Mon
Jul 21 2008
07:03 am

Early voting is underway, and election day is a little less than three weeks away. Here are our endorsements.

County General:

County Commission 1-A: Sam McKenzie (D)
County Commission 2-B: Amy Broyles (D)
County Commission 4-A: Finbarr Saunders (D)
County Commission 4-B: Steve Drevik (D)
County Commission 6-A: Kathy Bryant (D)
County Commission 9-A: Chuck Ward (D)
Criminal Court Judge Div. II: Ken Irvine (D)
Property Assessor: Andrew Graybeal (D)
Register of Deeds: Scott Emge (D)
Sheriff: Randy Tyree (D)

Primaries:

TN House 16th District: Barbara Nicodemus (D)
TN Senate 14th District: Steve Roller (D)
TN Senate 16th District: Jean Anne Rogers (D)
TN Senate 22nd District: Rosalind Kurita (D)
U.S. House 1st District: Rob Russell (D)
U.S. House 2nd District: Bob Scott (D)
U.S. House 4th District: Lincoln Davis (D)
U.S. Senate: Bob Tuke

Discuss...

Perry G.'s picture

Wow...a "progressive" blog

Wow...a "progressive" blog endorsing Rosalind Kurita...the Democrat who voted for a Republican that has TOTALLY screwed the State Senate. That makes lots of sense.

R. Neal's picture

Everybody's allowed a few

Everybody's allowed a few mistakes.

Sean_Braisted's picture

Perhaps...

Though I haven't seen any indication that she doesn't plan on repeating that mistake.

ForaProgressiveKnoxville's picture

What led you to choose...

Tuke over Padgett? I'm just wondering. I'm not saying you should have picked Padgett but I would like to get your opinion.

Thanks!

R. Neal's picture

Tuke v. Padgett is a tough

Tuke v. Padgett is a tough one and I have been putting off voting trying to decide.

I really like how Mike Padgett has run his campaign, visiting all 95 counties in Tennessee and talking to regular folks at diners and pot lucks. That's some hard campaigning. I also like that he is popular in the republican stronghold of Knox County and in fact never lost an election (and has actually run for office and been elected), and that might help him a little but Lamar walks on water over here, so I don't know how much of a plus that is.

Tuke has some impressive endorsements (but so does Padgett, Tuke just has more and a couple of higher profile ones) and appears to be out-fundraising Padgett by a large margin. Tuke has experience working on state and national campaigns. Tuke is connected in the state party. So in these respects, I think Tuke might have a slightly better chance of being competitive v. Lamar.

I have policy differences with both of them, but Padgett's frequent assertions that he's a conservative bother me.

But what it finally came down to for me was their resumes. Tuke is a lawyer, and a pretty distinguished lawyer. Padgett's experience is owning and running a small business and holding a county fee office for a couple of decades (in violation of voter approved term limits at the end, if I'm not mistaken).

A county fee office isn't involved in making legislation. The Congress and Senate are about legislating and making laws. A lawyer is better qualified to do that, in my mind. If both were lawyers that would make it harder, the same as if they were both NOT lawyers.

To me, Tuke just seems more experienced in related matters and has better qualifications for the job, is better educated, and overall seems a little more polished. Either one would do a fine job, and either one will have a tough row to hoe v. Lamar.

R. Neal's picture

P.S. I wish Padgett would

P.S. I wish Padgett would have run against Duncan instead. He might have a better chance, and there's no doubt in my mind that he'd be a better representative. If things don't go his way this time around, I hope he considers that next time. His experience in this campaign would no doubt pay off, too. (Can he carry over any campaign funds?)

Anonymously Nine's picture

That is a whole lot of D's

Discuss...

Looks like having a "D" next to the name is a requirement.

Just because Sam McKenzie and Finbarr Saunders have a "D" next to their name does not make them the better choice. The strings tied to them go directly to the current County Mayor Mike Ragsdale.

Each of these candidates supports Mayor Ragsdale's desire to swear in early the new Commissioners. Which is wrong on every level. It was wrong on Black Wednesday and it is wrong now.

At this point in time only Sam McKenzie, Finbarr Saunders, Ed Shouse, and Don Sproles have stated they support the early swearing in.

Black Wednesday the sequel? Or is it okay this time because Mike Ragsdale wants it done?

R. Neal's picture

I have a secret

I have a secret admirer!

(link...)

Andy Axel's picture

Let me know if you ever

Let me know if you ever figure out how you're relevant to yourself.

____________________________

"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"

jbr's picture

Looks ok except for maybe

Looks ok except for maybe Chuck Ward and Lincoln Davis.

bill young's picture

Mike,Sam & Jimmy

I voted for Mike because he would be a great senator.

Sam does what he thinks is best.I'm behind Sam 100%.

Jimmy will be re-elected until he does not run.

ForaProgressiveKnoxville's picture

Nine...

Finbarr has stated numerous times that he would only swear in early if everyone else did. And if you are not a fan of Finbarr, then give a reason why people or Mr. Neal should support Ruthie.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Flip then flop...

Finbarr has stated numerous times that he would only swear in early if everyone else did. And if you are not a fan of Finbarr, then give a reason why people or Mr. Neal should support Ruthie.

Yes you are absolutely correct. Finbarr has said that. So has Ed Shouse.

The problem is they both take a page from the John Kerry playbook. They talk on both sides of the issue and then demand plausible deniability.

Each of them first said they would be sworn in early. Only when people got really angry did they modify their position from flip to flop. The current meme is they believe Commissioners should all be sworn in together. They just don't say when. Sam McKenzie is even bolder. He says he will seek to be sworn in early.

I have the tape from the Hubert Smith radio program that has both flip and flop from Saunders. Would you like to hear it? Hear is the link to the Fourth district forum at Bearden High School where even more flip flopping happened from Shouse and Saunders:

(link...)

As far to the case of supporting Ruthie Kulhman, that is not my job. I don't work for the Sentinel. But Ruthie Kulhman along with Steve Drevik, Amy Broyles, Dr. Richard Briggs, Kathy Bryant, Brad Anders, Chuck Bolus, Albert Baah, and Chuck Ward have said they will not be sworn in early.

No comment yet from David Wright or Mike Brown.

It is simple, it was wrong on Black Wednesday and it is wrong now. Vote for what you believe.

Bbeanster's picture

9, your obsession with early

9, your obsession with early swearing-in doesn't make any sense at all.

Chuck Bolus was an appointee who got the position primarily because he promised to be sworn in early and vote for Tramel. Odd that you now find that so bad, since you are such a big Hutchison supporter, and Hutch was the architect of that deal. I don't recall you complaining about it then -- your position was that Ragsdale was equally guilty and that the only people who were mad were Ragsdale supporters, who couldn't get their own candidates in.

Finbarr is the Democratic nominee for the 4th District seat. If he is elected in August, he has every right to be sworn in to replace the appointee in that seat as soon as the law allows it to happen. election trumps appointment.

I've defended you many times on this board, but this position is logically and ethically indefensible. What are you really upset about? Charter amendments??

Anonymously Nine's picture

Not so fast...

Chuck Bolus was an appointee who got the position primarily because he promised to be sworn in early and vote for Tramel. Odd that you now find that so bad, since you are such a big Hutchison supporter, and Hutch was the architect of that deal. I don't recall you complaining about it then -- your position was that Ragsdale was equally guilty and that the only people who were mad were Ragsdale supporters, who couldn't get their own candidates in.

Finbarr is the Democratic nominee for the 4th District seat. If he is elected in August, he has every right to be sworn in to replace the appointee in that seat as soon as the law allows it to happen. election trumps appointment.

I've defended you many times on this board, but this position is logically and ethically indefensible. What are you really upset about? Charter amendments??

Who first questioned Sunshine Law violations? I asked you on KnoxViews if stepping into the coat room was a Sunshine Law violation. I didn’t support what Bolus did but I did opine that both Team Ragsdale and Team Hutch were using the same playbook.

Betty, from the beginning of the modern County Commission in 1982 ANY Commissioner could be sworn in early. But in 26 years it happen only once with Chuck Bolus and that was wrong and people raised hell. So why shouldn’t people raise hell now?

Your comment “election trumps appointment” is a non sequitar. It is also legally irrelevant. The State law was there from the beginning. What Bolus did was legal, but it was wrong. Bolus was sworn in 4 hours early. Saunders wants to be sworn in two weeks early and Mike Ragsdale has facilitated this by saying he will provide and early swearing in ceremony on August 18th.

Why do you think I am upset? If it was bad the first time it is good this time because “election trumps appointment” or because Mike Ragsdale thinks it is a good idea? That doesn’t matter. It is an empty excuse and no better than the excuse to break a tie when Bolus did the same. It has no relevance to the issue.

The issue is fair play.

You are aware that this was Mike Ragsdale’s idea aren’t you?

This is a naked attempt to steal the August meeting from the appointed Commissioners. They have the same rights as elected Commissioners. There is nothing in State law that supports “election trumps appointment”. That is Finbarr’s and Ragsdale’s excuse.

Why would Ragsdale want to steal the August meeting from the appointed Commissioners? Well Betty, you know the answer to that. These Commissioners are investigating Ragsdale. They want to see the Hospitality Fund audit through because it started on their watch. The new group will slow down any investigations. Ragsdale gains three to four votes with the new Commissioners. This is political life and death for Ragsdale. These investigations are a serious threat to his job.

It isn’t my fault that Finbarr chose to follow Ragsdale. That was dumb. But if you watch the video above he stands his ground to be sworn in early in between some very Kerryesqe flip flopping.

This has gone from Finbarr leading the charge to be sworn in early to Finbarr trying to build a coalition of people to be sworn in early to equally distribute the blame. It is an issue and an important one. If it was wrong on January 31st it is still wrong.

RayCapps's picture

Nope... Can't agree with that.

Finbarr is the Democratic nominee for the 4th District seat. If he is elected in August, he has every right to be sworn in to replace the appointee in that seat as soon as the law allows it to happen. election trumps appointment.

As much as I may feel this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot led by a vocal few whose motives aren't exactly 100% pure, I disagree that any commissioner should be administered the oath of office prior to September 1. From Black Wednesday to today, we've already had far, far too many little games played on the commission. It's time for things to go the way they were intended to go for a change. I agree wholeheartedly with Amy Broyles on this one. Those elected in August should be sworn in on September 1 and not before. I have high hopes the next sitting commission will behave themselves like grownups, and resisting the temptation to play around with the swearing in date would be a perfect way to announce that intention. If I'm able to tolerate one more meeting with Victoria DeFreeze, so can you.

Bbeanster's picture

On my list of things to

On my list of things to worry about, when these elected officials get sworn in is about 5,799,999th on my list.

As long as there's a fair election, I just don't care when they are sworn in.

I ran into Finbarr Saturday, btw, and he told me he'd be sworn in when everybody else is. I just don't see how that's a problem.

Anonymously Nine's picture

I am very surprised...

As long as there's a fair election, I just don't care when they are sworn in.

You don't have a problem that the early swearing in was Ragsdale's idea and he promoted a ceremony on August 18th? That did not send up any red flags to you?

I don't know if Ragsdale is trying to scuttle the Hospitality Fund audit or the Civil Service Charter Amendment or if he just really hates William Daniels. Today Daniels ask for the PBA people to come on down.

Is there something to hide at PBA?

I just think these interim Commissioners should not be cheated out of their last meeting.

Am I missing something here? I would have thought this would have been a serious thing to you Betty. Maybe I'm slow, but isn't this worse than what Bolus did? Even he didn't rip off the last meeting from any Commissioners.

Bbeanster's picture

I just think these interim

I just think these interim Commissioners should not be cheated out of their last meeting.
Am I missing something here? I would have thought this would have been a serious thing to you Betty. Maybe I'm slow, but isn't this worse than what Bolus did? Even he didn't rip off the last meeting from any Commissioners.

I do not think that these appointees are being "cheated" out of anything. This is an unprecedented situation, and the law is subject to interpretation. The appointees are placeholders, appointed to serve until duly elected commissioners can be put into place. I don't think it's a big deal if they are sworn in as soon as the election is certified. And I don't like your sliming Finbarr Saunders, whom I know to be a good man. Ragsdale is a a jerk, but I'm just tired of parsing his every syllable for evidence of evildoing, and I'm way past tired of some of the utter nutcases this whole affair has attracted.
Paranoia will destroya, Nine.

Anonymously Nine's picture

No one is sliming anyone

I do not think that these appointees are being "cheated" out of anything. This is an unprecedented situation, and the law is subject to interpretation. The appointees are placeholders, appointed to serve until duly elected commissioners can be put into place. I don't think it's a big deal if they are sworn in as soon as the election is certified. And I don't like your sliming Finbarr Saunders, whom I know to be a good man.

Your man reached too far. These Commissioners have worked hard and they deserve their final meeting.

Fair is fair. There have been too many Mulligans.

Rachel's picture

I just think these interim

I just think these interim Commissioners should not be cheated out of their last meeting.

I don't have strong feelings about this issue, but how the heck can you "cheat" an interim Commissioner out of anything. Their job was to serve until an election could replace them. They aren't owed anything in particular.

rikki's picture

early bird gets worm

It's time for things to go the way they were intended to go for a change.

Yes, it is, and the law is very clear about when elected replacements for appointed commissioners are to be sworn in: at first opportunity. It is not even correct to call an Aug 18 swearing-in "early." That is the game being played. The appointees' terms did not begin on a Sept 1, and there is no reason why they should end on that date. All along they knew they would serve until a replacement was elected.

These seats were supposed to be filled by election in 2006, so appeals to tradition are absurd on their face. The seats will be up for election again in 2010. Guess what that means? Yep, another court decision over whether someone who wins this week and gets re-elected in 2010 can run again in 2014. It also means that the elected replacements and their constituents are the ones being cheated out of a meeting if the swearing-in is delayed.

reform4's picture

Can you cite this "very clear" law?

Because what I read is not that clear. It only says the appointees serve until the replacements are elected and sworn in. I have yet to find ANY legal basis for the swearing in to be immediate.

And I recall reading the term limits provision, and I believe it was relatively clear on the 2014 issue. Those elected in 2008 can only serve through 2014 by my reading (six year max). Believe me, if I'm elected, I have no intention of going beyond the six. I think that's in best keeping of the spirit of the term limits we all passed.

LeftWingCracker's picture

I didn't endorse in the

I didn't endorse in the Kurita race, but I couldn't have gone for her after she refused to commit to voting for a Democrat for speaker in front of the Senate Democratic Caucus. It's too crucial to us to get the Senate back.

jbr's picture

I dont know enough about the

I dont know enough about the Kurita vote for Ramsey. Was it something she would rather not have done but felt it was the only way to overcome the Wilder inertia?

Ramsey seems to give off a 'Sundquist' kind of vibe to me.

My view is the Lt Gov should be elected by the general public and term limited.

RedDog's picture

Look for the D and Move On

Wow - what insight!

Just look for the "D" after the name and move on.

RayCapps's picture

Well, not exactly...

R. Neal studiously witheld endorsing anyone in the Knox County Clerk's race. I guess he couldn't bring himself to give Henley-Vandergriff a nod. However, having an (R) or an (I) after one's name does appear to be an automatic disqualifier, as evidenced by the lack of an endorsement for anyone from districts without a (D) running, even one as actively contested by two intelligent and reasonably independent minded candidates as the 5th Commission District race.

R. Neal's picture

5th Commission District

5th Commission District race.

I hear they are both pretty good candidates. Actually, most of the county commission candidates seem like an improvement. Term limits work!

bill young's picture

Sworn in

After 2 1/2 years of this I think it would be a good idea to turn the page & seat a county government that is not being challenged in the Courts or appointed but duly elected by the people.

Sam has not won yet & Baah is running hard so it's a cart before the horse question/answer.I don't disagree with 9's assertion on Sam's position but I don't have a direct quote from Sam & I don't want to misquote him.

The fact is the Att Gen may way in on this & the Att Gen's opinion maybe the final answer on when the TCA requires the winners to be sworn in.

Bbeanster's picture

I don't buy supporting a

I don't buy supporting a candidate simply because he's a homeboy.

The Padgett/Tuke race is pretty much an exercise in futility, since neither of them has a snowball's chance of dislodging Lamar.

But.

Tuke is a far superior candidate.

Mike Padgett ran a traditional, bloated fee office complete with political hirings, nepotism and phantom employees. At the Truman Day dinner, the good Democrats at my table were heehawing into their napkins at Padgett's malaprops, like his declaration that his wife and his son were his "segregates." Dude has a tough time with the English language. I don't dislike Mike Padgett personally, although he always stuck me as a pretty heavy-handed empire builder, and Tuke, though a little on the boring side, is far less likely to embarrass us.

Knoxquerious's picture

Good call on

Good call on Tyree.

Evidently Mr. McElroy at the sentinel wants to act like a hero for exposing Black Wednesday and then endorse those mostly responsible for it looking at the OpEd today.

Amazing, but predictable.

ForaProgressiveKnoxville's picture

Nine...

I was at the 4th district forum, as I stated to you in a previous comment/blog section. But clearly this is pointless because you are comparing a county commissioner to someone who ran for President of The United States...because it's the same thing of course. "I'm catching a hint of sarcasm in your voice...Well I hope so, cause i'm laying it on pretty thick"

Anonymously Nine's picture

4th District battle lines drawn on early swearing in...

Today Steve Drevik and Ruthie Kulhman pledged NOT to be sworn in early in the Ragsdale sponsored August 18th early swearing in ceremony on a local radio program.

Their opponents have made no definitive pledge. Ed Shouse and Finbarr Saunders have said they would be sworn in with the other Commissioners. When every that might be.

Both Ed Shouse and Finbarr Saunders have spoken "hypothetically" of being sworn in early for "good causes". The appearance of this is that if enough other Commissioners will be sworn in on August 18th they will join in. It appears there is a movement to get enough people to join in for an early swearing in to distribute the blame.

The final clue was earlier today when radio host George Korda said on the Hallerin Hill radio program the early swearing in was imperative. He joins Jack McElroy, Rikki Hall, and Herb Moncier in this situational ethics movement. That is a strange cast of characters.

People have a choice, people who stand up and say what they mean or the "hypothetical" crowd. Again, the 4th District is where the fireworks are.

Rachel's picture

Do you live in the 4th

Do you live in the 4th district? If so, make your choice based on this single issue. I doubt that many other voters look at this election that narrowly, however.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Narrowly? How quickly things change...

Do you live in the 4th district? If so, make your choice based on this single issue. I doubt that many other voters look at this election that narrowly, however.

We had a revolt the last time someone was sworn in early. That was 4 hours early. This is two entire weeks.

If it was bad before it is bad now. The parsing of this is unbelievable.

Justin's picture

Oh dear Mikey...the sky is

Oh dear Mikey...the sky is falling...

R. Neal's picture

That was 4 hours early. This

That was 4 hours early. This is two entire weeks.

Minor (/snark) difference. That was ruled an illegal proceeding. This is a legal election to elect temporary replacements for the illegal replacements of the unqualified replacements, all according to state law.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Clarification...

That was ruled an illegal proceeding.

The "illegal proceeding" was a Sunshine Law violation. Not that is was illegal for Bolus to be sworn in early.

It is legal to be sworn in early. Period. I don't believe there is any debate about that. It was legal then and it is legal now. Just like there is no law about breaking line at the movies. That is legal also. Decent people don't do it.

The issue is fairness, continuity, and allowing legally appointed Commissioners to finish their job. It wasn't right when Bolus did it and it isn't right now.

If Ed Shouse and Finbarr Saunders want to play "Calvin Ball" then voters should consider that before they vote. Either we have a government or we have a contest of situational ethics. Which will it be?

scottfrith's picture

I say swear in the folks who

I say swear in the folks who are elected once they're elected (and certified). If you take the personalities out of it (and that's always the big IF), what justification could there be for keeping an interim commissioner when there is an elected and certified commissioner available?

If I were one of those appointed, unelected, temporary commissioners -- and there was an election and someone certified to take my place -- I'd simply resign. At that point, you should thank everyone for the honor of serving and go to the house.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Details, Nine?

"...what justification could there be for keeping an interim commissioner when there is an elected and certified commissioner available?"

When I weigh the need to dissolve this "de facto" government we've lived with for nearly two years against what appears to me to be a misplaced sense of courtesy, this one seems like a no-brainer, however...

Nine has implied in previous posts that he thinks no inquiry into the hospitality fund audit will result if the newly elected commissioners are sworn in prior to September 1.

He hasn't indicated why he thinks that, though, or who he believes would fail to perform their sworn duty. Details, Nine?

rikki's picture

indecent

Decent people don't do it.

Yes they do. It is the only decent thing to do.

The Bolus swearing in was controversial because he was sworn separately from the other appointees and started voting in the middle of the process. The lesson from that day is do not swear in an appointee while other appointees are still being appointed. It has no bearing on the current circumstance.

In fact, the applicable precedent from that day is that the replacements should be sworn in together at earliest opportunity. Other than Bolus, the commissioners appointed on Black Wednesday were sworn in that afternoon.

And besides, the law requires what you claim is indecent.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Situational Ethics 101...

The Bolus swearing in was controversial because he was sworn separately from the other appointees and started voting in the middle of the process. The lesson from that day is do not swear in an appointee while other appointees are still being appointed.

Like I wrote, these candidates seek the comfort of others to stand by them and distribute the blame. This myth that if several people get sworn in early together makes it acceptable is the ends justifying the means. The last thing we need in this County.

And besides, the law requires what you claim is indecent.

Requires? It is a requirement? Really. Herb Moncier has floated that idea. Herb's legal opinions don't have quite the same allure as in the past.

The truth is it is not a requirement. It is optional and it is the decision of the winning candidate. Just like when Bolus did it. John Owings stated there is NO law that states these winning candidates HAVE to be sworn in early.

This is just another of many conflicts between the County Charter and the State Constitution that should be fixed in a Charter Review Committee.

This is about astroturfing the County Commission to get ten people who will not vote to request Mike Ragsdale's resignation. There will be a Hospitality Fund Audit Commission meeting Tamara. But not until the three D's, Davis, Daniels, and DeFreese are gone.

It is just another move from Team Ragsdale to avoid the inevitable. It isn't a question of whether Ragsdale will be ousted, it is a question of how many people he takes down with him.

rikki's picture

Comrade 9

Herb's legal opinions don't have quite the same allure as in the past.

Yes, Herb has nothing on The Digit, champion of the installed temporariat. All hail Digit! Power to the Unelected!

Anonymously Nine's picture

Herb Moncier, unclear on concept...

rikki, read this, you might learn something.

(link...)

Most Commission candidates have pledged not be sworn in early. Does Moncier plan to force them? Typical.

rikki's picture

retarded oath-taking

An August 18 swearing-in is what the law allows, and it needs no further justification. Waiting until Sept 1 is what needs to be justified.

Unfortunately, your dishonest cabal managed to misframe the issue so the burden of proof appears to be on those who want an Aug. 18 swearing-in. Candidates have to deal with perceptions, even if they are false, and most have decided to avoid controversy by saying they will wait. This is unfortunate and a disservice to our democracy.

There should be no swearing-in during committee meetings, but that is trivially corrected by moving the time of the swearing-in to either before or after the meeting. All this crap about disrupted cycles and disasters is just crap. If these candidates are not already informed about commission business and can not inform themselves in the 10 days between winning the seat and getting sworn in, they shouldn't have run in the first place.

Mr. Drevik has been attending commission meetings and live-blogging them for months now, so he is clearly ready to hit the ground running. Steve, which candidates do you think are unprepared for duty and need an extra week or two to realize what they've gotten into?

August 18 is not "early;" it is the proper, legal date for swearing in the duly elected replacements for the appointees. Digit, what you are actually advocating is retarding democracy in service of your unprincipled ends. It is sad that so many candidates have bought in to your backwards thinking, and I hope they all renounce their pledge during their victory speeches as a gesture of respect for those who voted for them and as a gesture of disrespect for your transparent tribalism.

reform4's picture

Attending the meetings...

.. and being ready to vote are two vastly different things.

Take the NRR for example. Have I been following it and digesting every piece of information I can get ahold of? Of course. Have I had access to all the documents, affadavits, and status of the settlement? NO. Have I had a chance to submit questions to the law director and procurement department and receive a timely answer. NO. I'm not a member of Commission, so I don't have the same degree of access to the resources necessary to cast a decent vote on this very hot issue.

That's just issue#1. Take the rest of that 1000-page packet. Do you seriously expect to swear me in, dump that in my lap, and have me (or whoever is elected...) vote? Think about how crazy that sounds. Sure, some issues aren't so hard, but there are some toughies buried in there, and even some of the easy ones (say, a Fourth District zoning issue)... well, I'd at least like to walk the site and talk to a neighbor or two before voting.

Some can argue that a newly elected commissioner would be negligent in their duties by not swearing in. I would argue that a newly elected commissioner could be MORE negligent by stepping in unprepared.

[And none of this for a moment should be interpreted to any kind of stance on issues like NRR, the Hospitality Audit, putting KA's petitions back on the ballot, etc. As I have said a dozen times, this decision must absolutely be made independent of those questions, and purely on law and principle.]

-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
(link...)

Anonymously Nine's picture

Not true

August 18 is not "early;" it is the proper, legal date for swearing in the duly elected replacements for the appointees

That is simply not true. It has never happened other than Bolus. If it were true then it would have happened before. It would be the standard. And you know it. Moncier is mixing legal code and opinion. He is doing what he always does, misleading the public. Moncier's record on suing Knox County is 1-78. One little win and 78 losses. Yet rikki is in lock step with Herb.

Even Ed Shouse called it an "early" swearing in.

(link...)

From WBIR, ""If I can benefit the county, if I can save county taxpayers money, I'd favor being sworn in early," said Ed Shouse, Republican candidate for District 4-B.

Shouse says that if commissioners vote to put the amendments on the ballot, the election commission won't have to spend about $80,000 to manually verify the petition signatures.

"If the law director says it's legal [to be sworn in August 18] and it's in the best interest of Knox County, I'd have to honor his opinion," Shouse said. "I'm not actively seeking to be sworn in early."

His Democratic opponent says he would prefer to take the seat after the August commission meeting.

"I've looked at the way the law reads, and it's a little bit vague," Steve Drevik said. "Unless the law director tells me I absolutely must take the oath immediately, I wouldn't. The current opinion is that it's optional, and I think it's in the best interest of everyone to follow tradition to wait until September."

Drevik points out that taking the office in mid-August would interrupt the normal cycle of setting the agenda and committee hearings as preparation for the normal end of month meeting. Drevik says a two-week delay would allow more transition time with the appointees and allow some critical issues to be properly dealt with.

"We could have issues of ordinances coming up for a vote with the sponsor no longer sitting on Commission. We have a traditional transition period for good reason, and I'm here to extinguish the flames of distrust, not to fan them."

rikki's picture

If it were true then it

If it were true then it would have happened before. It would be the standard.

There has never been a mid-term election to replace eight appointed commissioners before, you oblivious turd. There is no applicable tradition in recent history. If there is precedent, it would have to have been established the last time an appointee was replaced by a duly elected commissioner. Any county history buffs know when that last happened?

Anonymously Nine's picture

Situational Ethics 101...

There has never been a mid-term election to replace eight appointed commissioners before, you oblivious turd.

Special circumstances for special people? To tell rikki.

Have you read Moncier's lawsuit? It is anarchy. Maybe you should read it before you defend it?

There are many holes in the County Charter as well as the State Constitution. Isn't Moncier a legal parasite feeding off the taxpayers? Why would you defend him?

Rachel's picture

Reading this thread has made

Reading this thread has made me change my mind about what's in Room 101.

Russ's picture

Bravo

Reading this thread has made me change my mind about what's in Room 101.

I hereby nominate the above quote for KnoxViews Comment Of The Year.

~Russ

Rachel's picture

Why thank you. Just to be

Why thank you. Just to be nominated given all the fine competition on KV is quite an honor. ;)

Anonymously Nine's picture

Always glad to help the press...

There is no applicable tradition in recent history. If there is precedent, it would have to have been established the last time an appointee was replaced by a duly elected commissioner. Any county history buffs know when that last happened?

That would be either when Mike Arms was replaced by Mike Hammond or when Paul Pinkston replaced his late brother on Commission.

Neither was sworn in early in the next election.

You haven't read the lawsuit have you rikki? You should.

Rachel's picture

They were replacing

They were replacing themselves. That is, they were appointed, then elected to the same seat. So of course it didn't matter when they were sworn in.

That's hardly comparable to the current situation, where entirely different people will be elected to the seats currently held by appointees (except for Wright and probably Briggs & McKenzie).

Try again.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Read the lawsuit...

They were replacing themselves. That is, they were appointed, then elected to the same seat. So of course it didn't matter when they were sworn in.

That's hardly comparable to the current situation, where entirely different people will be elected to the seats currently held by appointees (except for Wright and probably Briggs & McKenzie).

The Rachel/Tamara school of interpretive reading.

Moncier's claim is it is a State Law REQUIREMENT.

So, was the law broken on those two occasions when the Commissioners were NOT sworn in early?

Rachel's picture

The Rachel/Tamara school of

The Rachel/Tamara school of interpretive reading.

wtf? It's an "interpretation" that Pinkston was elected to fill the same seat he was already occupying by appt?

Look, I don't have strong feelings one way or another on the swearing-in date.

I was just pointing out that you can't equate the Pinkston/Hammond situation to the current situation, where Campen, Davis, Daniels, Roundtree, and DeFreese will be replaced by COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Emphasis noted...

Look, I don't have strong feelings one way or another on the swearing-in date.

Yes, after you bolded all the words it became clear.

Brian A.'s picture

I just noticed that the

I just noticed that the website Stacey Campfield lists on his mailings is at Geocities. I'm amused that a sitting state representative would have his site there.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

talidapali's picture

I'm actually okay with waiting 'til Sept. 1...

I do however think that maybe the "temps" on Commission should probably suggest that important votes or the review of the hospitality fund audit be put off until after the new elected Commissioners are sworn in. That seems like a workable compromise. I do not think that all the newly elected Commissioners are going to be all that friendly to factions that are shown to have been operating unethically, if not illegally, with regard to money or other things.

They will have a chance to prove right off the bat whether they are going to play politics the same old tired way of the GOBs, or if they learned a significant lesson from Black Wednesday. Woe unto them that prove they still don't understand why folks got so mad.

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Just take good notes

My earlier post was difficult to interpret, Nine?

What I meant was that yes, I think the appointed commissioners should be scrutinizing the hospitality fund audit, familiarizing themselves with similar practices in other county deparments, and asking relevant questions.

I also meant that no, I don't think people who were appointed to their seats temporarily have any business presuming to discipline (or remove?) someone who was elected to his--especially if they should do so as "squatters" on the dais, already replaced by persons whose election has been certified.

As tali suggests, I think appointees should be taking good notes, which they should then turn over to their elected successors ASAP.

Meanwhile, you still haven't explained why you think those elected successors might not act accordingly on the information their surrogates collect?

R. Neal's picture

Woe unto them that prove

Woe unto them that prove they still don't understand why folks got so mad.

Good points, but based on turnout, a) people aren't mad any more and have gone back to watching Live at Five fashion reports and reading about Greg Issacs big house, or b) most candidates don't care either way, and neither does the media, so it's back to business as usual.

talidapali's picture

Probably so...

but can the pols really afford to forget what happened? Just because the giant is snoozing again doesn't mean he isn't sleeping with one eye open...

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

RayCapps's picture

The Rage might have burned itself out in February.

The JJ/Tyree race will be the only clear August indicator of how people actually feel about Black Wednesday. There are a few other folks associated with the tone deaf appointment process - notably Ballard and Sisk - but JJ is the only lightning rod name left standing. Ballard "repented" his sins on the witness stand and Sisk has played the innocient bystander card fairly well. A Tyree win would, imho, speak much louder than turnout about where Knox County stands on the Rage Meter. Of course, another indicator is JJ's "His own man," campaign slogan - a clear attempt to distance himself from the spectre of Tim Hutchison.

I'm convinced Black Wednesday destroyed some careers, including the careers of some sitting commissioners. Whether or not there's an echo in August, the guns of February will leave an indelible memory in everyone holding or running for a county office. And that's a good thing.

Bold Prediction I: If JJ loses to Tyree, Hutchison will not run for County Mayor in 2010. A JJ loss would be too clear a sign of the death of the Shurf's Office political machine Hutch built up for him to risk the embarrassment.

Bold Prediction II: If JJ eeks out a win and Hutch does decide to run, the other Tim still takes the GOP Primary and the General in cakewalks. Even if not yet dead, the Shurf's Office Machine is mortally wounded.

Bold Prediction III: Contrary to my initial thoughts on the subject, I no longer believe Ragsdale will manage to serve out his term. The Hospitality Fund Audit is the final nail in his political coffin. In return for declining to press charges once the special prosecutor reports, he will step down.

Not So Bold Prediction IV: Acting County Mayor Strickland won't run for the office in 2010.

Anonymously Nine's picture

The Apathy Party Wins Again...

The Rage might have burned itself out in February.

We will know late Thursday evening. But it appears that is correct.

Even if not yet dead, the Shurf's Office Machine is mortally wounded.

No, not wounded, it is dead. The executioner was Lumpy Lambert. He did what the Sentinel and Herb Moncier could not do. The single most proximate cause of chaos in Knox County and the greatest weapon Mike Ragsdale ever had. The common denominator of most of the screw-ups in County government and the one of the worst Commissioners in history. Lambert will be a one term aberration. He will be that guy that runs every term and loses. If you thought the beating Scott Moore took in February brutal wait until you see Lumpy in 2010 as he tries to get to double digits. He is more popular outside his District than in it. Which isn't saying much. But he got the skateboard park. They should name it for the Lumpster. He will be remembered as "the Legislator". Okay, probably not.

If JJ eeks out a win and Hutch does decide to run, the other Tim still takes the GOP Primary and the General in cakewalks.

Nope, Tim Burchett will not be Mayor. Because he will not run. He doesn't have it and he knows it. This is a stalking horse move to disguise who will run for the GOP. Hutchison will not run either. There is no upside for Hutchison to run. Besides, 2010 will not be fun time to be County Mayor. Neither of the Tim's will want that job that term. It will be fun to watch Mike Hammond, R. Larry Smith, and Brad Hill play their cards. There is only one person to be County Mayor, and that is Bill Haslam. Ironically, with a Haslam Lieutenant as City Mayor it will be a virtual Metro government. Look for full blown Metro in 2014.

Contrary to my initial thoughts on the subject, I no longer believe Ragsdale will manage to serve out his term. The Hospitality Fund Audit is the final nail in his political coffin.

Yep. So true. When Ragsdale admitted he broke State Law that thud you heard was the end of his time as Mayor. Happy Trails Ragsdale. Next job is to lobby for a nice place like Eglin Air Force Base instead of Brushy Mountain. I don't think he can last much longer. Probably shouldn't have done the Showboat move. That was the beginning of the end.

R. Neal's picture

There is only one person to

There is only one person to be County Mayor, and that is Bill Haslam. Ironically, with a Haslam Lieutenant as City Mayor it will be a virtual Metro government.

That's quite possibly the craziest thing I've read all week. But it's only Wednesday...

Rachel's picture

Beat me to it. Here's the

Beat me to it. Here's the second craziest: The executioner was Lumpy Lambert.

Lumpy destroyed the sherrif's machine? Lumpy?

BTW, I can name at least 2 sitting elected Commissioners who are worse than Lumpy, so he hardly qualifies for worst Commissioner in history.

BTW, I'm 95% sure Madeline will run for City Mayor next year. Don't know if Mike M. regards her as a Haslam "lieutenant" or not.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Name em...

BTW, I can name at least 2 sitting elected Commissioners who are worse than Lumpy, so he hardly qualifies for worst Commissioner in history.

Okay, name them. Also, reading is fundamental, I didn't write he was the WORST. Just one of the worst. Ragsdale and Arms both served on Commission. That would be the top three.

Ironic you would defend Ragsdale's greatest mole on Commission. Okay, not ironic. Typical. Lumpy is probably a hero to you. Unless you ever watched a Commission meeting. Not even Mike Ragsdale as Commissioner ran his mouth as much as Lumpy. No one has ever consumed so much oxygen in that room as Lumpy Lambert. He confuses "legislating" with talking.

Rachel's picture

Ironic you would defend

Ironic you would defend Ragsdale's greatest mole on Commission. Okay, not ironic. Typical. Lumpy is probably a hero to you.

Lumpy's not a hero to me. I'm not defending him. And since you used the word "typical", please show me examples of how I've done it in the past.

I'm not defending Lumpy; I'm just LMAO at you for asserting that he killed the Hutchison machine (which I'm not even convinced is dead).

IMO, Scott Moore is a much worse Commissioner than Lumpy. Lumpy's obnoxious, but he's smart. Scoobie's only got the first part covered.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Non-Sequitur

Lumpy's obnoxious, but he's smart.

Smart? Based on what?

bill young's picture

2011

We will be electing Madeline Knoxville's next mayor in 2011.

Anonymously Nine's picture

We will be electing Madeline

We will be electing Madeline Knoxville's next mayor in 2011.

That answer's Rachel's question.

RayCapps's picture

Completely off topic...

but I can't help sharing. Madeline Rogero was the subject of the most overtly racist comment I ever heard a complete stranger say to me in a public place. While waiting for a table at Litton's, and glancing through a Metropulse to keep from staring at the cheesecake selection, a guy caught the cover of the paper and started talking about the mayoral race. The upshot of his reasoning was summed up by the comment, "You know, if her name ended in an S instead of an O, I might have decided to vote for her over Big Jim's boy." I was almost too stunned to retort... but only almost.

Comment viewing options

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

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives