Jane Murray: Muhammad Ali Museum

One of Ms. Murray's major claims is that she is taking on the Good Old Boys of Portsmouth----even though she never really says who those good old boys are or exactly how she is taking them on. So far, it seems like the only good old boys she has taken on are the EPA, ODOT, and the A-Plant.

But there was a time in her career that she took on a very famous "good old boy." His name is Muhammad Ali.

On Jane Murray's website, http://www.janemurrayformayor.com/, she makes the following claim:

She says she was "project manager" for "Round One," a special exhibition on the life of Muhammad Ali for Muhammad Ali Center (in Louisville, KY), but she gives us no date for this project (or any others). This is quite a resume' enhancer. Of course the average citizen, considering who to vote for as mayor, would be suitably impressed.  

However, also on her website, we find this:

We know she worked for Scotty Baesler in Lexington from 1986 to 1993, and in Washington from 1993 to 1995. Jane did not leave Baesler's office until sometime after September 1995. So just when did Jane work for the Ali museum and what did she really do?

The Muhammad Ali Center did not even open until 2005. Up until then it was in various stages of site selection, fund-raising, and planning. In 1996, the museum was an idea without a home, still struggling to meet its financial obligations. The following story about the Ali Museum's progress appeared in June of 1996.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Jane didn't leave her job in Washington until after September 1995, but this article says in June 1996, she was a bill collector for Lord Cultural Resources of Toronto, Ontario "which did some early museum planning and research." But Jane's resume says that, as JVA, Inc., she was the "project manager" for "the first phase of the Muhammad Ali Center." Which is it?

Project Manager sounds a lot more impressive than bill collector. Again we ask. Where are the references? Where are the recommendations by the museum board or pictures of Jane with important people involved with the museum, to verify that Jane truly has the impressive credentials she claims? As usual we have to take her word for her claims.

Unfortunately, we were unable to determine if Jane was able to collect the $23,000 owed to Lord Cultural Resources.

Jane Murray: Lexington Credit Card Scandal

Jane Murray (then going by her married name, Jane Vimont) worked for Lexington Mayor Scotty Baesler from 1986 to 1992. When Mr. Baesler was elected to congress in 1992, Jane Murray-Vimont went with Baesler to Washington as his legislative assistant.

In September 1995, when Baesler was running for re-election to congress 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 Jane for a lingering scandal from Baesler's time as Mayor of Lexington.

The original article is presented below.

(Click to enlarge image)

(Click to enlarge image)

(Click to enlarge image)

The paper, mentioned Jane Murray-Vimont by name, and accused Baesler and Murray-Vimont 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). Jane 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, and as a result of her misfeasance of public funds and the newspaper's revelations which came at a very embarrassing time for Congressman Baesler.

During her campaign for mayor, Murray constantly accused the mayor and City officials of breaking the law, of cover-ups, of malfeasance, and of incompetence. But state auditors and newspapers in Kentucky have accused 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.

During the campaign, Jane Murray she said that she was elected she would "abide by the law."

Murray did not abide by the law in Lexington and has not abided by the law in Portsmouth. If Murray is not recalled the remaining three years of her terms will be a continuing disaster and embarrassment to the City of Portsmouth.

Ohio Supreme Court Decision

Jane Murray began her political career in Portsmouth in 2008 by spearheading a recall effort against Howard Baughman, who was at the time president of Portsmouth City Council. She took out and circulated petitions to have Baughman removed from office, in accordance with the Portsmouth City Charter. (Baughman resigned rather than facing recall.) Murray's strongest supporters (who some refer to as the Citizens Against Virtually Everything, or the "CAVE People") have used and/or have threatened to use the recall provisions of the Charter against city councilmen and mayors many times in the last decades. Finally, when Murray was sworn into office, she took an oath to uphold the City Charter, which includes the recall section, which she previously used against Baughman.

Yet when Citizens of Portsmouth used the recall provision against her, Murray's first response was to call the citizens corrupt.

Then rather than choosing to face the voters and defend her outrageous actions since January, she hypocritically challenged the rights of the citizens: first at the Scioto County Board of Elections, and ultimately to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Her supporters on City Council, Rich Noel and Kevin Johnson, railed against the recall effort. Noel's complaints were complete hypocrisy.

Johnson's response was to those who had collected the signatures of 1400-plus citizens, twice, "incompetent," "sloppy," and "stupid."

City Council, in accordance with the requirements of the City Charter, approved the recall petitions and passed an ordinance so that the Board of Elections would place the issue of the recall of Jane Murray on the November 2 general election ballot, which would not have been an additional cost the city or county. However, Jane appealed to the County Board of Elections and convinced them to reject the petitions on a technicality, forcing the recall committee to once again solicit the required number of signatures.

(It is Murray's futile fight to keep the recall off the ballot, not the "recall leaders' incompetence," to use Johnson's words, that will ultimately cost the citizens $15,000 to $20,000. )

When the committee was once again successful, Murray and her attorneys again appealed to the Board of Elections. This time the Board rejected Murray's complaint.

Murray then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio---in the form of a lawsuit against the Board of Elections! (in hopes that the County would be forced to pay Murray's legal fees.) Now, the Elections Board was only doing its job, and complying with the City Charter of Portsmouth (which, as we said, Murray is sworn to uphold), but Murray's suit accused them of "abuse of discretion and disregard of applicable law."

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

The decision of the Supreme Court was released on Thursday of last week (12/2). It was a compete repudiation of Murray's arguments. The decision vindicated those whom Jane and her cronies accused of wrong-doing.

The ruling was UNANIMOUS. All eight of the Supreme Court Justices indicated their complete agreement with the decision, and that Murray's arguments had "no merit."

Here are some key statements from the ruling:

"Because the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded applicable law by determining that the recall petition contained a sufficient number of valid signatures, we deny the writ of prohibition. We dismiss the mandamus claim for lack of jurisdiction."

"Therefore, the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded applicable law by denying Murray’s protest premised on the recall petition’s purported failure to comply with R.C. 3501.38(E)(1)."

"But for the reasons previously set forth, she [Murray] has failed to establish either an abuse of discretion or a clear disregard of applicable law by the board of elections that would result in an insufficient number of signatures on the recall petition."

"Therefore, Murray is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ of  prohibition to prevent the recall election. We deny the writ of prohibition and dismiss the mandamus claim."

We hope this fateful decision and the results of the Dec. 7 recall election will end Jane Murray's tragic political career in Portsmouth.

Jane Murray has repeatedly claimed that she has the experience in goverment and the judgment that Portsmouth needs. However, Murray's embarassing defeat in the Ohio Supreme Court, is just more proof, if any were needed, that her judgement is as poor as it ever was.

Her loss in the Supreme Court is just another in a long string of failures in goverment that have followed her throughout her career, from Lexington to Washington, and now in Portsmouth, Ohio.

Anyone who doubts Murray's incompetence and poor judgment should read the precedent-setting, unanimous Supreme Court decision:

M. Jane Murray vs. Scioto County Board of Elections

(click for link)