Murray Holds Press Conference: Refuses to Answer Questions

Untitled from Jane Murray on Vimeo.

We notice a few points from Ms. Murray's (very weak) press event:

• She arrogantly repeats her presumptuous claim that she WILL BE elected on Tuesday.
• She refuses to answer any questions at all from the press or public. (Notice how she rudely dismisses the City worker's question. A man who she intends to be the boss of. She even cuts off Mr. Yohe. Is this how she would run the City?)

She particularly avoids answering our legitimate questions: 1) Why did she leave Congressman Baesler's office in 1995? What is the real reason she returned to Portsmouth?

Jane Murray (then going by her married name, Jane Vimont) and her boss, Kentucky politician Scotty Baesler, were the subject of a series of high-profile, highly critical newspaper stories, many of which mentioned Murray-Vimont by name, in late 1995. By the end of that year, she had either resigned or been fired by Congressman Baesler, who was preparing to run for Governor at the time. She refuses to discuss this 14-year-old series of articles, saying that it is old news. We agree. But so is all of the substantive experience and expertise she lists in her statements of qualifications, which she presents as having been uniformly positive.

Many say the city should be run more like a business. We agree. If you were considering a potential employee for an important position in your company, wouldn't you want to know why the applicant was fired from a previous, similar job, even if it was 14 years ago--especially if she was "self-employed" ever since her firing? Would you accept the answer "I refuse to discuss it" from your perspective employee?

Ms. Murray's lame dismissal of the serious issues raised by the Lexington Herald-Leader is not convincing. According to paper and Lexington City auditors, she failed to present required receipts, she spent taxpayer funds on questionable items, and she went on a number of suspicious trips. (See our previous article http://p-townunderground.blogspot.com/2009/10/3-questions-jane-murray-must-answer_25.html.) But then again, her excuses at time were pretty lame, also. ("The city must have lost the receipts." "They were really NICE letter openers." Whatever, Jane.) Again, as a reminder, here is a brief quote from the Herald Leader's story:

Many of the [credit card] charges made by Jane Vimont, the city's legislative liaison under Baesler, also did not include receipts. A $708 American Express bill for July 1991 for example, has no receipts attached and no detail for what the charges were for. A note on the payment voucher says only "cultural center travel." Vimont said she regularly provided receipts, and they must have been lost.

She constantly threatens to have the City of Portsmouth audited (even though the State of Ohio already does so every year), despite the fact that her career did not survive a State audit in Kentucky. 2) Murray promises to bring museums and cultural centers to Portsmouth. Yet, as we described yesterday ( http://p-townunderground.blogspot.com/2009/10/game-over-for-uk-basketball-museum-no.html) at least one of her major claims to success, the "UK Basketball Museum" is an embarassing financial flop that has tarnished the UK Basketball program and lost a large amount of money. Her fingerprints are all over its failure. Several of the series of critical articles by Lexington newspapers describe other shady dealings and failures related to the other accomplishments she lists on her website, identifying her by name. Her record in Lexington seems to be a series of flops and failures. When you read what we report on this site in the coming two days, you will agree with us when we say: no wonder she left Kentucky, and no wonder she changed her name. 3) Jane Murray still has not answered questions about her lawsuit against the City she intends to rule. * How much in money damages is claimed in her lawsuit? (Is it $2 million dollars, just like the Grandview lawsuit?) * Will she drop the lawsuit if elected? * How can she testify in court in support of the lawsuit and at the same time represent the City's interests? Of course, she has not addressed this question in particular. No one in the local press has asked and she is hoping that if she just stays quiet about it a few more days she will not have to. 4) Why is it that Ms. Murray is not able to present any evidence of support from her former employer (who she mentions frequently in her statement of qualifications) or any of the developers whose projects she claims credit for?

Since Murray won't answer these questions, we'll have to answer for her. If you follow football, you know what a 2-minute drill is. It refers to the time period at the end a game when the the outcome is often decided. It is the most exciting part of the game. Despite Murray's claim that the outcome is already decided, we say it ain't over 'til it's over.

Stay with us as we advance toward the end zone.

(P. S. We know that the City workers are trying to get out the true story of the AFSCME endorsement despite possible retribution. We intend to help you get that story out. Hang in there.)