Thursday, January 29, 2009

Did Bad Larry Buffington Respond?

Some of the comments on Sid Salter's blog, seem to be an actual response from Judge Larry Buffington. Here are the statements by someone identifying theirself as "larrybuffington" as well as responses from Salter and others.

larrybuffington wrote:
sid, if you are going to criticize me, fine, but at least tell the people the truth. First, at least check the facts and don't assume. In order to run all courts in the state you have to have personnell. Up until last year we had a youth court public defender in all my counties. Because of the previous administrator she failed to fund the position without any discussion between me and the board. There was and is still an outstanding order to pay the previous public defender, a position that is a must since the law requires repesentation for those accused of a crime. Even though I could have forced them at that time I used who I could with the understanding that at the next budget year they would reinstate. When he court budget was prepared this was put in. They elected to not fund fullly even though they knew this had to be done to comply with the law to provide indigent represenation. Now you are crying that I am affecting the education of the children of Simpson County. You know full well that the board funds the school budget based on the schools request and the school board has to make the cuts from their budget from state provided funds not local funds. The schools will recieve the full amount they requested from the supervisors. If you would have checked you would also find that the Board budgeted itself funds for conferences that they go to. These are helpful, however, i am sure that if you check with the people of Simpson County they would rather make sure that delinquent children have representation so that i can do my job rather than have the supervisors go to conferences if their such a shortage. It is also strange to hear you question properly running a court when you have constatnly ranted about the appeal process on criminal cases because in the past the courts didn't have proper representation for defendants. You also would have found out that they did budget $2000 so the actual cost for the remainder of the budget year would only be ab [1/23/2009 2:10 PM CST]
larrybuffington wrote:
$2300. You also know that if Ed or i had got elected that the governor would have appointed(which you have constantly sought) for the remainder of the term. No special election-no costs to my counties. The only one who cost the taxpayers a dime extra was your candidate, Judge Carlton, since the governor had to call a special election, strange we heard nothing about this. Wonder why? If you disagree with a law, get changed like you did, but don't try to add untruths to your statements to rant against me. Finally I will again trust the people of the 13th district when election time comes. I feel sure that they will make their vote based on the job they feel I have done, thankfully, not on the opinion of a Jackson newspaper writer that doesn't tell it straight. They thankfully are smart enough to know fact from fiction and realize that I do care about doing my job right and if I had been elected they would not have had to pay for a do-over election. [1/23/2009 2:27 PM CST]
sid salter wrote:
LARRYBUFFINGTON — Running for two offices simultaneously is a lot different than running for higher office in a different branch of government when you have oneyear left in a term, as Virginia Carlton did. In order to make a valid comparison, Carlton would have had to have been running for the Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals in the same election on the same ballot as you did. She was in the third year of a legislative term and as you know, but ignore, the legislative and judicial elections are on different cycles. Your Chancery Court race and the Court of Appeals race were in the same cycle on the same ballot. You can compare your dual candidacy and Carlton's single candidacy until the cows come home, but it's certainly not a valid comparison. Running for two offices simultaneously is merely an indication that you somehow think the taxpayers owe you a living — just as you apparently also think that the taxpayers owe Justice Diaz another year on his state retirement. Is Diaz qualified? You bet. But should Simpson County voters who rejected him at the ballot box be forced to employ him because you want to help him complete his PERS years? Were there no Simpson County attorneys who could have done that part-time work in Simpson County?
larrybuffington wrote:
Sid, I agree that there is a difference in what I did and Carlton did. You still need to address why you told the people that I would have cost a special election when you knew different. Judges who are elevated are replaced by appointment. The reason I brought up Carlton is because to replace her did cause a special election and you seemed so concerned about the cost of special elections should I win and that it would be a disservice to he people of Simpson County. I was not trying to compare our candidacy just show the people to read this blog, that you were untruthfull about my causing a special election. I don't know where you get that I feel that the taxpayers owe me anything. The law allowed me to do what I did just like the law allowed Carlton to do what she did. If she had lost she still had a taxpayer job. Since the law has been changed concerning dual candidacy then maybe it should be changed to require elected officials who want to run for other offices that would require a special election should they win to resign so that the election could be at the same time. You also have not responded to why you would lead people to believe that I am taking money from the school budget when you know or should that the schools get their money at the start of the fiscal year and that the millage is set and can't be changed up or down. The only one cutting the budget is the state not the county. [1/26/2009 4:18 PM CST]
larrybuffington wrote:
As to the hiring of Oliver, yes there are Simpson County lawyers that are qualified and in fact I have 4 that do youth court jobs in other counties for me. Because of the makeup of the counties(rural) attorneys from other counties serve to fill the needed legal jobs in both chancery and circiut courts. In fact the two public defenders for Simpson County are not from Simpson County and they are paid nearly 15 times what Oliver makes. Also the previous County Administrator hire by the board did not live in Simpson County even though there are many qualified people. In fact I believe that today 3 people from Simpson County serve as County Administrators in other counties. I say this to point out that the people elect the officials and we make our decisions on who to hire. Of my people hired in my district for youth court positions 7 of 12 are from Simpson County. So as you can see the taxpayers of Simpson County receive more benefits than my other counties even though there are the same amount of jobs to run youth court in each county. And yes all of these individuals receive Pers benefits and yes I consider all of them freinds. With the requirements of youth court we depend on attorneys to work for a small amount of money each month and thankfully they are willing to give up the time from making money to help. Finally all of the people I hire I feel comfortable that they will do the job. Oliver is no different from the rest. If he is fortunate enough to finish out his Pers requirement then that is a small benefit for what he will be required to do. [1/26/2009 4:39 PM CST]
sidsalter wrote:
LARRYBUFFINGTON - The fact that the Legislature moved to outlaw dual candidacies, as you note, after your simultaneous races says all that needs to be said. The Legislature decided to take action to keep self-serving politicians from exploiting the previous law to their own benefit. Good for them.
And then here are a few comments responding to bad Larry Buffington, apart from Salter.

spencerg wrote:
Buffington's posts on this thread are prime examples of why he shouldn't be on ANY bench... not only are they full of spelling and punctuation errors but he also fails to answer the most telling question: Is Diaz qualified for this job or is this just political cronyism at work? Aside from being a disgraced former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice, does Diaz have any other pertinent qualifications... like a distinguished criminal law practice or any significant Youth Court experience in Harrison County?
skyClarence wrote:
Is that really Judge Buffington responding to this blog, or is someone impersonating him? Whoever it is sounds arrogant "my people" and "my counties" and "the people I hire." Does a Chancery Judge really hire these positions? I thought he ordered the Supervisors to hire him.
confederaterose wrote:
Judge Buffington: The fact that the law allows you to do something does not mean you should do it. Okay,so the tax payers would not have had to pay for a special election to fill the Chancery Court position if you had been elected to that position and Appellate Court at the same time. So what? What it would have meant is that you would have effectively taken away the right of the voters to elect their Chancery Court Judge! It means that Hayley Barbour would have appointed someone to that position. The appointment would have been for a full term and it would have been based on politics rather than the will of the people. It means that you care more about advancing your political career than you do about the peoples right to choose!
The same thing is true about you "ordering" the Board of Supervisors to hire Oliver Diaz. Legally,you may have had the authority to order the Board to hire "a" Public Defender but I seriously question your legal and/ or ethical authority to "order" the Board to hire a specific individual! The people elected the Board to make decisions for the county,not you. Certainly no one would question whether it was ethical for you to recommend Diaz for the job but it sounds to me like you went out of your way to reopen the closed position for the purpose of appointing him to it! What happened to the individual who held it previously? Was he/ she suddenly unavailable?
As far as I am concerned, these decisions on your part demonstrate the arrogance of a man who has been in public office for so long that he has become overblown with self importance and contemptuous of the little people (voters) who entrusted him with the office! Shame on you Larry Buffington.

No comments:

Post a Comment