Join our Listener Club  Featured Listener Comments Section:   Contents List   Listener Comment

Time to Apply the "Smell Good Test" to the Mayor's race

Listener: Kevin
Category: Lubbock City Politics
Date: 05 May 2008
Time: 13:39:31 -0700
Remote Name: 68.91.16.225

Comments

Robert,

I would submit that it is time for the citizens of Lubbock and Lubbock voters in particular, to apply the time honored “Smell Good Test” to the current Mayor’s race. You know how it works, if a story or situation sounds too good or far-fetched to be true or is lacking some fundamental explanation . . . well, it should at least command some further investigation or basic fact checking before one accepts the premise as presented.

This week, as reported in the A-J on May 1, 2008, the current mayor has begun a campaign ad using statements from a former city employee. The article states in part, “The employee, Sharlett Chowning, worked for Martin when he was the city's interim director of information technology. He also was a police captain at the time.” In the ad, Chowning says Martin placed a gun on a table to scare her while the two of them were in his office. The article goes on to state, “Miller based his ad on documents from Chowning's grievance hearing in 2003, when then-City Manager Tommy Gonzalez mentioned it during a deposition.” Chowning admits, "I aggravated the devil out of him" She goes on to say, “She said Martin often carried a gun and liked people to know it.” Chowning, “filed a discrimination suit, saying the city replaced her with a man who was less experienced than her but who made nearly as much money. A judge later agreed, and the city settled with Chowning in 2004 for $400,000.” One of her most relevant quotes to all of this was, “I just stared at it." (the gun), Chowning said. "The only thing I could think of was my God, I have to get out of here.' I was so scared."

Now it is time for the application of the “Smell Good Test”.

1. She admits to aggravating a person at the time who was a superior. This admission alone brings some credibility and motive issues into play on the part of Chowning.
2. Martin was still employed as a police captain with the Lubbock Police Department. Don’t most police officers carry a gun or have immediate access to one? How was this gun allegedly placed on the desk? Was it just lying at the corner or was it pointing at her? The insinuation on the part of Chowning that it was placed on the table to scare her is speculation on her part. Maybe it was digging into his hip when he sat down. We will likely never know for sure, if in fact it occurred at all. Besides that, it was not reported that Chowning made the statement at deposition, but former City Manager Tommy Gonzalez at his deposition is to have made the statement! Hearsay, that will likely never see the light of day under cross-examination;
3. Why would a long-time, high-ranking law enforcement officer be willing to subject themselves to some rather serious misconduct charges and risk losing a job and pension with this kind of alleged conduct over an employee evaluation with one that admits to being an irritant to their supervisor?
4. If this was mentioned in a sworn deposition during an EEOC hearing, the seriousness of this alone should have warranted further investigation by the EEOC or Lubbock Police Internal Affairs. I have yet to see or hear any discussion about this.
5. This brings us to number five, and in my mind the most important point which is, if Chowning was so scared and said to herself that she has to get out of there, then why didn’t she and why didn’t she report this to the police department or the district attorney for what amounts to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon? Why was this not properly investigated at the time it was alleged to have occurred? Why are we hearing the details of this allegation now, four years later, and during an election campaign?

The fact that the incumbent mayor was willing to use these allegations with so many unanswered questions leads us to wonder about this individual’s personal agenda, their ability to lead and personal character. I would further submit that a candidate’s personal agenda has no business in public office. We as voters should want to know what the candidate’s vision and political agenda is to respond to and best serve the citizens who put them in office. When a candidate is willing to use what is largely unsubstantiated, and arguably what amounts to alleged felony criminal conduct such as this, it calls into question just how effectively a person is capable of fostering a cooperative working environment and lead this city toward positive, productive solutions to the problems this city faces now and in the future. Lastly, Webster’s dictionary describes character as, “one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual.” You can draw your own conclusions.

I hope that the voters of Lubbock will utilize the “Smell Good Test” in their own evaluation of all of the candidates and their respective races BEFORE they cast their ballots.

Kevin