McKay No Longer Supports Urgency

John McKay, represented by tax payer funded attorney Billy Guice, asked the courts to stop him from having to testify in the Singing River pension case. McKay’s request was granted by special master Britt Singletary. The timing is significant as Mr. McKay avoids having to answer questions under oath before elections.

With no money currently being contributed to the plan, each day that passes is one that costs the retirees.There was a time when McKay was in support of urgency in resolving this matter. It appears that is no longer the case.

urgency is needed


4 thoughts on “McKay No Longer Supports Urgency”

  1. Of course he doesn’t ! As he stated last week in facebook he knows he has already won this election

    I think this is even a bigger reason to vote him out.

    Signed ,
    Current employee

  2. What a scared little joke McKay has become.Everybody better tell everybody to tell everybody how he and the other board members have cost the citizens of Jackson County millions upon millions of dollars.Let no incumbent survive the re-election process next week.The people need to rise up and run them off.

  3. SRHS Hopes just posted motions by the Reeves law firm. Multiple thoughts as a result: 1.) The end of the beginning or the beginning of the end for the SRHS Trustees, 2.) finally, the failures of fiduciary responsibilities is coming to the forefront, and 3.) the exhibits (to the motions) reinforce the adages of “give them enough rope to hang themselves” and “hoisted by their own petard”.

    One can hardly wait for the “heavy hitters” in the federal class action to engage.

  4. Perhaps this comes under the concept of a sense of urgency (this reader does not know where else to place it). Is it not interesting that, as of this date, none of the current SRHS employees have filed with the MS Supreme Court for injunctive relief from the ruling of the local court requiring that current retirement benefits continue at 100% of the previous level.

    A case could clearly be made that the judge made an erroneous fiduciary decision by allowing 100% distributions to one class of beneficiaries(current retirees), knowing that this level of funding is being subsidized by another class of beneficiaries ( non-retirees). The retirement trust itself demands equal treatment.

    Are the current employees too afraid for their jobs to speak out? Or, do they believe some, as yet to be determined, savior will step forward and reimburse the retirement trust for the unsustainable current payouts.

    Certainly, it will not be long before some smart legal advisor opens the lid to this can of worms. Perhaps, after next Tuesday, Supervisor McKay will share his Solomon like wisdom.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *