OM called out by ethics commission

[Boodawg]

http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/201...e-miss-to.html

Sorry, I should've mentioned this is letter from the MEC to OM.

[Leroy Jenkins]

What does the last sentence of the article mean to you?


"Ethics Commission opinions are not binding and carry no force of law."

https://t.co/DVZtUFW0dz?amp=1

[LockeDawg]

The "Ethics Commission" is basically a flaccid, impotent organization?

If their opinions are not binding and carry no force of law what purpose do they serve?

[yjnkdawg]

What does the last sentence of the article mean to you?


"Ethics Commission opinions are not binding and carry no force of law."





https://t.co/DVZtUFW0dz?amp=1

I think it is just what it said is. That is an opinion. I think an actual ruling would have more teeth. However, if it doesn't and OM doesn't have to comply with the Ms Public Records Act, then that should set a precedent for other State agenciies to follow, if they so wished, in their complying with public records' requests. In other words pick and chose what you want to release.

[yjnkdawg]

If the Ms Public Records Act is enforced then these redaction requests are laughable. There are very few records that are exempt under that act. Now if a State agency had KFC's secret recipe then that would be exempt under the act. If Mr. Booster plays no part in the records that were requested, then his name could be redacted under the act. However, if that's not the case, then redaction is not allowed under that act(law).

[spbdawg]

#

[confucius say]

Am I the only one that thinks this is a big deal? The thread title should be renamed. We were aware of the ruling on redaction, but this is the first I've seen of the ethics commission ruling that OM violated the public records act by not producing the noa AND that directing delivery to out of state counsel is not an end run around the act. The commission ruled OM violated the act by doing so! There should be an article in every paper and on every site about this. They knew exactly what they were doing and just got their butt called out by the ethics commission! A state university just knowingly violated state law to protect its crooked boosters. Infuriates me that this isn't on every headline.

[confucius say]

What does the last sentence of the article mean to you?


"Ethics Commission opinions are not binding and carry no force of law."

https://t.co/DVZtUFW0dz?amp=1

It simply means the commission is not a court of law and their opinion is not binding in a court of law. Just like an attorney general written opinion.

[Political Hack]

A state institution isn't going to disobey a standing committee of congress. An individual may, but it's not up to them whether it's released. It's up to a state funded school that relies on the MS legislature to get funding.

[confucius say]

See my post in the other thread entitled question about ethics commission. Mods should merge the two threads and rename it OM called out by ethics commission

[yjnkdawg]

An ethics commission opinion is not law Rosebowl did not ask for an opinion. He asked for an enforcement action which is binding.

I'm aware that an opinioni is not law. That's what I said in another post. Rosebowl apparenly agreed, as well as the Ethic's Commision Attorney (I would imagine) on the method of release proposed by the OM Attorney. Therefore, I do not see where he was pushing further for enforcement action. If he had then he would not have agreed to this method of release. I think he just wanted the documents to finally be released.

[Liverpooldawg]

A state institution isn't going to disobey a standing committee of congress. An individual may, but it's not up to them whether it's released. It's up to a state funded school that relies on the MS legislature to get funding.

I agree. Then again, this IS Ole Miss we are talking about.

[preachermatt83]

Rose bowl should get some kind of award when all this is over.

[PassInterference]

Rose bowl should get some kind of award when all this is over.

Yes. Rosebowl has grinded mighty hard for our state.

[Mimi's Babies]

An ethics commission opinion is not law Rosebowl did not ask for an opinion. He asked for an enforcement action which is binding.

https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/4r9...882d77f11b.jpg
Page 9 of 9 paragraph 1 line 3 and following

Should OM decided NOT to follow THEIR agreed statement that they sent to the MS Ethic's Commission then there will be a Hearing that date is set for
June 27, 2017, 10:00 am.

I do find it interesting that the Commission felt/found it necessary to go forward with setting a day for a hearing....

My question -- is that hearing open to the public or not?

[Mimi's Babies]

I think it is just what it said is. That is an opinion. I think an actual ruling would have more teeth. However, if it doesn't and OM doesn't have to comply with the Ms Public Records Act, then that should set a precedent for other State agenciies to follow, if they so wished, in their complying with public records' requests. In other words pick and chose what you want to release.

??? I have been reading the Preliminary Report and Recommendation pages 4,5,6 and following.....

1.11 5/12/2017 = paragraph Since Um..... have WANED.....

I have a few questions:
1. IF the boosters had gone through their foundation to donate "legal" money/money donated in the correct process... Then would have those names been listed in the NOA?
2. Page 4 1.11 5/12/2017 = paragraph Since Um..... have WANED..... Is OM powers at be throwing the boosters under the boat?


Interesting reading
Page 7 2.10 -- ..... The public has a keen interest in the university's operations.....
Page 8 2.11 -- legitimate public concern-- out ways privacy....

[gravedigger]

??? I have been reading the Preliminary Report and Recommendation pages 4,5,6 and following.....

1.11 5/12/2017 = paragraph Since Um..... have WANED.....

I have a few questions:
1. IF the boosters had gone through their foundation to donate "legal" money/money donated in the correct process... Then would have those names been listed in the NOA?
2. Page 4 1.11 5/12/2017 = paragraph Since Um..... have WANED..... Is OM powers at be throwing the boosters under the boat?


Interesting reading
Page 7 2.10 -- ..... The public has a keen interest in the university's operations.....
Page 8 2.11 -- legitimate public concern-- out ways privacy....

No, this is posturing. Someone is scared of losing profits. Anyone who is named had better hope losing all Non om fans is acceptable.

I'm afraid most don't care about the criminal element. The ethical is another story.

One other note: would boosters really care to make this much of a deal if they thought this would blow over with a missed bowl and a couple bad press weeks?

I think not.

[spbdawg]

#

[Mimi's Babies]

No, this is posturing. Someone is scared of losing profits. Anyone who is named had better hope losing all Non om fans is acceptable.

I'm afraid most don't care about the criminal element. The ethical is another story.

One other note: would boosters really care to make this much of a deal if they thought this would blow over with a missed bowl and a couple bad press weeks?

I think not.

Thanks Gravedigger....
I foresee the MS Income tax folks and the IRS coming to call at certain business, homes, etc....
This mess really tanks OM as a 501(c)3....

[yjnkdawg]

Rose bowl should get some kind of award when all this is over.

Totally agree