For a classic “Who are you going to believe, me, or your own eyes?”-style Liar of the Month, the Scoreboard presents Fort Myers Beach Mayor Larry Kiker.

When Kiker learned from a reporter that his town’s fire chief, Scott Janke, was married to an up-and-coming porno movie star, he called an emergency meeting of the town council that culminated in Janke being fired, using a “no-cause” provision in his contract. Why fire him? Because, in Kiker’s own words, “we were addressing…a situation where we weren't going to be able to govern the town with all the disruption and interruption,” the disruption arising from, of course, the racy occupation of the fire chief’s wife. (She performs under the name of “Jazella Moore,” and is the star of “Cock Pit 3,” coming soon to your video store, in case you’re interested.)

But rather than take responsibility for the decision, Kiker—hilariously—denied that it was based on what he continued to say the decision was based on. "We didn't fire him because his wife was a porn star," Kiker told the Associated Press. Indeed, he added that "It was not his job performance. We all liked Scott … He's a good guy."

Hmmm. So the chief is a good guy, and his job performance is good…wait a minute, why is he being fired again? I know a “no-cause” clause means that no good reason needs to be cited for termination, but is the mayor’s position really that Janke was fired just for the hell of it? He woke up one day and thought, “Oh, heck, I think we should fire good old Scott.” He’s not even saying that though. He told the AP that the firing was because the town sages worried that there would be disruptions and publicity that would get in the way of the chief’s work, and theirs. Disruptions caused by….the fact that the chief’s wife starred in porno films! Which means, using the transitive principle of causation and logic, that Janke was fired because of his wife’s career choice. But because it is obviously unfair and unethical to fire an effective employee because of his or her spouse’s occupation, Kiker is sticking to his characterization of the dismissal as something else, even though the facts, the sequence of events, and his own statements prove that it isn’t.

Now there’s a novel way to build a reputation for honesty, candor and integrity! Well, now, let me think about that. Are you really lying when you make no effort to disguise or hide the facts that prove the falsity of your statement? You aren’t fooling anyone, nor can you reasonably expect to. But if denying what your own concurrent statements make plain is the case isn’t lying, what do we call it? Stupidity? Cowardice? Delusion? Humor? Performance art?

Whatever it is, it is sufficient for a well-earned Liar of the Month.