February 26, 2025 • 49 mins
Got a question or a tip? Send us a text
Zack and David break down Tuesday night's mayoral debate between Leroy Brooks and Bill Strauss where both impressed the audience. The loser of the debate? A candidate who wasn't even there.
Then Rep. Rob Roberson - who many view as the face of the effort to move MSMS from Mississippi University for Women to Mississippi State University - joins us via Zoom from Jackson to discuss the future of the state's school for the academically gifted.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From the opinion page of the Commercial Dispatch.
This is Between the Headlines.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
This is Peter Imes, publisher of the Dispatch.
One of our hosts of Between theHeadlines is the managing
editor of our newsroom.
Typically we try to keep newsand opinions separate, but
reporters have a unique insightinto the workings of local
government and their analysiscan be helpful for readers and
listeners.
The dispatch remains committedto journalistic integrity and
(00:38):
our reporting will alwaysreflect that.
And now Between the Headlines.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
This week, on Between the Headlines, the defendant
takes the stand regarding allthis MSMS talk.
That is the chair of our HouseEducation Committee.
None other than the gentlemanfrom Octavia himself, mr Rob
Robertson, will join in and ofcourse we will break down the
Democrat-hosted mayoral debateand tell you who was the big
(01:05):
le-who-ze-her.
But first let's hear from thefine folks who make this show
possible.
Retirement looks different foreveryone, so your plan should be
built around you.
For over 40 years, financialConcepts has helped people
create retirement strategiesthat fit their lives.
Our team in Columbus takes thetime to understand your goals
(01:27):
and build a plan that works foryou.
Wherever you are in yourjourney, we're ready to help.
We plan retirement.
Financial Concepts is aregistered investment advisor.
Do you need help achieving theright?
Look in your house.
At Lighting, unlimited andUncommon Living.
You'll find quality, uniquepieces that will elevate your
home instantly.
(01:48):
Great furniture and lightingnot only reflect a style, they
also define a home.
With Lighting Unlimited andUncommon Living, you can expect
more.
Visit them at 1116 GardnerBoulevard or online at
lighting-columbuscom.
Benton's Maintenance andMechanical makes easy work out
(02:09):
of plumbing, electrical, heatingand air conditioner problems.
You can book an appointment byphone or online and rest assured
they will show up at theappointed time.
Call Benton's at 662-657-2583or visit them online at
bentonsinccom.
That is bentonsinccom.
And now a message frompolitical candidate Bill Strauss
(02:33):
.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
I want to thank the Commercial Dispatch for this
podcast, bringing differentviews in an open discussion.
I'm Bill Strauss, humbly askingfor your vote as next mayor of
Columbus.
You deserve transparency andaccountability for your tax
dollars.
I'm business friendly andcharitable.
Vote Bill Strauss mayor ofColumbus 2025.
Paid for by campaign to electBill Strauss.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
And now a message from political candidate Jason
Spears.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
I am Jason Spears, candidate for City Council, ward
6.
Over the past 20 years Ifaithfully and effectively
served our community in manydifferent ways.
If elected, I will bringstructure and strategy to the
city's finances, help develop ablueprint to capitalize on the
growing economic activity in ourcity and work to strengthen
relationships with LowndesCounty officials, the Golden
Triangle Development Link and,most importantly, you, the
(03:23):
citizens of Columbus.
I approve this message and, onApril 1st, vote Jason Spears for
Ward 6, paid for by thecampaign to elect Jason Spears.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Thank you for joining us today.
You are listening to Betweenthe Headlines hosted by the
master moderator managing editorof the Commercial Dispatch, mr
Zach Player, and I am DavidChisholm, leroy brooks.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
well I mean david.
He has a question for all of us.
Are you tired of?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
all the foolishness.
He said it a lot.
I've been tired of thefoolishness for quite some time,
to put it lightly.
But I can tell you that I amnot the only one tired of
foolishness.
And, and that is to say lookingat last night and looking at
the crowd interaction in abuilding.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Oh man, that crowd was great, they were great.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
Now, the loudest by far applause of the night was
after a line by Bill Strauss,when he said let's just throw
out all of the city council andI can tell you you they simply
erupted.
And after that it was likebeing in church, like the fun
kind of church, oh yeahabsolutely.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
I think that both candidates did what they needed
to do.
Bill Strauss, the independent,taking the invitation to be a
part of the Democratic debate.
Leroy delivered exactly what hewas supposed to.
He performed magnificently, hisenergy was on point.
He was on brand, on message.
You know exactly what you'regetting if you vote for Leroy,
(04:55):
and nothing changed about thatyesterday.
So whether you vote for him,whether you're booking him as a
motivational speaker or whetheryou're inviting him to your
house, you get that Leroy and hedidn't leave you wondering who
he was when he left there, youknow.
At the same time, you know Billdid surprisingly well, at least
for me, and I want to eat alittle bit of crow here.
(05:16):
If you remember the firstpodcast episode we did, I said
you know Bill's a spoilercandidate.
Yeah, and the only person he'sgoing to spoil is Darren Leach.
I don't know After last night,you know.
First of all, he showed courageby even showing up.
Second, I think he elevated hismessage and held his own on the
debate stage.
Leroy was Leroy all night long,but Bill, I think you know,
(05:39):
acquitted himself really well.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
Well, what's interesting to me is is anyone
new coming in there?
They would probably say thatLeroy absolutely mopped the
floor with Bill's nose, okay,but but if you have been around
and you've listened to Leroy Imean, he's been in politics what
41 years and you know howpolished he is you knew he was
(06:04):
going to be ready.
So if you've been around, thenyou weren't really surprised,
other than, as you say, the BillStrauss side of this really
held their own.
I mean, he came in, he wascourageous, maybe a little
nervous at first, but he wasthere.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Yeah, he was there and he wasn't just there to be,
you know, a foil, he was thereto compete and I think he got
his message across.
Now I think that one thing thatwe can talk about is, you know,
the differentiation in theirmessages, which I think is there
were some very clear.
(06:43):
There were some times theyagreed and, as you talked about
the audience, I think respondedreally well to you know, leroy,
when he was being funny, when hewas you know when, when, when
he was pounding home his message, there were times they
applauded for him, laughed forhim.
They did?
Speaker 4 (06:57):
He had a lot of singers.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
They did the same for Bill and showed Bill a lot of
respect, but I do think thatthere were some very key
differences in their responsesthematically.
And, david, I know we'regetting to know each other, but
one thing that you're going toget to know about me, the more
we we talk, is I talk in sportsmetaphors almost more than I
(07:19):
talk in regular English, and soI'm going to start there now.
Bill presented the mayorship andhow he envisioned the mayorship
as more of like that gamemanager quarterback versus the
you know the gunslingerquarterback of Leroy.
You know Bill talked,repeatedly talked about the role
and the power of the mayor'sjob.
(07:40):
You know, at one point heliterally said that he thought
the questions that we were askedI was among one of the, I was
among the three moderators inthe debate, but at one point he
literally said that thequestions were veering more
toward what the city should doand he thought that the question
should be taking, should betalking more about what the
(08:01):
mayor should do.
And Leroy's response to that, Imean he attacked that as a
distinction, without adifference.
He couched the mayor's role asbeing a city ambassador, out
front face and leader.
He noted he already had seatsat all the good tables.
He mentioned Joe, max, higginsand the Link a lot.
Oh yeah, he knew everyone in thestate of Mississippi Right, and
(08:21):
everybody in the state ofMississippi knows him, and he
presented very clearly how hecould leverage that to the
city's advantage.
So, using that game managerversus gunslinger Bill, we're
going to manage clock, we'regoing to manage down and
distance.
The department heads the line'sgoing to block, the running
backs are going to run, thereceivers are going to catch the
(08:42):
ball, and that's what we expect.
There's a very, very narrow,specific role for the mayor, and
Leroy's was more.
We're going to pass for 300yards, we're going to run for
200 yards and we're going toknock the hell out of everybody
on defense, and I feel like thatresonates with more voters.
But what do you think there?
(09:04):
What do you think about theirvisions?
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Well, to be honest, I think that Bill Strauss fell a
little flat in that regard and Ithink that's unfortunate for
Bill Strauss in the sense thatreally he's looking at this and
saying what can I feasibly do?
What can I do to not rock theboat?
He mentioned several timeswhere he praised the police
(09:28):
chief, he praised the CVB people, among others, and for the
people that were there, I'm notsure that he really scored any
points.
I was thinking through thislast night and it occurred to me
that if he were running for thecouncil person for the downtown
(09:49):
ward, it would be 950 votes to12.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Well, that is Ward 1, so I don't know if you're right
about that, but he definitelywould be more in his element
there.
Bill's very pragmatic, hedoesn't want to over-promise and
under-deliver and he knows whathe knows.
And what Bill knows is downtown, and one challenge that last
night's debate really made clearwas if Bill's going to while he
(10:17):
did acquit himself very well onthat debate stage with a more
than worthy opponent if he'sgoing to effectively grow his
voter base, he's got to get outof downtown, he's got to expand
his messaging beyond downtown.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
I had a very interesting epiphany about Leroy
last night.
I listened very carefully towhat he said and check this out.
We've got about five differenttopics.
I'll bullet point through themreal quick.
Police, he said we can't alwaysbe throwing money at the
problem.
Safety, he said after sportsthese kids, these kids, they
(10:58):
just need to get a job.
Lobbyist money, he said thatCity Hall spends money like
there is no end and the crowdgot into that.
One.
Blight, he said where's the sixmillion dollars?
And then annexation he reallygot on the offensive there.
He called out Well, that's oneof his talking points?
(11:19):
Yes, but he did.
He called him out on the carpetfor quote, wasting thousands of
dollars on obvious politicalgain.
And so I'm looking at this andI'm thinking that after the show
, I'm going to open a box, I'mgoing to put a red hat in it,
I'm going to put an applicationfor the Republican Party of
(11:41):
Lowndes County and I'm going tosend it to Mr Leroy Brooks,
because it sounds to me likethis guy was running as a
Republican.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Well, leroy, if you're listening, I want to make
note that David Chisholm saidthat and Zach Player did not.
That's right.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
Opinions are those of the speakers.
But, to be fair, let me temperthis.
I did not say he was running asa conservative because, to be
fair, he mentioned a lot ofprograms.
He mentioned programs for arepeat offenders, a study to
that regard.
He mentioned a youth summit.
He mentioned a program forcultural activities, programs,
(12:22):
programs, programs, and those docost money.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
They do.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
And that is an expansion of government.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
So one thing that would have been easy for Leroy
to do and a point that he madelast night one thing that would
be easy for him to do is to comein, assume all of the
department heads are trash, allof the departments are being run
terribly, and just rebuildeverything from scratch, or try
to.
Of course, he has to go throughthe council to do that and that
(12:53):
would be an uphill climb in alot of cases, but that's not
even what he's suggesting.
I think one of the smarterthings that—and he put out a lot
of smart ideas last night andunderstand me well— but I think
one of the more important onesthat got lost in the shuffle and
Bill actually criticized it,and I think he's wrong about it
(13:13):
Leroy sitting down for 60 daysgoing through each department
with the department heads andlooking at what needs to be done
and who needs to do it, insteadof deciding that before he gets
there.
I think that's a good idea andI think that's something that,
if it were done, could make alot of difference in the city,
(13:34):
potentially Now one place whereLeroy stumbled and most of the
questions he was ready for hehad his answers ready and even
if he was ad libbing.
He was doing it effectively.
The very last question beforeclosing statements was about the
$5 million capital fund.
It either caught him bysurprise or he wasn't as well
(13:55):
versed in his answer there,because he was kind of awash, he
was swimming.
In that answer he mentionedBurns.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
Bottom on that, did he not?
Yeah, he did.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Bill had a very good answer to that question.
He mentioned Burns bottom onthat, did he not?
Yeah, he did.
Bill knew the answer, had avery good answer to that
question.
He knew that issue and that waswhere he really, I think, from
a question answering standpoint,maybe scored his most points,
because he made mention.
I've been to see Jim Brigham,I've seen those financials, I
know what's in that fund and Iknow what it's supposed to be
(14:24):
for and this is what my visionfor leveraging that money is.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Well, he exhibited fiscal responsibility.
He said let's put in a rainyday fund, that way, when these
problems come up which they willwe're not in a twist and we're
not sitting there having toborrow more money.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
I was that was the only answer that I was
disappointed with Leroy that hedidn't have a better formed
response for something that Ithink is going to be pretty
critical to the future of thecity's finances, especially
considering where they've beenwas paradoxical about Leroy is
(15:07):
that, you know he, he had allthese bombastic statements and
and with the same mustache, hewas talking about how he was not
going to be a heavy handedmayor.
Speaker 4 (15:14):
Ok, his hand is made of lead.
I just simply can't believethat.
You know, look at his history.
At the Board of Supervisors.
He said last night that he'sgoing to bring a sense of
decorum into city hall.
I think that's fantastic, butreally decorum.
Now I want to give him thebenefit of a doubt here, but, um
(15:40):
, I mean he's a passionate guy.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
I don't think he's going to be quiet all the time,
but he's going to want to havehis hand on the steering wheel
and his foot on the gasthroughout his administration if
he wins.
But I do not see Leroy leadingemotionally from a personal
level.
I don't see him makingdecisions based on whether he
(16:02):
likes or dislikes people.
I don't see him making policydecisions based on you know,
what have you done for me lately.
I see him being a lot morepragmatic than that and I think
especially his last you know, 10years on the board of
supervisors bears that out.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
So moving on your winners and losers from the
debate, All right, the big loserwas none other than Stephen
Jones.
Because he was not there, oh,yes, and I really wish quite
honestly that he would have beenthere to kick back and give a
rebuttal of the annexation barbthat got thrown his way.
(16:41):
And now, to be fair, uh, wealso had, uh, the other
candidate not to make it the theapostle darren leach, right,
you know?
Yeah, that's on the website, bythe way.
So if you thought that therewere 12 apostles, you were
mistaken.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I digress well, stephen jones definitely the
biggest loser, and not only didhe fail appear.
Did you see the video of hisprior engagement that he's been
talking about?
For two weeks.
It ended up being aconversation with approximately
eight kids in some basementsomewhere that was live streamed
on Facebook.
Now don't get me wrong.
(17:19):
I think it's important to talkto the youth.
I think it's very important forcity leaders to make time to
sit down with you.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
Yeah.
I'm not impugning Stephen Jonesfor having a conversation with
the youth Because, look, it's nodifferent than Trump doesn't
want to do the CNN debate orwhichever one, it was Well sure.
So I'm going to go raise somemoney for some vets.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
Well, good, but you should have been at the debate,
should have been there, noquestion.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
And I mean okay, so you look at that video on
Facebook, his live stream withthis conversation with the youth
.
Anyone with good judgment whosaw that knows that event was
rustled up in an afternoon.
That wasn't something that wasplanned two weeks ago.
But even if it was, it waseither rustled up in an
afternoon or you had an eventplanned weeks in advance where
(18:08):
very few youth actually showedup and the microphone didn't
even work.
So I don't even know what theywere talking about because you
couldn't hear them.
Either way, it looks terriblefor Stephen and I think that
this is the big takeaway there.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
The big winner from Stephen's video was Bill Strauss
, because that just made BillStrauss look like an honorary,
valiant figure who's just fullof courage.
And you've got to have courageto run a city.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
And elevating his message to where I think that he
does better in the generalelection now than he would have
if he didn't show up last night.
I've got a couple more pointsabout Stephen.
I think that the biggest thingis that Stephen got punked out
last night.
That puts him in a reallydangerous position because he
seems to be staking out the roleof a victim.
(18:58):
Now, obviously, I think thatthe Democratic Party should have
with two candidates you confirmwith the candidates and you get
a date before you startplanning something and putting
faces on a flyer and he has apoint about that.
But I mean, he knew in enoughadvance to where he could have
at least planned as good of adebate response as he planned a
youth event on Facebook.
(19:19):
But.
But instead he argues withKabir.
Instead he pulls out, sendsemails, says I'm not coming,
y'all didn't respect me, take myface off the flyer.
He seems to be staking out therole of a victim when he's
running against somebody whoopenly compares political
campaigns to warfare.
We're talking about LeroyBrooks.
Leroy Brooks is happy to letStephen play the victim and put
(19:42):
him in that spot, and he's goingto as much rope as Stephen will
take there.
He's going to let him.
And it also gets to thequestion of what kind of mayor
Stephen will be if he wins.
You know, if he feels slighted,will he not show up to city
council meetings?
If somebody wants a cityservice or an audience with him,
is he going to weigh whetherthis person said something bad
(20:05):
about him on social media ormaybe voted for another
candidate before he shows up forhim?
I mean, I hope not Gotta havethick skin and somebody who's
been in city politics for 10years and has done a much better
job pre-campaign Stephen, thanduring campaign Stephen.
I mean he should know that?
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Yeah for sure, and interestingly, I think the Add a
Way to Go Award actually goesto Mr Kabir Kareem and the team
that put this together, because,quite honestly, nobody was
expecting them to open up thatforum to independent candidates,
and so I think good came out ofthis independent candidates,
(20:48):
and so I think good came out ofthis.
And I think that the voicesthat needed to be heard were
heard, and the voices that wereafraid to be heard were in the
basement.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Now does Darren become the forgotten man.
Now.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
No, he's got a chance to redeem himself.
I'm not giving him a free passon missing this, but he had
slightly more of an excuse tomiss this than his Democrat
challenger.
So Stephen Jones certainlyshould have been there.
Darren Leach probably shouldhave been there.
Yep, I agree.
(21:18):
Okay.
Next we have Mr Rob Robersonstanding by on the phone.
But before we get to that, doyou have knee pain, muscle
weakness, swelling or cold feet?
Call King Associates Cardiologyfor an appointment today at
662-368-1169.
King Associates Cardiology wecare and it shows.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
District 43 State Representative and House
Education committee chair, robrobertson, joined the podcast
today via zoom from jackson.
Due to a technical difficulty,we are picking up the
conversation in the middle ofhis response to my first
question, which was asking himwhy he thinks it's in the
state's best interest for msmsto be relocated to mississippi
state.
We apologize to mr robertsonand to the listeners for the
(22:04):
error.
Speaker 6 (22:04):
I would certainly say that we would be happy to have
MSMS.
Msms is such a valuablecomponent to Mississippi in
general.
I have been over to look at thefacilities over at MUW several
times to say that they are notup to the standard that any of
(22:28):
us would want.
I think it's a pretty badshortcoming of the state.
It's a shortcoming of allinvolved, frankly.
But as we're moving forward,we've got to look at this from
the standpoint of what is in thebest interest of these kids.
And right now, what is in thebest interest of the kids that
(22:50):
go to MSMS is going to be one oftwo things, and there's been no
complete decision made on thisyet.
We're still trying to work outsome things.
I think there's an RFP processthat's going out some things.
I think there's an RFP processthat's going, but Mississippi
State University has been verywilling to accept these kids
(23:10):
onto the campus.
Muw has obviously don't want tolose MSMS, but there's a bottom
line of who can support thesechildren in the best way
possible and my feelings arethat MSU would be a better
location because of the supportthat they could receive.
I've heard multipleconversations of whether it be.
(23:32):
Oh, the MUW is a safer campus.
I think that's a straw man'sargument.
Mississippi State University isjust as safe.
I'm certainly not going tobegrudge or suggest that Lowndes
County is not safe too.
Muw is a safe campus, but thebottom line is is these kids are
(23:56):
going to be safe in either ofthese locations?
The reality of what is in thebest interest of these kids and
getting them the support theyneed is is, to me, the first
thing that should be discussedand talked about.
The kids that are there arealready partnering with uh
Mississippi state university andbeing driven over uh every day
(24:17):
dealing with uh complex issues,that they're involved with
research.
They're involved with Um.
That is a partnership that'salready occurring, and I'm
certain that MUW's got similardynamics at play as well.
But moving forward and having aconversation in terms of what
is in the best interest of theand for the future of these kids
, it just seems to me that thereis going to be a heck of a lot
(24:40):
more support and backup for MSMSthrough MSU Now, that being
said, there may be things thatwe can do that make MUW more
solid, but right now itcertainly doesn't appear that,
since they've had them overthere, that there's been as much
of an interest to support them,until there was a discussion
(25:03):
about maybe moving them, and Iwould just say I want to jump in
there.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
I want to jump in there for a second One what has
been your impressionspecifically of the leadership
of MUW in advocating for MSMSover the years and specifically
lately?
For MSMS over the years andspecifically lately?
And for you, what do you needto see from MUW to, I guess,
(25:33):
sway your opinion in thedirection of maybe this is a
better permanent home for MSMS?
Speaker 6 (25:36):
The RFP process will probably tell us an awful lot.
Mde is gathering thatinformation.
I'd love to see what this isgoing to look like.
I'd like to know what kind ofcost estimates that we're
looking at to keep them there orto move them into Starkville on
the MSU campus.
Comparing those two things, asfar as I guess, determining
(26:04):
whether or not that is a goodidea, we're just going to have
to look at the facts, figuresand figure that out.
Now I would have the samequestion to those that would
want to suggest we don't leaveit or we do want to leave it.
At MUW.
There is a huge pushbacksuggesting that it needs to be
left there because that's justwhere it's been.
(26:24):
Huge pushback is suggestingthat it needs to be left there
because that's just where it'sbeen.
I've been talking aboutconsolidation across the state
and the whole issue has beenwhat is in the best interest of
the kids, not what's in bestinterest of the adults or the
superintendents or, for thatmatter, whether it be
universities.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
I've heard you mention that proposal a couple
of times.
I've heard you mention thatproposal a couple of times and
(27:01):
the people of Lowndes County inparticular, especially those who
have a vested interest with MUWand MSMS, feel very.
She said that she had askedyour department for a rubric for
which this proposal would beevaluated, and her response was
given by email that the rubricfor evaluation would be created
after these proposals weresubmitted, after which we had an
(27:23):
audible gasp in the room andI'm wondering where's the rubric
, because to me, an outsider, itseems like the fix is already
in.
Tell me how I'm wrong.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
Well, you're wrong from the simple fact that this
has been talked about for twoyears in a row.
My question would be why didthis not be a stronger push to
support MSMS before today?
I mean, the reality that weface today is that nothing was
happening.
Nothing would have happened hadwe not continued to have this
(27:57):
conversation about possiblymoving it.
This is not a conversation thathappened in the last month.
This has been a conversationthat, at minimum, has been
happening for the last two years.
So the rubric on this is who isgoing to be in the best
interest of these children?
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Well, talking about those proposals and I know that
the State Board of Education isthe one who approved that, mde
is the one that's executing thatbut I think it would be fair to
say that you know about it.
You know about that process inyour position as the House
Education Secretary.
Speaker 6 (28:26):
The process for what I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
For these proposals and the fact that they're being
asked and so on.
Why just those two schools?
If you're looking for the besthome for MSMS, why not open it
up to all eight IHL universities?
Speaker 6 (28:41):
Well, we've got three other schools that are being
discussed in Valley, alcorn andDelta State right now as well.
Other schools have beendiscussed.
I think that MSU was veryinterested in this whenever the
conversation came up.
I don't think that there'sanybody in the equation here
(29:05):
that would suggest MSU would notbe a good spot.
I mean, msu is one of the threelargest universities in the
state.
I can't imagine that therewould be any less pushback had
it been Oxford or had it beenSouthern.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
But it wasn't Oxford or Southern.
It was asked specifically ofthe W for home field advantage
purposes and MSU.
That was it.
Speaker 6 (29:31):
And those are the two that were interested in it at
the time.
I don't know that Oxford everhad an interest in it.
They may.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
And how proactive has that interest been, maybe over
the last year, year and a half?
What conversations has MSU hadwith you about this?
And, yeah, how proactive hasMSU's interest been in getting
MSMS in Starville?
Speaker 6 (29:54):
They've been very interested.
Some of this kind of flows fromthe fact that we were
discussing a high school beingput out there on MSU campus
anyway, so there's already abond issue that's set up for a
10th, 11th and 12th grade.
So this seemed to kind of be a,I guess, an opportune time to
(30:19):
have a discussion about whetheror not we were going to look at
MSMS as well.
And here again, I don't knowthat MSMS is going to move
anywhere at this point.
It's just a matter ofcontinuing the conversation and
see what happens.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
Mr Robertson, speaking as someone who is a
fiscal conservative, I'm lookingat this.
There are approximately 10acres plus or minus right behind
where they're currently located.
I know they would have to movea railroad track, which is a
headache, but there are thingsthat can be done and, you know,
in speaking with our localdelegation, including your
(30:54):
colleague, mr Andy Boyd, thereseems to be this consensus that
why should we be focused onbuilding a brand new shiny toy
when, at the same time, we couldpolish and repair the existing
toy, even if we do a really,really good job of it?
I'm talking build astate-of-the-art dorm and fix
(31:18):
more than just the airconditioner.
Okay, take those 10 acres andreally build it up right there
in geographical vicinity towhere it is.
Because, let's be honest, ifyou look at the number of
national merit finalists, if youlook at the numbers and if you
look at the lack of brain drain,you look at how the kids are
actually staying in Mississippi,why should there be an effort
(31:42):
to fix something that ain'treally broke?
Speaker 6 (31:46):
And I would say I would suggest to you that it is
broke.
I've gone through thefacilities over there it
something has to be done.
Whether it's not, it's thesolution that you're suggesting,
or whether it's the solution ofmoving it to to the MSU campus.
Now, the other side of the coinhere is is that that if you
combine the, the, the rebuildthat we're talking about for the
(32:10):
high school here in Starkville,and this and put these together
, it could be a lot lessexpensive doing it that way.
Now, I don't know that for sureand I'm not certainly trying to
report that that's the case atthis point.
I think that we'll find out alittle bit of that from the RFP
process.
Here's the flip side of theargument.
I completely understand whyLowndes County, Columbus MUW
(32:35):
doesn't want to lose MSMS.
I get that.
I completely understand thatand I certainly am not trying to
harm them, understand that andI certainly am not trying to
harm them.
But the flip side of thisargument is is why in the world
would anybody think that ifthose merit scholarships and all
of the things that werehappening over there wouldn't
continue to happen in a largerschool setting under Mississippi
(32:57):
State University's control aswell?
I mean, I think that this is ano-brainer.
I think we're going to havesome good things happen,
regardless of where it lands.
Now, that being said, somethingneeds to change Now, whether
that is, it's changed in thelocation of where it's sitting
or whether that's changingcompletely where we come in and
make it nice and new and do asetup here in Octobahaw County.
(33:23):
That's the, I guess, where therubber meets the road.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
Okay, so I understand your argument for economies of
scale.
One thing that I want todiscuss here a little bit is if
MSMS is built with StarkvilleHigh School on the MSU campus,
how does that school and we'vediscussed this before for a
(33:52):
story that went in print, but Iwant to talk to you about how
maybe that's evolved since then,because that conversation was
almost a year ago, right howdoes MSMS interact with
Starkville High School and howdoes the identity of MSMS evolve
or change as a result of thatrelationship, from what it is?
Speaker 6 (34:14):
Well, first of all, I think we need to make certain
that MSMS retains its identity.
I don't think there's aquestion of making certain that
they're able to be able to bewho they are, but I do think the
economy of scales and theability for this school to be
set with a partnering schoolwill give the kids the
(34:36):
opportunity to have a little bitdifferent relationship with
their high school andpotentially be involved in
sports and things like that.
That could give a more roundededucational system.
At least, that would be myperception of how it would move
forward Now, how the schoolboard and the local school board
(35:01):
would interact.
I think these are things thatwe're going to have to flush out
, more so than just a 15-secondconversation whenever we're
moving forward.
This has got to be somethingthat works.
Now, here again, we're well, Iguess, don't want to put the
cart before the horse.
We're well not to the point ofhaving that discussion as to
(35:25):
where it's going to go.
Those discussions have to behad after that decision's been
made, and I certainly I mean Idon't want to go out here and
suggest that that's a decisionmade because it hasn't been.
Speaker 1 (35:37):
Well, what your impressions, any conversations
that have you spoken with MSadministration, ginger Tedder,
for example, about this?
Speaker 4 (35:46):
issue at all.
And I add to that question, mrRobertson, do you think that the
staff will be able to beretained?
Because you're asking a lot offolks to dig up and move to a
place where, quite frankly, realestate is quite a bit more
expensive, a place where, quitefrankly, real estate is quite a
bit more expensive.
Speaker 6 (36:05):
Well, I mean, people drive to Columbus, starkville
and West Point, the GoldenTriangle, to go to work every
day.
I wouldn't suggest to you thatanyone would have to move unless
they wanted to.
There are people that areworking at MSNS right now that
live in Octobahaw County.
There are people that live inClay County.
There are people that livethere in Lowndes County as well.
I don't want to suggest thatthey're not, so their teachers
(36:28):
are living already in differentlocations.
As far as speaking to GingerTedder, we've talked multiple
times.
We haven't talked aboutspecifically moving something
somewhere.
We've talked about you knowwhat the needs are there.
You know what do we need to belooking at in terms of making
(36:50):
sure that MSMS is supported inthe best way we can.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
What are your impressions of those
conversations Like?
What do you feel like you'velearned for those conversations
and where do you think MSMSadministration is as far as
their posture toward moving ornot, or what they need from the
state?
Speaker 6 (37:08):
I think if listen, if I were administration over
there, I would keep.
I would keep out of thepolitics of this.
Frankly, I think a lot of theadministration is frustrated
that work for MSMS.
I think they've been reallybegging for some support over
(37:28):
the years and I think at thispoint they just want, whatever
happens, to be somethingpositive for MSMS, and that
includes staying in LowndesCounty and that includes, if
they are moved, moving somewhereelse.
I think that their interestsremain what is going to be in
the best interest of thestudents as a whole and making
(37:50):
certain that the school issupported the way it should be.
So I don't really want to pullthem into the political argument
here.
These are good people justtrying to do a job and I realize
that they're kind of being putin between a rock and a hard
place here and I certainly don'twant to suggest that they're
promoting either direction.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
Okay, well, one more question that I have for you is
the W in the large.
What, first of all, are yourimpressions as a legislator and
what you understand to be otherlegislators' general impression
of the W at large, w leadership,and what has kind of led y'all
(38:36):
to that impression, what shapedthat impression?
Speaker 6 (38:41):
MUW is, and I don't think anybody would suggest this
is a secret.
Muw is having a bit of anidentity crisis.
I think that that showed itselfover the last couple of years
with the name changes and thingslike that.
I think you have some solid,good administration over there.
You have a good, good peopletrying to run it, my, but it's
(39:03):
awfully hard not to look at the,the IHL system as it stands
today and look at how manycolleges that we have, how many
community colleges that we have,how many private colleges that
we have, how many juniorcolleges that we have, and not
to come to the conclusion thatwe, frankly, have too many of
(39:27):
these out there for a populationof under 3 million people.
How do we make certain thatthese locations are supported as
well?
Muw has had a tough timegetting allocations for money as
well, so I don't want to putany pressure in the sense that
they haven't tried, but whenyou're losing student population
(39:56):
to the rate that a lot of theseschools are doing, sometimes
you have to come up withulterior things for them to do
to build their population, buildtheir student base and keep
them supported.
I do not have any want oranything to do with wanting to
shut down MUW.
However, we've got to come upwith ways that they can grow,
(40:19):
and I think they're trying.
I think that they are kind ofin a unique position here,
whenever they were considered aMississippi University for Women
and they're trying to changethat.
Look in terms of bringing inmore male population into the
school.
They do an excellent job withthe nursing program.
(40:40):
They've got a heck of aculinary arts system.
I love MUW and I love the peoplethere and I want to be able to
support them, but sometimes wehave to look at what is in the
best interest of supporting themmoving forward, and I don't
have that answer yet either.
I really would love to doanything and everything I can to
(41:01):
protect them, but there is abottom line that we have to
reach, and sometimes that mayinclude working a deal out with
another university to help themsupport themselves.
This help them supportthemselves, and it may not be
(41:23):
that, but I think theadministration and the president
over there.
They've done a good job oftrying to figure out some things
, but they're in a precarioussituation in terms of, you know,
making certain that theirbudget is strong.
They have buildings that aren'tbeing used or utilized the way
that they would like to.
So we need to figure out waysand we may have to get creative
(41:43):
in how we approach this, but Icertainly don't want to hurt
anybody in the Golden Triangle.
I realize that sometimes I endup being the face of this change
, but that's not intentional.
It's just the reality that I amthe chairman of education.
I have to look at this stuffand it would be the same thing
if this were in a different partof the state that I wasn't from
(42:07):
.
I truly have heard from quite afew people in Lowndes County
that I'm very close to and thinkof dearly, but I've got to look
at this from the aspect ofwhat's going to be good for
those kids in 10 years.
Speaker 4 (42:20):
Mr Robertson, we thank you for not only coming on
the program today, but also foryour service to the state and
for your emphasis on educationand putting children and young
adults first as we look toimprove the situation, lessen
the brain drain and all the manyfaces that we do challenge.
(42:40):
So thanks again.
Speaker 6 (42:43):
Thank you both.
I appreciate y'all All right.
All right man.
Speaker 1 (42:46):
Have a good one you too.
Well, david, what do we thinkabout Rob?
Oh, boy.
Speaker 4 (42:52):
Let me just let out a big, massive groan because our
fears have been confirmed.
You've heard it from the mouthof the horse himself.
I think with definitivecertainty we can now say that
there is an undercurrent inJackson to get MSMS moved out of
(43:14):
here and, quite honestly, afterspeaking with Mr Roberson, I
know why.
Dr Miller had that big smile onher face and let me tell you
that was the smile on her faceat the press conference
yesterday.
There was a big degree ofartificiality to that smile and
(43:39):
and that's not a crack on her,that's just to say she's putting
on a good face.
She's presenting positivity inthe face of something that may
not go down, well, seemsinevitable at this point it's
it's going to be a problem, andfor those of us who want to
fight for msms to stay here andfor the w, I would just remind
(44:01):
you that this is definitely amarathon, not a sprint.
We've got to play offense andwe've got to think very hard
about this, because you and Iboth know it, zach, the thing
just needs to stay here, andthere's in my no altruistic
reason that it should not.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Other thing that he said that I thought was
interesting was he did takeresponsibility for the state's
role in not funding thosefacilities properly.
He said, and everyone involved,but the people with the
checkbook was the legislatureand they weren't writing the
checks.
I'm interested to see if theproposals skew so much cheaper
(44:48):
for MUW to put somethingtogether that is more than
adequate.
Are those going to just getthrown in the trash, or is this
quote rubric that's going to becreated after the fact only
going to cater to MSU's proposal?
Speaker 4 (45:02):
Well, is the Mississippi State proposal going
to be made public?
I know Nora said that ours willbe, but are we going to get to
see MSU's proposal?
Speaker 1 (45:12):
Well, the dispatch is going to do everything in its
power to make it public.
Speaker 4 (45:15):
Yeah well, that definitely needs to be public.
I think, hands down, it's goingto be cheaper to make it public
.
Yeah well, that definitelyneeds to be public.
I think, hands down, it's goingto be cheaper to keep it here.
No question about it.
And at the end of the day, Ithink our local delegation
really needs to be on theoffensive here.
I would like to see a bill withthree authors at the top of it
(45:36):
being Kabir Kareem, dana McLeanand Andy Boyd, that says let's
fund the school.
Okay, just a standalone billfile.
It try to push it through andif it dies in committee, that
lets you know everything youneed to know about what's going
on in the undercurrent down inJackson.
Speaker 1 (45:58):
That's a really good point.
One thing, too, that I want torevisit that Rob talked about,
and I've been thinking aboutthis since he said it.
We were talking about if MSMSwas built in conjunction with
Startwell High School on the MSUcampus.
Now I've disclaimed before.
Speaker 4 (46:17):
I'm a.
Speaker 1 (46:18):
Starkville resident.
My wife teaches at StarkvilleHigh School, my kids go to SOCSD
and my wife would love to teachMSMS kids you know, adjunct in
her English class.
But I don't see how you'regoing to maintain, how you're
(46:46):
going to maintain MSMS'sidentity as it is, throwing it
into that noise, throwing itinto that pool with those two
much larger organizations,because we're not just talking
about MSU as a host.
How does MSMS's identity notbecome basically a vassal to
SOCSD if this is a build that'sdone together?
Speaker 4 (47:04):
Well, again, getting back to what we've talked about
before, I do not want to see onebig fat bill come across the
table that's going to just fundall of this, and then Starkville
not have to put up a bond, likewe've had to do on numerous
occasions.
Okay, I just think it needs tobe done openly, fairly and look,
(47:26):
I've been combative about thisand maybe there's something to
be said about just saying, look,let's get all of the
stakeholders at the table, let'sdiscuss everything openly,
let's not let anything be offthe table, but just make sure
it's done out there where we canreally see what's going on,
(47:48):
where you guys can report onwhat's going on, and then I
think people will feel betterabout it because I think the
(48:10):
case that Nora Miller can makefor keeping it here for the sake
of not just maintainingidentity but saving money, will
triumph.
Speaker 1 (48:14):
She was very clear about the rubric.
There was a lot of good stuffthat came out of that press
conference, but days before thatpress conference there was that
letter that she sent to the MUWcommunity where part of that
letter said if MSMS isultimately taken away, the W
will be fine, We'll repurposethe facility.
Speaker 4 (48:34):
Yes, sir, Was that a white flag?
I was very disappointed in theletter.
I did not see any fight in theletter.
I think our hope again lies inthe fact that a bill will have
to pass to get that place movedand second to that, our alum at
MUW is a force to be reckonedwith.
(48:55):
Okay, we saw that in the namechange yes, and I think as soon
as a bill is introduced, therewill be zombies to rise up from
Friendship Cemetery and it willbe a fight that's bigger than
Rob Robertson wants to have.
Speaker 1 (49:11):
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing that, David.
Speaker 4 (49:14):
OK, I want to thank our listeners for joining in
today.
Please help us talk it upsubscribe, rate and share, and I
hope you'll also join in theconversation.
Tips at cdispatchcom.
Again, that is, tips atcdispatchcom.
We want to know what youthought of Rob Facebook or X at
the Chisholm double zero You'vebeen listening to between the
(49:41):
headlines, signing off fromcatfish alley studio and
historic downtown Columbus.
Your host has been Zach playerand I am David Chisholm.
Until next time, keep itfriendly and keep it real.
Speaker 3 (49:57):
Opinions expressed on this show are those of the
speakers and not necessarilythose of the commercial dispatch
.
From the opinion page of the Commercial Dispatch.
This is Between the Headlines.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
This is Peter Imes, publisher of the Dispatch.
One of our hosts of Between theHeadlines is the managing
editor of our newsroom.
Typically we try to keep newsand opinions separate, but
reporters have a unique insightinto the workings of local
government and their analysiscan be helpful for readers and
listeners.
The dispatch remains committedto journalistic integrity and
(00:38):
our reporting will alwaysreflect that.
And now Between the Headlines.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
This week, on Between the Headlines, the defendant
takes the stand regarding allthis MSMS talk.
That is the chair of our HouseEducation Committee.
None other than the gentlemanfrom Octavia himself, mr Rob
Robertson, will join in and ofcourse we will break down the
Democrat-hosted mayoral debateand tell you who was the big
(01:05):
le-who-ze-her.
But first let's hear from thefine folks who make this show
possible.
Retirement looks different foreveryone, so your plan should be
built around you.
For over 40 years, financialConcepts has helped people
create retirement strategiesthat fit their lives.
Our team in Columbus takes thetime to understand your goals
(01:27):
and build a plan that works foryou.
Wherever you are in yourjourney, we're ready to help.
We plan retirement.
Financial Concepts is aregistered investment advisor.
Do you need help achieving theright?
Look in your house.
At Lighting, unlimited andUncommon Living.
You'll find quality, uniquepieces that will elevate your
home instantly.
(01:48):
Great furniture and lightingnot only reflect a style, they
also define a home.
With Lighting Unlimited andUncommon Living, you can expect
more.
Visit them at 1116 GardnerBoulevard or online at
lighting-columbuscom.
Benton's Maintenance andMechanical makes easy work out
(02:09):
of plumbing, electrical, heatingand air conditioner problems.
You can book an appointment byphone or online and rest assured
they will show up at theappointed time.
Call Benton's at 662-657-2583or visit them online at
bentonsinccom.
That is bentonsinccom.
And now a message frompolitical candidate Bill Strauss
(02:33):
.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
I want to thank the Commercial Dispatch for this
podcast, bringing differentviews in an open discussion.
I'm Bill Strauss, humbly askingfor your vote as next mayor of
Columbus.
You deserve transparency andaccountability for your tax
dollars.
I'm business friendly andcharitable.
Vote Bill Strauss mayor ofColumbus 2025.
Paid for by campaign to electBill Strauss.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
And now a message from political candidate Jason
Spears.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
I am Jason Spears, candidate for City Council, ward
6.
Over the past 20 years Ifaithfully and effectively
served our community in manydifferent ways.
If elected, I will bringstructure and strategy to the
city's finances, help develop ablueprint to capitalize on the
growing economic activity in ourcity and work to strengthen
relationships with LowndesCounty officials, the Golden
Triangle Development Link and,most importantly, you, the
(03:23):
citizens of Columbus.
I approve this message and, onApril 1st, vote Jason Spears for
Ward 6, paid for by thecampaign to elect Jason Spears.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Thank you for joining us today.
You are listening to Betweenthe Headlines hosted by the
master moderator managing editorof the Commercial Dispatch, mr
Zach Player, and I am DavidChisholm, leroy brooks.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
well I mean david.
He has a question for all of us.
Are you tired of?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
all the foolishness.
He said it a lot.
I've been tired of thefoolishness for quite some time,
to put it lightly.
But I can tell you that I amnot the only one tired of
foolishness.
And, and that is to say lookingat last night and looking at
the crowd interaction in abuilding.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Oh man, that crowd was great, they were great.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
Now, the loudest by far applause of the night was
after a line by Bill Strauss,when he said let's just throw
out all of the city council andI can tell you you they simply
erupted.
And after that it was likebeing in church, like the fun
kind of church, oh yeahabsolutely.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
I think that both candidates did what they needed
to do.
Bill Strauss, the independent,taking the invitation to be a
part of the Democratic debate.
Leroy delivered exactly what hewas supposed to.
He performed magnificently, hisenergy was on point.
He was on brand, on message.
You know exactly what you'regetting if you vote for Leroy,
(04:55):
and nothing changed about thatyesterday.
So whether you vote for him,whether you're booking him as a
motivational speaker or whetheryou're inviting him to your
house, you get that Leroy and hedidn't leave you wondering who
he was when he left there, youknow.
At the same time, you know Billdid surprisingly well, at least
for me, and I want to eat alittle bit of crow here.
(05:16):
If you remember the firstpodcast episode we did, I said
you know Bill's a spoilercandidate.
Yeah, and the only person he'sgoing to spoil is Darren Leach.
I don't know After last night,you know.
First of all, he showed courageby even showing up.
Second, I think he elevated hismessage and held his own on the
debate stage.
Leroy was Leroy all night long,but Bill, I think you know,
(05:39):
acquitted himself really well.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
Well, what's interesting to me is is anyone
new coming in there?
They would probably say thatLeroy absolutely mopped the
floor with Bill's nose, okay,but but if you have been around
and you've listened to Leroy Imean, he's been in politics what
41 years and you know howpolished he is you knew he was
(06:04):
going to be ready.
So if you've been around, thenyou weren't really surprised,
other than, as you say, the BillStrauss side of this really
held their own.
I mean, he came in, he wascourageous, maybe a little
nervous at first, but he wasthere.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Yeah, he was there and he wasn't just there to be,
you know, a foil, he was thereto compete and I think he got
his message across.
Now I think that one thing thatwe can talk about is, you know,
the differentiation in theirmessages, which I think is there
were some very clear.
(06:43):
There were some times theyagreed and, as you talked about
the audience, I think respondedreally well to you know, leroy,
when he was being funny, when hewas you know when, when, when
he was pounding home his message, there were times they
applauded for him, laughed forhim.
They did?
Speaker 4 (06:57):
He had a lot of singers.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
They did the same for Bill and showed Bill a lot of
respect, but I do think thatthere were some very key
differences in their responsesthematically.
And, david, I know we'regetting to know each other, but
one thing that you're going toget to know about me, the more
we we talk, is I talk in sportsmetaphors almost more than I
(07:19):
talk in regular English, and soI'm going to start there now.
Bill presented the mayorship andhow he envisioned the mayorship
as more of like that gamemanager quarterback versus the
you know the gunslingerquarterback of Leroy.
You know Bill talked,repeatedly talked about the role
and the power of the mayor'sjob.
(07:40):
You know, at one point heliterally said that he thought
the questions that we were askedI was among one of the, I was
among the three moderators inthe debate, but at one point he
literally said that thequestions were veering more
toward what the city should doand he thought that the question
should be taking, should betalking more about what the
(08:01):
mayor should do.
And Leroy's response to that, Imean he attacked that as a
distinction, without adifference.
He couched the mayor's role asbeing a city ambassador, out
front face and leader.
He noted he already had seatsat all the good tables.
He mentioned Joe, max, higginsand the Link a lot.
Oh yeah, he knew everyone in thestate of Mississippi Right, and
(08:21):
everybody in the state ofMississippi knows him, and he
presented very clearly how hecould leverage that to the
city's advantage.
So, using that game managerversus gunslinger Bill, we're
going to manage clock, we'regoing to manage down and
distance.
The department heads the line'sgoing to block, the running
backs are going to run, thereceivers are going to catch the
(08:42):
ball, and that's what we expect.
There's a very, very narrow,specific role for the mayor, and
Leroy's was more.
We're going to pass for 300yards, we're going to run for
200 yards and we're going toknock the hell out of everybody
on defense, and I feel like thatresonates with more voters.
But what do you think there?
(09:04):
What do you think about theirvisions?
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Well, to be honest, I think that Bill Strauss fell a
little flat in that regard and Ithink that's unfortunate for
Bill Strauss in the sense thatreally he's looking at this and
saying what can I feasibly do?
What can I do to not rock theboat?
He mentioned several timeswhere he praised the police
(09:28):
chief, he praised the CVB people, among others, and for the
people that were there, I'm notsure that he really scored any
points.
I was thinking through thislast night and it occurred to me
that if he were running for thecouncil person for the downtown
(09:49):
ward, it would be 950 votes to12.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Well, that is Ward 1, so I don't know if you're right
about that, but he definitelywould be more in his element
there.
Bill's very pragmatic, hedoesn't want to over-promise and
under-deliver and he knows whathe knows.
And what Bill knows is downtown, and one challenge that last
night's debate really made clearwas if Bill's going to while he
(10:17):
did acquit himself very well onthat debate stage with a more
than worthy opponent if he'sgoing to effectively grow his
voter base, he's got to get outof downtown, he's got to expand
his messaging beyond downtown.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
I had a very interesting epiphany about Leroy
last night.
I listened very carefully towhat he said and check this out.
We've got about five differenttopics.
I'll bullet point through themreal quick.
Police, he said we can't alwaysbe throwing money at the
problem.
Safety, he said after sportsthese kids, these kids, they
(10:58):
just need to get a job.
Lobbyist money, he said thatCity Hall spends money like
there is no end and the crowdgot into that.
One.
Blight, he said where's the sixmillion dollars?
And then annexation he reallygot on the offensive there.
He called out Well, that's oneof his talking points?
(11:19):
Yes, but he did.
He called him out on the carpetfor quote, wasting thousands of
dollars on obvious politicalgain.
And so I'm looking at this andI'm thinking that after the show
, I'm going to open a box, I'mgoing to put a red hat in it,
I'm going to put an applicationfor the Republican Party of
(11:41):
Lowndes County and I'm going tosend it to Mr Leroy Brooks,
because it sounds to me likethis guy was running as a
Republican.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Well, leroy, if you're listening, I want to make
note that David Chisholm saidthat and Zach Player did not.
That's right.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
Opinions are those of the speakers.
But, to be fair, let me temperthis.
I did not say he was running asa conservative because, to be
fair, he mentioned a lot ofprograms.
He mentioned programs for arepeat offenders, a study to
that regard.
He mentioned a youth summit.
He mentioned a program forcultural activities, programs,
(12:22):
programs, programs, and those docost money.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
They do.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
And that is an expansion of government.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
So one thing that would have been easy for Leroy
to do and a point that he madelast night one thing that would
be easy for him to do is to comein, assume all of the
department heads are trash, allof the departments are being run
terribly, and just rebuildeverything from scratch, or try
to.
Of course, he has to go throughthe council to do that and that
(12:53):
would be an uphill climb in alot of cases, but that's not
even what he's suggesting.
I think one of the smarterthings that—and he put out a lot
of smart ideas last night andunderstand me well— but I think
one of the more important onesthat got lost in the shuffle and
Bill actually criticized it,and I think he's wrong about it
(13:13):
Leroy sitting down for 60 daysgoing through each department
with the department heads andlooking at what needs to be done
and who needs to do it, insteadof deciding that before he gets
there.
I think that's a good idea andI think that's something that,
if it were done, could make alot of difference in the city,
(13:34):
potentially Now one place whereLeroy stumbled and most of the
questions he was ready for hehad his answers ready and even
if he was ad libbing.
He was doing it effectively.
The very last question beforeclosing statements was about the
$5 million capital fund.
It either caught him bysurprise or he wasn't as well
(13:55):
versed in his answer there,because he was kind of awash, he
was swimming.
In that answer he mentionedBurns.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
Bottom on that, did he not?
Yeah, he did.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Bill had a very good answer to that question.
He mentioned Burns bottom onthat, did he not?
Yeah, he did.
Bill knew the answer, had avery good answer to that
question.
He knew that issue and that waswhere he really, I think, from
a question answering standpoint,maybe scored his most points,
because he made mention.
I've been to see Jim Brigham,I've seen those financials, I
know what's in that fund and Iknow what it's supposed to be
(14:24):
for and this is what my visionfor leveraging that money is.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Well, he exhibited fiscal responsibility.
He said let's put in a rainyday fund, that way, when these
problems come up which they willwe're not in a twist and we're
not sitting there having toborrow more money.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
I was that was the only answer that I was
disappointed with Leroy that hedidn't have a better formed
response for something that Ithink is going to be pretty
critical to the future of thecity's finances, especially
considering where they've beenwas paradoxical about Leroy is
(15:07):
that, you know he, he had allthese bombastic statements and
and with the same mustache, hewas talking about how he was not
going to be a heavy handedmayor.
Speaker 4 (15:14):
Ok, his hand is made of lead.
I just simply can't believethat.
You know, look at his history.
At the Board of Supervisors.
He said last night that he'sgoing to bring a sense of
decorum into city hall.
I think that's fantastic, butreally decorum.
Now I want to give him thebenefit of a doubt here, but, um
(15:40):
, I mean he's a passionate guy.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
I don't think he's going to be quiet all the time,
but he's going to want to havehis hand on the steering wheel
and his foot on the gasthroughout his administration if
he wins.
But I do not see Leroy leadingemotionally from a personal
level.
I don't see him makingdecisions based on whether he
(16:02):
likes or dislikes people.
I don't see him making policydecisions based on you know,
what have you done for me lately.
I see him being a lot morepragmatic than that and I think
especially his last you know, 10years on the board of
supervisors bears that out.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
So moving on your winners and losers from the
debate, All right, the big loserwas none other than Stephen
Jones.
Because he was not there, oh,yes, and I really wish quite
honestly that he would have beenthere to kick back and give a
rebuttal of the annexation barbthat got thrown his way.
(16:41):
And now, to be fair, uh, wealso had, uh, the other
candidate not to make it the theapostle darren leach, right,
you know?
Yeah, that's on the website, bythe way.
So if you thought that therewere 12 apostles, you were
mistaken.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I digress well, stephen jones definitely the
biggest loser, and not only didhe fail appear.
Did you see the video of hisprior engagement that he's been
talking about?
For two weeks.
It ended up being aconversation with approximately
eight kids in some basementsomewhere that was live streamed
on Facebook.
Now don't get me wrong.
(17:19):
I think it's important to talkto the youth.
I think it's very important forcity leaders to make time to
sit down with you.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
Yeah.
I'm not impugning Stephen Jonesfor having a conversation with
the youth Because, look, it's nodifferent than Trump doesn't
want to do the CNN debate orwhichever one, it was Well sure.
So I'm going to go raise somemoney for some vets.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
Well, good, but you should have been at the debate,
should have been there, noquestion.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
And I mean okay, so you look at that video on
Facebook, his live stream withthis conversation with the youth
.
Anyone with good judgment whosaw that knows that event was
rustled up in an afternoon.
That wasn't something that wasplanned two weeks ago.
But even if it was, it waseither rustled up in an
afternoon or you had an eventplanned weeks in advance where
(18:08):
very few youth actually showedup and the microphone didn't
even work.
So I don't even know what theywere talking about because you
couldn't hear them.
Either way, it looks terriblefor Stephen and I think that
this is the big takeaway there.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
The big winner from Stephen's video was Bill Strauss
, because that just made BillStrauss look like an honorary,
valiant figure who's just fullof courage.
And you've got to have courageto run a city.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
And elevating his message to where I think that he
does better in the generalelection now than he would have
if he didn't show up last night.
I've got a couple more pointsabout Stephen.
I think that the biggest thingis that Stephen got punked out
last night.
That puts him in a reallydangerous position because he
seems to be staking out the roleof a victim.
(18:58):
Now, obviously, I think thatthe Democratic Party should have
with two candidates you confirmwith the candidates and you get
a date before you startplanning something and putting
faces on a flyer and he has apoint about that.
But I mean, he knew in enoughadvance to where he could have
at least planned as good of adebate response as he planned a
youth event on Facebook.
(19:19):
But.
But instead he argues withKabir.
Instead he pulls out, sendsemails, says I'm not coming,
y'all didn't respect me, take myface off the flyer.
He seems to be staking out therole of a victim when he's
running against somebody whoopenly compares political
campaigns to warfare.
We're talking about LeroyBrooks.
Leroy Brooks is happy to letStephen play the victim and put
(19:42):
him in that spot, and he's goingto as much rope as Stephen will
take there.
He's going to let him.
And it also gets to thequestion of what kind of mayor
Stephen will be if he wins.
You know, if he feels slighted,will he not show up to city
council meetings?
If somebody wants a cityservice or an audience with him,
is he going to weigh whetherthis person said something bad
(20:05):
about him on social media ormaybe voted for another
candidate before he shows up forhim?
I mean, I hope not Gotta havethick skin and somebody who's
been in city politics for 10years and has done a much better
job pre-campaign Stephen, thanduring campaign Stephen.
I mean he should know that?
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Yeah for sure, and interestingly, I think the Add a
Way to Go Award actually goesto Mr Kabir Kareem and the team
that put this together, because,quite honestly, nobody was
expecting them to open up thatforum to independent candidates,
and so I think good came out ofthis independent candidates,
(20:48):
and so I think good came out ofthis.
And I think that the voicesthat needed to be heard were
heard, and the voices that wereafraid to be heard were in the
basement.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Now does Darren become the forgotten man.
Now.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
No, he's got a chance to redeem himself.
I'm not giving him a free passon missing this, but he had
slightly more of an excuse tomiss this than his Democrat
challenger.
So Stephen Jones certainlyshould have been there.
Darren Leach probably shouldhave been there.
Yep, I agree.
(21:18):
Okay.
Next we have Mr Rob Robersonstanding by on the phone.
But before we get to that, doyou have knee pain, muscle
weakness, swelling or cold feet?
Call King Associates Cardiologyfor an appointment today at
662-368-1169.
King Associates Cardiology wecare and it shows.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
District 43 State Representative and House
Education committee chair, robrobertson, joined the podcast
today via zoom from jackson.
Due to a technical difficulty,we are picking up the
conversation in the middle ofhis response to my first
question, which was asking himwhy he thinks it's in the
state's best interest for msmsto be relocated to mississippi
state.
We apologize to mr robertsonand to the listeners for the
(22:04):
error.
Speaker 6 (22:04):
I would certainly say that we would be happy to have
MSMS.
Msms is such a valuablecomponent to Mississippi in
general.
I have been over to look at thefacilities over at MUW several
times to say that they are notup to the standard that any of
(22:28):
us would want.
I think it's a pretty badshortcoming of the state.
It's a shortcoming of allinvolved, frankly.
But as we're moving forward,we've got to look at this from
the standpoint of what is in thebest interest of these kids.
And right now, what is in thebest interest of the kids that
(22:50):
go to MSMS is going to be one oftwo things, and there's been no
complete decision made on thisyet.
We're still trying to work outsome things.
I think there's an RFP processthat's going out some things.
I think there's an RFP processthat's going, but Mississippi
State University has been verywilling to accept these kids
(23:10):
onto the campus.
Muw has obviously don't want tolose MSMS, but there's a bottom
line of who can support thesechildren in the best way
possible and my feelings arethat MSU would be a better
location because of the supportthat they could receive.
I've heard multipleconversations of whether it be.
(23:32):
Oh, the MUW is a safer campus.
I think that's a straw man'sargument.
Mississippi State University isjust as safe.
I'm certainly not going tobegrudge or suggest that Lowndes
County is not safe too.
Muw is a safe campus, but thebottom line is is these kids are
(23:56):
going to be safe in either ofthese locations?
The reality of what is in thebest interest of these kids and
getting them the support theyneed is is, to me, the first
thing that should be discussedand talked about.
The kids that are there arealready partnering with uh
Mississippi state university andbeing driven over uh every day
(24:17):
dealing with uh complex issues,that they're involved with
research.
They're involved with Um.
That is a partnership that'salready occurring, and I'm
certain that MUW's got similardynamics at play as well.
But moving forward and having aconversation in terms of what
is in the best interest of theand for the future of these kids
, it just seems to me that thereis going to be a heck of a lot
(24:40):
more support and backup for MSMSthrough MSU Now, that being
said, there may be things thatwe can do that make MUW more
solid, but right now itcertainly doesn't appear that,
since they've had them overthere, that there's been as much
of an interest to support them,until there was a discussion
(25:03):
about maybe moving them, and Iwould just say I want to jump in
there.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
I want to jump in there for a second One what has
been your impressionspecifically of the leadership
of MUW in advocating for MSMSover the years and specifically
lately?
For MSMS over the years andspecifically lately?
And for you, what do you needto see from MUW to, I guess,
(25:33):
sway your opinion in thedirection of maybe this is a
better permanent home for MSMS?
Speaker 6 (25:36):
The RFP process will probably tell us an awful lot.
Mde is gathering thatinformation.
I'd love to see what this isgoing to look like.
I'd like to know what kind ofcost estimates that we're
looking at to keep them there orto move them into Starkville on
the MSU campus.
Comparing those two things, asfar as I guess, determining
(26:04):
whether or not that is a goodidea, we're just going to have
to look at the facts, figuresand figure that out.
Now I would have the samequestion to those that would
want to suggest we don't leaveit or we do want to leave it.
At MUW.
There is a huge pushbacksuggesting that it needs to be
left there because that's justwhere it's been.
(26:24):
Huge pushback is suggestingthat it needs to be left there
because that's just where it'sbeen.
I've been talking aboutconsolidation across the state
and the whole issue has beenwhat is in the best interest of
the kids, not what's in bestinterest of the adults or the
superintendents or, for thatmatter, whether it be
universities.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
I've heard you mention that proposal a couple
of times.
I've heard you mention thatproposal a couple of times and
(27:01):
the people of Lowndes County inparticular, especially those who
have a vested interest with MUWand MSMS, feel very.
She said that she had askedyour department for a rubric for
which this proposal would beevaluated, and her response was
given by email that the rubricfor evaluation would be created
after these proposals weresubmitted, after which we had an
(27:23):
audible gasp in the room andI'm wondering where's the rubric
, because to me, an outsider, itseems like the fix is already
in.
Tell me how I'm wrong.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
Well, you're wrong from the simple fact that this
has been talked about for twoyears in a row.
My question would be why didthis not be a stronger push to
support MSMS before today?
I mean, the reality that weface today is that nothing was
happening.
Nothing would have happened hadwe not continued to have this
(27:57):
conversation about possiblymoving it.
This is not a conversation thathappened in the last month.
This has been a conversationthat, at minimum, has been
happening for the last two years.
So the rubric on this is who isgoing to be in the best
interest of these children?
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Well, talking about those proposals and I know that
the State Board of Education isthe one who approved that, mde
is the one that's executing thatbut I think it would be fair to
say that you know about it.
You know about that process inyour position as the House
Education Secretary.
Speaker 6 (28:26):
The process for what I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
For these proposals and the fact that they're being
asked and so on.
Why just those two schools?
If you're looking for the besthome for MSMS, why not open it
up to all eight IHL universities?
Speaker 6 (28:41):
Well, we've got three other schools that are being
discussed in Valley, alcorn andDelta State right now as well.
Other schools have beendiscussed.
I think that MSU was veryinterested in this whenever the
conversation came up.
I don't think that there'sanybody in the equation here
(29:05):
that would suggest MSU would notbe a good spot.
I mean, msu is one of the threelargest universities in the
state.
I can't imagine that therewould be any less pushback had
it been Oxford or had it beenSouthern.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
But it wasn't Oxford or Southern.
It was asked specifically ofthe W for home field advantage
purposes and MSU.
That was it.
Speaker 6 (29:31):
And those are the two that were interested in it at
the time.
I don't know that Oxford everhad an interest in it.
They may.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
And how proactive has that interest been, maybe over
the last year, year and a half?
What conversations has MSU hadwith you about this?
And, yeah, how proactive hasMSU's interest been in getting
MSMS in Starville?
Speaker 6 (29:54):
They've been very interested.
Some of this kind of flows fromthe fact that we were
discussing a high school beingput out there on MSU campus
anyway, so there's already abond issue that's set up for a
10th, 11th and 12th grade.
So this seemed to kind of be a,I guess, an opportune time to
(30:19):
have a discussion about whetheror not we were going to look at
MSMS as well.
And here again, I don't knowthat MSMS is going to move
anywhere at this point.
It's just a matter ofcontinuing the conversation and
see what happens.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
Mr Robertson, speaking as someone who is a
fiscal conservative, I'm lookingat this.
There are approximately 10acres plus or minus right behind
where they're currently located.
I know they would have to movea railroad track, which is a
headache, but there are thingsthat can be done and, you know,
in speaking with our localdelegation, including your
(30:54):
colleague, mr Andy Boyd, thereseems to be this consensus that
why should we be focused onbuilding a brand new shiny toy
when, at the same time, we couldpolish and repair the existing
toy, even if we do a really,really good job of it?
I'm talking build astate-of-the-art dorm and fix
(31:18):
more than just the airconditioner.
Okay, take those 10 acres andreally build it up right there
in geographical vicinity towhere it is.
Because, let's be honest, ifyou look at the number of
national merit finalists, if youlook at the numbers and if you
look at the lack of brain drain,you look at how the kids are
actually staying in Mississippi,why should there be an effort
(31:42):
to fix something that ain'treally broke?
Speaker 6 (31:46):
And I would say I would suggest to you that it is
broke.
I've gone through thefacilities over there it
something has to be done.
Whether it's not, it's thesolution that you're suggesting,
or whether it's the solution ofmoving it to to the MSU campus.
Now, the other side of the coinhere is is that that if you
combine the, the, the rebuildthat we're talking about for the
(32:10):
high school here in Starkville,and this and put these together
, it could be a lot lessexpensive doing it that way.
Now, I don't know that for sureand I'm not certainly trying to
report that that's the case atthis point.
I think that we'll find out alittle bit of that from the RFP
process.
Here's the flip side of theargument.
I completely understand whyLowndes County, Columbus MUW
(32:35):
doesn't want to lose MSMS.
I get that.
I completely understand thatand I certainly am not trying to
harm them, understand that andI certainly am not trying to
harm them.
But the flip side of thisargument is is why in the world
would anybody think that ifthose merit scholarships and all
of the things that werehappening over there wouldn't
continue to happen in a largerschool setting under Mississippi
(32:57):
State University's control aswell?
I mean, I think that this is ano-brainer.
I think we're going to havesome good things happen,
regardless of where it lands.
Now, that being said, somethingneeds to change Now, whether
that is, it's changed in thelocation of where it's sitting
or whether that's changingcompletely where we come in and
make it nice and new and do asetup here in Octobahaw County.
(33:23):
That's the, I guess, where therubber meets the road.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
Okay, so I understand your argument for economies of
scale.
One thing that I want todiscuss here a little bit is if
MSMS is built with StarkvilleHigh School on the MSU campus,
how does that school and we'vediscussed this before for a
(33:52):
story that went in print, but Iwant to talk to you about how
maybe that's evolved since then,because that conversation was
almost a year ago, right howdoes MSMS interact with
Starkville High School and howdoes the identity of MSMS evolve
or change as a result of thatrelationship, from what it is?
Speaker 6 (34:14):
Well, first of all, I think we need to make certain
that MSMS retains its identity.
I don't think there's aquestion of making certain that
they're able to be able to bewho they are, but I do think the
economy of scales and theability for this school to be
set with a partnering schoolwill give the kids the
(34:36):
opportunity to have a little bitdifferent relationship with
their high school andpotentially be involved in
sports and things like that.
That could give a more roundededucational system.
At least, that would be myperception of how it would move
forward Now, how the schoolboard and the local school board
(35:01):
would interact.
I think these are things thatwe're going to have to flush out
, more so than just a 15-secondconversation whenever we're
moving forward.
This has got to be somethingthat works.
Now, here again, we're well, Iguess, don't want to put the
cart before the horse.
We're well not to the point ofhaving that discussion as to
(35:25):
where it's going to go.
Those discussions have to behad after that decision's been
made, and I certainly I mean Idon't want to go out here and
suggest that that's a decisionmade because it hasn't been.
Speaker 1 (35:37):
Well, what your impressions, any conversations
that have you spoken with MSadministration, ginger Tedder,
for example, about this?
Speaker 4 (35:46):
issue at all.
And I add to that question, mrRobertson, do you think that the
staff will be able to beretained?
Because you're asking a lot offolks to dig up and move to a
place where, quite frankly, realestate is quite a bit more
expensive, a place where, quitefrankly, real estate is quite a
bit more expensive.
Speaker 6 (36:05):
Well, I mean, people drive to Columbus, starkville
and West Point, the GoldenTriangle, to go to work every
day.
I wouldn't suggest to you thatanyone would have to move unless
they wanted to.
There are people that areworking at MSNS right now that
live in Octobahaw County.
There are people that live inClay County.
There are people that livethere in Lowndes County as well.
I don't want to suggest thatthey're not, so their teachers
(36:28):
are living already in differentlocations.
As far as speaking to GingerTedder, we've talked multiple
times.
We haven't talked aboutspecifically moving something
somewhere.
We've talked about you knowwhat the needs are there.
You know what do we need to belooking at in terms of making
(36:50):
sure that MSMS is supported inthe best way we can.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
What are your impressions of those
conversations Like?
What do you feel like you'velearned for those conversations
and where do you think MSMSadministration is as far as
their posture toward moving ornot, or what they need from the
state?
Speaker 6 (37:08):
I think if listen, if I were administration over
there, I would keep.
I would keep out of thepolitics of this.
Frankly, I think a lot of theadministration is frustrated
that work for MSMS.
I think they've been reallybegging for some support over
(37:28):
the years and I think at thispoint they just want, whatever
happens, to be somethingpositive for MSMS, and that
includes staying in LowndesCounty and that includes, if
they are moved, moving somewhereelse.
I think that their interestsremain what is going to be in
the best interest of thestudents as a whole and making
(37:50):
certain that the school issupported the way it should be.
So I don't really want to pullthem into the political argument
here.
These are good people justtrying to do a job and I realize
that they're kind of being putin between a rock and a hard
place here and I certainly don'twant to suggest that they're
promoting either direction.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
Okay, well, one more question that I have for you is
the W in the large.
What, first of all, are yourimpressions as a legislator and
what you understand to be otherlegislators' general impression
of the W at large, w leadership,and what has kind of led y'all
(38:36):
to that impression, what shapedthat impression?
Speaker 6 (38:41):
MUW is, and I don't think anybody would suggest this
is a secret.
Muw is having a bit of anidentity crisis.
I think that that showed itselfover the last couple of years
with the name changes and thingslike that.
I think you have some solid,good administration over there.
You have a good, good peopletrying to run it, my, but it's
(39:03):
awfully hard not to look at the,the IHL system as it stands
today and look at how manycolleges that we have, how many
community colleges that we have,how many private colleges that
we have, how many juniorcolleges that we have, and not
to come to the conclusion thatwe, frankly, have too many of
(39:27):
these out there for a populationof under 3 million people.
How do we make certain thatthese locations are supported as
well?
Muw has had a tough timegetting allocations for money as
well, so I don't want to putany pressure in the sense that
they haven't tried, but whenyou're losing student population
(39:56):
to the rate that a lot of theseschools are doing, sometimes
you have to come up withulterior things for them to do
to build their population, buildtheir student base and keep
them supported.
I do not have any want oranything to do with wanting to
shut down MUW.
However, we've got to come upwith ways that they can grow,
(40:19):
and I think they're trying.
I think that they are kind ofin a unique position here,
whenever they were considered aMississippi University for Women
and they're trying to changethat.
Look in terms of bringing inmore male population into the
school.
They do an excellent job withthe nursing program.
(40:40):
They've got a heck of aculinary arts system.
I love MUW and I love the peoplethere and I want to be able to
support them, but sometimes wehave to look at what is in the
best interest of supporting themmoving forward, and I don't
have that answer yet either.
I really would love to doanything and everything I can to
(41:01):
protect them, but there is abottom line that we have to
reach, and sometimes that mayinclude working a deal out with
another university to help themsupport themselves.
This help them supportthemselves, and it may not be
(41:23):
that, but I think theadministration and the president
over there.
They've done a good job oftrying to figure out some things
, but they're in a precarioussituation in terms of, you know,
making certain that theirbudget is strong.
They have buildings that aren'tbeing used or utilized the way
that they would like to.
So we need to figure out waysand we may have to get creative
(41:43):
in how we approach this, but Icertainly don't want to hurt
anybody in the Golden Triangle.
I realize that sometimes I endup being the face of this change
, but that's not intentional.
It's just the reality that I amthe chairman of education.
I have to look at this stuffand it would be the same thing
if this were in a different partof the state that I wasn't from
(42:07):
.
I truly have heard from quite afew people in Lowndes County
that I'm very close to and thinkof dearly, but I've got to look
at this from the aspect ofwhat's going to be good for
those kids in 10 years.
Speaker 4 (42:20):
Mr Robertson, we thank you for not only coming on
the program today, but also foryour service to the state and
for your emphasis on educationand putting children and young
adults first as we look toimprove the situation, lessen
the brain drain and all the manyfaces that we do challenge.
(42:40):
So thanks again.
Speaker 6 (42:43):
Thank you both.
I appreciate y'all All right.
All right man.
Speaker 1 (42:46):
Have a good one you too.
Well, david, what do we thinkabout Rob?
Oh, boy.
Speaker 4 (42:52):
Let me just let out a big, massive groan because our
fears have been confirmed.
You've heard it from the mouthof the horse himself.
I think with definitivecertainty we can now say that
there is an undercurrent inJackson to get MSMS moved out of
(43:14):
here and, quite honestly, afterspeaking with Mr Roberson, I
know why.
Dr Miller had that big smile onher face and let me tell you
that was the smile on her faceat the press conference
yesterday.
There was a big degree ofartificiality to that smile and
(43:39):
and that's not a crack on her,that's just to say she's putting
on a good face.
She's presenting positivity inthe face of something that may
not go down, well, seemsinevitable at this point it's
it's going to be a problem, andfor those of us who want to
fight for msms to stay here andfor the w, I would just remind
(44:01):
you that this is definitely amarathon, not a sprint.
We've got to play offense andwe've got to think very hard
about this, because you and Iboth know it, zach, the thing
just needs to stay here, andthere's in my no altruistic
reason that it should not.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Other thing that he said that I thought was
interesting was he did takeresponsibility for the state's
role in not funding thosefacilities properly.
He said, and everyone involved,but the people with the
checkbook was the legislatureand they weren't writing the
checks.
I'm interested to see if theproposals skew so much cheaper
(44:48):
for MUW to put somethingtogether that is more than
adequate.
Are those going to just getthrown in the trash, or is this
quote rubric that's going to becreated after the fact only
going to cater to MSU's proposal?
Speaker 4 (45:02):
Well, is the Mississippi State proposal going
to be made public?
I know Nora said that ours willbe, but are we going to get to
see MSU's proposal?
Speaker 1 (45:12):
Well, the dispatch is going to do everything in its
power to make it public.
Speaker 4 (45:15):
Yeah well, that definitely needs to be public.
I think, hands down, it's goingto be cheaper to make it public
.
Yeah well, that definitelyneeds to be public.
I think, hands down, it's goingto be cheaper to keep it here.
No question about it.
And at the end of the day, Ithink our local delegation
really needs to be on theoffensive here.
I would like to see a bill withthree authors at the top of it
(45:36):
being Kabir Kareem, dana McLeanand Andy Boyd, that says let's
fund the school.
Okay, just a standalone billfile.
It try to push it through andif it dies in committee, that
lets you know everything youneed to know about what's going
on in the undercurrent down inJackson.
Speaker 1 (45:58):
That's a really good point.
One thing, too, that I want torevisit that Rob talked about,
and I've been thinking aboutthis since he said it.
We were talking about if MSMSwas built in conjunction with
Startwell High School on the MSUcampus.
Now I've disclaimed before.
Speaker 4 (46:17):
I'm a.
Speaker 1 (46:18):
Starkville resident.
My wife teaches at StarkvilleHigh School, my kids go to SOCSD
and my wife would love to teachMSMS kids you know, adjunct in
her English class.
But I don't see how you'regoing to maintain, how you're
(46:46):
going to maintain MSMS'sidentity as it is, throwing it
into that noise, throwing itinto that pool with those two
much larger organizations,because we're not just talking
about MSU as a host.
How does MSMS's identity notbecome basically a vassal to
SOCSD if this is a build that'sdone together?
Speaker 4 (47:04):
Well, again, getting back to what we've talked about
before, I do not want to see onebig fat bill come across the
table that's going to just fundall of this, and then Starkville
not have to put up a bond, likewe've had to do on numerous
occasions.
Okay, I just think it needs tobe done openly, fairly and look,
(47:26):
I've been combative about thisand maybe there's something to
be said about just saying, look,let's get all of the
stakeholders at the table, let'sdiscuss everything openly,
let's not let anything be offthe table, but just make sure
it's done out there where we canreally see what's going on,
(47:48):
where you guys can report onwhat's going on, and then I
think people will feel betterabout it because I think the
(48:10):
case that Nora Miller can makefor keeping it here for the sake
of not just maintainingidentity but saving money, will
triumph.
Speaker 1 (48:14):
She was very clear about the rubric.
There was a lot of good stuffthat came out of that press
conference, but days before thatpress conference there was that
letter that she sent to the MUWcommunity where part of that
letter said if MSMS isultimately taken away, the W
will be fine, We'll repurposethe facility.
Speaker 4 (48:34):
Yes, sir, Was that a white flag?
I was very disappointed in theletter.
I did not see any fight in theletter.
I think our hope again lies inthe fact that a bill will have
to pass to get that place movedand second to that, our alum at
MUW is a force to be reckonedwith.
(48:55):
Okay, we saw that in the namechange yes, and I think as soon
as a bill is introduced, therewill be zombies to rise up from
Friendship Cemetery and it willbe a fight that's bigger than
Rob Robertson wants to have.
Speaker 1 (49:11):
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing that, David.
Speaker 4 (49:14):
OK, I want to thank our listeners for joining in
today.
Please help us talk it upsubscribe, rate and share, and I
hope you'll also join in theconversation.
Tips at cdispatchcom.
Again, that is, tips atcdispatchcom.
We want to know what youthought of Rob Facebook or X at
the Chisholm double zero You'vebeen listening to between the
(49:41):
headlines, signing off fromcatfish alley studio and
historic downtown Columbus.
Your host has been Zach playerand I am David Chisholm.
Until next time, keep itfriendly and keep it real.
Speaker 3 (49:57):
Opinions expressed on this show are those of the
speakers and not necessarilythose of the commercial dispatch
.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.