Thu
Aug 10 2006
12:26:pm
Breaking Knox news
By: SayUncle  shortURL

MKS reports the committee has determined term limits apply to Knoxville.

Knoxnews:

Term limits stand as they were passed in 1994, and they apply to all elected officials with the exception of judges.

That’s the conclusion today of a committee established to fix deficiencies that a Knox County chancellor found in the county charter.

After a three-hour meeting, the committee voted to adhere to the term limits provision passed overwhelmingly by voters in 1994.

Giggle. Bad week for incumbents.

Topics:
107
vote
metulj's picture

Woot!

Submitted by metulj on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 12:40pm.

No longer a resident but I voted for term limits in 1994 and I am damn glad it stuck.  W00t! 

 

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

SayUncle's picture

I don't think it's stuck

Submitted by SayUncle on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 1:02pm.

I don't think it's stuck yet. But it's closer.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

metulj's picture

Truthy

Submitted by metulj on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 1:07pm.

It is only a hopeful thing. I am certain Timmy has a special lawyer being flown in on a black helicopter and ensconced with plenty of paralegal help at a house he didn't build. The whole shooting match will be catered by his sister, of course. 

 

 

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

talidapali's picture

DOES IT MEAN THE SHERIFF

Submitted by talidapali on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 1:05pm.

DOES IT MEAN THE SHERIFF TOO????!!!??? 

"You can't fix stupid..." Ron White

rikki's picture

incumbents?

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 1:34pm.

I'm not sure I'd call it a bad week for incumbents. They managed to get their names on the ballot twice this year despite being ineligible to serve, and most of them won their seats despite being ineligible to serve. Incumbents are as well positioned now as they could hope to be.

The charter review committee's opinion matters little right now. Their mission is to repair the defects identified by Weaver, which related not to term limits, but to the absence of any wording in the charter defining the offices of Register, Trustee and Clerk. The Supreme Court could eliminate the need for any modifications to the charter, or they could identify defects the committee did not address, or they could declare the committee void because it's working on an invalid charter.

It's all going to hinge on the Supreme Court ruling, and the ineligiible incumbents will be sworn in before that case even starts. Depending on how long the court deliberates and how they choose to administer their decision, the incumbents could serve months or years longer than they should.

btw, I was part of the minority that voted against term limits in 1994. 

Number9's picture

Deja vue all over again

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 1:37pm.

The committee has determined term limits apply to Knoxville?

I didn't realize the "committee" had such power.

After the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling did they really have a choice in the matter?

CBT's picture

This only means the "fix"

Submitted by CBT (not verified) on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 2:13pm.

This only means the "fix" which will be placed on the ballot in November, if Chancellor Weaver's ruling is upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, will be one where term limits apply to all elected officials, except judges. That is, term limits will be voted on in November.

A couple of other details for the committee:

Will term limits be voted on office-by-office or in a lump measure?

When will the term limits under the "fix" take effect? Will incumbents get two more?

Isn't it also possible the Supreme Court will decide that a county charter form of government cannot term limit officials such as Register of Deeds, Sheriff, etc. I believe that is also part of the appeal.

Regarding the Sheriff, the voters in the precincts which are actually protected by the Sheriff's Office (including me) vote overwhelmingly for Hutchison. He's a great Sheriff. It's the city folks, who have the KPD, that vote against Hutchison. Knox County has never had a Sheriff serve 4 terms. Tim just got elected to his fifth. And 80% of voters favor term limits?

Number9's picture

This only means the "fix"

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 2:45pm.

This only means the "fix" which will be placed on the ballot in November, if Chancellor Weaver's ruling is upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, will be one where term limits apply to all elected officials, except judges. That is, term limits will be voted on in November.

Make the case Counselor. How can Weaver be upheld?

CBT's picture

It will be easy for the

Submitted by CBT (not verified) on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 3:15pm.

It will be easy for the Supremes to uphold the decision. Frankly, it seems easier than overturning it. Essentially, the proof presented at the trial, over 3 days and thousands of pages of exhibits (which strangely didn't include things like the charter which had been filed with the state, among other things) was that the law to establish a charter form of government required the county to do 1,2,3...and the county failed to do all the things required. To overturn the decision, I would think the Court would have to find something that's not there or somehow find it wasn't necessary. Weaver followed the law.

We can fix the Charter. Ragsdale did the right thing by getting that in the works for the Nov. ballot. The more interesting issue is who can be term limited by charter rule voters. If it doesn't apply to everyone, that seems to be state law which we can't "fix" locally. I believe that's also part of the appeal.

R. Neal's picture

Hopefully the Supremes will

Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 3:24pm.

Hopefully the Supremes will decide once and for all for Knox and any other county that wants their own charter which offices can be term limited.

If they uphold Weaver's decision, it seems like there are no term limits, and there is no charter until November, at which time it would almost be like voting for a new charter all over again and therefore a complete do-over and nothing prior counted (except the taxes and fees you paid, of course). In which case it would appear that the clock would start ticking once the new and improved repaired charter is ratified, whenever that is, by whatever that process is.

What is that process, by the way?

If they overturn Weaver's decision, they might invoke the severability clause already in the charter to say that everything else except the defects Weaver pointed out stand, and the defects just need to be cured. In which case the Charter Review Committee is ready to go with the fixes.

---
Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!
(C) Dilbert

CBT's picture

If the Supremes uphold

Submitted by CBT (not verified) on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 8:16pm.

If the Supremes uphold Weaver's ruling, that's all it does. Weaver has stayed the effect of his order. I may not be clear, but wasn't the reason for the "stay" to allow time to fix the charter before Weaver's ruling could be enforced (say, by a lawsuit to overturn every law passed under the charter, return every "illegal" tax, etc.). I think Weaver may have given the county time to actually fix the problems he found. It just so happens there was an appeal and the Supreme Court will hear the case in the meantime to determine if his order should overturned. If so, there's no need to stay anything, the charter would stand.

We still need the question answered as to who can be term limited by charter government voters.

Knoxquerious's picture

Shurf Tim

Submitted by Knoxquerious on Fri, 2006/08/11 - 7:06am.

Crook? What crimes?

How bout this one CBT...

http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/0602moodyv.html

This is the only one he has leagally got busted for, there are many more if you were to dig.

rikki's picture

A-B-C, do re mi

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2006/08/11 - 8:44pm.

the law to establish a charter form of government required the county to do 1,2,3...and the county failed to do all the things required.

The only requirement for ratification is majority approval. The defects Weaver found were curable. The filing of papers with the state has been cured. Defects in the formal language of the charter can be cured by referendum or by supermajority commission vote. Weaver did the right thing by staying his ruling and letting the review commission fix the holes in the charter.

TSC might find the charter-enabling law more permissive than Weaver did and overturn him. I have the same understanding as CBT, that the Sept. case will address the application of term limits to offices other than those explicitly defined in the charter (commissioner, mayor, sheriff).

Will we have ineligible office holders by Christmas? The only way to avoid it is to invalidate the charter. I'm guessing the Supreme Court will have more regard for a democratically adopted charter than to discard it over minor omissions and missing paperwork.

Daveinknox's picture

Regarding the Sheriff, the

Submitted by Daveinknox on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 4:51pm.

Regarding the Sheriff, the voters in the precincts which are actually protected by the Sheriff's Office (including me) vote overwhelmingly for Hutchison. He's a great Sheriff. It's the city folks, who have the KPD, that vote against Hutchison.

You couldn't be more wrong. I live in the county and I have never voted for that crook.

CBT's picture

Then, would that put you in

Submitted by CBT (not verified) on Thu, 2006/08/10 - 8:08pm.

Then, would that put you in the underwhelming part?

I didn't say it was unanimous, but in the area's he's responsible to patrol, he wins...big.

Crook? What crimes?

Factchecker's picture

There you go again

Submitted by Factchecker on Fri, 2006/08/11 - 11:45am.

Regarding the Sheriff, the voters in the precincts which are actually protected by the Sheriff's Office (including me) vote overwhelmingly for Hutchison. He's a great Sheriff. It's the city folks, who have the KPD, that vote against Hutchison. Knox County has never had a Sheriff serve 4 terms. Tim just got elected to his fifth.

There you go again insinuating that popularity is proof of performance.  This is just fatuous and illogical.  It's dangerous when people spread such views.  W used to be popular, especially right after 9/11, and it had nothing to do with his performance.  Nixon was elected in a landslide just before Watergate.  Hitler was hugely popular in his country.  Examples are endless.

And why would the city be so against Hutchison, if he's such a great sheriff?  Are people who have city service always disapproving of county authority?  Why?  Give us another reason why Huthison is great.  How would anyone even know one way or the other? 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Upcoming events:

View all

User login

TN Progressive


TN Politics

Local Media Blogs

Local Paper

Local TV News

State News

Wire Reports

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Police Scanner Feeds