File this under Julie Roehm: avenger. The PR food fight between Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and its former marketing communications chief just got more interesting. I don't know why she picked late Friday afternoon on a get-away-weekend to launch her latest missive but according to the Wall Street Journal, Julie Roehm is alleging that WMT executives violated its ethics policy by accepting discounts on yachts, diamonds and personal gifts from vendors.

To put this into perspective, here's a recap of the rounds so far:

1. Wal-Mart fires Roehm alleging she accepted gifts from an advertising agency that was later chosen to handle WMT's ad account (12/06).
2. Roehm countersues WMT for breach of contract (12/06).
3. In a countersuit, WMT releases salacious details about an alleged affair Roehm had with a subordinate -- Sean Womack -- accusing her of misusing WMT travel funds on business trips with him. The suit cites one e-mail purportedly sent to Womack by Roehm as saying: "I think about us together all of the time. Little moments like watching your face when you kiss me." (3/07).

And today's round goes to Roehm, who alleges that WMT CEO H. Lee Scott, received "preferential prices" on yachts and "a large pink diamond for his wife" through his relationship with Irwin Jacobs. One of Jacobs's companies, Jacobs Trading, has the exclusive right to buy unsold WMT merchandise.

Although the stock price of Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) has floundered for years with little deviation from the $50 area, the retailer's CEO has been bagging some large paychecks even as WMT shareholders have received bupkus from their investments. It's true that investors should be looking for longer-term returns instead of three-month returns, but it's been half a decade since WMT has moved in a significant way.

Would Sam Walton be proud of the performance of the current CEO, Lee Scott? This question was postulated over at Forbes.com, and it makes a pretty good point. With returns of -3.4% annually since Scott has been at the helm, does that kind of performance merit a $60 million payout for Scott since he's been at the helm? That's $8 million a year.

All the PR hogwash from boards that overpay under-performing leaders based on "competitive market rates" is laughable. Shouldn't a CEO's performance be relative to the performance of the company being led? After all, if you base pay on industry metrics, who's to say that those being looked at for a baseline are performing at the top of their game? Nothing says that -- and it's all relative. The shareholders who have a stake in under-performance should demand that executive pay be tied to that, not meaningless competitive metrics in the CEO world where the comparison could be on another leader's shining performance. Hey, you and I don't get paid that way. Why should CEOs?

As Zac Bissonnette wrote earlier, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) CEO Lee Scott seemed to vent his frustration with Wal-Mart's inability to enter the New York City market by stating "I don't care if we ever enter New York." Wow -- for a high-visibility CEO to lose his cool like that may end up in his being hammered in the press and even by his board.

It's amazing what a little candor can do these days. Scott could have said, "It's unfortunate that the shoppers and leaders of such a fine city have not accepted Wal-Mart into their community," but to actually slam one of the world's most respected cities just goes to show what arrogance Wal-Mart's leadership must have right now in the face of extreme frustration from slowing sales and constant bashing in the press.

Scott seems to be secretly under fire from his recent $22 million bonus for "meeting financial targets" to Wal-Mart's fledgling share price to the huge image problem the world's largest retailer has in its biggest market right now. Will 2007 see the end of Scott as Wal-Mart's CEO? Shareholders need to be holding Wal-Mart management accountable -- for something -- even as he gets publicly flustered and basically insults the people of NYC. Way to go, Lee.

When a highly-visible Illinois senator calls on you to offer alternative fuels alongside traditional gasoline, you know the fight has just begun. Wal-Mart, which sells gas alongside many of its stores across the country, could do well to start having alternative fuels made available alongside standard gas. This would go along with many of its newer green initiatives.

With "flexible fuel" vehicles growing -- but not near the amount of standard gas-powered vehicles -- Wal-Mart would most likely install E85 pumps in Wal-Mart locations where they would we utilized fully right off the bat in order to judge demand and build a case for installing more. But, until automobile manufacturers begin making more flexible fuel vehicles for the common soccer mom down to the all-day delivery driver, will the impact be significant at all?

Don't get me wrong: this is a great start here if many of the national retail companies Obama writes to would start the game off correctly. But, there is more help needed than that -- the average consumer needs to demand this type of alternative fuel technology from the carmakers where they all buy cars. What would be the question you would ask if buying a new car?