain of salt until I find out the context. Because if there was anybody who could blame anyone but themselves, it was the Melton administration. Here's the relevant part of the story, "City not responding to suggestions":

"An employee hired by Mayor Frank Melton to assess Jackson's fiscal situation says she is fed up with Melton and his department heads for not responding to her recommendations to fix the city's bookkeeping problems. Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Valerie Nevels, a former Internal Revenue Service criminal investigator, said the mayor has not reinforced her suggestions. ...Nevels outlined to the City Council Budget Committee and various department heads a recent audit of city finances. She said it indicated sloppy accounting has left the city at risk of losing millions in federal funds and blurred its financial condition. The audit examined records from Oct. 1, 2005, to Sept. 30, 2006. To improve financial management in the city, Nevels has tried training personnel in such areas as filing quarterly reviews, balancing accounts monthly and setting firm deadlines for purchases and transfers. But employees have ignored the procedures and guidelines she passed out Oct. 1, she said. Nevels said Melton's response was for her to "make it happen." ...

...Melton and Walker said the city's poor accounting practices are left over from previous administrations. Nevels concurred, saying that during former Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr.'s administration, the city had more people working on financial statements and grants but the same problems existed. Johnson, mayor from 1997-2005, said his administration "took great pains to make sure the financial system was adequate. Johnson said that in his last year as mayor the city's bond rating was increased twice. Despite his efforts, Johnson's administration left behind some mismanaged grants, which the current administration and council had to deal with last fall. The city had to repay more than $294,000 on a grant because the grant was not spent in the required time period. Another $29,412 had to be repaid for the same period. "Clearly (Johnson) didn't walk away from this enterprise with clean hands, nor is the Melton administration going to walk away with clean hands," council President Leslie Burl McLemore said.

I vaguely remembered this controversy because it surprised us that a Melton hire was whistle-blowing on him. So I searched our database and found these stories about the problems that Nevel revealed: No Oversight Costing City Nobody Minding the Store

Adam Lynch also reported on Johnson and grants in this story right after he returned to office.

Although all of those stories bring back painful Melton-era …

During the run-up to the Democratic primary, the main whisper campaign, coming from several candidates, seemed to be about who had—gasp!—voted Republican in the past. Now, it's over who is Christian enough to be mayor.

Mayoral candidate Chokwe Lumumba is pounding the same drum that President Barack Obama had to beat in order to protect his Christian credentials. Since Lumumba came in second in Jackson Democratic primary for mayor, the whispers from opponents about his not being Christian—and perhaps presumably Muslim?—have gotten louder and more insistent.

Lumumba responded to critics on his Facebook himself (or at least someone did on his behalf), writing:

I am a man who respects all people and their right to believe as they choose regarding faith. However, I AM a CHRISTIAN. In fact, I have ALWAYS BEEN A CHRISTIAN. I was raised in Church. My mother was a member of a Christian Women's Association in Detroit to combat prejudice in the Church. When I moved to Mississippi in the late 80s, I continued to attend Church. My late wife Nubia Lumumba, was a member of the Church Choir until her death in 2003. My children have been raised Christian. My daughter, Rukia Lumumba worked in the children's church and the church nursery throughout middle school and high school. My son often gives the message (sermon) at his current Church. GOD and Christianity is a part of who I am. #I AM A CHRISTIAN MAN, WITH AN AFRICAN NAME. #electlumumbamayor for Mayor on May 21st. #together we can make #jacksonrise

After months of development and trials, we went live with this new website late Thursday. Cheers to developer Matt Heindl (also the JFP distribution manager) for all his hard work. In addition, Kristin Brenemen and her design team worked really hard to get the look right, and Latasha Willis and Dustin Cardon knocked themselves out to get the JFP events and restaurant listings on the site.

If you see any problems on the site, please let us know ([email protected]). We are still working out bugs and turning on new features. By the end of this week, all old JFP stories and comments from the last 10 years should be moved to this site, so if you can't find something in our archive, be patient; it's coming! Meantime, play with our new Search box (top of page to the right); it's so much better than before!

Also, note that a new JFP mobile app replaces the old JFP app, which is no longer updating!

An important thing to know: You will have to re-register to post on this new site. If you have trouble getting your old user name, let's know, and we'll work it out for you. Note that you can also post photos and video now to your comments.

The general public can now blog as well, even though new posts will go through moderation (and must comply with the User Agreement) before they're opened. Click here to get started! And be sure to set your profile page up with your photo and other info!

Have fun on this site, and try out the new tools. Cheers, all.

OK, as if dinosaur (and Missouri Senate candidate) Todd Akin hadn't been offensive enough to women already, here's a fun one from the campaign trail today. The Kansas City Start reported that Akin said he is going to win the race because, in part, Sen. Claire McCaskill wasn't "ladylike" in their recent debate as she was against Republican Jim Talent in 2006. More:

“I think we have a very clear path to victory, and apparently Claire McCaskill thinks we do, too, because she was very aggressive at the debate, which was quite different than it was when she ran against Jim Talent,” Akin said. “She had a confidence and was much more ladylike (in 2006), but in the debate on Friday she came out swinging, and I think that’s because she feels threatened.”

Um, Akin, maybe she came out swinging because the majority of women in America right now wouldn't mind taking a swing at you after your disgusting comments about "legitimate rape" and your support of giving women no reproductive rights whatsoever that you don't approve.

Sir, you are no gentleman. You are a caveman. Ladylike enough for you?

On the "Sh*t Politicians Say" front, the JFP is collecting crazy things politicians have said (recently or further in the past) about women for our big Women in Politics issue next week. Please share your, er, favorites below. Direct quotes please, and a link would be great.

The current Mississippi Legislature, under the watchful eye of a radical-right governor, Phil Bryant, is attempting a number of disturbing pieces of legislation this session. But few, if any, are more disturbing in a heart-of-being-an-American way than their recent legislation to protect the identifies of the residents who apply for the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon.

Regardless of your views on guns, this legislation is textbook overreach by the government. They passed legislation to protect from public view the list of people who are allowed to concealed a weapon on their person. That is, Mississippi is walking all over the First Amendment in its over-zealous attempt to convince voters that they are for the Second Amendment.

Meantime, this means there is no accountability to the state's concealed-carry laws. Watchdog media (or what there is left) will not be able to get in there and determine whether the law is being enforced equally and in a non-discriminatory way. I personally have no interest in publishing the list of concealed-carry permit holders, but that is beside the point. Because the NRA freaked out because media in other states requested the names of the concealed weapon carriers—a First Amendment right—the Mississippi Legislature decided to pass a law that clearly violates both transparency ideals and the First Amendment.

This means that a parent who believes their child is at higher risk around a person with a concealed weapon, for instance, cannot know who in their family and friends circle carries one. Knowing that information gives everyone in the conversation the right to make their own decisions about whether to associate with people who secretly carry weapons. The state government is making this kind of parental and personal decision-making impossible. It is a vast over-reach, but entirely predictable from state lawmakers who are sold out lock, stock and barrel to the gun industry.

Very sad. We hope that the law will not stand up in court.

VERBATIM STATEMENT: Seventh Mississippi city to pass diversity resolution recognizing the role LGBT people play in thriving communities

WASHINGTON – Tonight, Waveland, Mississippi unanimously passed an anti-discrimination resolution recognizing the dignity and worth of all city residents - including those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT). Waveland becomes the seventh Mississippi city to pass such a resolution and joins Starkville, Hattiesburg, Greenville, Magnolia, Bay St. Louis and Oxford.

“This is another important step forward to ensure that all Mississippians are treated equally and with respect and dignity,” said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Chad Griffin, a native of Arkansas.

