has just made some statements that may not be correct but whether they are or not it has created a tense situation. Have to see the playback but I think he was trying to pick a fight. Paul Pinkston was pissed. The volume just turned up.

#Nine...do you have any more details about the exchanges between Commissioners Smith and Pinkston?

It looked like R. Larry Smith was trying to make the News Sentinel case via hearsay. I'll have to see it a few times to know for sure but he implied there was a Sunshine Law violation and it was a matter of time before Commission would get caught.

Pinkston was really upset. He took it as a personal affront. Needless to say people will have different opinions when they watch the meeting.

A few days ago, I contacted our delegation in Nashville via email concerning SB1761/HB945. I asked them to vote no if any amendment is added that could be used by former executive office holders in Knox County to skirt term limits. #Nine...do you have any more details about the exchanges between Commissioners Smith and Pinkston?

I agree with you about SB1761/HB945. Steve Hall has provided all the service the people require. This bill is an outrage and it is surprising to me that people have had such little response.

As regards to your other question all four parts of yesterdays Knox County Commission meeting about the Jack McElroy settlement offer can be seen on YouTube Channel Nine.

Parts III and IV are the "discussion" between R. Larry Smith and Paul Pinkston. If you live in District 7 you need to see R. Larry Smith. It is pandering of the lowest level. I don't blame Paul Pinkston for taking a personal affront to Mr. Smith. I would have done the same. Mr. Smith is trying to paint everyone with the same brush. Not a bright idea. You can see it for yourself. Richard Cate comes close to calling R. Larry Smith a liar.

Part I is Mark Harmon trying to work out a compromise solution to the Jack McElroy Sunshine Law lawsuit against Knox County Commission.

Part II is the give and take in Commission as they try to understand what the McElroy lawsuit is about. Mike Hammond is very strong saying he cannot vote for a compromise without seeing the evidence of a Sunshine Law violation. Lumpy Lambert brings up a valid question of how Commission can remove existing Commissioners.

I still have not heard from CTV. When I do I will post the links.

Until then you can go to YouTube and search for Publius9 or Knox County.

The title is "Knox County Commission meeting on Jack McElroy settlement".

I don't know R. Larry well enough to have an opinion. But I do know Pinkston and he's arrogant and rude. I thought he was going to make one of friends cry when she spoke at Commission a year or so ago.

The first question is;how many(2?)commissioners does it take & what can they not say;outside of a public meeting;that would violate open meetings act.Question 2 would be;has anybody violated that act.Nobody knows,for sure,the answer.However,the Law Director is making no bones about it.This suit is real.The commission got it.The motion was the first shot toward a working majority,politically not legally,on the suit& get beyond the"yo mamas so ugly"debate we've been havin.Violations may be found for the appointments in the 4th & 2nd & if there proves to be trouble,in those two appointments & the N-S offers to drop the suit if a re-do is done in 2/4,then the commission should vote to accept the offer.

If your computer will run this, here is the WBIR coverage of a small part of the County Commission meeting. Unfortunately it does not show what R. Larry Smith said. If you know where to look on YouTube look for it Tuesday morning.

I am curious, I have great difficulty in viewing WBIR and WATE news clips on their webpages. Anyone else experience the same problems?

if you recall, Moore was the one who carried the resolution which commission approved(unanimously if I remember correctly) for the Ethics Policy - which included the process for appointing an ethics committee.

Though I don't disagree that the committee may be better now, it should be noted that the state recommended model was proposed and approved by commission (particulary Moore) ~2 months ago. I have no idea why/what prompted Moore to change his mind, but I do agree that the "new" committee that includes citizen representatives will better suit the needs of an ethics committee.

Am I the only one who thinks this is odd? Since when would state legislation reach back to fix a legal problem (maybe a quasi-legal problem in this case)? I suppose this happens sometimes, but the move by Tramel and Lambert to put a response to the News Sentinel lawsuit on hold based on waiting to see what the legislature says seems stupid or naive to me.

I have reconsidered the Sunshine Law. After reading how the law is written it seems to be too sweeping, too vague, and unenforceable. I do however want a good law that will keep the government from having secret meetings.

I do not understand how new Commissioners can be trained and mentored with the current Sunshine Law. The idea that two Commissioners cannot talk on the phone or have a meal together and discuss an ordinance seems restrictive to me and counterproductive to good government. It stifles debate and discussion. Exactly the opposite of what we need.

It also seems to be a violation of the First Amendment Rights of the two Commissioners.

I think Commission did the right thing in this instance. Other States have improved their Sunshine Laws. Tennessee should also.

I hope you will write a column on your recommendations. Those are excellent and they are long overdue.

We are not getting good service from Knox County Commission. Let's ask the KnoxViews group for some more suggestions.

# 4. Meet at 7:00 PM

# 5. YouTube the meetings so they can be seen at any time.

I agree, that seems to be the main thrust of this argument...in that Commission proved they discussed this beforehand because there was NO discussion that morning. All went too quickly for it not to have been laid out prior.

Shamefully, during these alleged and assumed discussions they couldn't vet those resumes? Jordan and Cate in particular have skeletons that should have been known about by the commission.

There is an extension that lets you view things in Firefox as if you were using IE without the security risks of IE. AND...you can switch back and forth between Firefox and IE Tab with one click.

IE Tab

_________________________________________________________

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

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Fluffies were exempted from sunshine law requirements back in the legislative acts of 1847. I think the Magna Carta also addressed this.

anybody notice how often Lambert does that sort of odd lean on one arm?

Hmmm. I think now we know.

It seems ridiculous that two (or more?) Commissioners can't talk on the phone or have lunch to talk about an issue. For example, if Mike Hammond has a drainage issue in the 6th District and a subdivision issue is on the agenda, why can't he call other Commissioners and tell them why they should vote against it? Can one or more Commissioners come look over the property with Mr. Hammond?

The News Sentinel should do an in-depth article on the current Sunshine Law especially considering Jack McElroy's lawsuit against County Commission.

I kept asking why none of the County Commissioners took the tour of the Midway Industrial Park. Now I wonder if they were concerned about this poorly written law.

The big positive of Mr. McElroy's lawsuit is now people are looking at how this Sunshine Law is written. As it stands it seems to me it stifles debate and discussion.

As we look at the desperately needed storm water ordinances you have to wonder if this Sunshine Law is an impediment to getting that done right.

For crying lout loud, even Alabama has a better Sunshine Law than we do.

The new Alabama Sunshine Law:

Requires that the "deliberative process of government bodies be open to the public during meetings," including meetings of committees and subcommittees of government bodies.

Allows meetings behind closed doors to discuss "general reputation and character" of an individual, but specifies that it does not include talks about an employee's job performance. The law allows boards to discuss job performance behind closed doors of certain lower level employees. The job performance of most management-level workers must be discussed in public.

Defines "meeting" as a prearranged gathering of a quorum of members of a government body.

A meeting does not include the casual meeting of board members at a social gathering, training session or other unofficial event.

Public notice must be given "as soon as possible" after the meeting is called and at least 24 hours before the meeting is held. When a board is required to meet to resolve an emergency, notice must be given at least one hour in advance.

Boards are required to maintain "accurate records" of public meetings.

Members of government boards are not allowed to vote in private session or by secret ballot.

Provides exceptions for when closed door meetings can be held — including discussions of real estate deals for economic development, meetings with attorneys to discuss ongoing litigation and discussions of security.

You *do* raise some valid questions, Chad.

For instance, I'm aware that school board members sometimes go together to visit the sites of potential land purchases, and I recall that they went together to tour the former Levi Strauss plant location here in Powell, when they were considering its purchase for use as a new Powell Middle School. Of course, they attend an annual retreat together, too (are reporters even along?).

On the other hand, I recall that the school board ceased their practice (under media attention) of collectively visiting a local restaurant following each month's regular meeting.

I can't claim to understand how the law views all these actions...

Chad's concerns seem valid to me, and it hardly seems that a lunch meeting or a site inspection is a violation of the public trust. On the other hand, the number of decisions that are made without any public deliberation is an embarrassment. A lot of this hinges on intent, and at the 1/31 meeting, there was clearly intent to deliberate out of public view.

The law might need to be better defined, but it would be absurd to claim (as Pinkston has) that commission is doing all its business in public view.

over the phone when they could simply debate on the merits of things in a meeting? Isn't the Sunshine Law to PREVENT the predisposition of items on the agenda? I thought the whole idea of the Sunshine Law was to keep things from being decided before the public has a chance to give input or raise objections. If the Commissioners call each other and lobby for their viewpoints and get a commitment from other Commissioners to vote their way, that is a violation of the law is it not? Even if the lobbying takes place in front of a reporter (who are supposed to remain neutral and simply report the facts, which in this case would happen after the fact and therefore would not be open to members of the public until it was a fete accompli) in a bathroom, if a decision is made before any member of the public has a chance to voice their views and to try to persuade the Commissioners with their arguments, then why the heck would ANYONE (including the Commissioners) bother to even show up at Commission meetings? Heck, they could just PHONE their votes in.

_________________________________________________________

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

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

I've heard quite a few City Council members talk about the Sunshine Law. The most important thing seems to be that two or more of them can't deliberate in private. So they could be in the same place soically. If I understand correctly, they can also be in the same place seeking information (e.g., touring an proposed industrial site, or even looking at that stormwater problem #9 mentioned). But they can't talk about what they will do with that information. For example, they couldn't discuss whether or not the industrial park is a good idea, or what they might do about solving the stormwater problem.

Clearly Commission was deliberating what to do about filling the term-limited seats out of the view of the public (and I'm not just talking about the during the recesses).

So, would this constituent need to entertain 18 Commissioners one at a time? This sounds like elementary school children having to go to the bathroom one at a time.

As usual many of our problems in Knoxville start in Nashville. The proposed changes to the Sunshine Law actually make it much worse.

This should be called the "Have No Debate Bill". I find it hard to understand how anyone can support this. Yet Jack McElroy does. Betty, take a look and let us know your thoughts. Think about the "unintended consequences".

This is sad. Another House Judiciary Chairman Joe Fowlkes debacle. He has set Tennessee back on several issues including eminent domain.

The changes in the Tennessee Sunshine Law are sweeping and quite stupid:

* Define public meetings to include inspections and tours by elected officials of projects or programs where the tour is part of the decision-making process.

* Clarify that "public meetings" involves two or more members of a governing body discussing or exchanging information relevant to any pending matter involving public business.

We need to get our storm water problems fixed before this bill is voted on in Nashville.

Chad is correct, this is "like elementary school children having to go to the bathroom one at a time". Say good-bye to tours and inspections. Say good-bye to discussion and debate. How can this State come up with a worse law than Alabama?

Basically it is one a time or all at once with prior notice. Treat them like children and they will act like children.

But his offer of a deal to Wimmer is very clear evidence that deliberation was going on. Maybe not rock solid proof, but evidence that needs to be examined.

Lumpy's talking to Wimmer is not what was wrong -- it's WHAT HE SAID that's the problem.

I don't think so. What if Lumpy was on a fishing expedition? Trying to please other people so to speak.

It is logical and intuitive to go in the direction you are suggesting. But to have any weight in court it will take two people on Commissioner to testify they worked together to make it happen. I don't see that happening.

I know District 2 got screwed. Probably District 4 also. I don't won't to lose Frank Leuthold. This is the worst budget in County history. We need him. You can stretch it and say we all got screwed. But what can be proved in court?

Damn little.

Bolus, Tramel, and Cate will probably not run in February 2008. Do we use up all our powder now or try to make a better government?

I suggest we work together in a different way. Push for and get an amended Sunshine Law in Nashville that will help make better government in all Tennessee counties. Extend this from two people to a quorum. It will provide more debate and discussion.

Implement Sandra's 3 suggestions and my extra two suggestions. We have some political capital here and I think we are not using it to the fullest extent.

Anyone who has ever contacted City Council or County Commission about anything is well aware of the Sunshine Act. Any neighborhood issue, rezoning, anything.

It's really sort of amazing that anyone is seemingly shocked by the Sunshine Act at this late date. Particularly County Commissioners.

Put into law in 1974, and still is unclear on whether it is two people or a quorum. Time and time again we learn that well meaning legislation does not accomplish the goals it was set out to do. Having watched the City Council workshops and County Commission Committee meetings I am amazed at the lack of discussion and debate.

The Alabama Sunshine Law changes are listed in a post below. Why are the proposed changes from Joe Fowlkes superior? I don't think they are.

We need more debate and discussion. The current Sunshine Law stifles discussion. I don't want secret meetings. But how high a cost should that desire cost?

Can you explain to me how two people cannot discuss an issue? Do they not have a First Amendment right to do so? How is that right superseded by a State law? Why isn't the quorum threshold a better idea for better government?

Scott, I would like to hear your thoughts if you are still out there.