Thanks for the tip, Mark. The Charter DVR guide shows Inside TN at 5:30 on Charter 10 (for some reason, WBIR is not on 10, but their 24 hr. news channel is).

Lumpy Lambert thanked Jack McElroy for the lawsuit. He said once and for all the Sunshine Law will be made clear. I don't know if that is possible. It makes more sense to rewrite the law for additional clarity in the General Assembly.

It is just an unclear law. Is it two or more representatives or is it a quorum? Is the key word deliberate or discuss? It seems that if representatives say there was only a discussion there is no violation.

Don Bosch was very entertaining and illuminating. Scott Moore was calm and never ruffled. Lumpy Lambert made some good points.

I've watched it three times and learn something new each time. If you know where to look it is up on YouTube.

Caught it and it was kind of a bore. Bosh was ... well Bosh and that was about the only feather ruffled on the show. Lumpy sure does know how to farm air time!

I am not good at linking, but if you search for Scott Moore and Lumpy Lambert "Inside Tennessee" on youtube.com, you can view it. Three parts- Thanks to Channel #9 for the upload.

I was at the damn meeting and saw half of what was going on (I was not invited to the back hallways or rooms). It really frustrates me to see these two lying so apparently and blowing smoke to cloud the issue. I can't wait till they are called in for a deposition and what they say will be very different from those with an ethical backbone (yes, there are some and Mark Harmon is one, add Tony Norman, Phil Ballard). It would be particularly enjoyable to see Paul Pinkston and Larry Clark found in violation of the Sunshine Law because of their "it was unanimous between the two of us" or however they were quoted. Pinkston was so righteous at that last meeting.

Susan Richardson Williams made a comment, "We should have kept the tape running during the commercial break", or something close to that"

I saw that and even though I both know and like her how odd to say such a thing? All it would have shown was EMPTY chairs.

Bosh is a funny guy and loves being on TV, next time you see him ask him. His wife is a great gal and works on many boards, different as night and day those two. Hey, he got Knoxville's latest drug family off, can't beat that!

Hmmm, this is interesting. The Lexis website crashed before I could get it all, but the relevant parts follow.

The argument at this point appears to revolve around "two persons or more" and "quorum". All the arguments are bogus.

The "two person" reference is in the definition of a "government body". In other words, a "body" is made up of "two or more members", i.e. one person does not a governing body make. It has nothing do do with meetings, etc., it's simply a definition of a "body". That's all it says about that. (In fact, it appears to exempt mayors and sheriffs and fee officeholders.)

On "quorum", the law does not say a quorum has to be present to qualify as a meeting. It says that a "government body" (i.e. a group consisting of two or more members") that requires a quorum to make a decision or deliberate cannot meet secretly.

Does County Commission under either the county charter or the state constitution (I haven't checked) require a quorum to conduct business? If so, they cannot meet secretly. If not, they are exempt from the Sunshine Law and can meet secretly. The law does not specify what constitutes a meeting nor does it say how many commissioners or members of any other public body constitute a "meeting".

It does say one thing about what is NOT a meeting, though. The hyperventilating example of two or more, or the whole commission visiting the Midway Industrial Park site or inspecting a storm sewer drain is specifically addressed by this:

“Meeting” does not include any on-site inspection of any project or program.

(McElroy is right on two points. The only enforcement provided is by a court decision, and the only remedy provide is voiding whatever action was taken in violation of the law, whatever that might be interpreted to be.)

Regardless, the law is clearly too vague (heh) to be enforceable. I don't understand why this has been argued for so long in so many cases. It looks pretty basic to me, and ought to take a judge about five minutes to rule on.

Prediction: case dismissed for lack of a controlling statute, with recommendation to the state legislature to clarify the law. Please remit $1500 to R. Neal.

EDIT: The item (c) under definitions also references chance meetings of "2 or more persons" and as Mark Seigel points out below is what the KNS is hanging their hat on. So case not so dismissed so fast.

The law follows...

----
Title 8 Public Officers And Employees : Chapter 44 Public Meetings : Part 1 —General Provisions : 8-44-101. Policy — Construction. —

(a) The general assembly hereby declares it to be the policy of this state that the formation of public policy and decisions is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.

(b) This part shall not be construed to limit any of the rights and privileges contained in article I, § 19 of the Constitution of Tennessee.

8-44-102. Open meetings — “Governing body” defined — “Meeting” defined. —

(a) All meetings of any governing body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, except as provided by the Constitution of Tennessee.

(b) (1) “Governing body” means:

(A) The members of any public body which consists of two (2) or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration and also means a community action agency which administers community action programs under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2790 [repealed]. Any governing body so defined by this section shall remain so defined, notwithstanding the fact that such governing body may have designated itself as a negotiation committee for collective bargaining purposes, and strategy sessions of a governing body under such circumstances shall be open to the public at all times;

(B) The board of directors of any nonprofit corporation which contracts with a state agency to receive community grant funds in consideration for rendering specified services to the public; provided, that community grant funds comprise at least thirty percent (30%) of the total annual income of such corporation. Except such meetings of the board of directors of such nonprofit corporation that are called solely to discuss matters involving confidential doctor-patient relationships, personnel matters or matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or by federal or state regulation shall not be covered under the provisions of this chapter, and no other matter shall be discussed at such meetings;

(C) The board of directors of any not-for-profit corporation authorized by the laws of Tennessee to act for the benefit or on behalf of any one (1) or more counties, cities, towns and local governments pursuant to the provisions of title 7, chapter 54 or 58. The provisions of this subdivision (b)(1)(C) shall not apply to any county with a metropolitan form of government and having a population of four hundred thousand (400,000) or more according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census;

(D) The board of directors of any nonprofit corporation which through contract or otherwise provides a metropolitan form of government having a population in excess of five hundred thousand (500,000) according to the 1990 federal census or any subsequent federal census with heat, steam or incineration of refuse;

(E) (i) The board of directors of any association or nonprofit corporation authorized by the laws of Tennessee that:

(a) Was established for the benefit of local government officials or counties, cities, towns or other local governments or as a municipal bond financing pool;

(b) Receives dues, service fees or any other income from local government officials or such local governments that constitute at least thirty percent (30%) of its total annual income; and

(c) Was authorized as of January 1, 1998, under state law to obtain coverage for its employees in the Tennessee consolidated retirement system.

(ii) The provisions of this subdivision (b)(1)(E) shall not be construed to require the disclosure of a trade secret or proprietary information held or used by an association or nonprofit corporation to which this chapter applies. In the event a trade secret or proprietary information is required to be discussed in an open meeting, the association or nonprofit corporation may conduct an executive session to discuss such trade secret or proprietary information; provided, that a notice of the executive session is included in the agenda for such meeting.

(iii) As used in this subdivision (b)(1)(E):

(a) “Proprietary information” means rating information, plans, or proposals; actuarial information; specifications for specific services provided; and any other similar commercial or financial information used in making or deliberating toward a decision by employees, agents or the board of directors of such association or corporation; and which if known to a person or entity outside the association or corporation would give such person or entity an advantage or an opportunity to gain an advantage over the association or corporation when providing or bidding to provide the same or similar services to local governments; and

(b) “Trade secret” means the whole or any portion or phrase of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula or improvement which is secret and of value. The trier of fact may infer a trade secret to be secret when the owner thereof takes measures to prevent it from becoming available to persons other than those selected by the owner to have access thereto for limited purposes;

(2) “Meeting” means the convening of a governing body of a public body for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision on any matter. “Meeting” does not include any on-site inspection of any project or program.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as to require a chance meeting of two (2) or more members of a public body to be considered a public meeting. No such chance meetings, informal assemblages, or electronic communication shall be used to decide or deliberate public business in circumvention of the spirit or requirements of this part.

[Acts 1974, ch. 442, § 2; 1979, ch. 411, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A., § 8-4402; Acts 1985, ch. 290, § 1, 2; 1986, ch. 594, § 1; 1988, ch. 908, §§ 3, 5; 1997, ch. 346, § 1; 1998, ch. 1102, §§ 1, 3.]

8-44-103. Notice of public meetings. —

(a) Notice of Regular Meetings. Any such governmental body which holds a meeting previously scheduled by statute, ordinance, or resolution shall give adequate public notice of such meeting.

(b) Notice of Special Meetings. Any such governmental body which holds a meeting not previously scheduled by statute, ordinance, or resolution, or for which notice is not already provided by law, shall give adequate public notice of such meeting.

(c) The notice requirements of this part are in addition to, and not in substitution of, any other notice required by law.

[Acts 1974, ch. 442, § 3; T.C.A., § 8-4403.]

8-44-105. Action nullified — Exception. —

Any action taken at a meeting in violation of this part shall be void and of no effect; provided, that this nullification of actions taken at such meetings shall not apply to any commitment, otherwise legal, affecting the public debt of the entity concerned.

[Acts 1974, ch. 442, § 5; T.C.A., § 8-4405.]

8-44-106. Enforcement — Jurisdiction. —

(a) The circuit courts, chancery courts, and other courts which have equity jurisdiction, have jurisdiction to issue injunctions, impose penalties, and otherwise enforce the purposes of this part upon application of any citizen of this state.

(b) In each suit brought under this part, the court shall file written findings of fact and conclusions of law and final judgments, which shall also be recorded in the minutes of the body involved.

(c) The court shall permanently enjoin any person adjudged by it in violation of this part from further violation of this part. Each separate occurrence of such meetings not held in accordance with this part constitutes a separate violation.

(d) The final judgment or decree in each suit shall state that the court retains jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter for a period of one (1) year from date of entry, and the court shall order the defendants to report in writing semiannually to the court of their compliance with this part.

[Acts 1974, ch. 442, § 6; T.C.A., § 8-4406.]

Uhh, they're both in federal prison, I believe."

Uhh, for the crimes they did they got off easy, granted they are in prison but there are others in much longer for doing much less. Also see how much of their time they actually do?

Yep if you are looking at the magnitude of all their crimes and hold it up to many in the same prison you will see their time is so much less. From that stand point they just about got off.

By any rational "stand point" with a basis in reality you have been proven factually wrong on two points. Give it up."

Tell it to the kid doing time for selling grass that two people convicted of what the Wests did will be out before he or she will and that kid will say they got off. Rational stand points based in reality often spring up from under the front porch and clamp their teeth deep into the backside of those don't look at both the playing field (as in this case) and the equality of time for the crime.

Give it up, the Wests did great considering the laws they both broke and just ignored. That is a fact based in reality.

Also don't get mad. Sometimes all of us kinda come up short.

8-44-105. Action nullified — Exception. —

[Acts 1974, ch. 442, § 5; T.C.A., § 8-4405.]

I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but this part appears to shoot some holes in the lawsuits. Since the appointments were made in a public forum, it seems that part is legal. If deals were made behind closed doors, but no actions took place until a public meeting, it doesn't all seem to fit. I don't agree with back-room deals, but the meeting on 1/31 was public.

in a way where 2 or more members of a public body are not prohibited from privately deliberating public business:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as to require a chance meeting of two (2) or more members of a public body to be considered a public meeting. No such chance meetings, informal assemblages, or electronic communication shall be used to decide or deliberate public business in circumvention of the spirit or requirements of this part.

Please also note that "decide" and "deliberate" are both separately prohibited. IMO, this sort of puts the kabosh on the argument that "The two of us weren't deliberating. We were just talking about public business. It takes a quorum to deliberate."

IMO.

Language, spoken or written, is simply incapable of perfectly communicating complex thoughts or concepts. For that reason, we conceive of the law in two ways, the LETTER and the SPIRIT.

The LETTER of the law is that which is recorded and typically voted upon. Given the lack of facility with the English language many of our elected officials (and general citizens) have, we have little choice but to depend on, and discuss, the SPIRIT or, intent if you will, of the law.

I dare any one of you to look your spiritual leader of choice in the eye and say that you believe that the spirit of the law was not violated. Letting those bastards off the hook for bending democracy over a barrel and treating it like an ex-wife because the LETTER of the law is manipulatable is absolutely offensive. If clarifying the verbiage is possible, fine, let's do it. But, let's not act like we don't understand what the intention was or, what is right.

There is no reason to be sidetracked. Those bastards ignored the input of those constituents who bothered to express an opinion and made deals which benefited them politically and/or financially. That is what happened and that is what they need to held accountable for. Period.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

It seems to me the critical issue is not how many commissioners were conversing, but what they were discussing. If they are discussing public business, ie. formal agenda items, secretly, they are violating the law. It's fine for two commissioners to talk on the phone about how taxes suck, but if there is a property tax hike on the agenda, they need to discuss its merits publicly. The public has a right to know why their representatives vote the way they do.

The glaring lack of discussion at most commission meetings is a strong hint that public business is being privately deliberated, but probably not actionable. Larry Clark's "unanimous between us two" seems actionable. Pinkston keeps asking for names: Paul Pinkston and Larry Clark.

The absence of any public conversation over several of the appointments combined with the several reports of deals and promises made in the hallway might ultimately prove circumstantial, but it's enough evidence to launch an investigation and see what the various participants have to say for themselves under oath.

The section I was referring to allows for the actions of the "meeting in violation" to be nullified. The meeting on 1/31 was not in violation of the act.
That it what I am asking about. No one can say the meeting on 1/31 was in secret. Now what happened prior to, and in the hall may be a different story, but how does all that invalidate what happened in a public meeting. I did not see where private deliberations leading to a public meeting invalidated the public meeting. Does it? (For the record, I am still against back room deals, secret handshakes, and stacking the deck.)

The commissioners did not conspire to violate nor do they believe they violated the sunshine act.However,when commissioners are deposed,it may become clear that they did.If that is the case:Which appointments will the law require a re-do?? 2.How will the N-S re-act?? 3.How will commission re-act??

Has anybody noticed that the City of Knoxville provides digital copies of the agenda, minutes and revised agenda on the city website.

What does Knox County do to make their agenda/minutes available? Nothing. You have to go down to the office and ask for a paper copy ever since 12/06.

My theory is that the Knox County computers predicted the daylight savings time change and have been in a tizzy ever since.

Well, that was my theory as of Friday. Apparrently the computers worked themselves out and we finally get the minutes from the Jan 31st appointment meeting.

KTB

Why isn't the KNS questioning the recent school board's decision to oust Charles Lindsey? It took all of about 5 minutes with little or no discussion. Surely these board members didn't talk about it or know how the vote would go before the meeting. No, surely not.

Tamara, I think I see your point and can't really disagree with it but, from the standpoint of "avoiding EVEN the appearance of conflict of interest", the schoolboard actions don't pass the sniff test. If they had all reached conclusions a year prior, why weren't we notified? If they hadn't reached that point a year ago, when did they?

Mark this one on your calenders folks, I'm going to have to side with CBT on this one.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

Is it the suggestion by CBT and CAFKIA that any issue which results in elected officials on a panel, reaching a consensus, is against the law?

These folks come to agreements all of the time on all kinds of topics. Have they broken the law on each of these occasions? Please help me understand how these two events are related.

KTB

"Mark this one on your calenders folks, I'm going to have to side with CBT on this one."

I didn't know it was getting that cold...