Hollifield Column: Let’s briefly discuss mandated underwear

And in underwear news, Brooksville, Fla. officials have mandated that all city employees wear drawers to work.

I used the TV anchor-style segue “and in underwear news” in case you were just reading something else, perhaps a story about health-care reform or a letter to the
editor from a concerned citizen who is shocked and appalled by a non underwear-related issue, and needed to be gently transitioned into a column that will deal
almost exclusively with underwear. A warning to sensitive readers: those offended by a frank discussion of tighty-whities, panties, BVDs, jockeys, boxers,
bloomers, skivvies, briefs or knickers should stop reading immediately and turn to a story about a health-care reform.

The rest of us will wait…

...are they gone? Good. Back to underwear news.

According to Hernando Today, the newspaper I can count on to dig deep into underwear issues with its crack investigative team, Brooksville leaders voted 4-1 to
adopt a revised dress code for city employees that, among other things, prohibits the “observable lack of undergarments and exposed undergarments.”

Mayor Joe Bernadini cast the dissenting vote, calling the underwear amendment “a little far-fetched” and adding, “I think in a way it takes away freedom of choice.”

It was not known whether the mayor was going commando when the vote was taken.

As a rule, I try not to meddle in municipal affairs. When the city council in my town discussed — seriously — the danger of pigeons plucking lit cigarette butts off
the street, flying into the open windows of downtown buildings and starting fires, I suggested training an elite squirrel commando team armed with the latest in anti-
pigeon weaponry or, at the very least, ash trays. My idea was deemed “budgetarily prohibitive” and “insane,” so I retreated from civic life and only mutter my
opinions under my breath while working on my manifesto in the basement.

But I simply can’t pass up a good governmental underwear controversy. I will be brief. Thank you for your support.

It’s difficult to argue with a ban on “exposed undergarments.” No one wants to see the maintenance supervisor walking around the shop in nothing but a pair of
Spider-Man Underoos.

The problem is the “the observable lack of undergarments” provision. To me, this would tend to encourage the standing around and observing of governmental
backsides on the taxpayer’s dime.

“Roy, we’ve got a water main break on 10th Street. Take Bill and the rest of the crew down there.”

“Sir, I’m too busy observing Linda from finance. I’ve followed her around all morning and I haven’t seen a visible panty line yet.”

Will the new policy eventually lead to random underwear tests?

“Larry, Steve, Kevin. I need you three to step back in the warehouse and drop your pants. OK, Larry. Boxers. Stripe print. Nice. Steve. Boxer-briefs. I’ve been
thinking of going that route myself. Kevin, I really need you to drop your pants.”

“I…uh…my washer is broken and I haven’t really had a chance to go to the laundromat and…uh…”

“Come on, Kevin, you know the policy. Let’s have a look. Oh, for the love of — I can clearly observe your lack of undergarments.”

“I didn’t have anything clean. Can’t you just look the other way? I mean, really, can’t you look the other way? Because you’re creeping me out now.”

“You’re getting a written reprimand and you’ll have to rewatch the training video “Underwear: It’s Just Good Policy.” And you should probably have that mole
checked.”

That’s all the time we have for underwear news this week. We now return you to stories about health-care reform.

Scott Hollifield is editor/general manager of The McDowell News in Marion, N.C. and a columnist of the Media General News Service. Contact him at P.O. Box
610, Marion, N.C. 28752 or e-mail .