of the story/non-story and the reporting/non-reporting.

Not sure I've ever seen a "news" story framed in such a "who done it" kind of way. At this point I care less where this goes, more that it gets somewhere.

If it goes nowhere, the KTSC can host an Egg and Crow Festival.

The reporting is not sloppy as you describe. It's straightforward. And I find it interesting that you don't like the reporting, yet never name the reporter-Mike Donila. He's usually the Golden Boy of this site.

As for Barker commenting as an unregistered user. He's said her before that he can never remember his password. He always comments as an unregistered user. It's clear to anyone who regularly communicates w/ him that it's his speech patterns and style. That was an unnecessary swipe.

The law reads that the state authorities could initiate an investigation on its own, but they are not required too. It almost requires that a citizen complaint be filed. I had a lengthy conversation w/ Tom Humphrey about this earlier this week. If a citizen hadn't come forward, it's likely nothing would have happened. And no matter the timing, the questionable checks are just that, so they need to be properly investigated. In truth, I was considering filing a complaint myself.

Three options as I read it:

One - Tim Burchett was not honest with voters
Two - Allison Burchett was not honest with Tim Burchett
Three - on some level, both the above apply

After four news articles and an editorial, I have no clue as to which of the three apply.

That was an unnecessary swipe.

No, it's a necessary disclaimer. I can't verify it is Scott Barker, although I'm pretty sure it is. If I attribute it to him without being able to verify it and it was actually an impostor, Scott would be pretty pissed I imagine.

We are told by a reliable source that Allison Burchett leaked the info to the KNS using online bank statements and check copies.

It certainly clears up a lot of questions.

Logic please in Allison doing so? If she's truly as vendictive as many say, it doesn't make much sense and actually seems very counter-productive.
Going to call out your anonymous 'source' and say it's the Burchett camp,(Dean/Grider) if not Burchett himself.

Seems to me Burchett is trying to protect his personal/divorce issues from surfacing by first discrediting his ex publicly.

If the soon-to-be ex didn't already have reason to be scorned before, she certainly has one now.

The next few days/weeks should be VERY interesting indeed.

On Sunday George Korda's radio show announced the Burchett's had reached a divorce settlement. I assumed ...

Who made the announcement? Unless it was Burchett himself, or Allison, such an announcement is worth about as much as any other anonymous, unsourced comment.

Interesting since the original court date was Decemeber. Why the sudden 6 month advance?
Makes one wonder if Timmy boy convinced Allison not to give the paper info to clear her name which might implicate him? For example, checks written to Tim, written by Tim, joint bank account statements where the funds were deposited, etc.

Big assumptions based on no information.

Today we learned no divorce settlement/confidentiality agreement was signed.

Who learned that, and from whom? I sure hadn't heard anything either way.

She isn't exactly a fragile, weak, shrinking violet, and I would go so far as to say she doesn't take lightly to her ex's accusations.

What's he accused her of, besides saying he wasn't aware of the checks she'd written?

Hmm. That's twice now she's said that...

I've got nothing against Mike Donila, but was I out of the room when he was voted the KnoxViews "golden boy?"

If indeed Allison proves to be the source of this "controversy" the Sentinel ought to be ashamed. If I shot someone and came to the NS and said "I shot this dude, but it's really my wife's fault because she told me to do it." Would that justify the paper withholding my identity? What about, "I shot this dude , but it's really my wife's fault because she told me she was busy and I should just handle it."? Is it the position of the local newspaper that they are going to hide felons identities for a scoop?

And if Allison is not involved..........the information is likely stolen. Keep in mind here, we're looking at a civil infraction if it involves Tim, and only a criminal one if someone did something without his knowledge. Stealing the bank records though, is a more serious crime than screwing up on the campaign funds. So, what are we supposed to think? Why the drama? If Tim's done something wrong, nail him. Let's get a cross and hang him up at James White Fort.

If not, apologize and move on. One way or another, someone needs to be held accountable.

Also, just out of curiosity, what did he supposedly spend the money on?

If Tim's done something wrong, nail him. Let's get a cross and hang him up at James White Fort

Well that's a bit dramatic for a campaign violation. James White Fort already has stocks, isn't that that more appropriate? But the story is about Allison - she appears to be the one who commited the alleged misdeed. Burchett's "crime", if this is not cleared up, is giving someone without ethics acess to the campaign checkbook. I don't expect him to micromanage every expenditure of the campaign. If he gets hit with a fine, so be it, but I don't consider it a personal failing unless he knew about misspent funds.

Here's what I don't understand: presumably the Mayor could make this all go away by filing an amended campaign expenditure stmt with all the $$ in question probably accounted for.

Why hasn't he? Or maybe he's working on it? Or maybe I'm wrong?

At this point, I'm not ready to or interested in accusing anybody of anything but sloppy bookkeeping, but that really does need to be straightened out.

are funny things.

I am of the opinion that the likely hood of Tim being able to expense this out is slim. That is the whole point of this exercise. I sure hope this isn't a sign that the Sentinel is going to totally give up on the news and exclusively report on situations of marital discord.

This is a bullshit trumped up charge that is nothing more than a vengeful woman attempting to discredit her ex through any means necessary.

I hope the guy just pays the ten thousand and says "Sorry I can't help, but I've been set up. Accept this as a sign of good faith."

And then sticks it to her in divorce court.

What I don't understand is why she didn't just go to the State Ethics Board to start with.

I filed a residency-related lawsuit against a candidate for public office once--and I did ultimately carry my complaint to the KNS.

I didn't first carry my complaint to the KNS, though.

I first carried it to the Knox County Election Commission (before the time I understood that the Local Election Administrator really isn't the party charged in statute with qualifying candidates). I next filed that lawsuit. Carrying my complaint to the KNS was the last step I took--and it was a superfluous step, really, since media weren't the ones able or obligated to decide my issue.

All I can tell so far is that if Allison or whomever is intent first and foremost on ensuring that the campaign's finances are examined, she really hasn't taken the most expedient course of action to get that done.

Which leaves me wondering if it's truly an altruistic concern for campaign donors that's driving her actions.

Which in turns leaves me feeling a bit peevish toward her and sympathetic toward her husband.

And causes me to wonder if she has any valid issue at all.

We'll find out, I guess--and that's a good thing--I just hate the way these questions arose.

"The checks Allison Burchett wrote to herself, however, are still not documented."

(link...)

Today's News Sentinel story shows what a fraud by the Sentinel this has become. Straight up collusion between McElroy and Allison Burchett. How sick will this get?

From today's article:
"Expenditures for two checks written by Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett's wife during the 2010 election are now correctly recorded as required by state campaign finance law."

Donila,
How did you arrive at the conclusion the Rice expense is now properly recorded when state law clearly states it must be recorded as a payment to the original vendor, and cannot be recorded as "reimbursements" or "misc" or any other generic description and cannot be listed as payment to the 3rd party. T.C.A. 2-10-107 (a) (2) (b)

Allison certainly didn't make this error?

Btw,
I Do find the humor in "Alan Swartz" being SO close to "Alan Schwartz" with Swartz being a Burchett defender whilst Schwartz was always an antagonist. Nice work Dean, et al. Nice to see you are mastering the blogs even if you can't master an expense report.

She says they used the money for personal expenses.

(link...)

That's what she says. Surely she wouldn't "say" it with no proof, right?

The KNS angle on telling this "story" seems to be an angle where the most important facts for readers are secondary.