Wednesday, March 07, 2012

March 7, 2012 LeBel Five Reject FOURTEENTH MUC Nominee Banker Joel Hice

MUC sent its FOURTEENTH list of three names to Mayor Thomas as qualified candidates for the MUC Board of Commissioners: Jo Ervin, Joel Hice, George McGuffin.

Yesterday, Mayor Thomas submitted the name of Joel Hice from that list to council for approval or disapproval. Hice is a local banker.

Paul LeBel immediately moved to "reject" Hice's appointment. Bob Garrett, 42-year former employee of MUC, seconded the motion. The LeBel Five (LeBel, Garrett, Senter, Jinks, and Bivens) then voted to reject Hice.

Mayor Thomas and Gene Brooks supported Hice.

This is the FOURTEENTH person that has been on an MUC list and whose name has been submitted to council by the Mayor for appointment to the MUC Board who has been quickly rejected by council. The nominees include bankers, contractors, former councilmembers, plant managers, businessmen, CPAs, engineers, etc. 

What do the LeBel Five think is wrong with these fourteen people who have all been vetted and selected BY MUC?

These fourteen are not George McGuffin, so they are automatically rejected. George McGuffin, who has been on the MUC Board for over 34 years, has made it clear that he wants to hang on to what has become the "McGuffin seat.".

Let's see if the "news"paper asks Joel Hice if he is disappointed in being rejected by five councilmembers?  Was Joel asked to be cannon fodder for rejection by the LeBel Five or did Joel volunteer to take one "for the team"?  What about the 13 other rejectees? What were they told by MUC Commissioners before their names were submitted to the Mayor?

And what about the MUC Board? Are they concerned or secretly happy about the rejection of the FOURTEENTH person whose name THEY submitted to the Mayor?  The members, other than George McGuffin, are Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery.

Are the LeBel Five and the MUC Board just waiting for the McGuffin Law to be passed in the state legislature to let the LeBel Five override the votes of the 3,202 people (72% of voters) who approved and put the current appointment process in place in 2001 in a referendum?

No comments: