Jackson Free Press

Immediately following a Jackson City Council work session in January, Mississippi Link publisher/owner Socrates Garrett was all smiles. Council President Marshand Crisler had informed him that it was looking like the council was going to vote to award him the city's legal ads. The Link bid $5 for a 100-word ad published three times—the lowest-cost bid submitted this year.

The council later voted 5-to-1 to accept Garrett's bid, giving a nice economic boost to one of the city's minority-owned newspapers.

Weeks later, though, Jackson Mayor Frank Melton said he would veto the council's decision and recommend giving the contract to The Clarion-Ledger.

"It's the right thing to do for the taxpayers," Melton told The Clarion-Ledger, arguing that the ads would gain more exposure in the daily, which has a statewide circulation of almost 100,000, compared to the Link's reported circulation of 4,000.

Melton's decision could be the first step in a new bout of legal wrangling that has scarred the city's legal bid process in the past.

For countless years the simple process of awarding bids to the lowest bidder has been everything but simple. Many papers successfully landing the contract from the council in the past have had to call out the lawyers to keep rival papers from successfully contesting the council's decision.

"These things have rarely been done and over with a simple vote," says Ward 7 Councilwoman Margaret Barrett Simon. "There is a fight usually. It's sad, really."

Most recently, the state Supreme Court upheld the council's original decision in 2002 to hand the contract to The Clarion-Ledger after lower courts agreed with Jackson Advocate attorneys that The Clarion-Ledger's Focus section did not qualify as a separate newspaper unto itself and was, thus, ineligible to carry the $50,000 ads.

The Advocate was also a bitter contestant for the ads in 1998, when it argued with the council's decision that year to award the contract to the Link. One bid requirement is that the applicant have paid circulation. The Advocate argued that the Mississippi Link, which lists a fee of 50 cents on its front page, was actually a free weekly.

The Hinds County Circuit Court agreed that the Link was not qualified, but ignored the Advocate and awarded the contract to the Northside Sun, which was the second-lowest bidder. The Sun, which distributes mostly to North Jackson and nearby suburbs, contested the council's 1995 decision to award the contract to the Advocate.

All the papers involved in the squabble, including the Sun, the two black papers and, increasingly, various sections of The Clarion-Ledger, are also distributed for free in racks and boxes and even "forced circulation," which in The Clarion-Ledger's case means dropping several copies in yards in certain neighborhoods of the city. The trend in the newspaper industry, over all, is toward free circulation—because, increasingly, younger people are not willing to pay for newspapers in the Internet age.

The Association of Alternative Newsweeklies Executive Director Richard Karpel said the trend has been growing since the early 1970s of newspapers switching to free circulation products. "And even recently the trend has been moving into mainstream papers," Karpel said. "A lot of the large daily newspaper companies started (free) 'youth oriented' tabloids as advertisers recognize the importance of that market."

Following modern trends, the Jackson Free Press is distributed through "controlled circulation," meaning free-but-audited distribution of 15,000 issues with readership of nearly 40,000 in the Jackson metro, according to the 2005 national Media Audit survey.

While council members prepare for a veto override, the contract will remain with the last contract winner, The Clarion-Ledger.

Garrett's attorney Dorsey Carson Jr. said the contract had no legal reason for dispute. "The mayor stated on record that his veto was because it would be better in a paper of mass circulation. Well, he specifically said he wants it in The Clarion-Ledger, but to me there's no clearer breach of the statute than to say he wants it to go to a specific paper. This was the council's decision. Not the mayor's."

Garrett said vindictiveness fuels the mayor's decision.

"The mayor does not want anybody who had any support for (former Mayor) Harvey Johnson to have any work with the city," Garrett said. "I doubt the mayor is really making this decision for the betterment of the city. If the Link gets the bids, companies will know to look in my paper for the ads, or they'll subscribe to it or buy it off the stand or just go to our Web site and read it for free, because they'll be posted on our Web site just like they would be posted on the Clarion-Ledger."

Melton also said The Clarion-Ledger is published online and would reach more viewers through the Internet, saying online publishing would be critical to the city in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Garrett contested that argument. "If you want to look at the limitless circulation involved in online publication, you could say we're the same size as The Clarion-Ledger," Garrett said. "This is nothing but personal."

Barrett Simon said she "could see how Garrett would feel that way."

"The statute calls for the lowest bid. It doesn't say anything about the best bid," Barrett Simon said. "We voted for the lowest bid. The council tried to do what was right."

Other people contracted or employed by the city have called Melton's interference in city contract awards and firings "personal."

Last month, Southeastern Consulting Group Inc. President James Covington, also an avid Johnson supporter in the last election, accused Melton of canceling an extension of the city's communications tower upkeep contract with his company out of vengeance.

"There's no question that this man is capable of vindictiveness," Covington said last month.

Previous Commentsshow

i don't know about this. Is it really believed that a grudge against a former mayor would be the only reason for this? As have been mentioned before, circulation is a issue for the Mississippi Link. In fact, downtown there are only three places you can get the Link, two of which is in hotels. Business is one thing, but to put all of this on a man just being vindictive just for the sake of doing it is a serious charge.

c a webb

Feb 23 2006

I tend to agree, C.A., that the Link isn't widely read or circulated. I also don't think the legal ads belong in papers that focus on one race (Link, Advocate) or the other (Sun). However, the law is written to indicate that the lowest bid gets it. Sounds like the law might be the problem. However, I do believe that Mr. Melton will go to great lengths to punish his critics. There is evidence of that everywhere.

DonnaLadd

Feb 23 2006

Donna you're right: the law is the issue. (And of course I don't like the race being a consideration either.) Covington and Garrett---if they have a problem with the Melton reaction---should focus on what the law says and leave it at that. If they feel as though he is making it personal or political, that should give them even more reason to keep their comments above the fray.

c a webb

Feb 23 2006

C.A., you need to understand the context here. Mr. Melton has already canceled Mr. Covington's contract. During the campaign, he called him a "convicted drug dealer" (which he isn't). He has made no secret about his disdain for these men who supported his opponents. Likewise, Mr. Melton has outright lied about the JFP and people who work here numerous times in public, sometimes bizarrely so. I don't believe, based on Mr. Melton's own actions and words, that it is below the fray to accuse him of being vindictive. He is. And why is he so set here on vetoing this contract, being that the council did what law requires? If he wants to change the law to require a better demographic spread or a greater reach, he should work to change the law.

DonnaLadd

Feb 23 2006

Donna, we all know why he is canceling all these contracts. he is trying to destroy all the good will Harvey Johnson garnerned during his reign. He opened doors to some quality minorities who had not been given a chance to show what they could do. Melton isn't through yet if he finds anyone who supported Johnson he will do everything he can to cut them down. I hope those persons who supported him really feel good about themselves now. Parker-Weaver making 70,000,00 what a joke. For what???

jada

Feb 24 2006

IS THE MISSISSIPPI LINK GROWING IN CIRCULATION? I was visiting family in Brandon today and was surprised to see The Mississippi Link newspaper at the Kroger in Brandon! Wow! This was surprising to me, seeing that the paper is only available in a few locations in downtown Jackson. I guess that is an indicator that they are stepping up in the circulation department.

c a webb

Feb 24 2006

The City Council failed to override Melton's veto on this yesterday. Interestingly, The Ledge story today admits how small its own circulation is in the city of Jackson: The Link has a circulation of roughly 4,000. The Clarion-Ledger has a circulation of roughly 100,000 - about 22,000 inside the city limits. No surprises here, but I'm not sure I've seen them say this publicly before. To my thinking, it explains a lot about why the paper dumps on Jackson so hard. Of course, its dumping on Jackson so hard is probably part of the reason so few Jacksonians read The Clarion-Ledger.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

It also explains why the Ledge is chopping itself up into pitiful little pieces and throwing piles of unwanted publications in our yards -- to try to force more Jacksonians onto its circulation roles. Of course, they would never think of doing better journalism in their main newspaper. That might offend the more than 75 percent of their readership outside Jackson, eh? Corporate schmucks.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

This section of today's Ledge story also intrigues me: Council President Marshand Crisler called for the vote because he disagreed with the mayor's reasons for rejecting the Link's contract. Crisler said state law governing legal advertising contracts requires the council to choose the lowest bid. The Link's bid was lower by a rate of 10 cents per 100-word ad printed three times. State law also prohibits the council from excluding a paper based on its circulation, said Dorsey Carson, attorney for the Link. Pieter Teeuwissen, special assistant to the city attorney, said the mayor has the legal authority to void any council decisions. "All city actions are subject to the mayor's veto," he said. OK, if state law saws you have to take the lowest bid, and if Carson is right that you cannot exclude a paper based on its circulation under state law ... how is the city attorney's statement logical (or legal) that Melton can veto anything he wants? Even if it violates state law? This is making my brain hurt. Of late, it seems we're earning our low literacy (and education) reputation -- at least based on the rhetoric coming out of the mayor's office. I'm embarrassed for us. This kind of crap makes us look like a bunch of uneducated hicks. If you don't like the state law, go lobby to change it, but don't talk like fools, people.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

Ben, I see you online right now. What was your reasoning for supporting Mr. Melton's veto of this? Are we missing something in the statute? Again, I know very few people who read the Link, so I'm not defending them. But it seems like this comes down to a question of law. Help?

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

Anything I put in public about this vote, I will be seeing again in court, so I can not get too detailed with my comments, but suffice it to say that I an comfortable with the legal standing behind my vote the first time (5-1) and the override attempt (3-3). Our legal team (the City) told us from the start that either way the vote went, that they felt they had a "completely defensible" position, and to vote our convictions as determined by the law. The law is intentionally vague in this argument, which is the reason that we have had lawsuit after lawsuit filed after ANY decision we make on these "legal ads". Hearing all the arguments and knowing that each time a "smaller" newspaper won these contracts (Northside Sun, Advocate, Link), that the City ran a quietly produced "duplicate" ad in the Clarion Ledger ANYWAY (circulations required to meet Federal standards for ALL water/sewer public projects and MANY other large contracts) at the expense of the taxpayers (and unbeknownst to taxpayers), I voted as I did the first time and am proud of my vote then and now. Also the question begging for an answer in this debate as to which newspaper was truly the best forum for the City's business (if BOTH, you are advised have a "legal claim" to being "lowest") is this: If you were selling your home, or searching for a kidnapped child, and both papers were regarded equal on legal standings, which venue would YOU use, the Clarion or one of the "smaller" issues? (Sidebar: the "lowest" arguments to be debated in court with a myriad of contingencies and considerations) You bring up a good point about changing the law, however in this case it is not a State law, but a local City ordinance that can be changed. In my opinion, this City ordinance was written as it now is to level the "bidding field" between the State's largest newspaper and the "locals", without regard to what is best serving the taxpayers. Other reasons (of which there are many) will become public after this suit is filed, but rest assured, for these same reasons that I cannot elaborate on, would have been used by Gannett had tha vote gone the other way. Uneducated hicks?....Ouch. We just study the issues and do the best we can with what we have and hope in the end, we do the right thing a whole lot more times than the other way around.

Ben Allen

Feb 25 2006

Well, my first response is that I'm bit astounded that you put that much trust in the city's current legal team. They seem to be rubberstamping whatever Mr. Melton wants. Also, if guaranteeing a lawsuit will get you guys to keep your mouths' shut, then the mayor may be tempted to create some more. (I don't expect you to respond to that.) As I've said, I'm not defending the Link's right to have the contract -- I certainly see the point about their limited reach -- but this whole thing seems very odd as presented. How did it get this far without changing the law first? My other question is how important is it to have a "statewide" circulation for the legal ads? Your point is very interesting about the "duplicate" ads; I want to know more about that and, frankly, that should be public record regardless of lawsuits. So, cough it up! ;-) I also see that, at least before we came along, the choices were vastly different: The Ledger, and then the small papers focused on specific neighorhoods (and, frankly, only one race). And I don't know that we would even want the legal ads if we qualify! But, this still smells strongly like Mr. Melton carrying out yet another "vendetta" (note how many times that word comes up in connection with his name) against an opponent. Again, change the law if it doesn't make sense. The "hicks" comment is directly to the apparent idiocy of the attorney's quote that I listed above. Are we really dumb enough to believe that the mayor can veto anything he wants, regardless of law?

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

Although unreported, this new legal team is making some great strides. We just had a inherited $450k judgement....JUDGEMENT....overturned on appeal and several other bits of good news abounding, most notably the "pro-bono" agreement between our City and several renowned local law firms to represent the City at no coIt (and will illuminate the highlights when i have more time...I have a wedding party to host in a bit). Federal law dictates certain standards of reportability and circulation and local papers cannot meet these standards for any of the "GOZONE" or "Post-Katrina" cleanup detail. Ads in any local paper would have to be "re-purchased" ....dupilcated....for these City "bids". The Mayor was aware of this when he made his decision. Not speaking for him, just the messenger. I do not feel this had anything to do with any "vendetta". Mr. Garrett, who did everything under the sun for the Johnson administration (from hauling garbage to managing the Airport restaurants), will probably disagree. This statement by Peiter Teewiensen (a former trial lawyer...and damn good...with Merrida Coxwell of Byron de LaBeckwith fame) was taken TOTALLY out of context. We had hours of closed sessions on this issue.

Ben Allen

Feb 25 2006

Oh, BTW...."Free" newspapers are now not allowed in this process. We will be changing this ordinance I am sure. We can look at that stipulation as well. I will bet you that you have 5 times the "readership" of the "Mississippi Link".

Ben Allen

Feb 25 2006

OK, from the top: It cannot be reported that the legal team is making great strides -- even if people won't talk about the city's accomplishments. I have heard this rumor (legal victories), but no one will go on record to talk about it; thus, it could conjecture for all I know. One of the bizarre things about this city administration is that it seems to be unwilling to sing its own praises -- that is, hide *everything*, including good stuff. But if this means you will go on record about it, then we'll do a story about the city's legal victories, so to speak. OK, your second paragraph: You're saying that federal law is dictating the reach of the city's legal notices? You might need to explain a bit better, so I understandn completely. And please share what those federal standards are. And are these ads that normally would be included in the city's legal notices, or special ads? I do not feel this had anything to do with any "vendetta". I don't know whether it does or not -- but to the general public, it can easily look that way, considering that the mayor seems to be targeting people who didn't support him. As I've said, he's told all sort of lies about my paper and my staff. It's very hard to trust someone like that. That brings me to ... This statement by Peiter Teewiensen (a former trial lawyer...and damn good...with Merrida Coxwell of Byron de LaBeckwith fame) was taken TOTALLY out of context. Yeah, I know his background. That's not relevant here. OK, out of context. Why is that exactly? Because the media lifted him out of context. Or, because ... We had hours of closed sessions on this issue. Why in HOLY HELL ARE YOU HAVING CLOSED SESSIONS ON THIS? Really, Ben. Why "closed sessions"? And if you are hiding information from the public in friggih' closed sessions, how in hell can you expect people not to make assumptions about what is going on??? Really, what is the basis for closed sessions here? The public wants to know. Happy wedding party. But then GET YOUR ASS BACK HERE and explain the closed sessions. With due respect. ;-D

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

Just saw your last post. I'm sure we have more than five times the readership of the Link. We have the highest weekly readership in Jackson. Remind me, and I'll trot out our Media Audit for you soon. I can even show you how we compare to WJNT, for giggles, not to mention how we compare to individual sections of the Ledge. And I can show you how a certain weekly's growth compares to the other media—one we're particularly proud of. ;-D Now. Back to those closed sessions.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

The closed sessions were to discuss the legal issues involving the selection of which vendor and the lawsuits past and present...literally... that we are enduring even as we speak. Gotta go...will be back.

Ben Allen

Feb 25 2006

OK go, but I still don't understand why they were closed. Lawsuits against the city should be open books, as should the "legal issues" themselves.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

Personnel and legal issues are exempt from"open meetings" statutes. I am glad they are. In fact, I wish we could close negotiation on some business meetings and some select other meetings as well. I know you, and the vast majority of your readers would disagree with that statement, but the quality and quantity of discussion/performance goes directly up with the knowledge and privacy of frank comment without the scrutiny of a press that usually doesn't give a sh!t about "the end game". They just want tomorrow's headline. Also in these "closed" meetings, the people that don't have a clue (catch my drift) are usually "quiet" because we have some frank, honest, open dialogue and decorum is kept, but lax as well, because no one is there to record the "in your face- you- uninformed- you- did- not- do- your homework- idiot" rebuttles they welcome. I know you are in HUGE DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS, and if I were where you were , I would as well but, I am not. Look at the issues of government and how the negotiations of a large project are "sound bite" to death mentality all along the way. The end game is lost because the "for the moment" press is really unconcerned except for tomorrow's story. Where was their "expertise" during the "Beef Plant" fiasco. Real loud now....too busy then.

Ben Allen

Feb 26 2006

Closed meetings are very important for certain issues, I'll agree with you there Councilman. However, the fact that you keep alluding to Mr. Garrett's professional business dealings is suspect. "I do not feel this had anything to do with any "vendetta". Mr. Garrett, who did everything under the sun for the Johnson administration (from hauling garbage to managing the Airport restaurants), will probably disagree." Allen What are you saying? Or just go ahead and say it. You did it on your radio show the other day and got called for it by a listener! I don't know him very well and don't know what all he does business'wise in Jackson. But, he is one of the good people in the town, and a business leader that is a good roll model. And if there is one thing this town needs, it is all the positive business role models we can get from all walks of life.

pikersam

Feb 26 2006

I have to agree with pike, Councilman. It sounds like you're trying to spread innuendo about Mr. Garrett. Either accuse him of something, or let that tactic go. This isn't trash radio. We'll argue more about closed meetings tomorrow. G'night.

DonnaLadd

Feb 26 2006

pikersham...I referred to Mr. Garrett's dealings with the City on Kim Wade's show, not mine but the point you are making is valid. I have, and do, support the theory and practice of "minority participation" guidelines, and am probably one of a handfull of Republicans that will confess to that. My problem is that there were a selected few that were "chosen" during the Johnson administration as being " qualified" as a "minority participant", no matter the issue or contract. Socrates was one of them. He acquired the management of a lucrative "Airport Restaurant" contract over a local (black) West Jackson Bar-b-q restauranteer- his only restaurant of record that we are aware of. We have 5 or 6 of the same cloth. If we were to bid toilet seats, they would get into the toilet seat business. Nothing done was illegal, but I do feel that the system was exploited, and this new administration has gone on record as opposing these "shell games". We have a number of white contracters who would set up companies "owned" by blacks but were NOT. They were set up this way, with an Administrative "wink", and would gain contracts under the guise of "minority participation". They were a "shell game". I have nothing against Mr. Garrett. He is a nice man. Ms. Barrett, whom I respect greatly, thinks the world of him. I do know that he had a "fortunate" set of circumstances then, and does not now, as the playing field is being leveled. Our City's prior "Project Manager", Mr. Andrew Jenkins was in a similar station in life. I could list several more, but won't. Talk to any contractor (who trusts you) in town about "contract procurement" in the City of Jackson in former days as it relates to "minority participation". Maybe you will agree or wink at what you hear...I won't. We want this system to work as it is intended.

