Seale says no to column in response to latest post. Offer for open thread Q&A on the table.

In response to the post Madison County Lobbyist won't answer questions until you answer some questions first, and prove your "special" , and in response to my offer of a guest column on this blog, Madison County Lobbyist C. Stephen Seale had this to write:

Mr. Harvester, thanks for the column offer but I'll just offer a few comments in response here. First, it's "you're", not "your special" as referenced in your headline, but you missed the point I was trying to make. I don't know you and don't know you to be a taxpayer. If you are a citizen of Madison County, you are represented by the Board of Supervisors. The Board is my client. I work on behalf of Madison County taxpayers as directed by the Board. I began my state Senate service in 1993 and have worked as a state Senator, Chief Counsel to Sen. Lott and as a lawyer/lobbyist at the federal and state levels since. This amounts to almost 18 years of experience working in and around government. I have worked on policy and funding issues for, among others, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, hospitals, telecommunications companies and other Mississippi-based interests. My clients seeking federal funding and I have a position on earmarks that benefit Mississippi and Madison County and its citizens, and we believe that should be the same position of our elected federal representatives. Finally, as to your position on my "defensiveness", my responses to what you write start with my objection to someone who doesn't know me or know much about my work writing about me and my work without at least trying to talk to me to get my position on the matters you write about. I hope anyone reading what you write and my response will understand that. If that's defensive, so be it.

Thanks for the editorial correction, Mr. Seale. No matter how many times I self-edit, I am bound to miss something. In that spirit, from one editor to another, might I suggest you create a new paragraph on occasion in your written responses. They are somewhat lengthy and would be a much easier read if you did so.

A few observations:

1. You write that you don’t know me to be a taxpayer. I am. As this website indicates, I am in fact a resident of Flora.

2. If you work on “behalf” of the Madison County taxpayers as you write, why would you not answer questions FROM the Madison County taxpayers? You seem quite ready to open up and defend yourself passionately online.  If you don’t wish to write it in the form of a column as I have offered, would you be willing to participate in an open thread Q&A? I’m trying to give you an opportunity here, Mr. Seale. Your friends are as welcome to participate as are those who may have tough questions for you. I’ll monitor the conversation and be sure the posts are only in the form of questions to you, not open ended statements, and no attacks on other commenters. I’ll see to it everything remains civil. Name the time and you’ve got the place.

3. I appreciate your lobbying experience and your time IN government. I made the reference to your time IN government. I made no judgment as to whether the length of that time disqualified you for service in your current capacity. In fact, I’m sure it gave you good insight, and obviously you do have extensive experience as a lobbyist since then. However, I do make a judgment call (as a taxpayer) as to the lack of oversight by which we can measure your success and our investment in your performance, and whether your services are actually needed. Regardless of who directs you and approves the invoices, you should be politically savvy enough to understand who actually pays that $100,000 per year salary.

4. Many of the taxpayers will take exception to you and your “clients seeking federal funding” and the position you hold on earmarks. Is it your contention that you and your “clients” know better than we lowly little taxpayers what is and is not to our “benefit”? I personally agree that it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to “direct spending.” And I believe those that would end all earmarks are shortsighted, as that responsibility would then fall solely to the Executive Branch. But, I also believe earmark reform is needed to control runaway government spending. And, I also know a lobbyist shouldn’t publicly take a Congressman to task, and then expect him to take you seriously when you show up with hands out.

The problem with the current spending is that the Madison County citizens to whom you refer know mismanagement when they see it. There are serious questions regarding the Madison County Board of Supervisor’s management and lack of oversight. There is an outcry against bloated government, fraud and mismanagement of government spending. The current auditor’s report shows that lack of oversight in Madison County, and we have yet to see the financial report, which could be even more damaging to the board’s credibility. Mr. Johnson and Warnock can use the term “political witch hunt” all they want. The facts show that the questions and the audit were warranted. Your own statements show that you take the seriousness of the report lightly and defend the leadership of the Board of Supervisors despite the facts of the report. That shows a lack of judgment.

5. Finally, with respect to your defensiveness: You discredit yourself with the public when you make comments to the media defending the status quo, and then attack people online for calling such statements into question. What we know about you and your work is what we see, Mr. Seale. And you have made yourself seen and heard. You can’t now run from those comments. As to your “position on matters,” this door remains open to you.

This past week’s exchange between you and I has been referred to by others as a Madison County Food Fight. Why not instead turn it into a civil dinner of “food for thought”? If you choose not to participate in this offer of an open thread Q&A with Harvester readers, so be it. But the floor is still yours should you decide otherwise.