As I was doing all the things on this glorious Friday (TGIF!), I tuned into the conversations around me, and they did not disappoint. One topic that caught me off guard was the speculation about my identity. I’ve heard several names floated around — Angel McCroskey, Jenn Miranda, Renée Harrington. While I’m honored to be mentioned alongside such ladies of honesty and integrity, you were not even close.

I’ve shared meals with some of you, had coffee with others, and attended your social gatherings. The suspense is intriguing, but honestly, my identity shouldn’t matter as much as the truth I share. Let’s focus on finding a better way together.

That being said, another topic of conversation that caught my attention was an incident in town. As we all know, the council has yet to vote on the police chief. Out of 21 applicants — whom I never heard the list of — there were three final candidates. Although the Mayor did not want the information disclosed, we now know that it was Interim Chief Mike Poindexter, Lieutenant Joshua Hadnot, and Lieutenant Garrett Foster.

It’s been heard through the grapevine that Poindexter has stated he would like to retire but will give “them” a couple more years. Hadnot and Foster have been there for quite some time and are not ready to retire anytime soon. All candidates are very experienced and knowledgeable about the position. In another conversation I overheard that Anderson Land doesn’t like Poindexter. However, the Mayor took it upon himself to dig up an irrelevant story from 17 years ago to smear one of the other candidates. He printed out copies and placed the article in each council member’s box.

This raised all sorts of red flags!

1. Why would a Mayor try to sway the vote with something that was handled years ago? And why would a Mayor try to influence the vote to go his way?

2. If Poindexter wants to retire, why would he need to give a couple more years?

3. Is that two years needed to advance a certain agenda or pay back any favors?

4. Why does the Mayor need him there for two more years?

5. The other two candidates have great resumes as well — why not put one of the younger candidates in place?

Of course it’s all speculation at this point, but it is something that deserves a little extra investigating.

Speaking of a little extra investigating… I saw a post about a special called City Council meeting and the agenda is about Outside Legal Counsel and the Jasper City Attorney. Although they are listed as separate line items, the council may want to combine them. After a little digging I found that Poindexter may not be interim after all.

Here’s the scenario (as stated on KJAS — link to full article in the comments).
Ronald Sample made a motion to appoint Poindexter and it was seconded by District 1 Councilman Marcus Barber. When put to a vote, Sample and Barber voted in favor of Poindexter, while District 4 Councilman David Shultz and At-Large Councilman Rashad Lewis abstained. District 3 Councilman DeMarcus Holmes was absent from the meeting. So…

2 in favor
2 abstained
1 absentee.

In the same article, this was printed about City Attorney Michael Ratcliff:
“However, Ratcliff says that he has since conferred with the Texas Municipal League and also reviewed Robert’s Rules of Order – which the Jasper City Council uses as guidelines for meetings – and he says that both confirm that the two votes were all that was needed to place Poindexter in the position.
Speaking on Tuesday morning’s Talk of the Town program on KJAS, both Ratcliff and Mayor Anderson Land said that effective immediately, Mike Poindexter is the Interim Chief of Police.”

I took our scenario and dug around to find that most councils require a majority of those present and voting, and abstentions generally don’t count as votes. With 2 in favor, 2 abstaining, and 1 absent, you fall short of the majority needed.

It seems there might be some confusion or differing interpretations of the rules in this situation. It would be wise to consult with outside legal counsel to clarify the proper procedure and ensure the decision is made correctly. Transparency and adherence to proper protocols are essential for maintaining trust and integrity in the process. From where I stand it looks like the City Council didn’t do anything — Ratcliff and Land appointed the interim chief, and for some reason the Mayor wants the chief to stick around for a couple more years.

We deserve leaders who respect fairness and honesty. Transparency and integrity are crucial. Such actions not only undermine the credibility of the process but also erode the trust of the community. Let’s shine a light on this and demand better.

Ronald Sample, Lequin Hilderbrand, DeMarcus Holmes, Marcus Barber, Angel McCroskey (tagged above). Can someone forward to the Mayor? He blocked me.