3 Questions Jane Murray MUST ANSWER (Part 3)

OUR THIRD QUESTION FOR JANE MURRAY This question is for the candidate. But if she wins the election tomorrow and becomes the Mayor of Portsmouth, despite the information we have uncovered and shared on this website, it will become a question for the citizens of Portsmouth. The citizens are the ones who will have to live with, for better or worse, the results of their selection.

* We have revealed that in 1993 Jane Murray (Jane Vimont, at the time) formed a private corporation (Jane Vimont and Associates) of which she was the sole owner. She formed the company while still a key staff member for a US Congressman from Kentucky. She used secret insider information, gotten as result of meetings held in violation of Kentucky sunshine laws, to gain a lucrative contract for herself in 1995, worth several hundred thousand dollars. She left her client in shambles with a major museum project, her own brainchild, that went bankrupt a few years after the museum fired her for three years of poor performance. (http://p-townunderground.blogspot.com/search/label/ukbbmuseum) * We revealed the credit card abuse scandal that tarnished her reputation and the career of her employer, Mayor Scotty Baesler of Lexington. In 1995, a major Kentucky newspaper exposed her extravagant use of the cards for travel and gifts and the state auditor's determination that she failed to provide receipts. * She left behind broken promises and unfinished (or un-started) cultural projects all over the Lexington area when she left government. Late in her public career, as her development failures began to catch up with her, she cultivated self-beneficial relationships with consultants specializing in cultural centers and museum development, particularly Lord Cultural Resources of Toronto, Canada. The very services Portsmouth will "need" as Murray pursues the promises she has made to her supporters and the citizens of Portsmouth. OUR THIRD QUESTION FOR JANE MURRAY IS: If elected do you promise that you will not financially benefit from your position as Mayor beyond the salary and benefits provided by the City?

If she is elected it will be up to City Council and the Citizens of Portsmouth to safeguard the city's financial interests from Ms. Murray.

GRANDVIEW LAWSUIT

City Council should not agree to and the Citizens of Portsmouth should not accept any settlement or court-ordered penalty that would benefit Ms. Murray beyond her documented damages. As mayor she should not materially benefit from her own lawsuit.

But she appears to have purposefully positioned herself to do so. On 9-30-08, Jane Murray announced her effort to recall Fifth Ward Councilman Howard Baughman, and to try to fill his seat, via her committee "Citizens For Change In The Fifth." (http://portsmouthcitizens.info/blog/?p=494) In November, Baughman resigned rather fight the recall. Murray applied to City Council to be appointed to the seat. When another applicant was chosen, and she announced her intention to run for mayor. All of this effort was concurrent with Murray's filing of a lawsuit against the City. Conflicts of interest appears inevitable. Citizens should monitor any financial settlements proposed or agreed to by either the plaintiffs or City administration--since Murray will be both, if elected. 2) LORD CULTURAL RESOURCES Murray should also commit that she has not and will not make any personally beneficial financial arrangements with consultants or developers hired or recruited for any city projects? On multiple occasions, Jane Murray has pushed strongly for various museum and other cultural projects to be initiated by the City. The video at the following link (http://portsmouthcitizens.info/Council/Highlights/8-25-08/8-25-08(1)JMurray.wmv, at about the 2/3 mark) is just one of many requests by Murray on the issue Here she addresses City Council, 8/25/08:

"I did want to speak to you about larger issues about this government. Since I moved back in 2002 and bought a home, I have tried to bring my expertise to the table over and over to assist the City. I suggested we build a children's museum. I suggested that we look at building a vision of the future of the City of Portsmouth and all the planning that would go into that."

Considering Murray's past dubious relationships with Lord Cultural Resources of Canada and other consultants and the fact that she has yet to be closely associated with any successful museum or cultural center, we suggest that City Council scrutinize any similar proposal by Murray with great care, if she is elected. The citizens should demand it.

And, definitely, do not give her a credit card!

Jane Murray: Promises, Promises (Part 1)

THE LEXINGTON CULTURAL CENTER SCANDAL

Jane Murray has repeatedly promised that she will make Portsmouth "a regional cultural center" and that she will implement a "cultural master plan" for Portsmouth, just like she has done in other cities. This master plan will include museums, and parks, and historical centers, as a part of her plan to "restructure" our entire city.

On her website, Murray lists the following achievements in her statement of qualifications:

* Lexington Cultural Master Plan – project director for planning, coordinating, and implementing final plan which included more public monies for the arts, an arts & culture district, a children’s museum, and a new cultural center * Lexington Children’s Museum – project director for design/build and grand opening of KY’s first children’s museum; worked with a public committee and design team on planning and design * Lexington Cultural Center – director for project planning, design, and operations; headed team of museum planners, theatre consultants, architects, engineers, community members * University of Kentucky Basketball Museum – director for feasibility study; organized and directed professional consulting team, all meetings, functions, reports

At first glance it is an impressive list. However, as we reported a few days ago, there is much more to the story. Murray's responsibility for the UK Basketball Museum failure was a true financial fiasco for the City of Lexington and the University of Kentucky, which remains as $100,000 a year burden to the University to this day. We are amazed that she would even include the Museum on her resume. The only sense in which the museum was ever a success was the amount of money that Murray earned from her services in connection with the now-bankrupt museum.

Jane Murray's bankrupt UK Basketball Museum (now defunct)

We believe that the protracted, embarrassing failure of the Basketball Museum, after a string of failures in government and business, was the real reason Jane Murray dropped her married name, Jane Vimont, in favor of her maiden name, and returned to Portsmouth.

But the museum story merely opens the door on a much larger story of broken promises, failure, and scandal for the City of Lexington, the State of Kentucky, and Murray herself.

The basketball museum failure had its beginning several years prior with an even bigger fiasco and financial loss for the City of Lexington: the Ben Snyder Block scandal.

As you follow the story below please note the words in BOLD text and how they are interconnected. (Anyone who believes the Marting's project was a dastardly scheme should really be shocked by the Lexington "Art & Culture District" scandal.)

All information from Lexington Herald-Leader stories is indicated in parentheses. (LHL, date of article.) All Lexington Herald-Leader articles are available on-line for a fee.

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY/LEXINGTON

After graduating from Ohio State University in 1975, Jane Murray studied sociology at the University of Kentucky where she got her Masters in 1977. While at UK, Jane Murray met and later married Richard E. Vimont, a Lexington attorney, who had received his Law Degree from UK in 1960. Vimont was an influential lawyer in Lexington which connections in the Mayor's office. Vimont went on to form the influential Lexington lobbying firm of Vimont & Wills. (Vimont still practices law at age 73, specializing in "corporate law, animal law, and equine law." He has also worked part-time in the Fayette County Attorney's office since 2006, when he sold his law firm Vimont & Wills. He and his current wife, a UK professor, have a successful horse farm outside of Lexington and are major donors to Democrat candidates.)

Vimont was a good last name to have in Lexington. It helped Jane Murray-Vimont to get several quasi-government jobs in Lexington and Frankfort starting in 1977. In 1986, Jane's husband, Richard was working in the mayor's office, representing Lexington on several issues. That was the year that Jane Murray-Vimont was hired as Lexington Mayor Scotty Baesler's Legislative Liaison, a position created especially for her. (LHL, 8/12/86). One of the issues that Richard Vimont would later work on for the City was the negotiation for the lease of property to build a children's museum. (LHL, 8/16/89).

BEN SNYDER BLOCK PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS

As Baesler's legislative liaison, Jane Murray-Vimont was responsible for development of a "Cultural Master Plan" for Lexington to help revitalize the downtown area. Her responsibility included extensive travel to other cities and meeting with major lobbying and consulting firms.

(NOTE: In her press conference Wednesday, Jane Murray slyly claimed that she did not go on "any of the trips mentioned in the [1996 Lexington Herald-Leader] article except for one." If true, this is a very sneaky denial. Murray's travel in and out of the US as Legislative Liason was extensive, as other news article from the period show.)

Another of Jane Murray-Vimont's responsibilities was the acquisition of Downtown property, in an area that came to be called the Art & Culture District. (This district never materialized. The "cultural site" is now occupied by the Fayette County Courthouse. More on that later.) This process of property acquisition was helped along by Jane's attorney husband, Richard. (LHL 7/18/94.) The major portion of the property was located in the "Ben Snyder Block," the site of the old Snyder downtown department store,a former City landmark. Jane Murray's involvement in the City's acquisition of this property has ramifications that continue to this day.

In 1989, two years after Jane Murray-Vimont joined Baesler's staff and served as his liaison for the planned cultural center, Baesler convinced the State of Kentucky to buy the Ben Snyder block at cost of $9 million dollars. In return Baesler committed the city to build a number of projects on the site, totalling $60 million, or else the City would have to pay the state back the entire $9 million purchase cost. This caused quite a stir in Lexington, due to the enormity of the commitment, which included:

• A $60 million World Trade/Cultural Center with high-rise office tower
• A large parking garage
• 34,000-square foot museum "to celebrate the science and technology of Kentucky"
• A UK Basketball Museum
• Renovation of the Lyric Threater, a traditional Black Theater in downtown Lexington with a historic legacy, and
• Two new theaters, among other improvements

This is the Lexington Cultural Master Plan that Murray takes credit for in her statement of qualifications and on her website, and mentions frequently at public events:

Lexington Cultural Master Plan – project director for planning, coordinating, and implementing final plan which included more public monies for the arts, an arts & culture district, a children’s museum, and a new cultural center (from Murray's website)

As we will see, Murray's Cultural Master Plan was quite a failure.

For over three years, Murray-Vimont led the City's efforts to recruit developers to build the improvements the City had committed would be built on the Ben Snyder Block in accordance with the Cultural Master Plan. During this time, no developers could be recruited. None of them believed the City's Master Plan figures and projections were accurate (HLH, "Finances May Spell 'Curtains' for Cultural Center," 7/75/92). Murray-Vimont and Baesler went back to the state with scaled-down plans. The state ultimately accepted the new less ambitious plans, but still required certain things to be built as originally agreed.

• Rather than building the proposed "World Trade Center High-Rise," they allowed the City to substitute the expansion of the nearby Lexington Center. (The World Trade group that was supposed to be housed in the new high-rise relocated much of their staff to Louisville when the new building was scrapped.)
• The state allowed the city to buy an older parking garage nearby as a substitute for a new one on the site paid for by the state.
• They accepted Baesler's commitment to build the basketball museum at UK rather that the cultural center site.
• They accepted the new children's museum as a substitute for the science and technology museum.
• They allowed to City to acquire two historical buildings (Embry's and Lowenthal's) which would be renovated and substituted for the two theaters.
• The historic Lyric Theater still had to be restored.

FEET TO THE FIRE But despite all of the substitutions, the State still required Lexington to at least build a $14 million cultural center there, or pay back the $9 million the State paid for the site. And by 1992, Mayor Baesler was already preparing to run for Congress. He put the responsibility for getting the scaled-back cultural center built squarely on Jane Murray-Vimont's shoulders, the woman who was responsible for the "Master Plan" in the first place and had pushed for the use of state funds. She led an uphill, and ultimately fruitless, battle to convince the City Council to borrow over $14 million from the State of Kentucky to build the downtown cultural center. In promoting her ideas, she gave the Columbus City Center Mall as an example of what was needed in Lexington. (The Columbus City Center is now defunct.) But Council was reluctant. As the Herald Leader said: "Over the last five years, Lexington has debated what a cultural center should contain and whether the city can afford to pick up the tab." One councilman said, "a $14 million project is such a dead weight right now that it scares me." Even Baesler's Vice Mayor (who became mayor after Baesler)Pam Miller was hesitant. She worried about the cost and said that a cultural center "is not going to be the turning point" in the City's economic problems. (LHL, 7/5/92, page A4)

Two more years of fund-raising and lobbying by the City and Jane Murray-Vimont failed. The cultural center project was dead. As the deadline of 12/31/1994 approached, the City could not afford to repay the $9 million dollars. But Baesler had been elected to congress and he and Jane Murray-Vimont were already in Washington, DC. The new mayor Pam Miller ultimately ignored the state's demands.

Instead of Jane Murray-Vimont's "cultural center," Lexington's leaders built a County Courthouse on the controversial site. It's called the Robert F. Stephens Courthouse. By coincidence (?), that's where Jane murray's ex-husband Richard still practices today. He has a nice office. They have great post cards.

But it is NOT a cultural center.

The state finally tired of the City's shenanigans, and filed a suit against Lexington for "misappropriation of funds." Eventually a settlement was reached that involved the City paying back only part of the money. Other terms of the settlement included the completion of several commitments that Jane Murray-Vimont had made on behalf of the Mayor, which still remained unfinished-or un-started. As Baesler's former liaison, Jane Murray-Vimont was involved in the negotiation of the settlement. The terms of the agreement were finalized in a now-infamous "Memorandum of Understanding" or MOU.

OUTRAGE OVER "SECRET" MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING The secret memorandum was agreed to in Feb. 1995. Jane Murray-Vimont (the champion of openness and transparency in Portsmouth government) was part of the closed-door meeting where the MOU was signed, as Baesler's representative. However, the group refused to release the MOU or the meeting minutes to the public. Local arts groups were outraged! They filed a Freedom of Information request which the City ignored. The arts groups took the City to court. The full MOU was finally released in 2005. (Note that the MOU was not released until six years after the opening of the UK Basketball Museum in 1999.) The decision in the memorandum controversy is now incorporated into Kentucky's Open Meetings Act or OMA.

"The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government violated the OMA when it met in closed session to discuss its dispute with the state concerning the "Ben Snyder Block." 95-OMD-57. Even if the discussion concerned a sale or acquisition of property, a public discussion "would have no effect on the prices of the property" which had previously been agreed upon." Ky. Rev. Statute 61.81.810 (1)(b).

(No wonder Murray is such as an expert on the Sunshine Law.) BACK TO THE BASKETBALL MUSEUM To some extent, most of the scaled-down projects that Baesler and Murray had previously committed to, in order to try to pacify the state over the failure of the Cultural Center Complex, had been completed by the time of the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. Only two major projects remained that had yet to be started. 1) Renovation of the Lyric Theater, a historically Black theater that the City had acquired through eminent domain under Baesler and Murray-Vimont. It was to have been made into an African American cultural center as part of Jane Murray-Vimont's original "Cultural Center Master Plan." This how it looked when Jane Murray-Vimont developed the Cultural Master Plan, in 1988 and how it looked when she left Baesler's office in 1995. It's also the way it looked until a few months ago. The 1995 Memorandum of Understanding agreed to penalties to the city of $500 per day if the renovation of the Lyric was not complete by 1/27/2010. But the museum sat abandoned until July of this year, when community leaders broke ground on the project, with penalties looming. (When we visited the site, it looked like not much had been done. A time extension may be needed.)

2) The other major outstanding project that the state was still demanding in 1995 was the construction of the UK Basketball Museum.

In 1995 after years of various scandals and leaked stories to the press that she was leaving Baesler's staff (LHL 7/3/93, LHL 9/18/94, LHL 9/25/95), Jane Murray-Vimont finally severed her long-term professional relationship with Congressman Baesler. She announced that she was taking a position with Lord Cultural Resources of Toronto, Canada, a major consulting firm that develops master plans for museums and cultural centers. Murray-Vimont represented Lord in 1996. Whether she is still connected to Lord Cultural Resources is not known. (http://www.lord.ca/)

But according to the Seretary of State's Office of Kentucky, Jane Murray-Vimont started Jane Vimont and Associates (aka JVA) in 1993. And JVA's first client and its major client was the UK Basketball Museum. And our story begins to come full-circle.

Jane Murray; Promises, Promises (Part 2 of 2)

MORE SCANDALS AND BACK TO LEXINGTON By 1995, Jane Murray-Vimont's relationship with Congressman Baesler and his staff had soured, following a string of negative stories in the press and highly public snafus. She was also divorced from her husband, Attorney Richard E. Vimont who was a powerful influence in City and County government. It was clear that she was on her way out as Baesler's chief aide. Murray-Vimont didn't get along with Baesler's Washington staff, particularly Chuck Atkins, his Chief of Staff. The Lexington Herald-Leader reported: "...the constraints of the office have soured [Baesler's] chief legislative aide, Jane Vimont. She recently returned to Lexington to work out of his district office and is looking for another job. 'With 15 years of experience in government policy, [Washington] is really not a place for me in the long run.' " (LHL, 7/3/93) Later, at a time when Republicans were making inroads in Kentucky, Democrat Baesler was trying to distance himself from liberal associates. The article entitled "Baesler Is Hard Worker With Conservative Streak" (LHL, 10/13/96) referred to Jane Vimont as "one of his more liberal staff members." This indicates another reason that Murray-Vimont did not fit in. CREDIT CARD SCANDAL But Murray-Vimont was still working for Baesler, when the credit card scandal broke. (LHL, 7/25/95) Despite Murray's curt denials on her website and at her press conference last Wednesday, the credit card story was a serious issue and a major embarrassment for her boss at a critical time in his political career. And she was central to it. This story of her missing receipts, bizarre and expensive gifts, and extravagant travel resonated with the voters and Jane Murray-Vimont didn't handle it any better in Lexington than she has in Portsmouth. Read more about that story here: http://p-townunderground.blogspot.com/2009/10/3-questions-jane-murray-must-answer_25.html BEN SNYDER BLOCK APPRAISAL SCANDAL

However, the biggest snafu that hung over everyone's head like a grey cloud was the on-going Ben Snyder Block mess. It continued to haunt Congressman Baesler all the way in Washington. In 1994, The Lexington Herald Leader called it "The $9 Million Dilemma" (LHL, 9/18/94), in a front page article that featured Jane Murray-Vimont prominently, including her photograph. A key dispute involved the City's purchase under Baesler of a large parcel of real estate in the Ben Snyder block with state funds. Had Baesler decided to buy the block before or after deciding to build a downtown cultural center on the site? There were allegations of fixed appraisals, sweetheart appointments to boards, and pay-offs. The story said Baesler was "facing persistent questions about whether Lexington bailed out Southcreek's owners [a downtown developer]--his supporters and campaign contributors--with the state's money." Jane Murray-Vimont, as the City's cultural development point woman, was repeatedly referenced. The article cited her handling of appraisals that increased sharply in a short time.

The next day another front-page article appeared: "Cultural Center Unlikely, Leaving Lexington To Find New Use For Snyder Block." (LHL, 9/19/94), again featuring Jane Murray-Vimont.

THE BIRTH OF JANE VIMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. (11/12/1993)

In November 1993, during Scotty Baesler's first year in Washington, Ms. Murray-Vimont formed a corporation, Jane Vimont and Associates. (She refers to it as "JVA, Inc." in her statement of qualifications.) But Jane did not leave her position as Congressman's Baesler's Legislative Director until two years later, late 1995. During this two year period, she spent much time in Lexington trying to clean up the mess she and the former mayor had made with all the cultural center issues. She attended meetings with developers, investors, and consultants. Also with state regulators and bureaucrats who were trying to make the City meet its obligations. Murray-Vimont was party to all of the inside information. She sensed opportunity and she shrewdly positioned herself to take advantage of it.

Specifically she was party to the secret February 1995, Memorandum of Understanding negotiated between the State and the City of Lexington. This memo listed which projects the State of Kentucky was going to force the Lexington government to construct. The group fought vigorously to keep the information away from the public, outraging the Lexington arts community, who tired of seeing there long-promised cultural projects languishing. They demanded openness from their government representatives including Murray-Vimont, but the group keep the information away from them for ten years until the State Attorney General determined the group had violated Kentucky's Open Meetings Act, or "Sunshine Law." The landmark ruling finally forced memorandum's release in 2005. (See "Jane Murray: Promises, Promises-Part 1")

In the meantime, Jane Murray-Vimont had access to the secret details. And Jane Vimont and Associates, Inc. was her means of taking advantage of her inside information.

UK BASKETBALL MUSEUM-INSIDE TRACK (LHL, 5/10/99)

Even before leaving government employment, Murray-Vimont's had already secured a lucrative contract for her new company. In 1994, she helped to incorporate the UK Basketball Museum, and the museum board, in turn, hired her as "project manager and fund-raiser", even though she was still employed on Congressman Baesler's staff. Of course, this was the very museum which Murray-Vimont had already committed the city to create as part of its state-ordered settlement. Over a three year span, the museum board paid her company $465,000.

Murray-Vimont's expenses were minimal. She was her company's sole proprietor and sole employee. The Lexington Center, which was expanded as part of the secretive Cultural Center settlement with the State, provided rent-free office space to Murray-Vimont and to the museum board, which otherwise would have cost $100,000 to $150,000 per year. Utilities, about $50,000 per year, were paid for with museum funds. With little overhead, Murray-Vimont's contract was indeed lucrative.

But her fund-raising results were dismal, focusing mainly on the sale of gold, silver and bronze medallions that were not as popular as she had hoped. Early on, the museum spent over $200,000 on her plan to give medallions to donors in exchange for gifts. The trinkets raised only $1.1 million toward Murray-Vimont's stated goal of $2.9 million, and the museum was left with over half of the 6500 medals when the program was terminated.

She leveraged as much City funds for the museum as she could manage, about a million dollars. Still revenues were woefully insufficient. Perhaps they might have been better if Murray had spent more time on it.

But she was busy with other "JVA, Inc." projects, as indicated on her website resume. As the Basketball Museum struggled, Murray-Vimont represented a Canandian Company, Lord Cultural Resources, in the collection of some unpaid invoices owed by the Muhammed Ali Center in Louisville which was also struggling at the time. (LHL, 6/18/96) Murray's website resume lists "Round One-project manager for a special exhibition on the life of Muhammed Ali" as one of her "JVA, Inc. Projects," but it fails to mention her collection efforts on the behalf of the Canadian firm.

After three years of floundering, the Museum Board terminated Murray-Vimont's contract. They hired a new director whose analysis was that "it was apparent that the museum organizers," which of course included Murray-Vimont, "had not understood the scope of the project in hard terms. It would cost millions more than anyone thought."

But as described in our previous articles, the Museum ultimately failed despite the new director and the board's best efforts. It really was doomed from the start, being based on the flawed feasibility studies and planning by Jane Murray-Vimont. As she reorts on her website:

"University of Kentucky Basketball Museum – director for feasibility study; organized and directed professional consulting team, all meetings, functions, reports. "

Murray claimed that she resigned from teh museum. But the Board only stated that they had terminated her contract. Murray refused to be interviewed by the newspaper (not surprisingly) about her departure. But the museum said she had taken a job in Canada.

RETURN TO OHIO

If she actually did work in Canada, it may have been because she had worn out her welcome everywhere else. The latter part of her career with Lexington city government was extremely rocky, and surely tarnished her reputation. Her Lexington Cultural Disrtict was still a vacant lot. She was divorced from an influential Lexington attorney. She was deeply involved in reneging on several promises she and/or her boss had made to the State of Kentucky, including a tainted $9 million dollar land deal. Her Washington job was a bust. She had burned her bridges with the "arts community" with her egregious violation of Open Meeting Act requirements. Perhaps the biggest bust of all, one that she could not blame on anyone but herself, was the UK Basketball Museum colossal failure.

Perhaps it was inevitable that she would return to Portsmouth. She claims she came back to care for her ailing mother who lives in South Shore. But she must not need much care. Murray said in a mayoral debate that she warns her mother not to come "into town" and drive on our "dangerous" city streets.

Since her return to Portsmouth in 2002 she hasn't done much. She let her Kentucky corporation lapse in 2002. Another company she owns, Creative Design Images, has also lapsed according the Ohio Seretary of State website. She applied to be a substitute teacher at Northwest High School in 2003. Her application was approved pending a federal background check.(http://www.northwest.k12.oh.us/docs2/District/BoardMinutes/2003/minutes092303.PDF) Her website resume lists her experience as "Music Producer and Writer (2005-present)," but may just be a euphemism.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZER

Her biggest activity in the last seven years has been stirring up things in Portsmouth. She filed a major lawsuit against the City she hopes to be mayor of. It may be very lucrative if she wins it.

She led a recall effort against her City Councilman, who resigned rather than be put through the inevitable hell she and her cohorts surely had in store for him. Then she was irate at City Council for not appointing her as the man's replacement. All of her past problems have not dminished her sense of entitlement.

She has been working behind the scenes with two Councilmen and the wife of a Councilman to undermine every effort by the current mayor to make improvements to the City.

What will she do for the City if elected? If you've read this far, you've learned enough to know that Murray has left a trail of tragically failed projects behind her wherever she has gone. We have no doubt she would have the same result here.

Hopefully the information we have found and shared on this website will assist the voters of Portsmouth to select the best candidate to serve the citizens of Portsmouth. Time will tell.

Every elected official needs to be watched carefully. Especially those like Ms. Murray, who don't believe the have the need to explain themselves.

If you sense desperation in the Murray Campaign, even panic, as these damaging and thoroughly documented facts about her government and business failings continue to mount, perhaps now you know why. There is no way she can answer or dispute these charges.

And if she loses this race.................there's nowhere else for her to go.

Big Jane Murray Story Coming Tomorrow (Sat.)

Our biggest expose of Jane Murray-Vimont's past will appear in tomorrow's P-Town Underground. We had intended to publish it earlier in the week, but the story keeps growing. (If you have ever had termite damage, you will understand what we mean. The more you dig into the rotten wood, the more you are led into even more bad areas.) With the information we received from various sources and actually going to Lexington for verification, it has been quite a busy couple of weeks. Other issues keep popping up, too, like the endorsement fiasco and Murray's sham press conference, which we felt obligated to address after receiving so many concerned emails from Union members. We know people are anxiously waiting for more info. Check back tomorrow. Will it make a difference? We do not know. So far, the UK Basketball Museum story that we revealed has been ignored, as far as we can tell. If that doesn't make people take a second look at Murray and her plans for "urban revitalization of Portsmouth," what will? Also, the questions around Murray's lawsuit against the city remain unadressed. She only addressed the credit card issue by saying she would not answer questions about it. It looks like only two groups of people people can get the truth out about Murray: us---and you. When our story comes out tomorrow, just remember these two key points: 1) Follow the money, and 2)

Murray's Basketball Museum Fiasco (Part 2)

Earlier we reported on the tragic UK Basketball Museum debacle that Jane Murray was a central figure in during the mid-1990s (or what she likes to call "old news"), but which she still promotes on her website as one of the "jewels in her crown." (She did not address the issue at her press non-conference yesterday.)

The following story from espn.com reveals even more startling details. The University of Kentucky agreed to pay-off Murray's museum's "$1.2 million debt" by paying $100,000 per year until the loan is paid. (If your kid goes to UK, now you know what that latest tuition increase was for.) http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3470465

Jane Murray had her hands on every aspect of this fiasco almost from its earliest days, when it was just an idea being promoted around Lexington.

We are still looking into the series of damning articles published by the Lexington Herald-Leader about Murray, and we will be presenting a complete timeline of her checkered career soon.

(http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=LH&p_product=LH&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_site=kentucky&s_trackval=LH&s_search_type=keyword&s_dispstring=jane%20vimont%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(jane%20vimont)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no&s_trackval=)

But one particular article from 1999 relates to Murray's claim to fame, the Basketball Museum. Due to her mistakes and mismanagement, the Museum appears to have been doomed from the start. As you read these and other articles from the 1990s, remember this:

Read the article here.Please note that all comments in [brackets] are ours all well as all underlining and bold text. The rest is verbatim from the article. Hoops Museum

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.)

[BREAKING] Today's Press Event by Candidate Jane Murray

Jane Murray announced on her website that she was having a press conference today:

News conference Wednesday, October 28, 11:00 a.m. Laborers' Local 83; 2032 8th Street.

Apparently, it was quite a show. We don't have all of the details yet, but Randy Yohe from WSAZ News and reporters from the Portsmouth Times and Community Common were there. She apparently thinks she can control the local media, but it didn't go too well today by all accounts. Tonight's coverage of the event by WSAZ (at 5 pm(?), 6 pm and 11 pm) may be very interesting. Certain candidates for office were kicked out of ths public meeting, and others were allowed to remain. We hear that Jane Murray refused to answer certain questions that we have raised here at the Underground, and also that some City workers (AFSCME) were there to share the fact that, despite the headline in the Portsmouth Times on Saturday Oct. 24, 2009 the City employees of the AFSCME Local Union did NOT endorse Murray (or any candidate)! We find the endorsement story to be increasingly interesting. Suffice it to say (for now) that many city workers are irate about their union's improper conspiring with Jane Murray despite the Local Union's vote by the membership to remain neutral. As we learn more about this matter we will share it.

3 Questions Jane Murray MUST ANSWER (Part 2)

OUR SECOND QUESTION FOR JANE MURRAY (Jane Murray's website http://www.janemurrayformayor.com/ states that she will be holding a press conference today at 11:00 a.m. We hope the following will be among the questions asked of the candidate.)

2) What is the status of your lawsuit against the City of Portsmouth?

According to Scioto County Common Pleas Court records, you are the lead plantiff in a lawsuit against the City of Portsmouth.

http://www.sciotocountycpcourt.org/

DOCKET SHEET for 08CIH00331 Scioto Court of Common Pleas JANE MURRAY, et al vs. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH ______________________________________ Date Filed: 08/11/08 Style: MURRAY ETAL/CITY OF PORTS Judge : 1 Action : OTHER CIVIL ______________________________________ Judge: William T. Marshall

What is the status of this suit?

How much are you and your co-plaintiffs suing the City for? (Please provide our answer to the nearest million.)

If you are elected Mayor, do you think it will be a conflict of interest for you to represent the City and also provide depositions against the City and testify against the City in court? (In other words will you want the City to win or lose this case?)

Do you plan to drop your lawsuit if you are elected Mayor?

Game Over for UK Basketball Museum

Read carefully folks, especially the words in bold: From Jane Murray's website: http://janemurrayformayor.com/index.php/about/curriculum-vitae/ Among her accomplishments, Murray claims:

"University of Kentucky Basketball Museum – director for feasibility study; organized and directed professional consulting team, all meetings, functions, reports. "

From the website, www.ncaa.com:

Game over: struggling UK basketball museum closes

LEXINGTON, Ky.(AP) The University of Kentucky Basketball Museum has shut its doors due to falling attendance and financial problems.

The museum, located in the Lexington Center near the entrance to Rupp Arena, has struggled to find an audience since opening in 1999.

Kentucky deputy athletic director Rob Mullens said Wednesday that the museum, which was not affiliated with the university, was averaging less than 25,000 visitors a year. Consultants told museum officials before it opened that 110,000 fans a year could push through the turnstiles.

Mullens said the university has decided to reallocate its annual $100,000 donation to the museum to help offset $1.2 million in debt.

Link: http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/070208aar.html

So "director of feasibility study" and "organizer of professional consulting team" Jane Murray told the UK Athletic Director that they would have over four times the number of fans than they actually had. As a result they had to shut down and ended up $1.2 million in debt. Was Jane Murray unaware of the fate of the museum or did she just assume we were to gullible to look into it? (How did the Portsmouth Times "drop the ball" on this story?) Does this give you a clue as to how she will address the City's problems?That sort of makes her big plans for Portsmouth seem a little hollow, doesn't it? She certainly talks a lot about bringing museums and cultural centers to Portsmouth. We wonder if anyone will ask Murray about that at her press conference. Much more interesting information about Murray's misadventures in Lexington are forthcoming. (All we can say is...no wonder she changed her name.)

UK Basketball Museum (now defunct)

(Jane Murray will probably sue us for using her logo.)

Get To Know Jane Murray Here

What We're For and What We're Against

We at P-Town Underground have decided to moderate all comments that come into the website. That means that we will review all comments we receive before allowing them to appear in the comment section after each post. We have already received several very abusive comments that we don't feel deserve to be promoted here. (If you want to make such comments, start your own blog, don't use ours.) So far we have been accused of being bigots, rednecks, hypocrites, homophobes, and worse. We have also been accused of being "against women," because we have presented facts from news stories that appear to reflect negatively on candidate Jane Murray. On the other hand we have received comments that are really accusations against Murray, other candidates, or even other private citizens that the commenters seem to believe we may agree with. We have chosen not to pass on such comments that are undocumented or speculative in nature. If you want to spread these statements, please use another forum. Regarding the charges some have made against us: 1) Are we against women? If one of us were to make a statement for or against Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or Condoleezza Rice based on whether we believe that person is a good candidate or not, would that make us "anti-women"? Of course not. So if you want to accuse us of being "misogynists," as one writer has, without any evidence to back it up don't expect your comment to be shared on this site. Our questions for Jane Murray so far (with more in the coming days) are simply: a) questions we have heard around town from others b) questions no one else seems to be asking of the candidate c) questions based on actual news stories from other sources and based on the candidate's statements and behavior during the campaign, which should concern any intelligent person. 2) Are we against homosexuals? No, but many homosexuals share a left-wing agenda that we definitely oppose. Mr. Johnson's statements that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle concern us greatly. Based on the article we presented yesterday, we would be fools not to believe that Johnson has an agenda that he has not shared with the voters of the City of Portsmouth. A liberal agenda that may include many elements that the voters would be strongly opposed to, if only they knew: medical and other benefits for domestic partners and same-sex couples (paid for by the citizens) as Mr. Johnson was able to pass in Concord, California; promotion of so-called gay marriage (in spite of the Ohio constitution which defines marriage as between one man and one woman), and probably many other values considered mainstream in San Francisco, but strongly against the beliefs of many in Portsmouth. Mr. Johnson himself shared his agenda for Portsmouth in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, but he has yet to share it with us. We believe that is hypocrisy. As the SF Chronicle stated, quoting Johnson himself:

Doubtless, he won't stay quiet for long in Portsmouth, Ohio."I've already got a list of 700 names back there, people with political issues to call," he says, letting loose another raspy belly laugh. "Gawd, I love it!"

The local media have not seen fit to tell us, but the people of Portsmouth have a right to know before November 3. We will surely know after! As far as Mr. Johnson medical condition, we certainly have not put out any confidential information. Mr. Johnson shared many details of his condition, including his T-cell count, treatment, and prognosis in the newspaper article. Again, the people of San Francisco know this, why don't our citizens have a right to know? 3) Some have asked what the fact that Mr. Johnson has AIDS has to do with him being a city councilman. The fact is that if he opts to take advantage of the City's health insurance coverage for City Council members (which he has the option to do at any time, if elected), the cost of his treatment will be borne by the citizens of Portsmouth, no matter what personal resources Mr. Johnson has to pay on his own. Should this be an issue? Of course it should. Other council people in the past have had ailments that have caused great expense to the City, and of course the critics of the City blasted them for taking advantage of the citizenry. Why are they quiet now about Mr. Johnson? Agree or disagree, we believe and hope the Citizens of Portsmouth will benefit from the information on our website. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.

3 Questions Jane Murray MUST ANSWER (Part 1)

OUR FIRST QUESTION FOR JANE MURRAY 1) Why did you leave Congressman Baesler's office in 1995 and what is the real reason you returned to Portsmouth?

At Thursday night's Mayorial Debate at Shawnee State, Candidate Jane Murray stated in her closing remarks, "Let's just face it, I will be your next mayor."

Well, it seems a bit strange, to us at P-Town Underground, that the City of Portsmouth would elect a woman that we know so little about to control the destiny of our City. There are major gaps in her resume that we thought should be at least looked into. That led us to questions that we would like to have answers to.

Jane Murray tells a life story that is inspiring and impressive. Born in Portsmouth, raised in Greenup, and a graduate of PHS, Ohio State, and UK. After college, she went to work for the mayor of Lexington where she wrote legislation and built museums that were marvelous to behold. When the Bluegrass State became too small to contain her vision she swooped into Washington where she specialized ina dozen areas, according to her website, including the environment, international trade and even "space technology'! Then when she tired of governing the masses, she started her own marketing/lobbying/development firm. Finally when she had conquered the heavens she looked down upon our lowly town, and had compassion on us. So she left her old life behind, moved home, rescued her mother and a pound dog to begin a simple life among the simple folk of southern Ohio. And we are blessed to have her.

She is the humble daughter of Appalachia with a spotless career that rocketed through the heavens in a perfect arc. She has returned to save us from or sins. But is this the true story of our Miss Murray? Here is what we have learned.

Jane's former married name is Jane Vimont. Her husband Tom Vimont was connected to Vimont & Wills, a major law firm in Lexington. (Now it is called Bowles Rice, LLC.) Whether this helped Jane to get a job in the Lexington office of Mayor Scottie Baesler is unknown. However, she worked for Mayor Baeslernfrom 1986 to 1992. When Mr. Baesler was elected to congress in 1992, he took her to Washington as his legislative assistant. Things were going well for Jane and the Congressman, when the Lexington Herald Leader (the largest newspaper in Ky) ran a FRONT PAGE story (9/25/1995) which was very critical of both Congressman Baesler and Murray, who was going by Jane Vimont at the time. The paper accused Baesler as mayor and Vimont-Murray, mentioning her by name, of violating city policy regarding personal expenses "from 1987 to December 1992" (corresponding to Murray-Vimont's time in the office). Despite warnings by auditors of the city's finances, Jane as the mayor's legislative liaison continued to violate the City's policy on credit card use.

Here is a 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.

Other violations of City policy by Murray-Vimont included overly expensive meals and lodging, expensive gifts given to public officials (for example, $27 letter openers given to state legislators--this was in 1990 dollars), and excessive economic development trips to Japan, Korea, India, Europe, New Orleans, etc.

This 'page-one' coverage was a serious blow to Baesler who was up for reelection the following year and who was also planning to run for governor (which he did in 1998, but was defeated). Murray's website says she left the Congressman's office in 1995. But according to the Herald-Leader story, she was still employed by Baesler's office on Sept. 25, 1995, so she obviously left after the scandal.

It seems reasonable to us to conclude that Murray-Vimont may have been fired or asked to resign due to her misfeasance of public funds at an embarassing time for Congressman Baesler. We would hope that Murray would answer that question here or by email to ptownu@yahoo.com. However if not we hope that local news media will attempt to get a response.

It is understandable that Murray would shine the best light possible on her past career. That's human nature. We all make mistakes. and we all have things in our pasts that we do not want the world to know.

But what bothers us is that Jane Murray is constantly criticizing the mayor and City officials of breaking the law, of cover-ups, of malfeasance, and of incompetance. She says that WHEN she is elected she "will obey the law"! She claims that the simpletons in office in Portsmouth do NOT know how to read a financial statement or balance accounts and the Portsmouth Times dutifully repeats every word. Yet she knows the whole time that state auditors and newspapers in Kentucky have charged her with the same charges and worse, that she misused City of Lexington funds in violation of state and City policies for her own personal benefit.

People who know Jane Murrayand who supported her in the primary election, have now turned their support to one of the other candidates. The former Murray backers have seen what many of us have seen: Jane Murray thinks she is better than everyone else.

Does Jerry Skiver think he is better than the rest of us? I don't think so.

Is Jim Kalb better than everyone else in Portsmouth? No. Does he think he is better than the rest of us? God, no!! That's why, during his years as Mayor, he has continued to work part-time at Krogers. He has served the City as a City Councilman, as Mayor, and as grocery store employee for many years. Though his critics jeer and make fun of him for this, no one can deny that this has kept him in touch with the citizens of our town. We have not heard of him using his office to take trips to Japan or New Orleans or financially benefit himself in anyway, beyond his salary. (If you have heard of this, let us know.)

Has Jane Murray done anything to benefit our City? Nothing we can think of, even after checking her website. Oh wait. She has a lawsuit against the City. Maybe she thinks that is doing something for the community, but if so , it is not mentioned on her website.

If Jane Murray is elected as Mayor, where will she spend our tax money? In Lexington? In New Orleans? In Japan? Or at the local Kroger's supermarket?

Murray says it's a done deal. She's already won. She IS going to be the next mayor. Well, that's really up to us to decide isn't it?

BE HERE in coming days for more un-asked/un-answered questions for Jane Murray.

First Question for Murray Coming at Midnight Tonight

Probably the most glaringly obvious un-answered (and un-asked!) question from the Jane Murray campaign is related to Murray's former employment as a legislative aid for Scotty Baesler, Mayor of Lexington 1982 to 1993, US Congressman 1993 to 1999, failed candidate for Ky Governor in 1998. Murray worked for Baesler from 1983 to 1995, and she trumpets her past legislative experience in Lexington and Washington on her website and at every public appearance.

Sherlock Holmes once solved a mystery by focusing on "the dog that didn't bark." Well, we at P-Town U think this campaign has it's own dog that is not barking.

* If Murray was such a great assistant to Baesler, why have we not seen any kind of endorsement from the former congressman? A letter, a photograph of the two together, even a personal appearance by this well-known politician would certainly be a plus for the Murray campaign. This seems very strange to us.

Other questions:

* If Murray was so instrumental in so many projects, why have we seen no pictures from that time of the museums, cultural centers, etc., that she was able to create? And that she promises to bring to Portsmouth?

* Why are the no endorsements at all from any public figures from Lexington or Washington? Surely she would still have contacts who could vouch for her, so that the Citizens of Portsmouth don't have to just "take her word" for all of her accomplishments.

* And perhaps the biggest of all these questions: Why did Murray leave Baesler's staff in the fall of 1995, right in the middle of Baesler's tenure in Washington, just as he was preparing to run for governor? Was she fired or did she resign? If so was she forced to resign?

These vital questions will be addressed in the first of three expose's of the Murray campaign. We will release the results of our investigation tonight at midnight.

After you read it, you will definitely question the first statement by Murray, as quoted in the newspaper story below; "I will abide by the law."

Meet Jane Murray's Supporters: Harald Daub

MEET HARALD DAUB: The Facial Jester

USEC, the place you probably call the A-Plant, isn't a bad place to work. But like any workplace there are always certain people who ruin it for everyone else. For example, Harald Daub. He's one of those guys you try to avoid if you see him coming. All he does is piss and moan about everything that is wrong in the world. Especially the City of Portsmouth which has been his obsession ever since he was recalled as a City Councilman. (You know that nice big Towne Center Mall they have in Ashland, Kentucky. Well, they were going to build that in Portsmouth, but Daub was on Council and he was afraid some developers were going to make some money on the deal, so he voted against it. Some people resented that and Harald was recalled.)

Anyway, no matter who the mayor is Daub always wants to recall him for this or that. Everyone who disagrees with him is automatically a 'crook' whose 'lining their pocketh' with bribes and 'raithing thity taxeth.' And usually Daub helped get the 'crook' elected in the first place. And at work, you can't get away from him. And the whole time he's talking to you, you're thinking "I wish I could just hold you down and snip those stupid mousetails off your mustache," or "Why can't you just learn to pronounce the letter S?" Of course we all feel that way about him. As we say at the plant: "A Little Daub'll Do You."

Even though I don't live in Portsmouth, I used to go to council meetings sometimes, but I got so sick of Daub and the rest of the chain of fools that always gets up to bitch at Council, that I quit going. I say that anyone (meaning city council) who sits there and listens to Daub and his gang of freaks without going postal deserves a medal (or at least a free mental health screening). When I heard Daub was supporting Jane Murray I wasn't one bit surprised.

Here are some little known facts about Harald Daub:

1) Daub is an Aldi's "Secret Shopper." Late last year, Harald was arrested for shoplifting tools at the local Aldi's supermarket (or as he calls it, Christmas shopping). The store had him on video and pressed charges against him. Fortunately for the sake of justice, Harald's co-conspirator, I mean, nephew, who just happened to shopping with Daub, took the fall for his uncle... I mean, he admitted that he was the guilty party, and Harald got off scott free.

http://www.pmcourt.org/cgi-bin/mcaseno.cgi?pre=CRB&num=0900093&sub=&type=CR&acc

Don't you just hate it when your out shopping with your nephew and you get arrested for no reason? And it turns out your nephew did it. I hate it when that happens.

2) Daub is a renowned pugilist This picture of Harald appeared on the internet in 2005 after he claims he got sucker punched by a Portsmouth City Councilman and ended up in the hospital, as a result. Man, that musta been one hell of a sucker-punch!! Harald claims he was unable to press charges because there were no witnesses.

Don't you just hate it when your minding your own business and a city official walks up and punches you for no reason and you end up in the hospital and you don't have any witnesses? I hate when that happens.

3) Daub is a record-breaking politician: Harald Daub holds the record for getting the fewest number of votes of any candidate for County Commissioner when he ran for the office in 2006. (It must have been his great slogan: "Do As U Believe!" Not quite as catchy as "Yes, We Can!")
 

He also holds the record for the shortest term on City Council. After being elected to City Council in 1979 he did such a bang-up job that he was recalled the next year, after just 10 months in office--by law that is the shortest amount of time that citizens had to wait to recall a council person. Ever since being recalled, Daub has had it out for the City.

Don't you just hate it when you're doing a great job as a City Councilman, making sure that no malls get built in your town, and you get recalled for no reason? I hate it when that happens.

A word of warning to Ms. Murray: Daub was at one time Jim Kalb's biggest supporter. Now he's your biggest supporter and he's out to get Kalb. Just remember the other saying we have at the plant:

"A Little Daub'll Screw Ya."

3 Questions Jane Murray MUST ANSWER Before Election Day

NOTE: The position of mayor is probably the most powerful and important public position in our county. The County Commissioner's may control a larger budget than the mayor, but each of them is only one of three, and is restricted by the other two. And the Mayor really serves as the face of our community. It is very important to know the truth about each of the candidates for mayor. We know Jim Kalb. His past, his family realtions, his record, his marriages, even his teen years growing up on Jackson Street have all been thoroughly publicized and scrutinized, for good or ill, for all the world to see on the internet. Even Mr. Skiver is well known in our community. But all we know about Jane Murray is what she has chosen to share with us. Even the internet has been especially gentle with her. Why is that we wonder? Soon we will begin a series of 3 articles that will explore the background and intentions of a person that the citizens of Portsmouth really don't know very well. (Make that at least 3 articles.) Perhaps you have questions of your own for the candidates. If you do, send it to us at ptownu@yahoo.com. We will try to get answers or at least tell you what we think. We think the next few days will be interesting.