Public opinion on equality in Mississippi is far ahead of law in the state. A poll conducted last summer found that 64 percent of residents back workplace non-discrimination protections for LGBT employees and nearly 60 percent of Mississippians under the age of 30 support marriage equality.

“The approved action is important for the people of Waveland. This sends a strong message throughout Mississippi that LGBT citizens are welcome in our fantastic city,” said Mayor David Garcia. “We are proving to the country that our city is on the right side of history.”

Just last month, HRC launched Project One America, an unprecedented effort to expand LGBT equality in Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas. This summer, HRC Mississippi will open office space in Jackson staffed with a statewide director, community organizer, and faith organizer. The community-based program will focus on changing hearts and minds, gaining enduring legal protections and building more inclusive institutions from the church pew to the workplace.

For details on Project One America in Mississippi, visit http://www.hrc.org/states/mississippi

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

Every year, to celebrate the JFP's birthday, we put the focus on great things happening in Jackson. This year, we published special "GOOD Ideas: Be the Change in Jackson" issue to celebrate the JFP's 12th birthday. The issue, which published Sept. 24, includes all sorts of great ideas of things we can all do to bring positive change in Jackson. Please click that link and flip through the issue for ideas.

But here's where you come in. We're asking our readers to take a 30-day "Be the Change Challenge" in the Jackson metro to help encourage others to get involved, no matter how big or small, to help our city/metro reach its full potential. We challenge you to do something to Be the Change Jackson every day for 30 days starting on Oct. 1, 2014. Snap pictures of you and yours being-the-change and use the hashtag #btcjxn on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook. We will give gift cards from local businesses to random be-the-changers over the 30 days. If you participate every day for 30 days, you will go into a drawing for the grand prize: an overnight prize package at Riverwalk Casino and Hotel. But even if you don't do it every day, you can still win prizes! So jump in and help inspire positive change in our city.

Gandhi told us all to "be the change we want to see in the world"; we urge you to focus your efforts on our city in the next month or so to help inspire others, and especially our young folks, to step up and do whatever is in their power to do.

Thank you for whatever you can do and for inspiring others! Remember #btcjxn.

As if it's not bad enough that Rep. Todd Akin believes that women who are legitimately raped (I cringe to put those two words together), he was also part of a House Republican effort to redefine rape. The point, Mother Jones reports, was to keep federal funding for abortion away from teenagers, arguing that they might pretend they were raped by an older man (statutory rape, which is very common) in order to get the money because the right didn't want to "federally fund the abortion of tens of thousands of healthy babies of healthy moms, based solely on the age of their mothers."

More from that piece:

The implication of his position is that if you were raped and became pregnant, you must have actually wanted it—it wasn't really rape.

This isn't the first time Akin has expressed fringe views about rape in the context of the abortion debate. Last year, Akin, vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and most of the House GOP co-sponsored a bill that would have narrowed the already-narrow exceptions to the laws banning federal funding for abortion—from all cases of rape to cases of "forcible rape."

Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad, says the House GOP. After I reported on the "forcible rape" language in January 2011, a wave of outcry from abortion-rights, progressive, and women's groups led the Republicans to remove it. But a few months later, in a congressional committee report, Republicans wrote that they believed the bill would continue to have the same effect despite the absence of the "forcible" language.

So, what we have here, are a bunch of dudes in Congress once again trying to decide what happens to women and what to do about it. Anyone else OK with that?

If Mississippians read the Sunday edition of the state's allegedly largest newspaper two days before the presidential election, you get nothing of substance about how the election affects our state.

We've heard about a number of debate parties in Jackson and beyond. You're on your own to figure out the drinking games. Here are the ones we know about; feel free to add your own!

1. Hal & Mal's Red Room, downtown Jackson, tends to be a progressive crowd that likes to imbide.

2. Koinonia Coffeehouse, JSU parkway, also leans progressive but of more of the coffee-drinking type.

3. The @MadisonCoMSGOP is hosting a debate watch party in Ridgeland. Details here: twitpic.com/b0esqh -- decidedly not progressive. We don't know if they're drinking or not, but suspect there will be a flash or two at least.

4. If you're on the Coast, the @HCRepublican is hosting a debate watching party at their HQ in Gulfport. More info here: us4.campaign -- Republicans, duh. See flash guess above.

5. Pi(e) Lounge at Sal & Mookies (Fondren) is inviting people to come there and watch. Probably a mixed group, politics wise, but we wouldn't expect many birthers. The cocktails will flow freely.

6. The 29th Annual Fannie Lou Hamer Memorial Symposium starts tonight at the Fannie Lou Hamer National Institute on Citizenship and Democracy at Jackson State with a keynote address by Dr. Mary Coleman at 6:30 p.m. in the Dollye M.E. Robinson College of Liberal Arts and will be followed by a debate watch tonight and will continue throughout the day tomorrow. We're guessing that the punchbowl won't be spiked. Go ready to think and be sick and tired of being sick of tired in honor of the great Mrs. Hamer.

7. Watch the debate at the Top Notch Sports Bar at 109 Culley Drive. We don't know their politics--football?--but clearly you can get a beer. It's a sports bar, fool.

Meantime, join our open discussion about the debate here. Follow us on Twitter @jxnfreepress and @jfppolitics for even more. (Where were you when Twitter broke? We expect it'll be tonight.)

The Jackson Free Press last week requested an interview with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood about the pending Michelle Byrom execution.

He so far has declined an interview issued this statement instead. Needless to say, we still have questions.

Reprinted verbatim:

Basis for Requesting an Execution Date When Certiorari has been denied in a case, pursuant to the rules of the United States Supreme Court, the order of denial is legally effective as of the time of its entry by the Supreme Court and the Mississippi Supreme Court may then take further appropriate action in light of that denial. It is at that time, that the State must file a motion to set an execution date and pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-106, assert in the motion, “that all state and federal remedies have been exhausted . . . .” The denial of certiorari after federal habeas corpus litigation has normally been the end of the normal litigation in a death penalty case. Then, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-29, “the Supreme Court of Mississippi shall forthwith fix a day, not more than thirty (30) days distant from the date of said denial or the vacating of any stay entered by any federal court, for the execution of the sentence, and a warrant shall forthwith issue accordingly.” The State filed the motions to set execution dates in both Byrom and Crawford on the day of the denial of Certiorari, which was February 24, 2014. The Mississippi Supreme Court then ordered responses to those motions from Crawford and Byrom. Crawford filed his response on February 28, 2014, and Byrom filed hers on March 3, 2014. Both motions are still pending with the Mississippi Supreme Court as of March 25, 2014. We would also note that both Byrom and Crawford filed motions with the Mississippi Supreme Court for leave to be allowed to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court. Those motions are likewise pending before the Court. In the past, in such situations, the Court has withheld setting an execution date until it has taken action on those motions. Thus, it is doubtful that any dates will be set in either of these cases until the Court has ruled on those motions.

I've been asked a couple times recently by national media to comment on the Senate race between Thad Cochran and Chris McDaniel (and, oh, Travis Childers). I begged out of an MSNBC request a couple weeks ago because I just couldn't get excited to talk about it. But when The Guardian wanted to contract me this past Monday to write a column, I said OK. But my main thought was, "I just don't give a damn." I've watched election after election pass with no candidate for even moderate Mississippians to vote for. Our city and state are brimming with good people who want progress for the state, and we get stuck with the worst candidates, brimming with backward ideas, and told we HAVE to vote for the Democrat among them any way.

Meantime, we watch the Democrats lose over and over again.

I don't want "apathy," as somebody accused on Twitter. I want just the opposite: I want Mississippians to demand better from the candidates then the most reasonable one loving all over the NRA and bashing women's reproductive freedom. We need to demand, at least, that Travis Childers, the Democratic nominee not campaign against our rights, and actually address solutions to health care, povery and other vital 21st-century populist issues. If he wallows in the mud with the wingnuts, it's not ME who is encouraging apathy. It is up to him and the Democratic Party to break that apathy and be inspiring, rather than try to out-conservative the conservatives.

I don't identify with any political party (don't even really like the concept), so perhaps it's easy for me to take this stand in an international newspaper. But the response has been overwhelmingly positive, especially from southerners; my Twitter feed and Facebook post on it are filled with cheers. It's as if everyone wanted to say this, but didn't quite know how to say it out loud. But I said it. Read more here, post under The Guardian piece if you want (many great comments of various positions), and then come on back and talk about it here on southern soil.

The Mississippi primary? Frankly, my dear conservatives, I don't give a damn

Johnson sent this statement this morning, in response to this recent JFP article. It's pasted here verbatim:

STATEMENT OF HARVEY JOHNSON REGARDING JACKSON FREE PRESS ARTICLE Having read the article in the Jackson Free Press, “Repayment of HUD Funds Emerges as Election Issue, ” I was struck by the poor attempt at political hay being made by our new councilman from Ward 2 on a matter that he should be fighting to resolve in favor of the citizens rather than quickly agreeing to write an astronomical check to a federal agency over a questionable dispute.

As a former mayor and an advisor to Mississippi towns for 40 years, I have on many occasions had disagreements with HUD about their interpretations of CDBG regulations. I have worked in and with the CDBG program since its inception in 1975, and I am therefore thoroughly familiar with the program’s objectives.

When it comes to HUD and other federal agencies, I have found that the best approach when there are questions of interpretation or disputes of facts is to vigorously negotiate and take advantage of the administrative appeal process, even if it means meeting with the HUD Secretary or the White House, to achieve a satisfactory resolution. I have gotten federal officials to change their positions entirely or greatly reduce the amounts of money in dispute.

The letter from the city to HUD referenced in the news article appears to be the culmination of a negotiation process lasting only three months, which is an extremely short period of time to resolve a dispute with HUD involving that many issues. In my mind, conceding so early and for such a large dollar amount reflects a lack of experience and understanding in dealing with HUD programs by the person or persons who, rather than stand up to the HUD bureaucracy, chose the easy path to turn over local taxpayer money , while blaming the whole thing on the guy out of office. Such an approach is a bad precedent for the city. We certainly don’t want some bureaucrat thinking he can shake us from our lunch money, just because he thinks he can.

My decision in connection with this matter would have been to refrain from throwing in the towel so quickly by casually writing a check from the city’s general fund made payable to HUD. During my previous administration the city was not intimidated by federal bureaucrats acting contrary to the best interest of our local citizens. I will bring that same determination to my next administration.

As far as I can tell, the Council has not yet voted on making payment to HUD. I encourage the Council to hold up doing so until the new mayor is sworn in this month, who hopefully will be someone with the knowledge and experience and leadership traits that will protect our taxpayers from bureaucratic overreach.

This open letter came late on runoff night. We are reposting it verbatim. Send other "open letter" submissions (up to 1,000 words with verifiable facts and respectful tone) to [email protected].

Dear Mr. Lumumba,

We are a white couple in our early 30s that live in Ward Seven who did not vote for you. That said, congratulations on winning the Democratic primary for the Jackson mayoral election tonight. While many people in town are celebrating with you, there are many people who have many fears about the next four years.

• What is going to happen with the infrastructure issues of Jackson in all wards? (Will the large sinkhole on Old Canton Road ever get fixed?)

• Will you be fair towards advancing all wards of Jackson and uniting the city?

• Will the public schools in our area be the best (or even a good) educational option for our children?

• Will economic growth be encouraged in all wards?

• Will there be a continued (or even an increase) in wealth and opportunities leaving the city out of fear and uncertainty?

• Will crime increase in the city?

Should you be elected mayor, we—and many other Ward 1 and Ward 7 residents—would like to work with you to help achieve solution to these long-standing issues facing Jacksonians.

We have chosen to raise our family in Jackson and consciously make every effort to support local businesses and restaurants. We have been extremely saddened to hear of businesses moving out of Jackson city limits and into surrounding cities. Our hope is that others will make a similar commitment to support Jackson. However, on paper, we realize that it does not make sense for us to live in Jackson.

• Our property taxes and car tags are significantly higher than other cities in the metro area.

• With businesses moving out of Jackson, it is often difficult to not give sales tax money to other cities in the metro area. (Once Sam's Club leaves its current location, should we go to the new Madison store or the one in Pearl? We want to keep our sales tax money here, but these are the real decisions we face.)

• The crime rate and perception of Jackson intimidates many of our friends/family who don’t feel comfortable coming to our house at night.

• We don’t feel like we can send our kids to their assigned elementary school as it is a “failing” school with a level 2 rating without a multi-racial environment.

• Our roads and pipes are crumbling.

But we love it here. We love our neighbors. We love the local restaurants. We love the festivals/events. We love our church. We love the future that we believe Jackson can have.

We chose to live here to be part of a movement … moving Jackson forward. We don’t want to leave the city. So, how can we partner together, with you to help Jackson—all of Jackson?

Together, I hope we can make …

Last weekend, I happened by local television news and saw a report about Madison police officers going on a high-speed chase through the streets of Jackson—because of a problem that happened in the Target in Jackson, ending in a crash that seriously injured a bystander. Huh?

Also, looking at the website of the Starkville Daily News on Feb. 21, I had seen a short news report about Starkville police pursuing two teenagers through the streets of Starkville ending in a two-car collision. What were they charged with? "[S]uspicion of felony fleeing law enforcement officers." Huh? Starkville police pursued people in a dangerous chase that could injure or kill bystanders -- to charge them with fleeing? Why were they pursuing them in the first place, Daily News? (We're going to ask.)

The JFP has long reported about dangerous police chases, often in pursuit of non-violent criminals. Some of those chases end in serious injury or death. See this extensive report on the problem: "Code Blue: Police Pursuits Cost a Life a Day". It always amazes me that residents don't get more outraged (until one of their family members is killed) at these dangerous chases. And, even more startling, is how few questions local media often ask about the necessity of the chases.

I was pleased to see this release from the Jackson Police Department (which seems to have matured on this issue over the years). JPD is asking serious questions about why Madison police were engaged in dangerous pursuits outside their jurisdiction. Here is the statement, verbatim:

On February 23, 2014, the Madison Police Department engaged in a hot pursuit chase in that began in the Jackson city limits. Based on the information compiled by the Jackson Police Department, an alleged incident occurred at the Target Store in Jackson and outside the jurisdiction of the Madison Police Department. According to the incident reports Madison Police Officers engaged in a high chase pursuit without the authority or assistance of the Jackson Police Department. The Madison officers had no arrest powers for an alleged crime that occurred in the city of Jackson. There was no request for assistance to investigate a crime in Jackson. The officers only contacted JPD after they were already on scene at the Target Store and pursued a high speed chase.

The Jackson Police Department policy regarding high chase pursuits takes into consideration the inherent dangers of high speed chases on the public thoroughfares. The facts that have been presented to date did not show that a criminal act occurred that would justify a high speed chase. As a result of the action taken, at least one innocent by-stander was seriously injured. As a result of the actions taken by the Madison police officers, the Jackson Police Department has solicited the Mississippi Bureau of Investigations (MBI) to conduct an independent investigation. Public safety in the City of Jackson is this Department’s ultimate concern and responsibility. We encourage the assistance of other agencies but only within the …