Ben Allen

Feb 26 2006

I must agree with Webb and Ladd on this. You can use all of the legal justification that you want to, you can even make a point about our legal team winning a case (whew, finally we won one), but the fact remains that anyone or anything that happened during the Johnson era has been the focus of Melton's wrath. Rather than justify his actions, he will not return calls, nor show up for engagements, or simply just not look at the camera (Channel 3's bottom line). Before he became mayor he would look right at you (and lie), now he will not look at you (and lie), I am speaking of the promise that he made to solve crime in 90 days after taking office. Look at what he is doing to the man that was released from jail. He would not show the media the warrant that he supposedly had (just as he did not show us his homestead exemption papers when he was a candidate for office) for his arrest. Just a few days ago, I read that the city has stopped all overtime. Are the SWAT team getting paid OT? I didn't know that they had a regular job just to search out people that Frank thinks are dangerous. Councilman Allen, I see your point but in my opinion this is not just about the legalities, but also moral issues and working together. Melton reminds me of a quote that I heard in a movie, "Either roll with me, or get rolled over".

lance

Feb 26 2006

We have a number of white contracters who would set up companies "owned" by blacks but were NOT. They were set up this way, with an Administrative "wink", and would gain contracts under the guise of "minority participation". They were a "shell game". I'm curious: Is Mr. Melton et al just as determined to expose the contract procurement by white men who put their wives on there as the "minority" owner? We're hearing about more and more of these. Also, Ben, I'm not buying at all that this administration is trying to stop "games," shell or otherwise. I can believe that they are trying to stop "games" that helped their opponents, but I've never dealt with a more game-playin' bunch in my entire journalism career. Or a less accountable government than this one. On the "legal issues"-closed meeting front, you don't get to go into closed session simply because you're discussing the legality of something, or because you're afraid your words might be used against you. I respectfully suggest that y'all may not understand the spirit of sunshine laws. We need to start testing this much stronger, and will. This city is hiding way too much right now, including the Council, as far as I can see.

DonnaLadd

Feb 26 2006

Funny, several "minority" firms donated to Melton's campaign who do services for the city. Are we sure it just doesn't depend on "who" the minority is!?! Is there much "work" with the city right now Councilman? I seem to remember you and Councliman Crisler complaining on the radio shows that the weekly meetings have gone from having several pages of items to consider to just a few. You are right, it was Kim Wades show. You would have probably gotten away with taking a jab at Mr. Garrett on your show. ;-)

pikersam

Feb 26 2006

A few random comments/questions Usually I stay off threads and/or "post blocks" that address day-to-day Jackson politics, as I live 7 hours away by car. But a few things did catch my eye that are worthy of comment: The Ledge, Via Donna:The Link has a circulation of roughly 4,000. The Clarion-Ledger has a circulation of roughly 100,000 - about 22,000 inside the city limits. (Feb 25, 06 | 10:14 am) What are the comparable circulation figures for Mobile, Montgomery, Pensacola, Little Rock, Shreveport, Beaumont? Not necessarily for all those places, but the figures for a few of these cities' main dailies makes an interesting comparison. Ben:The law is intentionally vague in this argument, which is the reason that we have had lawsuit after lawsuit filed after ANY decision we make on these "legal ads". (Feb 25, 06 | 4:13 pm ) Philip: Wouldn't the courts interpret any ambiguous wording of the ordinance against the the city? If not all the time, to what degree and under which circumstances would this be the case? Re: Closed door. I can argue both sides of the issue as I imagine it to be. Suffice to say that closed and open meetings have the following traits, each of which is a pro for one and a con for the other: On one hand, closed meetings allows discussion of matters without media glare and grandstanding politicians. On the other hand, there is opportunity to work in ways against the public interest. For open meetings, it is essentially the reverse - open meetings often make politicians think twice before enacting a law citizens object to, but it encourages grandstanding and the local media twisting the meetings around into a circus.

Philip

Feb 26 2006

In the next few days, an announcement will be made....we are 95% there....of a very exciting "happening" which will be brought to Jackson soon. Negotiations have been going on for a while and if made public, because of the business venture involved, the deal could not be consummated. No "meetings" have been "illegal" (ie: in conflict with the law), but have occurred in secret. The players that are putting this together will never be made public and when public "debate/scrutiny" and the offical announcements are made, grandstanders will be everywhere. If not for the "secret behind the scenes grunt work", this proposal could not have happened, nor would we be as close to "a deal" as we are now. All business works this way....public or private.

Ben Allen

Feb 26 2006

All business works this way....public or private. This is not true, Ben. Many lawsuits have been lose because governments think they can hind behind a private company's desire to keep something secret. I've fought for years against governments that try to "cover up" business dealings with private enterprises. The truth is, the public has the right to be in on what is being offered in advance of decisions being made. And just because it's been done this way because no one has challenged it does not make it right. We will come after y'all for violations of the public trust, including hiding vital information from the public, and that's a promise. What you just said is *very* disturbing to me—that "the players" will never be made public. That sounds very much like a violation of the public trust to me. I don't give a damn how hard anybody worked on it. The public has the right to know.

DonnaLadd

Feb 26 2006

Socrates, glad to see you here. I would love to see you respond to some of Councilman Allen's comments above on this thread that concern you. I was going to have Adam call you Monday and ask you to come here and respond. So please do. I'd really like to see reasonable dialogue about this issue with all the parties involved here, especially since it seems that the city has been hiding some of the details about all this in "closed session."

DonnaLadd

Feb 26 2006

Donna I am enjoying the debate I am certain the Mayor and Councilman Ben Allen are in agreement on how to handle an uppidity black who thinks he can own and run several businesses and worst yet run them well with an excellent reputation for delivery of goods and services. I can't talk to much because we will see both of them in court as you might imagine

mslink

Feb 27 2006

"How to handle an uppity black"...... Socrates, I don't know you well but from what I had heard about you, I thought you were more enlightened and mature than a comment of that tone . Live and learn..

Ben Allen

Feb 27 2006

I will say that response mirrors one of Mr. Melton's favorite comments when he's criticized—which Mr. Allen ought to have the same response to as he does to Mr. Garrett. Mr. Garrett, I kinda doubt that the reasoning in this particular case is that -- it's more like that you should not have supported his opponent. Mr. Melton seems rather colorblind in his approaches to punishing critics.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2006

I'm referring to the "uppity black" response, btw, if that's not clear.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2006

I'd also remind you councilman that you've done some less-than-enlightened things yourself, as we've discussed recently on the first Spike blog. Mr. Garrett feels beleaguered right now after Council backed down on its first vote under fire from Mr. Melton. I suspect he might say some things he wouldn't normally. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it, and encourage him not to use the same kinds of excuses that Mr. Melton does when criticized.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2006

DL, don't be to disturbed about Socrates "uppity black " response you just need to walk in his shoes for a day and you would understand. Ben knows the truth but will never admit to it. He knows what almost happened to Andrew Jenkins during the Johnson administration when he first began to do business with the city. All you have to do is check the tone of Ben's responses to the issues and you can tell where his loyalty lies. Time to leave.

jada

Feb 28 2006

I agree, Jada, Ben's tone bothers me here, too. It's very disrespectful for reasons that aren't apparent to me. However, I still say that the argument that Mr. Melton, at least, is screwing Mr. Garrett because he is an "uppity black" doesn't quite ring true to me. Mr. Melton certainly knows enough uppity blacks, and I believe he is willing to screw those he doesn't like (or who don't support them). But I don't think it's merely because they're uppity blacks. I think it's because they don't agree with Frank Melton.

DonnaLadd

Feb 28 2006