but if handled correctly, I'd probably vote for the new law director's idea. By handled correctly, I mean one thing has to happen - period - with regards to the budget process before we really have a functioning system of checks and balances. Right now, the County Commission does not receive the Mayor's proposed budget sufficiently far in advance to properly review it, much less make meaningful changes to its specifics. You hear every commissioner regardless of alleged faction, regardless of party, and regardless of tenure complain about this. We have to address this problem first.

Then, after providing the County Commission enough time to really go through the proposed budget and thus provide an effective check on the Mayor's office, it only makes good sense to forward with the fee offices. Checks and balances are great if they are structured in a workable way. Having the purse strings firmly in the hands of the legislative body has always been a pretty good model in this country. So give the Commission enough time to review the budgets, and we might have ourselves a workable check on both the County Mayor and the Fee Offices.

Absent the ability for the County Commission to provide a thorough review of the Mayor's Budget, however, the law director's proposal is just an even larger mess being foisted almost blindly upon the County Commission. As currently structured, the Mayor's proposed budget isn't much more than a straight up or down vote without a contingency plan or sufficient time to develop one. In plainer English, it's pass the mayor's budget or risk shutting down county government. So fix that first, then let's talk about adding the fee offices to the mayor's budget.

Very short version (for No. 9), it'd be really cool to have the fee offices have to defend their budget to the County Commission. But right now, the Mayor doesn't really have to defend even his current budget to the County Commission, making the whole proposal (as is) just trading a bunch of little fiefdoms for one really big one.

Very short version (for No. 9), it'd be really cool to have the fee offices have to defend their budget to the County Commission.

Appointed Knox County Commissioner Elaine Davis presented this same idea to Knox County Commission and it was overwhelmingly voted down.

Now it is a good idea? Why didn't the KNS report the full story?

Why shouldn't the Fee Offices have to come before County Commission with their budgets? Charter Amendment number 4 was voted down by 72% because the voters wanted checks and balances.

we don't exactly disagree? I might have to rethink this.