to put a dog in the fight?
Go look at the relevant statutes yourself.
While the Board of Health may appoint a candidate for the Director's position, the state Board of Health has to approve that choice.
Also, the Board membership is mandated to have certain professional representatives.
Frankly, no better nail could go in the lying Accusser's coffin then a clear bill of health with all Department employees passing drug tests.
On the other hand, how does one state, after all the furor, that there is not a problem with employee drug use, if some type of drug test is not conducted?
If she lied, why is she still employed?
As I have said consistently, Mr. Tate should give up one of his positions. Clearly there is a conflict of interest when he sits on both seats.
I've also pushed, from day 1, for a posting of positions that some new blood might be appointed to clear out the stagnation. Mr. Tate's seat should be the first filled.
Snoop, maybe you should get your head out of the pound and think like a reasonably thinking person. That's often the measure used to determine right from wrong.
More information about formatting options