That's as interesting post as I've read in a while.  It is no secret up here that Bryant is actively running for Lt. Gov and will not risk making any constituent group mad.  Bryant understands of having USM support him in his effort, and Thames has been giving just that at every chance that I've seen (though I doubt he's done so for the good of having a USM grad as Lt. Gov.).

Tate on the other hand has no allegiences, he went Millsaps I believe, and has higher political aspirations than what is otherwise generally considered a dead end job politically in the state.  This may be interesting.

Yes, USM Alum you are so right!  VERY interesting.  I hope that Mr. Tate (ST) will move on this one.  He is too bright to sit in a dead end job.  The irony of his invstigation will alos call into light two people who have now left USM but are not protected from their misdeeds just because they left and those two people are T. Hudosn and L.McFall.

OHHHHHHHH! I can't wait for him to take action, if he does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Lick"n My Chops
"OHHHHHHHH! I can't wait for him to take action, if he does."

---

He won't. Sooner or later reality will set in. The reality that is that the majority of USM alumni still take their cues from SFT & Tate can't risk alienating that large a group of potential supporters.

The faculty may like the idea of being part of the University of Mississippi, but I assure you that the majority of USM alumni not only would not support "consolidation" but would actively fight it. A significant number don't merely "dislike" Ole Miss; they hate Ole Miss.

I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think the conspiracy is to "give" USM-Hattiesburg to another institution. The conspiracy is to knock USM-Hattiesburg down a notch to where Jackson State is now & then split off the Coast for two remaining "comprehensives" to squabble over. Ultimately, I see the Coast going to MSU.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Alum
"Invictus, there really aren't enough USM alumni that continue to support Thames to effect Tate's political motives in long term.  Thames has had his wings clipped severely.  However, Bryant would like the University to continue backing him as it is currently doing."

---

I think the alumni are definitely going to be a factor for Tate Reeves. It's not just Thames he would be exposing. He would be "embarrassing" an institution that has already been embarrassed enough in the past 24 months. Alumni would likely remember Reeves as the guy who dragged down USM and not as the guy who dragged down Shelby Thames.

Remember, the vast majority of alumni really don't care one way or the other about Shelby Thames. They really don't care one way or the other about the university now that they've graduated. But they might object to the "good name" of USM being dragged down by an over-enthusiastic young politician.

Moreover, if your theory about the banker's motive were true, Thames could defend his own corruption by alleging corruption by his accusers. It would be ugly, confusing & take longer to sort out than Shelby has remaining on his contract. And it would be political suicide for Reeves.

Invictus & Stinky Cheese Man,

Wouldn't the Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER) be an appropriate body to look into this situation? I recall that they used to have a relatively free hand in the investigation process in relevant performance and expenditure matters pertaining to state government. Is that still the case? Here is information from their website:

PEER is an acronym for Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review, a standing committee of the Mississippi Legislature. Created in 1973, PEER provides the Legislature with timely and accurate information on Mississippi state government in order to enable that body to perform its function of legislative oversight. PEER analyzes state agency programs and operations and helps the Legislature make state government more effective, efficient and accountable. The forms which PEER analyses take include:

• performance evaluations,
  
• investigations,
  
• and expenditure reviews.

The PEER Committee is comprised of seven members of the Senate and seven members of the House of Representatives and employs a staff of about twenty-seven.

What is legislative oversight?

Legislative oversight is the process by which a legislative body takes an active role in understanding and monitoring the performance of state government and applies this knowledge to its other three primary functions: making laws and public policy; setting budgets; and raising revenues. A Legislature must know and understand the operations of state government in order to make informed decisions on the laws which it passes and the financial decisions which it makes.

As government has grown and become increasingly complex, holding the public business accountable through effective legislative oversight has become increasingly challenging and important. Illustrative of the complexity of modern state government, Mississippi’s executive branch consists of approximately eighty-five agencies, boards, and commissions operating without close coordination under a complex administrative network which includes foundations, advisory boards, independent administrative regulatory boards, regional federal officials, and local officials. One of the consequences of this fragmented authority is a great deal of disparity in the levels of efficiency and effectiveness achieved by various programs. Legislative oversight can untangle the administrative network and fix responsibility for corrective action. Adding to the complex state government framework the tight fiscal constraints of recent years makes legislative oversight and its focus on the effective and efficient utilization of public sector resources even more critical.

While legislative oversight can involve obtaining any type of information for consideration in legislative deliberations, some of its primary objectives are to:

• identify and avoid inefficiency and waste in government. This objective includes identification of extravagance, fraud, and misuse of public funds as well as identification of functions which are duplicative, overlap, or for any other reason warrant redefinition, redirection, redistribution and/or restructuring;
  
• determine the extent of government’s effectiveness in carrying out public policy as set by the Legislature;
  
• determine whether responsible parties are administering the law fairly and properly throughout the state; and,
  
• increase knowledge and understanding of government programs.

How does PEER help the Legislature to carry out legislative oversight?

PEER is the primary entity performing legislative oversight in Mississippi. State law (MISS. CODE ANN. Section 5-3-51 et seq.) specifically grants PEER the authority to perform the following activities at any time as the committee deems necessary:

• evaluate the performance of state and local agencies;
  
• review agency records;
  
• investigate agencies which are in whole or in part supported by public funds; and,
  
• review agency compliance with state laws.

The law also grants the Committee the power to:

• file or assist the Attorney General’s office in filing actions for the recovery of any funds misused or misappropriated and to prosecute or assist in prosecution of criminal violations revealed;
  
• subpoena and examine witnesses and documents; and,
  
• appoint and house the auditor for the state’s correctional system(MISS. CODE ANN. Section 47-5-35).

In addition to these legislated functions, from 1989 to the present the PEER Committee has provided staff assistance to the Standing Joint Legislative Committee on Reapportionment.

PEER bases its investigative and evaluative work on first-hand observation of the operations of state agencies and local government. While the primary objective of legislative oversight is to detect problems and deficiencies in the delivery of government services, PEER reviews assume a variety of forms. The three major types of oversight reviews are:

1. financial audits;
   
2. economy and efficiency reviews;
   
3. program evaluations.

A full scope review incorporates all three of these major oversight review types.

The purpose of a financial audit or fiscal review is to determine through financial records whether public monies are being legally spent and properly controlled. An economy and efficiency review (also referred to as management audit or operations review) focuses on whether an entity is managing and utilizing its resources (e.g., property, personnel) economically and efficiently. This type of review also seeks to determine the causes of inefficiencies and/or uneconomical practices. A program or performance evaluation determines the effectiveness of government programs and operations in accomplishing goals and objectives. This type of review compares what a program is accomplishing to what the Legislature intended the program to accomplish. A full scope review incorporates all of the previously described review types to arrive at a comprehensive assessment of overall program objectives and impact. A type of limited scope review which came into vogue in the late 1970’s is the sunset review. While incorporating elements of all three major review types, a sunset review is limited in scope by time and legal constraints.

In addition to these more formal types of oversight reviews, PEER staff spends a significant amount of time in performing the following types of legislative assistance:

• background investigations on state government appointments requiring legislative confirmation;
  
• fiscal notes which estimate the financial impact of bills being considered by the Legislature; and,
  
• informational requests initiated by legislators which are generally very short-term and non-controversial in nature, e.g. determining the number of employees in a given school district.

How do PEER Committee reviews originate?

Requests for PEER reviews originate from a variety of sources including:

• legislative committees;
  
• individual legislators;
  
• PEER Committee members;
  
• statutory authorization;
  
• staff proposals;
  
• other governmental agencies; and,
  
• citizen complaints.

A citizen can bring a matter of concern before the Committee for consideration as a PEER project by providing to the Committee a signed written summary of his or her complaint. With the exception of projects authorized by statute or legislative information requests that are neither sensitive (i.e., suggesting improper conduct) nor complex, the Committee must approve any request for a PEER review prior to initiation of the review by PEER staff. The Committee assigns top priority to requests from legislators and legislative committees.

What form do PEER reviews take?

A published report is the most common product of a PEER review. These reports have a standard format which includes a very brief summary of the report on its cover, followed by a more detailed "Executive Summary," the full text of report findings and recommendations, and concludes with the agency’s response to the report. Some PEER reports are available on tape. PEER staff are available to brief committees or individual legislators on the contents of reports.

How effective are PEER reviews?

In its thirty-plus years of operation, PEER has become a significant resource for the Legislature, providing in-depth evaluations of government operations as well as short-term informational assistance. Since its inception, the Committee has published over 470 reports and completed over 2,000 legislative and special requests, including fiscal notes, budget and other limited scope analyses, special investigations, evaluations, and feasibility studies. Annually, the Committee distributes over 2,000 reports to Mississippi legislators, governmental agencies and interested citizens, as well as to public and private entities from numerous states.

PEER’s oversight and review process has resulted in a significant number of actions by the Legislature and state agencies that have resulted in savings, cost avoidance, or additional revenue for the state. In addition, even those reports that were designed to inform or to recommend administrative or policy changes have often resulted in improved public services with the same level of spending.

Why is legislative oversight important?

Legislative oversight is an implied power of U.S. legislative bodies, derived from English tradition which holds that a representative assembly must be informed in order to properly execute its legislative functions. The following quotes argue for the importance of legislative oversight in a representative democracy.

Noted in 14 Gray 226 MASS. 1859:

The power of the general assembly to obtain information on any subject upon which it has power to legislate, with a view to its enlightenment and guidance, is so obviously essential to the performance of legislative functions that it has always been exercised without question.

President Woodrow Wilson made the following convincing argument for the need for legislative oversight at the federal level in his classic work Congressional Government(1885):

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function. The argument is not only that discussed and interrogated administration is the only pure and efficient administration, but, more than that, that the only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration.

Telford Taylor, Grand Inquest, pp. 5-6, said:

A legislative body -be it the British House of Commons, or either house of Congress, or a state legislature-is endowed with the investigative power in order to obtain information, so that its legislative functions may be discharged in an enlightened rather than a benighted basis.

Recent Reports    Previous Reports    Report Subject Index    Related Links    Staff    Home