So what political candidate, party, campaign, or cause is McElroy promoting?

And don't you think he and Hartmann probably talked to the suits at corporate headquarters to get approval to proceed?

All the News Sentinel wants Commission to do is to abide by the open meetings law. The term "do-over" is disrespectful to those who are serious about open government and public participation. You are just using the term to brush off any scrutiny or criticism of the January 31 process and possible remedies to restore public confidence in county commission. Nobody is asking for any do-overs. They didn't do it right the first time, so do-over doesn't make any sense. Even those pushing for a special election aren't asking for a do-over. The commissioners are appointed until the next election. The appointees haven't been elected yet. Trying to have an earlier election is good for voters and bad for the officials who are now tainted with participating in a bad appointment process.

And do we need two threads about the same subject?

So what political candidate, party, campaign, or cause is McElroy promoting?

Doesn't it appear he is a Proxy for the County Mayor?

You may not be aware that McElroy sued each former and current Commissioner individually. Is that proper conduct? The attorney for the News Sentinel agreed that was too much and has agreed to withdraw the individual lawsuits.

I don't know if the suits at Scripps know what is happening here in KnoxPatch. That is a good question.

There is a lot of video to process. The comments from the County Law Director are compelling.

I don't agree with or condone the January 31st process. But what has happened since the 31st is worst. I feel the light needs to be shined on Mr. McElroy.

You need to hear the discussion happening right now on the Sunshine Law. It is not clear the Sunshine Law was broken. In fact, it looks as if the Sunshine Law is written so vaguely that it may be impossible to enforce.

This is a comedy of errors. At some point the adults need to step in and right the ship.

Endless lawsuits and government by continuing resolution is not acceptable. Where is the leadership?

Number 9: "There is no provision in either the Knox County Charter or the Tennessee State Constitution for a do-over for the January 31st appointment process."

It's my understanding that the "do-over" is implicit in the state statute that voids any public business conducted in violation of the Sunshine Law. That is, if the January 31 appointments are voided, what else might be done under existing law to fill the vacant seats?

Neither does McElroy's offer to drop the suit in exchange for a "do-over" constitute any new terms to the request made in his suit. That *was* the remedy his suit called for. It appears to me that he's just offering to save Knox County some time and money.

In answer to your concern, though, I would think that Ragsdale's call for a special election would better benefit Team Ragsdale than would McElroy's offer to drop the suit in exchange for an immediate "do-over." From the get-go, it was a worry of anti-Ragsdale Commissioners that an election of any sort would allow the ready-in-the-wings Ragsdale Machine to quickly gear up the campaigns for his/their candidates.

And finally, the N-S has a long history of filing such suits in opposition to violations of open records and open meetings laws, both. They're not exactly in uncharted waters, here!

read SnM post

What ethics or journalistic integrity is Bruce Hartmann violating by serving on the many for profit and not for profit boards as he does...

Have you noticed how when Mayor Ragsdale has an agenda to push the editorial usually supports his point of view???

Also did any one catch the story in the New Sentinel in which Mr. Hartmann had to resign from the South College BOD as the accrediting firm pointed out the conflict of interest this caused for the school?

I have to confess to being a little taken aback at the suggestion that filing a public-access lawsuit might somehow violate the Scripps Code of Ethics. I supposed that's a reflection of how politically charged this environment is.

A couple of points for the record:
* This isn't the only access suit the News Sentinel has going. We have been suing for the right to see police videos for a few years now but are stymied by the state of case law undermining the Public Records Act as it relates to law enforcement records.
* Scripps corporate knows all about the lawsuit. Before we filed, we cleared our plans with the senior vice president for newspapers and with corporate counsel. For what it's worth, the VP's reaction was "go for it," as usually is the case when local properties ask for Scripps' corporate support in access cases.
* The Scripps ethics code forbids most political activity by journalists but doesn't apply in the least to the lawsuit. My concern, and the News Sentinel's, isn't who gets appointed. My concern is the Open Meetings Act. The law has no enforcement provision; it relies on citizen action. The bottom line is: No lawsuits, no law. Newspapers have traditionally stood up for public access laws as part of the civic responsibility that comes with our First Amendment rights.

BTW, as a science fiction buff, I loved the comparison to the time-travel paradox. What's really weird to contemplate is winning this lawsuit after a year or so and the old commission meeting and not appointing the same new commissioners.

Did that new commission ever exist? (Cue Twilight Zone theme.)