So I’m reading along over here in today’s DJournal, all about the Tupelo City Council’s attempts to figure out what to make of its shiny new Ethics Report . . . and I get to the part that says,
This week’s meeting was the first time the group gathered since the long-overdue ethics report was delivered and edited copies were released to the public. But members remained divided over its own role in handling the controversial report and whether its author, Cindy Brown of EthicsNow, needs to prove her credentials.
“There are questions of credibility here,” said the Rev. Henry Shelton. “If we’re going to use this document validly, then we need to have proof to back it up.”
Shelton referred to questions raised by the Daily Journal about Brown’s background, experience and professional affiliations that either could not be verified or were inaccurate when investigated in the fall of 2007. Brown has not responded publicly to those questions.
And that of course sends me to the DJ’s archives, whence I fish out this dang-amazing December 2007 Emily LeCoz account of Cindy Brown’s background — or as much of it as the way-diligent LeCoz could suss out — and I just have to cast a large sigh.
You-all who haven’t been following this story, even so, I sure commend that December ‘07 article to your attention. Hard to imagine you’ll ever encounter a more complete portrait of a grifter.
But what the City of Tupelo expected from contracting with this Cindy Brown (or Ann Prevost?) person, or her/their strange-acting friend Neal Trautman either, and why it would continue to do so after LeCoz’s reporting — well, those are some excellent questions. Just sayin’.
No doubt that the issue of this person’s credentials and credibility should have been brought to a head by the council about the time of Emily’s report. The only reason it wasn’t was due to the reluctance of the white council members to potentially anger Ms Davis, a black lady who sits on the council, and the black community, who had demanded such an investigation and who, by then, were very supportive of Cindy Brown, despite the serious questions about her credentials, the apparent lying on her resume, the delays in the investigation/report, and the bizarre public statements made by Brown. This “kid gloves” approach has not served the city well, and has only compounded the problem —and such was predictable. There is little, if any, confidence in the report’s findings and the city has wasted quite a bit of money and time —time and money that could have been spent on retaining the services of a different consultant with provable, demonstrated credentials and professional reputation, who no doubt, by now, would have a credible report delivered to the city upon which it could reasonably and safely act upon. Most of the council members are so leery of this report that they do not even want to retain a copy of the unedited version for fear of being linked to a leak of the contents and being sued.
In defense of the council a bit, the person they originally contracted with punted the ball to Cindy Brown and did not participate in the investigation and report. Why the city, at that moment, did not cancel the deal with this person that they did NOT contract with and simply start over has a lot to do with what I stated above. And after Emily’s report, the council had a second golden opportunity to fix this mess and start over, but chose not to do so.
You reap what you sow. What a mess.
What afotl said ….
As a resident of Tupelo, I felt obligated to state my view. After reading afotl’s comment, I have nothing further to add.