According to this new ad, taxpayers are footing the bill for Chief Justice Jim Smith's commute to work in the morning. I'll admit, the chair doesn't bother me that much, but the commute - that infuriates me.
It's designed for justices who live outside the immediate vicinity -- say the far north part of the state or the coastal area -- and have to either do a great deal of traveling or maintain a second resident.
But the way the law is written, he's taking advantage of the language and accepting this per diem just to drive back and forth to work -- from Brandon to Jackson.
(By the way... we didn't put out this ad. Not sure who did.)
Sam Hall Campaign Manager Committee to Elect Jim Kitchens
Thanks, your explanation lends credibility to the commercial.
The chair, while pricey, is not that big of a deal. I don't expect our justices to buy chairs from Office Depot. I also am glad the State is investing in a quality justice building. Our "New" Capitol is a testament why this is a good thing.
For the record, I also think the Chief Justice has done some good things administratively during his tenure.
The mileage is nitpicky. I am sure he does a good bit of traveling in his official capacity, and he should be reimbursed for that. However, Brandon to Jackson, if true, should be on his own nickel.
Is this a reason to vote for Kitchens - not really. But it is good to know that Kitchens didn't put out that terrible commercial and isn't making this campaign about who screws the State in expense reimbursements.
And while I'm typing, I'm not crazy about attacks on Justices for specific votes. Even though I wouldn't vote for Oliver Diaz under any circumstances, taking cases out of context repulses me. Diaz, though acquitted, has character flaws that I cannot tolerate. Justices cannot let the end justify the means. They need to follow the law. Outcome should only be determined once the law is applied to the facts.
Do all of the justices get a stipend for gas? or a Car? Or does just the Chief get this perk?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, but this would make a difference in my mind.
It's designed for justices who live outside the immediate vicinity -- say the far north part of the state or the coastal area -- and have to either do a great deal of traveling or maintain a second resident.
ReplyDeleteBut the way the law is written, he's taking advantage of the language and accepting this per diem just to drive back and forth to work -- from Brandon to Jackson.
(By the way... we didn't put out this ad. Not sure who did.)
Sam Hall
Campaign Manager
Committee to Elect Jim Kitchens
Thanks, your explanation lends credibility to the commercial.
ReplyDeleteThe chair, while pricey, is not that big of a deal. I don't expect our justices to buy chairs from Office Depot. I also am glad the State is investing in a quality justice building. Our "New" Capitol is a testament why this is a good thing.
For the record, I also think the Chief Justice has done some good things administratively during his tenure.
The mileage is nitpicky. I am sure he does a good bit of traveling in his official capacity, and he should be reimbursed for that. However, Brandon to Jackson, if true, should be on his own nickel.
Is this a reason to vote for Kitchens - not really. But it is good to know that Kitchens didn't put out that terrible commercial and isn't making this campaign about who screws the State in expense reimbursements.
And while I'm typing, I'm not crazy about attacks on Justices for specific votes. Even though I wouldn't vote for Oliver Diaz under any circumstances, taking cases out of context repulses me. Diaz, though acquitted, has character flaws that I cannot tolerate. Justices cannot let the end justify the means. They need to follow the law. Outcome should only be determined once the law is applied to the facts.
Good luck in the homestretch. RPP