Nicholson ethics complaint settled

Watkins is no more a thief than you are a genius. Why are you proving you're an idiot by posting such a stupid statement when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about? Never mind, the answer to that is abundantly clear.

You obviously have a personal dislike of Lamar Watkins and are making slanderous public comments that you have absolutely NO proof for.

And since you aren't bright enough to understand basic common sense, let me explain it to you: Watkins was NOT accused of breaking ANY LAWS. All accusations were of an ETHICAL nature.

This entire episode has been based on emotion and personal dislike and has NOTHING to do with ethics nor breaking the law.

I don't like Lamar Watkins at ALL, NOR do I like Ronnie Maxwell, but I'm am disgusted with this farce!

But the plain FACTS are:
1) There were no valid ethics ordinances in place at the time of any of these transactions and none of the paperwork presented to the public has ANY INDICATION THAT THE MONEY MUST ONLY HAVE BEEN USED BY DRIVING YOUR OWN CAR.
2) Even the current ordinances don't SPECIFY that you must DRIVE YOUR OWN CAR, which makes ALL OF THE ACCUSATIONS COMPLETELY INVALID. (And even IF the current ordinances DID MENTION driving your own car, they can NOT be used retroactively to punish someone for something that happened BEFORE THE ORDINANCES WERE EVEN ON THE BOOKS!)
3) Watkins DID spend at least a portion of the money FOR CITY AUTHORIZED TRAVEL (by giving money to the councilman that he rode with) for travel expenses, which even the CURRENT ordinances allow!
4) NONE of the OTHER councilmen have publicly explained EXACTLY HOW THEY SPENT ALL OF THEIR expense money. (And remember, Watkins DID provide money to another councilman for the trips.) NONE of the OTHER COUNCILMEN have been ASKED TO REFUND any money, EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER COUNCILMAN WATKINS RODE WITH RECEIVED MONEY FROM WATKINS FOR TRIP EXPENSES, so HE should have had money left over! Watkins HAS BEEN SINGLED OUT FOR ALL OF THIS.
5) These accusations were brought up by Mayor Maxwell BEFORE Faye Seagraves was EVEN ON THE CITY COUNCIL, and was made an issue by HIM (to several people, most notibly Seagraves, who has now made it her goal in life to embarrass the citizens of Nicholson by forcing this issue in an attempt to make trouble for Lamar Watkins for purely personal reasons!)
6) Ronnie Maxwell and Lamar Watkins have well known personal dislike for each other and have had these bad feelings for YEARS.

These are all well known FACTS that can be PROVEN, unlike YOUR BASELESS SLANDER.

Regardless of personal dislikes, the FACTS show that this has been nothing but a "witch hunt" and has only served to further the personal goals of certain people who dislike Lamar Watkins, at the expense of the public embarrassment of the citizens of Nicholson.

So there they are, the dirty little FACTS, FINALLY, put out there for everyone to SEE.

But since YOU decided to make this personal, let me add this, since Watkins is facing Maxwell for Nicholson mayor: In my OPINION, as BAD of a mayor as MAXWELL is, Watkins would be even WORSE. God help us all.

Actually he didn't ask for a reimbursement. The money was given to the city councilmen before the trip. They were paid in advance.

Second, and keep in mind, I'm NOT trying to cause trouble for any of the other coucilmen, BUT...it didn't take all of that money to cover the travel expenses for the trips in question, so each of the councilmen should have had money left over, but I have not heard a single person ask any of the other councilmen to give any of the excess, unspent money back...and, it is on record that the councilman that Watkins rode with received money from Watkins which was then used to pay expenses for the trips (which was what it was for!), so THAT councilman should have had EVEN MORE MONEY LEFT OVER, yet he was NOT asked to refund ANY money. Once again, ONLY WATKINS has been SINGLED OUT. And the accusation was that Watkins did not "drive his own car". Keep that in mind. The entire complaint hinges on the fact that Watkins didn't DRIVE and didn't drive his own personal vehicle! The accusation was not that he didn't make the trip, not that he used a city vehicle, not that he spent the money for non-trip related items, the accusation was that he didn't drive his own car!

No, I'm not a relative of Watkins, and honestly we don't really like each other.

I AM the kind of person who doesn't like this kind of PETTY, PERSONAL infighting to be done in the NAME of "being ethical". I would be just as upset about this injustice, regardless of who was being accused. IF other councilmen had been included in the request for refunds, and then accused of not refunding the money (keep in mind, ALL of the city councilmen and the mayor SHOULD also have had EXCESS FUNDS which were NOT ASKED TO BE REFUNDED!), and ONE councilman had NOT been singled out, then I would have NO problem with this.

As I stated in my original reply to a message which has now been removed, I don't really care for any of the people involved. But for someone to use ETHICS as the basis to attack a political rival (who is no more guilty of doing what he was accused of than anyone else on the city council) is blatantly unethical. The very act of the accusation is a patently unethical attack. I find that offensive.

Was anything unethical done? Possibly so, but if it was, then Watkins is not the only one "guilty" of poor ethics.

And, yes, I do have "a dog in this fight". That "dog" is the reputation of the town of Nicholson. It would do well for the mayor and city council to keep in mind that they are slinging mud all over the entire town, not just the people that they have hard feelings toward.

Frankly, the best thing for the citizens of Nicholson is to have the city charter disolved and allow the "city" to revert to being a part of Jackson County so this kind of thing can't happen again. The "city" does not provide anything that the county doesn't already do better and the city actually relies on county employees for almost everything that is REALLY important (such as law enforcement), with the exception of the city right of ways and maintenance. Even the Nicholson Water Authority would be better managed if it were absorbed by the county water authority.