Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 5:11pm.
I see your point, Rikki, WRT the seats no longer being vacant. And I, too, had already snorted at the value Bredesen seems to afford an AG opinion (i.e., the original term limits opinion his predecessor offered), BUT...
Aren't we still sittin' here reliant on either an altruistic CC's willingness to potentially vote itself out of office, or a lawsuit, presumably identical to the one already filed by the N-S, contesting CC's open meetings violations?
I re-read the N-S suit, BTW, and it appears they request not a special election, but another round of appointments (it's still up at the N-S site).
I see your point, Rikki, WRT the seats no longer being vacant. And I, too, had already snorted at the value Bredesen seems to afford an AG opinion (i.e., the original term limits opinion his predecessor offered), BUT...
Aren't we still sittin' here reliant on either an altruistic CC's willingness to potentially vote itself out of office, or a lawsuit, presumably identical to the one already filed by the N-S, contesting CC's open meetings violations?
I re-read the N-S suit, BTW, and it appears they request not a special election, but another round of appointments (it's still up at the N-S site).
(Out for a bit. Will read up on my return.)