Here's the question - if they resign and "re-do the appointment process" are all the votes thus far deemed null? Would all business have to be brought to a vote again?
Hmm, I guess they got the message that they weren't gonna do so well in court.
The Supreme Court let stand all the decisions made by Commission during the period it was supposed to be term limited and wasn't, calling it a "de facto" govt.
My guess is that the Jan. 31-current time period would be treated the same way, although I guess someone would have to take it to court to find out for sure. Please God, nobody will want to do that.
Will they vote the same way again? In their eternal arrogance, probably. And again without any discussion in the meeting.
Submitted by R. Neal on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 12:04pm.
Maybe the new rules will be 1) no coffee or other beverages during the meeting, 2) everybody has to go to the bathroom before the meeting, and 3) nobody leaves the room during the meeting.
Submitted by Joe Taylor on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 12:30pm.
Re-Do... let's see the original commissioners go back on county... the first act that they do is move to suspend the vote and appeal to the TN Supreme Court on direct how to proceed...
Submitted by Joe Taylor on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 12:37pm.
Heard that Dwight Van de Vate has hired Bruce Poston (sp?) as his personal attorney...
Why do you think he has done this... supposable he announced during commission committee meeting that "based on advice from his counsel" he could not answer any questions about Knox County Travel funds...
Submitted by Knoxquerious on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 12:55pm.
The KNS should not even think about dropping suit. An appointment do-over is an insult to all of Knox County and to their readers. If they do drop it, they should just say “You know what? Forget the do-over and just let Knox County vote their conscience next year.”
If there is a do-over, the script has already been written. An overwhelming vote for Vice-Sheriff Jim Jones, and the appointments will remain the same with differing outcomes to the vote. “See, See! Last time Josh Jordan got 16 votes and this time he only got 12. Vindicated!”(Predicted Lumpy Lambert quote)
Dropping the suit makes the KNS and Knox County losers in this whole process and our "esteemed" commissioners the winner. Jack, if you’re reading…shine that glorious light into January 31st.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 1:09pm.
But Knox, the instruction for filling those vacancies is found in the charter, and the charter says the seats are to be filled by appointment, period.
It doesn't appear that commissioners have the option of allowing term-limited commissioners to return to their seats and ride it out until February, either, since that move would violate the TN Supreme Court's ruling that those folks can't serve any longer.
Whether the N-S drops the suit, or whether they don't, it doesn't appear that any course of action to replace either the term-limited commissioners or the appointees exists EXCEPT a process of reappointing replacements.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 3:09pm.
Re Dwight VandeVate:
He's facing people who are demanding that he pay back car money -- a couple of year's worth would be $24,000. That's something to worry about. And in fairness, I doubt Dwight asked to be paid that way.
I'm dying for somebody to ask Scoob about the clothing allowance and the multi-week paid maternity leave the sheriff's department gave his wife when she was hired to do a job that previously required a college degree (which she, of course, doesn't have).
I am reliably informed that he shopped the poor girl all over the courthouse looking for a suitable sinecure for her.
Submitted by bill young on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 1:33pm.
also the court could find none, one,some or all appointments are in violation of sunshine law..if owings advice is taken it would be all appointments...is there 10 votes for this coarse of action?
Submitted by Pam Strickland on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 3:10pm.
Well, damn.
A do-over sounds like something you give to a four-year-old who can't tie his shoe.
It's been a long time since I knew the Open Meetings and Open Records laws by memory, but I think Rachel's right. Maybe if they did something additional -- a consent decree of some sort outlining future behavoir at meetings. I once won an Open Meetings case against the McMinn County School Board for holding private meetings with their lawyer to discuss a lawsuit over shotty construction of a school. There wasn't a do-over, but they did enter a consent decree about how they would do such business from then on.
At least that's what my memory tells me happened.
Personally, in this case, I want a trial. I want what happened to be in the court records. Somehow that has some justice in it, but a do-over doesn't say justice to me right now.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
I was at the meeting. Owings laid out the status of the case. In my view, the summary judgment was difficult to win because you have to assume a set of facts and that the law only allows one result. That is, 'your honor, these are the facts, the law says 'this' and we don't need to have a trial. With all the depositions, witnesses, etc., good lawyers can find some disputed facts to defeat the summary judgment motion.
It appeared to me the real reason Commission is interested in a 'do-over' is that we now have three cases which will be tried together, the trial starts September 11, it will last three weeks and the county plans to call at least 35 witnesses just for it's defense. All this adds up to a whole lot of time, money and energy when compared to a re-vote.
Also, Fansler has apparently said he would not stay any ruling pending an appeal. That means if the jury finds a violation of the open meetings law, Commission would have to reappoint almost immediately even if there was an appeal. If the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court for some reason then we're in a heck of a mess because Commission has already had to reappoint new people. Do we then do it again? It's a mess.
One of the conditions Owings is to explore is whether the KNS will agree that all the actions of the Commission from January 31 to the new vote are 'de-facto' and binding. The county also wants an agreement on the front end that a re-vote solves any open meetings issue, that is it cures any alleged violation. Of course, all defendants will state that they deny any violation occurred and are doing the re-vote to save money.
So, if the result is a re-vote with only one or two differences (I think there will be one or two, but maybe not), was all this worth it? We still don't know if two Commissioners can go to lunch and discuss a flooding problem in one of those Commissioner's district. Is two too many? Can they ever discuss issues outside of a meeting? I've said it before, but I believe such a reading of the open meetings law is ridiculous. They can't get together and cut a deal for a specific outcome. How that idea is applied through the specific law is the question I wish the courts would answer. But, with a do-over we never get there.
We still don't know if two Commissioners can go to lunch and discuss a flooding problem in one of those Commissioner's district. Is two too many? Can they ever discuss issues outside of a meeting? I've said it before, but I believe such a reading of the open meetings law is ridiculous. They can't get together and cut a deal for a specific outcome. How that idea is applied through the specific law is the question I wish the courts would answer.
My understanding is that it's the difference between "discuss" and "deliberate." That is, they can exchange information, but not disclose how they plan to vote (or, as you say, "cut a deal.") I suppose that's a fine line, but I've talked to a lot of City Council members about this and they seem to be able to walk it.
I agree that it would be nice to have a Court resolve it definitely, tho.
P.S. Thanks for the report, CBT. Very informative. Wanta tell us who you think the one or two are who might not get re-appointed (I think I can guess one at least....)?
Submitted by Mark Siegel on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 7:52am.
We still don't know if two Commissioners can go to lunch and discuss a flooding problem in one of those Commissioner's district. Is two too many? Can they ever discuss issues outside of a meeting? I've said it before, but I believe such a reading of the open meetings law is ridiculous. They can't get together and cut a deal for a specific outcome. How that idea is applied through the specific law is the question I wish the courts would answer.
Chancellor Fansler says each of the three Court of Appeals in Tennessee has rejected the "quorum needed for deliberation" argument, which was just spin to begin with.
The law is two or more can't meet in private and "cut deals". You may not like this. You may think it's ridiculous. But that's the law, and it's really clear, and it's been that way for a really long time.
I first became aware that the law was that way in the 1970's when a neighborhood group I was in was lobbying County Commission on a proposed change to the area zoning plan. We invited Commissioners to come look at some information we'd prepared, and two showed up at the same time. They were very polite, but obviously uncomfortable, even though there was no deliberation, just presentation of information. I made it a point later to find out why.
We have all just witnessed a text-book case of why the law is that way. Draw the law any other way, and they'll be meeting privately and cutting deals not just to solve a flooding problem (and why can't they do that it public anyway?), but to try to get their faction a majority on the Commission, or to push through sweetheart pension deals, or whatever. If you can't talk about it publicly, there's probably a reason why.
So you discuss things in publicly noticed workshops, committee meetings, regular meetings, and specially called meetings.
Submitted by Pam Strickland on Mon, 2007/08/20 - 8:25pm.
We need to get there. But more importantly, they need to be accountable. They should have thought this when they were acting like a bunch of middle schoolers choosing sides back in January.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Submitted by Simply Ridiculous on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 8:16am.
I, too, find it interesting that they want to settle now to avoid money, time and energy even though they had the option months ago when the suit was originally filed. Too little, too late. I think they should all have to testify under oath (if that matters to them) and answer the questions of Hollow and Moncier.
Submitted by Knoxquerious on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 8:50am.
I think they should all have to testify under oath (if that matters to them) and answer the questions of Hollow and Moncier.
This seems to be the sentiment with everybody judging by the posts left on all the blogs and article comments. I think everyone is aware how slanted the Sentinel can be, but as a life long skeptic of KNS I have been impressed with this lawsuit. Let's just all wait and see if they will fold under pressure. I am sure they realize how little a do-over would set things straight, and if it is all about selling papers this case in court would do the job.
Submitted by Sandra Clark on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 9:06am.
I was at the Halls Republican Club last evening along with 3 county commissioners. It was standing room only and I sat in the back near Lumpy. Larry Smith was at the far end of the room and Scott Moore was in the middle.
The topic of a "do-over" came up. Moore seemed defensive and willing to hang with what has happened. Lumpy seemed to favor a do-over and I couldn't see far enough to gauge Larry's reaction.
One former GOP party chair (not BRAIN) said, "Fansler is a Democrat and the state Supreme Court judges are Democrats." The mood of the crowd on my end of the room was that Democrats have entrapped the honorable commissioners, put them in a no-win situation, and now are attacking them. The News Sentinel was jeered a couple of times, just on general principle I suppose.
After all this, the speaker, Bill Lockett, got up and actually apologized for the honor of having clerked for the state Supreme Court out of law school. "Guess I'll say this 'cause it's sure to come out," he shrugged.
It wasn't me at the Halls GOP Club. I wouldn't be dissing Fansler.
even though they had the option months ago when the suit was originally filed
But, this is how most suits are settled. The parties get closer to trial, it's going to take (more) money and time, there is a risk of losing for both sides, etc. So, both sides often take a look at getting a sure result.
Mark, I understand the two or more requirement. I just think there needs to be some understanding that Commissioners have business with constituents and which involve other districts. Seems to me that information gathering/sharing is permissable. It's not that two or more can never be in the same place. It can be a fine line.
Holy crap - the Democrats are the reason this is such a mess??
I am repeating myself, but seems to me this mess can be laid at the feet of two Democrats and one Republican. If Phil Guthe votes instead of passing repeatedly, we never have the recesses. If we don't have to break the tie votes, we never need Bolus to be sworn in. Bolus would likely not have been appointed if Tindell and M. Harmon could have agreed on a candidate.
Without these two controversial appointments, I don't believe there would have ever been an open meetings lawsuit. Some complaining and editorials about the process of choosing and who was chosen, yes. A lawsuit, no (well, with Hutchison being out Herb may have filed something, but not the paper).
Submitted by Bbeanster on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 11:09am.
Chad, that's pretty oversimplified, and there's plenty of "credit" to go around
I'd say the #1 factor in the January 31 fiasco was the sheriff's posse, which was intent on getting Tramel in, by any means necessary. That was the axis around which everything else turned. If Jonathan Wimmer had been willing to accept the deal Lumpy offered him (get sworn in early and vote for Tramel), he might well have gotten the seat instead of Bolus.
Secondly, the plan to screw Guthe and Schmid preceded Guthe's obstinance. All the other incumbents were going to be allowed to pick their own successors (a pretty screwy decision in iitself, since these incumbents didn't really have the right to be in office). How did that particular plan get hatched?
And then there's the fact that if Ownings hadn't leaned on the commission to vote in the constitutional officers first, Billy Tindell woudn't have been appointed clerk and booted off the dais and would presumably have had enough influence to get his guy (Wimmer) appointed. As it was, he wasn't even allowed to get up and speak in favor of his guy.
I was told the night before the meeting that a Republican would probably be appointed to the 2nd District seat, and the morning of the meeting, I was told it would be Bolus, who had made a couple of calls over the prior weeks.
If Phil Guthe votes instead of passing repeatedly, we never have the recesses
That is some thin gruel you're feeding us. Obviously the Halls GOP club will lap up anything put in front of them, so I can see how Republicans have grown accustomed to low standards.
It was obvious before the Jan. 31 vote and far more obvious now that ground rules for conducting the appointments were necessary. That was Scott Moore's responsibility, and he flagrantly neglected it. In fact, he needed to keep the process undefined so he could make up the rules as he went along. Attempting to pin this mess on anyone but the man in charge is laughable. (And yes, Chad, I did explain why ground rules were important and suggest ground rules within a day or two of the January ruling that necessitated the special meeting. Also, Mark Harmon proposed ground rules to the commission and tried to start a dialog on the subject. Moore has no excuse for neglecting to run the meeting in an orderly and open fashion.)
As for the sunshine law, it does not prevent commissioners from meeting with constituents or having lunch together. It prevents them from doing so secretly. All they have to do is notify the press of the meeting and allow citizens or reporters to observe. As Mark Siegel pointed out, the two vs. quorum argument is nothing but spin. He is also correct to point out that commissioners should never have any reason to be secretive about their work. They are doing public business as representatives of thousands of county citizens. The glaring absence of discussion on so many issues continues to be the most damning proof that public business is transpiring out of sight.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 3:54pm.
Chad: "If Phil Guthe votes instead of passing repeatedly, we never have the recesses."
Rikki: "It was obvious before the Jan. 31 vote and far more obvious now that ground rules for conducting the appointments were necessary. That was Scott Moore's responsibility, and he flagrantly neglected it."
I gotta give Rikki this one, Chad--and before we lay blame on Guthe, another of Moore's responsibilities, in addition to forming "ground rules," was to prepare the meeting agenda.
It was Moore's agenda setting the County Clerk appointment ahead of the commission seat appointments. Why on earth did Moore create this situation that left 18 commissioners on the dais, inviting the possibility of a tie vote???
Yes, this was a bipartisan screw-up but, it is primarily a republican screw-up. None of this crap would have happened if the elected officials in the county had decided to abide by the will of the people expressed in the term limits vote. The Sunshine Law violation was a result of that and the case is a result of the violation which, clearly makes it derivative of the ignoring of the election. All the other blame laying is simply intentional obfuscation and, a load of crap.
Submitted by R. Neal on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 10:38am.
Bolus would likely not have been appointed if Tindell and M. Harmon could have agreed on a candidate.
Yep, it cost the Dems a seat, but at least they retained some semblence of integrity, because it was pretty obvious they didn't cut a deal ahead of time.
Submitted by Publius on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 10:52am.
The sentiment at the Halls mtg suggests what many of us fear- alot of party loyalists will support the familiar name with an "R" after it, and we will get more of the same in next year's elections.
As to litigation, Chancellor Fansler is not going to make a decision based upon his party affiliation. The Chancellor followed the law on the MSJ- a Comm'n member can discuss opinions with another member but the members cannot make a decision. You can say "Sally's got experience, I like her," but can't say "we have a deal- I'll vote for your guy since you're voting for gal." May be a bad law or good law, but that's what it is.
Couple of other observations- did the current law director also receive both a vehicle and travel reimbursement, as well as other elected officials other than Commissioners? I thought that was mentioned in the first KNS article and graphic on the subject. If so, is it a conflict for the law director to advise Comm'n on the subject?
Second, does the Chancellor have the authority to approve a settlement? My understanding is that judges only approve settlements in certain types of cases and do not give advisory opinions. If the parties settle, don't they just dismiss the case, and they're on their own as to how they execute their agreement? A re-do without a court telling it how to do it gives the county an opportunity to foul up again. If the county "loses" the suit, at least it has a court telling it what to do so it's not back in court after the next procedural nightmare. Settlement is not the only chance for a re-do- if the court rules for KNS it will have to be done anyway. If not, you don't have a legal problem and it stays the same. And, I can see the KNS's concern about litigation costs, but aren't the county's attys salaried?
Submitted by Hayduke on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 11:01am.
So how do we get the crooked commissioners to forget the outcome of their illegal secret deliberations? I propose electric shock therapy with a special voter referendum to determine the voltage.
Simple yes, but I think true. It was 8 to 8 over and over because Guthe wouldn't vote to break the tie. He's never been part of the so-called Sheriff's posse. If he votes, wouldn't it have likely been Scott Davis and not Tramel? But, either way, if Guthe votes we have no recesses. Further, Bolus is likely not appointed without the dissension in the Second. And, he certainly doesn't get sworn in early if Guthe votes.
It probably is even more simple than I made it. Bolus has the votes and gets in. Ok. It was Guthe's refusal to vote on filling his seat because his pick wasn't going to be appointed. So, with that perceieved personal offense by Guthe and him taking his ball (vote) and heading home, here we are. I don't mean to pick on Phil. He's a nice guy. But, if he votes and doesn't abstain over and over again, Knox County never ends up in this lawsuit.
Here's a thought - what happens if Commission votes for the redo, but one or two of them refuse to resign???
P.S. Blaming this entire lawsuit on Guthe seems like an awful stretch. Even if CBT's analysis is 100% correct, there would be no lawsuit if Commissioners had halfway had respect for the laws they are sworn to uphold.
Although I admit I still don't understand Guthe's behavior that day.
Submitted by Knoxquerious on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 12:05pm.
It's a good thing Guthe decided not to break the tie, it exposed everything that is wrong about Knox County government. You don't really expect to hang all the credit on that one vote do you? This is bigger than Team Hutchison vs Team Ragsdale vs any other team out there. I understand what you are saying about the lawsuit, but you can't honestly believe that everything would be peaches and cream had he settled on someone. Would you prefer we just sweep all of this under the rug?
Submitted by Bbeanster on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 12:14pm.
Chad, you ignored my question:
How do you defend/explain the "special" treatment of Guthe and Schmid?
If there was a rule that each lame duck got to choose his/her successor, how can you exclude the 4th district? And, really, how can you defend allowing the illegitimate incumbents to choose who gets the vacated seat?
The whole arrangement was just a bastardization of what government is supposed to be.
Submitted by bill young on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 3:32pm.
Act I
March '06-Supremes rule for term-limits in Shelby
Write-in fever;Moody,Horner & McMillian lose primary
Jordan et al sue for status
Weaver rules.."term limited" incumbents on ballot..all win
Act II
Jan '07-Supremes declare a de facto government..rule term limited incumbents out & will be replaced by appointments of the de facto commission per Tn Constitution.
All hell breaks loose..appointments made..worse than all hell breaks loose.
N-S files a sunshine act suit against the de facto commission per appointments.
Act III
The Ragsdale deal.
N-S suit gains momentum,looks like"two can tango" with respect to sunshine..Law Director goes for re do settlement.
My 2 cents
Appointments can always be messy.The factions on commission manuver to get their candidate appointed.Folks that dont have a dog in the hunt break the log jam.
The 12 appointments smashed the system.Factions within factions devoloped..& everybody had one dog in the hunt.Plus the ole human condition set in..I just dont like that person.
The Commisssion shut down debate..got bad advice or ignored good advice
..stepped in sunshine violations.
Then the Ragsdale deal hit like a Hydra
This had been a long strange trip..& we've got a million more miles to go...think August '10.
What standing do the ousted commissioners have to vote on anything at this late date? Sure, they're the closest thing we have to elected representatives, but they're also the only people specifically proscribed (by the term limit ruling) from representing us. I would think an illegally appointed current commissioner who loses his seat by their vote might have a good case.
Or do we get the current to crop to vote on themselves as replacements? It's going to be absurd regardless.
Owings said yesterday that the the 4 new officials and the 8 new commissioners would have to resign, the 8 old Commissioners be sworn back it, and then they start from scratch.
Hence my question - what happens if Commission votes for a do-over but a couple of the new ones refuse to resign?
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 3:46pm.
Rachel, if commission votes for a do-over, isn't it the case that all the new ones *have* to resign? On what authority could these news ones buck the majority vote of commission?
Also, since they are represented collectively by Owings (aren't they?), wouldn't the group be obliged to reach a consensus for that reason?
Submitted by tennesseevalues... on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 6:20pm.
On what authority could these news ones buck the majority vote of commission?
This is being asked of a commission and county government that bucked the authority of a voter referendum for more than a decade?
This mess wasn't caused by Phil Guthe passing his chances to vote or by Billy Tindell and Mark Harmon not meeting in secret to work out who they would support for Tindell's seat.
This goes back to the failure of the Knox County government to uphold the law as passed in a referendum in the 1990s.
I hate to say it, but a "do-over" is almost the worst possible idea yet. What makes a do-over better than what you've got now? Are current office holders disqualified from being reappointed to the the seats they were originally appointed to? If not, then what's to be resolved by a do-over? You're going to get the same people back in their positions (no, really, you are). So what would we resolve? Doing it over does not equal doing it right. The chances to do it right slipped by in 2002 and again in 2006. The absolute last chance to do it right was drowned in the toilet during one of the many bathroom recesses held during the Black Wednesday meeting.
All that you're left with now is the chance to rebuild, which you can do in the next scheduled election. The "re-do" is a costume party with the same backroom deals dressed as "sunshine" and "ethics." Don't fall for it.
Submitted by bill young on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 4:18pm.
cafkia is right.."term limited" incumbents dont run this doesnt happen...because they lost the suit in the supreme court...& became term limited incumbents...no longer able to serve
How do you defend/explain the "special" treatment of Guthe and Schmid?
I don't have an explanation, other than this is where the battle between pro-Ragsdale (Scott Moore) and pro-Sheriff (Trammel) came into play.
Did Guthe even announce his 'choice' before the Jan. 31 meeting? I think Schmid did, but only a few days prior.
Moore announced ground rules, which were agreed to by Commission. For a lot of reasons, the appointment of so many officeholders at one time was destined to be a train wreck. We need more public input, we need county-wide meetings, we need district meetings, we need presentations from each candidate at the meeting where we'll make the appointments, they should have 5 minutes, no 10 minutes, let's appoint in this order, no that order...the list of grievances would have been long no matter how it was done.
Querious is right that Guthe's refusal to vote exposed a lot about county government. Maybe some think that's a good thing. Maybe in the end it is. But, what price does our community pay to get there.
Ha, ha, ha. The nihilism defense. So powerful and convincing! Gosh, we could have lost on a last-second field goal and been really disappointed; better to lose 31-0 and never get your hopes up, right? Maybe that can be Scoobie's next campaign slogan: don't get your hopes up. Or maybe it can be "Anyone can screw up, and I will too!"
What exactly are you calling "ground rules"? I'm not sure "No one can talk about the nominees" really qualifies as a ground rule. It is a pretty explicit subversion of the spirit of the sunshine law, though not the letter. Meeting in public and not talking is allowed, of course, even if it strongly implies that discussions are occurring elsewhere.
Submitted by bill young on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 9:57am.
I'm going to edit & try again
The only remedy per a trial is a re do..If it goes to trial a jury could come back with a result you dont like..nobody violated the sunshine act.
What is the difference between Owings proposal of a re do now & courts per a trial requiring a re do?
Either way it goes my guess there will be an appeal
It looks as if the the appeals court..have upheld the "the two can tango" in the past.
When would the appeals court rule & then when would the Supremes rule on this..as in date?
Schmid wants a trial & says he broke the sunshine law..& he's the only one I know of that says he did.Is the point of going to trial to show the others they were wrong?
A re-do is what the KNS is asking for right? So why haven't they settled?
Because the Commission has not made the offer. As I understand it, Law Director Owings has suggested to commissioners that they make this offer but they have not yet agreed to do so. Beyond that, other issues KNS will have consider are confidentiality, attorney's fees, etc.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 10:22pm.
There is no one "right person to blame."
There are a bunch of them
The city had a term limits referendum the year before the county's, and the city has not had a lick of turmoil.
Why?
Because none of the city officials contested the will of the people. County officeholders seized on the constitiutional dodge like drowning men grab floating logs, and chaos ensued.
County government is a hoary old system that benefits a few entrenched courthouse regulars who are hanging on for all they're worth.
Submitted by talidapali on Tue, 2007/08/21 - 10:50pm.
but I still think we should just do away with the county government altogether and go with a metro government based on the city model we already have. There's no guarantee that the metro government wouldn't eventually become just as corrupt as the county government, but by golly it would be better than what we have now.
_________________________________________________ "You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White" "I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 12:12am.
I wouldn't call you naive, tali.
I've been frustrated to hear so much negative feedback on Knox County, One Question's effort from people citing how much worse the county's problems would be right now if we had metro government.
Since the allegations being leveled against various county officeholders relate more to our processes and our checks and balances than to our governmental structure, the logic of these peoples' arguments is lost on me.
I'm not sure why they think this muddle involving lots of officeholders is preferable to a muddle involving fewer officeholders...
The city had a term limits referendum the year before the county's, and the city has not had a lick of turmoil.
Why?
Because none of the city officials contested the will of the people. County officeholders seized on the constitiutional dodge like drowning men grab floating logs, and chaos ensued.
I believe the state attorney general also opined that city voters could constitutionally pass/enforce term limits. Different laws applied to the county based on the different forms of government. Term limits were always believed to be enforceable in the city. Not so in the county.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 6:34am.
But, Chad, the TN Supreme Court had already opined on this question when that flurry of lawsuits from officeholders ensued.
There was NO question that the referendum was enforceable, and these officeholders were scrambling to find any technicality possible to permit them to stay on.
Personally, I'm extremely skeptical that their true motive was to assure a sound and complete county charter.
I believe the state attorney general also opined that city voters could constitutionally pass/enforce term limits. Different laws applied to the county based on the different forms of government. Term limits were always believed to be enforceable in the city. Not so in the county.
Can you step back from nuts and bolts for a minute and see the big picture? In the big picture, this was never about legalities. It is about what the people that they claimed to want to represent want. Anyone willing to ignore the apparent will of the people is a part of the problem regardless of how legal their efforts were. Why is this hard to understand?
It's not always about finding someone to blame, Grasshopper.
I agree, you just said I blamed the wrong one, so I figured you thought there was a 'right' one. I think if Guthe votes, we avoid some of this controversy and the newspaper lawsuit. Does that mean I think all is well with county government and it would have been better if some things were not brought out in the open. No.
Submitted by bill young on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 10:33am.
i would think not...never been in a trial so I dont know
i'm not saying anybodys being untruthful but between depositions & trial do people say different things?
I do believe these folks didnt go in & say lets gang bang the Sunshine law.They felt it took a quorum to violate.So some have been pretty up front about I talked to x,one on one,about appointment a.
Looks like a good chance they are wrong on quorom & their lawyer is telling them that.
Again,commissioners could put the fate of the suit in the jurys hands & the commissioners could win.
Anyone willing to ignore the apparent will of the people is a part of the problem regardless of how legal their efforts were. Why is this hard to understand?
If this was the overwhelming 'will of the people', why in the heck did these same 'people' continue to re-elect the same officeholders 2, 3 and 4 times?
My opinion on term limits was that it was a fad being pushed nationally at the time. People want rid of elected official 'X', so they voted for it. What they didn't stop to think is that it would also prohibit them from re-electing their Commissioner, Sheriff...all of whom they may have liked.
While on the subject of term limits, has the County Clerk sent that letter required by the term limits law demanding that our state and national elected officials abide by the will of Knox County and serve no more than two terms (three for State Reps and Congress, I think). That was also part of the term limits law. I've never seen one word in the newspaper about these requirements in the term limits law. It's easy to pick on the long-time Sheriff and an officeholder or two, but Duncan, Joe Armstrong, others? A bit more dicey. Plus, lots of voters would be mad if they thought term limits applied to many of these very popular elected officials.
Again you make my point. I fully and willingly admit that arguments can be made for those guys staying in office based on the elections subsequent to the term limits election. However, IMNSHO, no reasonable argument can be made for ignoring that specific election, that referendum.
I have personally stated my desire to see term limits apply across the board to all elected, appointed, and most, if not all, civil service jobs. The term lengths might be different but no one needs to have a permanent spot at the public trough. No one!
Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 11:42am.
and most, if not all, civil service jobs. The term lengths might be different but no one needs to have a permanent spot at the public trough.
You think that's all they do? Cops, clerks, building and codes inspectors, secretaries...all just sitting around the trough all day feeding? Not learning and practicing job skills, building institutional memory, keeping offices running that the legislature mandates be run. They're just up there feeding.
Maybe we should extend this principle a bit wider. Term limits for auto mechanics, and factory workers, and lawyers and doctors too. Every 8 years we'll all just change jobs, and by the end of our lives we'll all be nicely cross trained in a panoply of professions.
C'mon Caf. Term limits for elected officials? Ok. Term limits for office workers? Please...
I have reviewed my post and am unable to find where I said that is all they do. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out to me my specific passage.
My point, which I much prefer to make over beer, is to spread around the responsibilities of democracy as well as reducing the ease of corruption. Right now if you can corrupt one civil service, you good to go until he/she gets caught, retires or dies. If you had to re-corrupt every decade or so, you might find folks still idealistic about their democracy. No, I am not saying that all government employees are corrupt or corruptible so, don't bother faking offense. But I think you will admit that over the years, there have been occasional instances of corruption and some of them fairly long term. Still, you are not required to understand or support my position. That is one of the reasons why we call it "my position". But, if you don't have the discussion, you don't have democracy.
So, what do you suggest to involve more of the populace in the government, alleviate disenfranchisement, reduce opportunity for position abuse and/or corruption and, keep the populace informed and interested in the functioning of government/democracy. Or, is that not something that you would like to see happen?
Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 3:00pm.
So, what do you suggest to involve more of the populace in the government, alleviate disenfranchisement, reduce opportunity for position abuse and/or corruption and, keep the populace informed and interested in the functioning of government/democracy.
But stating that career government employees were merely "at the public trough" struck me as a sugggestion that public employees were somehow not providing a valuable service to the public. The proposition that all persons in public employment should be required to leave after some arbitrary period of time seems to me to be pretty counterproductive and inefficient. You're going to require a beat cop to find other work after, what - 10 years? - so you can make room for new people to be beat cops? Don't you think its possible that many if not most get better at their jobs over time, so that you are tossing out the most experienced law enforcement officers for some political expediency? How about firemen? Teachers? University professors? KUB linemen? Doctors who work at University hospitals? How would replacing any of these people advance the goals you suggest above?
Term limits began as a movement (mainly by Republicans who had been in the minority in Congress for the better part of 50 years) to unseat entrenched legislators who were able to give themselves elective advantage not only in de facto ways, but in de jure ways as well. I believe that most efforts at term limits have been aimed at members of the legislative branch, and at times at members of the executive branch. I'm unaware of any serious political movement toward automatically removing anyone who works for government, no matter what their experience or level of competence, simply because room should be made for new people (unless you count mandatory retirement rules.)
If you think positional abuse is a serious problem among career civil servants, how about simply removing civil service protections? I have a friend here in town who is an unabashed advocate for the "spoils system" - when a new person is elected or appointed to office, in my friend's view, he or she should have the absolute right to fire everyone and bring in all new people. That's the kind of thing that civil service protection is designed to prevent, but it would, would it not, result in the total replacement of old regimes and the beginnings of new ones? Why do you think that system was done away with (in many places)? I believe it was because there was a recognition that firing experienced and competent public employees explicitly for political reasons was not in the best interest, not just of the employees, but of the public at large. I don't see arbitrary limitations on non-political public employees' "terms of service" as much different. In either case the result is terminating employees not because they are incompetent, but because it serves some political purpose entirely unrelated to the efficient operation of the bureaucracy which the modern superstate has imposed upon us all. As creaky as that bureaucracy may be at times, arbitrarily replacing those who know how to make it work would, I think, just make matters worse.
If you are looking to enfranchise more of the populace, I think you are looking in the wrong place. I don't believe that the reason only 20% or so of citizens vote in local elections is because they don't think they can get a government job - it's because they don't know exactly what local government does or why it's important to them. We have centralized government and public responsibility to such an extreme extent that the only elections that seem to matter to people any more are elections for President. That's not some fireman's fault. This is a free country (yes still) and people can get involved in governance exactly to the extent they wish to. Make them wish to, rather than coming up with gimmicks like limiting the "terms" of secretaries, and you will move farther toward your stated aims.
Submitted by bill young on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 11:01am.
This was the first year the term limit law would kick in per vote.Everything would have been resolved,in time for the '06 general election,if the Charter had been done per Tn code.Thats the legal hole these folks ran through when Weaver found the Charter fatally flawed.
Its true it was about holding on to power.However,the court system worked & in the end they only held on for only a few months..Sept-Jan.
Submitted by Publius on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 11:06am.
It's highly unlikely the law director would have raised this issue if he didn't have some indication (an offer) from the KNS that it would accept such a re-do as settlement. Otherwise, the law director goes through all of this for nothing if the KNS finds the terms of the re-do are unacceptable, rejects the offer, and litigates. So it's likely the KNS has agreed they would accept a re-do, and whatever other terms, in exchange for dropping the suit, and now comm'n has to authorize it (accept the offer) before it can happen.
My understanding is that a confidentiality agreement is not an option for the county and that it's unenforceable even if executed. In any event, for political reasons I can't imagine the law director will ask for one- he's up for election too. Of course, that's not to say some cartoon character on comm'n won't move to amend the agreement to include one.
Submitted by bill young on Wed, 2007/08/22 - 11:07am.
I voted for term limits & I like whats happening in the city.New blood & 8 years if you can get re elected. 8 yrs is enough after that its raising money & pork barrel to stay in.
The county will get its act in order & the same thing will happen.
Today I noticed a new orange and white billboard in Halls that read, "Protect Knox County Do It Right or Do It Over."
Who's funding this billboard? Some of you Halls Shopper people probably are already on top of this.
And I was a little fuzzy about what it meant to "do it right." Anybody know wtf that is supposed to refer to. Seems to me it's too late for the Knox County commissioners to do Jan 31st right.
As I recall, wasn't there a billboard campaign associated w/ some other failed attempts around here (Metro government and Universe Knoxville come to mind).
Let's say commission votes to do a do over, and all those folks resign.
But Guthe said he's not going to go through it again, and someother ex-commissioner (Greis?) or two said the same. So what happens if any number of ex-commissioners refuse to come back? Can they go thru it if less than all agree to come back to reappoint?
Also, couldn't the same thing happen again, but this time be ok with the sunshine law? Scoobie and company could talk all day long with the ex-commissioners about who to appoint before the ex-commissioners came back to vote at the do over, and because they'd still be ex-commissioners, it would not break the law.
They need 13 votes to get Owings proposal on the already crowded agenda.
If you were an appointed commissioner, would you vote yes or no to adding this agenda item? We know the Lump, Pinky, Scoobster and Trummel will all vote for it, they think it will be good to 'get it on the table so they can chew on it' and they do not want to face Herb in court. But I really wonder if Jordan, Cawood, Cate, Huddleston, Greene, Bolus... do these guys really want to resign and hope their backs are covered to get re-appointed? Do they want to suffer the sting of the public again, if that happens? Better to 'agree with the will of the people and go for a court trial'. This thing will go past dinner tomorrow as it is.
Here's the link, BTW.
Here's the question - if they resign and "re-do the appointment process" are all the votes thus far deemed null? Would all business have to be brought to a vote again?
Craig Thomas
blog.craigdthomas.com
Hmm, I guess they got the message that they weren't gonna do so well in court.
The Supreme Court let stand all the decisions made by Commission during the period it was supposed to be term limited and wasn't, calling it a "de facto" govt.
My guess is that the Jan. 31-current time period would be treated the same way, although I guess someone would have to take it to court to find out for sure. Please God, nobody will want to do that.
Will they vote the same way again? In their eternal arrogance, probably. And again without any discussion in the meeting.
Maybe the new rules will be 1) no coffee or other beverages during the meeting, 2) everybody has to go to the bathroom before the meeting, and 3) nobody leaves the room during the meeting.
Wow, that's pretty huge. So they're caving to the KNS? Got a link?
Never Mind. I see Craig and I cross-posted.
"D%*mn, we're in a tight spot!"
You left out rule 4 - Everyone votes the way they did on 1/31
See last comment -- Hmmmmmmmm.
What Rachel said.
Re-Do... let's see the original commissioners go back on county... the first act that they do is move to suspend the vote and appeal to the TN Supreme Court on direct how to proceed...
This is the dumbest idea I have heard yet...
Heard that Dwight Van de Vate has hired Bruce Poston (sp?) as his personal attorney...
Why do you think he has done this... supposable he announced during commission committee meeting that "based on advice from his counsel" he could not answer any questions about Knox County Travel funds...
The KNS should not even think about dropping suit. An appointment do-over is an insult to all of Knox County and to their readers. If they do drop it, they should just say “You know what? Forget the do-over and just let Knox County vote their conscience next year.”
If there is a do-over, the script has already been written. An overwhelming vote for Vice-Sheriff Jim Jones, and the appointments will remain the same with differing outcomes to the vote. “See, See! Last time Josh Jordan got 16 votes and this time he only got 12. Vindicated!”(Predicted Lumpy Lambert quote)
Dropping the suit makes the KNS and Knox County losers in this whole process and our "esteemed" commissioners the winner. Jack, if you’re reading…shine that glorious light into January 31st.
But Knox, the instruction for filling those vacancies is found in the charter, and the charter says the seats are to be filled by appointment, period.
It doesn't appear that commissioners have the option of allowing term-limited commissioners to return to their seats and ride it out until February, either, since that move would violate the TN Supreme Court's ruling that those folks can't serve any longer.
Whether the N-S drops the suit, or whether they don't, it doesn't appear that any course of action to replace either the term-limited commissioners or the appointees exists EXCEPT a process of reappointing replacements.
Re Dwight VandeVate:
He's facing people who are demanding that he pay back car money -- a couple of year's worth would be $24,000. That's something to worry about. And in fairness, I doubt Dwight asked to be paid that way.
I'm dying for somebody to ask Scoob about the clothing allowance and the multi-week paid maternity leave the sheriff's department gave his wife when she was hired to do a job that previously required a college degree (which she, of course, doesn't have).
I am reliably informed that he shopped the poor girl all over the courthouse looking for a suitable sinecure for her.
The only rememdy for a violation of the Sunshine Law is a "do over." So Commission can either wait till the court tells them to do it, or do it now.
Sounds like Owings wised up to me.
It will be VERY interesting to see how Commission - both old and new - approaches this.
also the court could find none, one,some or all appointments are in violation of sunshine law..if owings advice is taken it would be all appointments...is there 10 votes for this coarse of action?
Well, damn.
A do-over sounds like something you give to a four-year-old who can't tie his shoe.
It's been a long time since I knew the Open Meetings and Open Records laws by memory, but I think Rachel's right. Maybe if they did something additional -- a consent decree of some sort outlining future behavoir at meetings. I once won an Open Meetings case against the McMinn County School Board for holding private meetings with their lawyer to discuss a lawsuit over shotty construction of a school. There wasn't a do-over, but they did enter a consent decree about how they would do such business from then on.
At least that's what my memory tells me happened.
Personally, in this case, I want a trial. I want what happened to be in the court records. Somehow that has some justice in it, but a do-over doesn't say justice to me right now.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
I was at the meeting. Owings laid out the status of the case. In my view, the summary judgment was difficult to win because you have to assume a set of facts and that the law only allows one result. That is, 'your honor, these are the facts, the law says 'this' and we don't need to have a trial. With all the depositions, witnesses, etc., good lawyers can find some disputed facts to defeat the summary judgment motion.
It appeared to me the real reason Commission is interested in a 'do-over' is that we now have three cases which will be tried together, the trial starts September 11, it will last three weeks and the county plans to call at least 35 witnesses just for it's defense. All this adds up to a whole lot of time, money and energy when compared to a re-vote.
Also, Fansler has apparently said he would not stay any ruling pending an appeal. That means if the jury finds a violation of the open meetings law, Commission would have to reappoint almost immediately even if there was an appeal. If the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court for some reason then we're in a heck of a mess because Commission has already had to reappoint new people. Do we then do it again? It's a mess.
One of the conditions Owings is to explore is whether the KNS will agree that all the actions of the Commission from January 31 to the new vote are 'de-facto' and binding. The county also wants an agreement on the front end that a re-vote solves any open meetings issue, that is it cures any alleged violation. Of course, all defendants will state that they deny any violation occurred and are doing the re-vote to save money.
So, if the result is a re-vote with only one or two differences (I think there will be one or two, but maybe not), was all this worth it? We still don't know if two Commissioners can go to lunch and discuss a flooding problem in one of those Commissioner's district. Is two too many? Can they ever discuss issues outside of a meeting? I've said it before, but I believe such a reading of the open meetings law is ridiculous. They can't get together and cut a deal for a specific outcome. How that idea is applied through the specific law is the question I wish the courts would answer. But, with a do-over we never get there.
We still don't know if two Commissioners can go to lunch and discuss a flooding problem in one of those Commissioner's district. Is two too many? Can they ever discuss issues outside of a meeting? I've said it before, but I believe such a reading of the open meetings law is ridiculous. They can't get together and cut a deal for a specific outcome. How that idea is applied through the specific law is the question I wish the courts would answer.
My understanding is that it's the difference between "discuss" and "deliberate." That is, they can exchange information, but not disclose how they plan to vote (or, as you say, "cut a deal.") I suppose that's a fine line, but I've talked to a lot of City Council members about this and they seem to be able to walk it.
I agree that it would be nice to have a Court resolve it definitely, tho.
P.S. Thanks for the report, CBT. Very informative. Wanta tell us who you think the one or two are who might not get re-appointed (I think I can guess one at least....)?
We still don't know if two Commissioners can go to lunch and discuss a flooding problem in one of those Commissioner's district. Is two too many? Can they ever discuss issues outside of a meeting? I've said it before, but I believe such a reading of the open meetings law is ridiculous. They can't get together and cut a deal for a specific outcome. How that idea is applied through the specific law is the question I wish the courts would answer.
Chancellor Fansler says each of the three Court of Appeals in Tennessee has rejected the "quorum needed for deliberation" argument, which was just spin to begin with.
The law is two or more can't meet in private and "cut deals". You may not like this. You may think it's ridiculous. But that's the law, and it's really clear, and it's been that way for a really long time.
I first became aware that the law was that way in the 1970's when a neighborhood group I was in was lobbying County Commission on a proposed change to the area zoning plan. We invited Commissioners to come look at some information we'd prepared, and two showed up at the same time. They were very polite, but obviously uncomfortable, even though there was no deliberation, just presentation of information. I made it a point later to find out why.
We have all just witnessed a text-book case of why the law is that way. Draw the law any other way, and they'll be meeting privately and cutting deals not just to solve a flooding problem (and why can't they do that it public anyway?), but to try to get their faction a majority on the Commission, or to push through sweetheart pension deals, or whatever. If you can't talk about it publicly, there's probably a reason why.
So you discuss things in publicly noticed workshops, committee meetings, regular meetings, and specially called meetings.
That's the law. That's been the law for decades.
We need to get there. But more importantly, they need to be accountable. They should have thought this when they were acting like a bunch of middle schoolers choosing sides back in January.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
I, too, find it interesting that they want to settle now to avoid money, time and energy even though they had the option months ago when the suit was originally filed. Too little, too late. I think they should all have to testify under oath (if that matters to them) and answer the questions of Hollow and Moncier.
I think they should all have to testify under oath (if that matters to them) and answer the questions of Hollow and Moncier.
This seems to be the sentiment with everybody judging by the posts left on all the blogs and article comments. I think everyone is aware how slanted the Sentinel can be, but as a life long skeptic of KNS I have been impressed with this lawsuit. Let's just all wait and see if they will fold under pressure. I am sure they realize how little a do-over would set things straight, and if it is all about selling papers this case in court would do the job.
I was at the Halls Republican Club last evening along with 3 county commissioners. It was standing room only and I sat in the back near Lumpy. Larry Smith was at the far end of the room and Scott Moore was in the middle.
The topic of a "do-over" came up. Moore seemed defensive and willing to hang with what has happened. Lumpy seemed to favor a do-over and I couldn't see far enough to gauge Larry's reaction.
One former GOP party chair (not BRAIN) said, "Fansler is a Democrat and the state Supreme Court judges are Democrats." The mood of the crowd on my end of the room was that Democrats have entrapped the honorable commissioners, put them in a no-win situation, and now are attacking them. The News Sentinel was jeered a couple of times, just on general principle I suppose.
After all this, the speaker, Bill Lockett, got up and actually apologized for the honor of having clerked for the state Supreme Court out of law school. "Guess I'll say this 'cause it's sure to come out," he shrugged.
Pretty funny. -- s.
Holy crap - the Democrats are the reason this is such a mess?? Why don't they go ahead and blame it on the magic Clenis?
I'm seeing no accountability in Washington these days, and even less in Knox County.
It wasn't me at the Halls GOP Club. I wouldn't be dissing Fansler.
even though they had the option months ago when the suit was originally filed
But, this is how most suits are settled. The parties get closer to trial, it's going to take (more) money and time, there is a risk of losing for both sides, etc. So, both sides often take a look at getting a sure result.
Mark, I understand the two or more requirement. I just think there needs to be some understanding that Commissioners have business with constituents and which involve other districts. Seems to me that information gathering/sharing is permissable. It's not that two or more can never be in the same place. It can be a fine line.
Holy crap - the Democrats are the reason this is such a mess??
I am repeating myself, but seems to me this mess can be laid at the feet of two Democrats and one Republican. If Phil Guthe votes instead of passing repeatedly, we never have the recesses. If we don't have to break the tie votes, we never need Bolus to be sworn in. Bolus would likely not have been appointed if Tindell and M. Harmon could have agreed on a candidate.
Without these two controversial appointments, I don't believe there would have ever been an open meetings lawsuit. Some complaining and editorials about the process of choosing and who was chosen, yes. A lawsuit, no (well, with Hutchison being out Herb may have filed something, but not the paper).
Chad, that's pretty oversimplified, and there's plenty of "credit" to go around
I'd say the #1 factor in the January 31 fiasco was the sheriff's posse, which was intent on getting Tramel in, by any means necessary. That was the axis around which everything else turned. If Jonathan Wimmer had been willing to accept the deal Lumpy offered him (get sworn in early and vote for Tramel), he might well have gotten the seat instead of Bolus.
Secondly, the plan to screw Guthe and Schmid preceded Guthe's obstinance. All the other incumbents were going to be allowed to pick their own successors (a pretty screwy decision in iitself, since these incumbents didn't really have the right to be in office). How did that particular plan get hatched?
And then there's the fact that if Ownings hadn't leaned on the commission to vote in the constitutional officers first, Billy Tindell woudn't have been appointed clerk and booted off the dais and would presumably have had enough influence to get his guy (Wimmer) appointed. As it was, he wasn't even allowed to get up and speak in favor of his guy.
I was told the night before the meeting that a Republican would probably be appointed to the 2nd District seat, and the morning of the meeting, I was told it would be Bolus, who had made a couple of calls over the prior weeks.
If Phil Guthe votes instead of passing repeatedly, we never have the recesses
That is some thin gruel you're feeding us. Obviously the Halls GOP club will lap up anything put in front of them, so I can see how Republicans have grown accustomed to low standards.
It was obvious before the Jan. 31 vote and far more obvious now that ground rules for conducting the appointments were necessary. That was Scott Moore's responsibility, and he flagrantly neglected it. In fact, he needed to keep the process undefined so he could make up the rules as he went along. Attempting to pin this mess on anyone but the man in charge is laughable. (And yes, Chad, I did explain why ground rules were important and suggest ground rules within a day or two of the January ruling that necessitated the special meeting. Also, Mark Harmon proposed ground rules to the commission and tried to start a dialog on the subject. Moore has no excuse for neglecting to run the meeting in an orderly and open fashion.)
As for the sunshine law, it does not prevent commissioners from meeting with constituents or having lunch together. It prevents them from doing so secretly. All they have to do is notify the press of the meeting and allow citizens or reporters to observe. As Mark Siegel pointed out, the two vs. quorum argument is nothing but spin. He is also correct to point out that commissioners should never have any reason to be secretive about their work. They are doing public business as representatives of thousands of county citizens. The glaring absence of discussion on so many issues continues to be the most damning proof that public business is transpiring out of sight.
Chad: "If Phil Guthe votes instead of passing repeatedly, we never have the recesses."
Rikki: "It was obvious before the Jan. 31 vote and far more obvious now that ground rules for conducting the appointments were necessary. That was Scott Moore's responsibility, and he flagrantly neglected it."
I gotta give Rikki this one, Chad--and before we lay blame on Guthe, another of Moore's responsibilities, in addition to forming "ground rules," was to prepare the meeting agenda.
It was Moore's agenda setting the County Clerk appointment ahead of the commission seat appointments. Why on earth did Moore create this situation that left 18 commissioners on the dais, inviting the possibility of a tie vote???
Yes, this was a bipartisan screw-up but, it is primarily a republican screw-up. None of this crap would have happened if the elected officials in the county had decided to abide by the will of the people expressed in the term limits vote. The Sunshine Law violation was a result of that and the case is a result of the violation which, clearly makes it derivative of the ignoring of the election. All the other blame laying is simply intentional obfuscation and, a load of crap.
CAFKIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
Bolus would likely not have been appointed if Tindell and M. Harmon could have agreed on a candidate.
Yep, it cost the Dems a seat, but at least they retained some semblence of integrity, because it was pretty obvious they didn't cut a deal ahead of time.
The sentiment at the Halls mtg suggests what many of us fear- alot of party loyalists will support the familiar name with an "R" after it, and we will get more of the same in next year's elections.
As to litigation, Chancellor Fansler is not going to make a decision based upon his party affiliation. The Chancellor followed the law on the MSJ- a Comm'n member can discuss opinions with another member but the members cannot make a decision. You can say "Sally's got experience, I like her," but can't say "we have a deal- I'll vote for your guy since you're voting for gal." May be a bad law or good law, but that's what it is.
Couple of other observations- did the current law director also receive both a vehicle and travel reimbursement, as well as other elected officials other than Commissioners? I thought that was mentioned in the first KNS article and graphic on the subject. If so, is it a conflict for the law director to advise Comm'n on the subject?
Second, does the Chancellor have the authority to approve a settlement? My understanding is that judges only approve settlements in certain types of cases and do not give advisory opinions. If the parties settle, don't they just dismiss the case, and they're on their own as to how they execute their agreement? A re-do without a court telling it how to do it gives the county an opportunity to foul up again. If the county "loses" the suit, at least it has a court telling it what to do so it's not back in court after the next procedural nightmare. Settlement is not the only chance for a re-do- if the court rules for KNS it will have to be done anyway. If not, you don't have a legal problem and it stays the same. And, I can see the KNS's concern about litigation costs, but aren't the county's attys salaried?
So how do we get the crooked commissioners to forget the outcome of their illegal secret deliberations? I propose electric shock therapy with a special voter referendum to determine the voltage.
Betty,
Simple yes, but I think true. It was 8 to 8 over and over because Guthe wouldn't vote to break the tie. He's never been part of the so-called Sheriff's posse. If he votes, wouldn't it have likely been Scott Davis and not Tramel? But, either way, if Guthe votes we have no recesses. Further, Bolus is likely not appointed without the dissension in the Second. And, he certainly doesn't get sworn in early if Guthe votes.
It probably is even more simple than I made it. Bolus has the votes and gets in. Ok. It was Guthe's refusal to vote on filling his seat because his pick wasn't going to be appointed. So, with that perceieved personal offense by Guthe and him taking his ball (vote) and heading home, here we are. I don't mean to pick on Phil. He's a nice guy. But, if he votes and doesn't abstain over and over again, Knox County never ends up in this lawsuit.
Here's a thought - what happens if Commission votes for the redo, but one or two of them refuse to resign???
P.S. Blaming this entire lawsuit on Guthe seems like an awful stretch. Even if CBT's analysis is 100% correct, there would be no lawsuit if Commissioners had halfway had respect for the laws they are sworn to uphold.
Although I admit I still don't understand Guthe's behavior that day.
It's a good thing Guthe decided not to break the tie, it exposed everything that is wrong about Knox County government. You don't really expect to hang all the credit on that one vote do you? This is bigger than Team Hutchison vs Team Ragsdale vs any other team out there. I understand what you are saying about the lawsuit, but you can't honestly believe that everything would be peaches and cream had he settled on someone. Would you prefer we just sweep all of this under the rug?
Chad, you ignored my question:
How do you defend/explain the "special" treatment of Guthe and Schmid?
If there was a rule that each lame duck got to choose his/her successor, how can you exclude the 4th district? And, really, how can you defend allowing the illegitimate incumbents to choose who gets the vacated seat?
The whole arrangement was just a bastardization of what government is supposed to be.
Act I
March '06-Supremes rule for term-limits in Shelby
Write-in fever;Moody,Horner & McMillian lose primary
Jordan et al sue for status
Weaver rules.."term limited" incumbents on ballot..all win
Act II
Jan '07-Supremes declare a de facto government..rule term limited incumbents out & will be replaced by appointments of the de facto commission per Tn Constitution.
All hell breaks loose..appointments made..worse than all hell breaks loose.
N-S files a sunshine act suit against the de facto commission per appointments.
Act III
The Ragsdale deal.
N-S suit gains momentum,looks like"two can tango" with respect to sunshine..Law Director goes for re do settlement.
My 2 cents
Appointments can always be messy.The factions on commission manuver to get their candidate appointed.Folks that dont have a dog in the hunt break the log jam.
The 12 appointments smashed the system.Factions within factions devoloped..& everybody had one dog in the hunt.Plus the ole human condition set in..I just dont like that person.
The Commisssion shut down debate..got bad advice or ignored good advice
..stepped in sunshine violations.
Then the Ragsdale deal hit like a Hydra
This had been a long strange trip..& we've got a million more miles to go...think August '10.
What standing do the ousted commissioners have to vote on anything at this late date? Sure, they're the closest thing we have to elected representatives, but they're also the only people specifically proscribed (by the term limit ruling) from representing us. I would think an illegally appointed current commissioner who loses his seat by their vote might have a good case.
Or do we get the current to crop to vote on themselves as replacements? It's going to be absurd regardless.
they're also the only people specifically proscribed (by the term limit ruling) from representing us
The Supreme Court ruling gave them de facto authority to represent their constituents until replacements could be appointed.
Owings said yesterday that the the 4 new officials and the 8 new commissioners would have to resign, the 8 old Commissioners be sworn back it, and then they start from scratch.
Hence my question - what happens if Commission votes for a do-over but a couple of the new ones refuse to resign?
Rachel, if commission votes for a do-over, isn't it the case that all the new ones *have* to resign? On what authority could these news ones buck the majority vote of commission?
Also, since they are represented collectively by Owings (aren't they?), wouldn't the group be obliged to reach a consensus for that reason?
On what authority could these news ones buck the majority vote of commission?
This is being asked of a commission and county government that bucked the authority of a voter referendum for more than a decade?
This mess wasn't caused by Phil Guthe passing his chances to vote or by Billy Tindell and Mark Harmon not meeting in secret to work out who they would support for Tindell's seat.
This goes back to the failure of the Knox County government to uphold the law as passed in a referendum in the 1990s.
I hate to say it, but a "do-over" is almost the worst possible idea yet. What makes a do-over better than what you've got now? Are current office holders disqualified from being reappointed to the the seats they were originally appointed to? If not, then what's to be resolved by a do-over? You're going to get the same people back in their positions (no, really, you are). So what would we resolve? Doing it over does not equal doing it right. The chances to do it right slipped by in 2002 and again in 2006. The absolute last chance to do it right was drowned in the toilet during one of the many bathroom recesses held during the Black Wednesday meeting.
All that you're left with now is the chance to rebuild, which you can do in the next scheduled election. The "re-do" is a costume party with the same backroom deals dressed as "sunshine" and "ethics." Don't fall for it.
cafkia is right.."term limited" incumbents dont run this doesnt happen...because they lost the suit in the supreme court...& became term limited incumbents...no longer able to serve
How do you defend/explain the "special" treatment of Guthe and Schmid?
I don't have an explanation, other than this is where the battle between pro-Ragsdale (Scott Moore) and pro-Sheriff (Trammel) came into play.
Did Guthe even announce his 'choice' before the Jan. 31 meeting? I think Schmid did, but only a few days prior.
Moore announced ground rules, which were agreed to by Commission. For a lot of reasons, the appointment of so many officeholders at one time was destined to be a train wreck. We need more public input, we need county-wide meetings, we need district meetings, we need presentations from each candidate at the meeting where we'll make the appointments, they should have 5 minutes, no 10 minutes, let's appoint in this order, no that order...the list of grievances would have been long no matter how it was done.
Querious is right that Guthe's refusal to vote exposed a lot about county government. Maybe some think that's a good thing. Maybe in the end it is. But, what price does our community pay to get there.
the list of grievances would have been long no matter how it was done.
Probably. But it could have been a lot shorter.
Tamara - I don't know. That's why I was asking the question.
I don't have an explanation, other than this is where the battle between pro-Ragsdale (Scott Moore) and pro-Sheriff (Trammel) came into play.
You mean Scott DAVIS surely.
Ha, ha, ha. The nihilism defense. So powerful and convincing! Gosh, we could have lost on a last-second field goal and been really disappointed; better to lose 31-0 and never get your hopes up, right? Maybe that can be Scoobie's next campaign slogan: don't get your hopes up. Or maybe it can be "Anyone can screw up, and I will too!"
What exactly are you calling "ground rules"? I'm not sure "No one can talk about the nominees" really qualifies as a ground rule. It is a pretty explicit subversion of the spirit of the sunshine law, though not the letter. Meeting in public and not talking is allowed, of course, even if it strongly implies that discussions are occurring elsewhere.
Again you lay blame on one person and the wrong person. Guthe didn't build the house of cards; he just knocked on one corner.
I'm going to edit & try again
The only remedy per a trial is a re do..If it goes to trial a jury could come back with a result you dont like..nobody violated the sunshine act.
What is the difference between Owings proposal of a re do now & courts per a trial requiring a re do?
Either way it goes my guess there will be an appeal
It looks as if the the appeals court..have upheld the "the two can tango" in the past.
When would the appeals court rule & then when would the Supremes rule on this..as in date?
Schmid wants a trial & says he broke the sunshine law..& he's the only one I know of that says he did.Is the point of going to trial to show the others they were wrong?
The only remedy per a trial is a re do..
That's what I was thinking. A re-do is what the KNS is asking for right? So why haven't they settled?
Wonder if it has something to do with testimony and selling papers...
A re-do is what the KNS is asking for right? So why haven't they settled?
Because the Commission has not made the offer. As I understand it, Law Director Owings has suggested to commissioners that they make this offer but they have not yet agreed to do so. Beyond that, other issues KNS will have consider are confidentiality, attorney's fees, etc.
www.herstonlaw.com
and the wrong person
So, who is the 'right' person to blame?
There is no one "right person to blame."
There are a bunch of them
The city had a term limits referendum the year before the county's, and the city has not had a lick of turmoil.
Why?
Because none of the city officials contested the will of the people. County officeholders seized on the constitiutional dodge like drowning men grab floating logs, and chaos ensued.
County government is a hoary old system that benefits a few entrenched courthouse regulars who are hanging on for all they're worth.
but I still think we should just do away with the county government altogether and go with a metro government based on the city model we already have. There's no guarantee that the metro government wouldn't eventually become just as corrupt as the county government, but by golly it would be better than what we have now.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
I wouldn't call you naive, tali.
I've been frustrated to hear so much negative feedback on Knox County, One Question's effort from people citing how much worse the county's problems would be right now if we had metro government.
Since the allegations being leveled against various county officeholders relate more to our processes and our checks and balances than to our governmental structure, the logic of these peoples' arguments is lost on me.
I'm not sure why they think this muddle involving lots of officeholders is preferable to a muddle involving fewer officeholders...
The city had a term limits referendum the year before the county's, and the city has not had a lick of turmoil.
Why?
Because none of the city officials contested the will of the people. County officeholders seized on the constitiutional dodge like drowning men grab floating logs, and chaos ensued.
I believe the state attorney general also opined that city voters could constitutionally pass/enforce term limits. Different laws applied to the county based on the different forms of government. Term limits were always believed to be enforceable in the city. Not so in the county.
But, Chad, the TN Supreme Court had already opined on this question when that flurry of lawsuits from officeholders ensued.
There was NO question that the referendum was enforceable, and these officeholders were scrambling to find any technicality possible to permit them to stay on.
Personally, I'm extremely skeptical that their true motive was to assure a sound and complete county charter.
I believe the state attorney general also opined that city voters could constitutionally pass/enforce term limits. Different laws applied to the county based on the different forms of government. Term limits were always believed to be enforceable in the city. Not so in the county.
Can you step back from nuts and bolts for a minute and see the big picture? In the big picture, this was never about legalities. It is about what the people that they claimed to want to represent want. Anyone willing to ignore the apparent will of the people is a part of the problem regardless of how legal their efforts were. Why is this hard to understand?
CAFKIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
It's not always about finding someone to blame, Grasshopper.
It's not always about finding someone to blame, Grasshopper.
I agree, you just said I blamed the wrong one, so I figured you thought there was a 'right' one. I think if Guthe votes, we avoid some of this controversy and the newspaper lawsuit. Does that mean I think all is well with county government and it would have been better if some things were not brought out in the open. No.
i would think not...never been in a trial so I dont know
i'm not saying anybodys being untruthful but between depositions & trial do people say different things?
I do believe these folks didnt go in & say lets gang bang the Sunshine law.They felt it took a quorum to violate.So some have been pretty up front about I talked to x,one on one,about appointment a.
Looks like a good chance they are wrong on quorom & their lawyer is telling them that.
Again,commissioners could put the fate of the suit in the jurys hands & the commissioners could win.
Anyone willing to ignore the apparent will of the people is a part of the problem regardless of how legal their efforts were. Why is this hard to understand?
If this was the overwhelming 'will of the people', why in the heck did these same 'people' continue to re-elect the same officeholders 2, 3 and 4 times?
My opinion on term limits was that it was a fad being pushed nationally at the time. People want rid of elected official 'X', so they voted for it. What they didn't stop to think is that it would also prohibit them from re-electing their Commissioner, Sheriff...all of whom they may have liked.
While on the subject of term limits, has the County Clerk sent that letter required by the term limits law demanding that our state and national elected officials abide by the will of Knox County and serve no more than two terms (three for State Reps and Congress, I think). That was also part of the term limits law. I've never seen one word in the newspaper about these requirements in the term limits law. It's easy to pick on the long-time Sheriff and an officeholder or two, but Duncan, Joe Armstrong, others? A bit more dicey. Plus, lots of voters would be mad if they thought term limits applied to many of these very popular elected officials.
Again you make my point. I fully and willingly admit that arguments can be made for those guys staying in office based on the elections subsequent to the term limits election. However, IMNSHO, no reasonable argument can be made for ignoring that specific election, that referendum.
I have personally stated my desire to see term limits apply across the board to all elected, appointed, and most, if not all, civil service jobs. The term lengths might be different but no one needs to have a permanent spot at the public trough. No one!
CAFKIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
and most, if not all, civil service jobs. The term lengths might be different but no one needs to have a permanent spot at the public trough.
You think that's all they do? Cops, clerks, building and codes inspectors, secretaries...all just sitting around the trough all day feeding? Not learning and practicing job skills, building institutional memory, keeping offices running that the legislature mandates be run. They're just up there feeding.
Maybe we should extend this principle a bit wider. Term limits for auto mechanics, and factory workers, and lawyers and doctors too. Every 8 years we'll all just change jobs, and by the end of our lives we'll all be nicely cross trained in a panoply of professions.
C'mon Caf. Term limits for elected officials? Ok. Term limits for office workers? Please...
I have reviewed my post and am unable to find where I said that is all they do. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out to me my specific passage.
My point, which I much prefer to make over beer, is to spread around the responsibilities of democracy as well as reducing the ease of corruption. Right now if you can corrupt one civil service, you good to go until he/she gets caught, retires or dies. If you had to re-corrupt every decade or so, you might find folks still idealistic about their democracy. No, I am not saying that all government employees are corrupt or corruptible so, don't bother faking offense. But I think you will admit that over the years, there have been occasional instances of corruption and some of them fairly long term. Still, you are not required to understand or support my position. That is one of the reasons why we call it "my position". But, if you don't have the discussion, you don't have democracy.
So, what do you suggest to involve more of the populace in the government, alleviate disenfranchisement, reduce opportunity for position abuse and/or corruption and, keep the populace informed and interested in the functioning of government/democracy. Or, is that not something that you would like to see happen?
CAFKIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
So, what do you suggest to involve more of the populace in the government, alleviate disenfranchisement, reduce opportunity for position abuse and/or corruption and, keep the populace informed and interested in the functioning of government/democracy.
But stating that career government employees were merely "at the public trough" struck me as a sugggestion that public employees were somehow not providing a valuable service to the public. The proposition that all persons in public employment should be required to leave after some arbitrary period of time seems to me to be pretty counterproductive and inefficient. You're going to require a beat cop to find other work after, what - 10 years? - so you can make room for new people to be beat cops? Don't you think its possible that many if not most get better at their jobs over time, so that you are tossing out the most experienced law enforcement officers for some political expediency? How about firemen? Teachers? University professors? KUB linemen? Doctors who work at University hospitals? How would replacing any of these people advance the goals you suggest above?
Term limits began as a movement (mainly by Republicans who had been in the minority in Congress for the better part of 50 years) to unseat entrenched legislators who were able to give themselves elective advantage not only in de facto ways, but in de jure ways as well. I believe that most efforts at term limits have been aimed at members of the legislative branch, and at times at members of the executive branch. I'm unaware of any serious political movement toward automatically removing anyone who works for government, no matter what their experience or level of competence, simply because room should be made for new people (unless you count mandatory retirement rules.)
If you think positional abuse is a serious problem among career civil servants, how about simply removing civil service protections? I have a friend here in town who is an unabashed advocate for the "spoils system" - when a new person is elected or appointed to office, in my friend's view, he or she should have the absolute right to fire everyone and bring in all new people. That's the kind of thing that civil service protection is designed to prevent, but it would, would it not, result in the total replacement of old regimes and the beginnings of new ones? Why do you think that system was done away with (in many places)? I believe it was because there was a recognition that firing experienced and competent public employees explicitly for political reasons was not in the best interest, not just of the employees, but of the public at large. I don't see arbitrary limitations on non-political public employees' "terms of service" as much different. In either case the result is terminating employees not because they are incompetent, but because it serves some political purpose entirely unrelated to the efficient operation of the bureaucracy which the modern superstate has imposed upon us all. As creaky as that bureaucracy may be at times, arbitrarily replacing those who know how to make it work would, I think, just make matters worse.
If you are looking to enfranchise more of the populace, I think you are looking in the wrong place. I don't believe that the reason only 20% or so of citizens vote in local elections is because they don't think they can get a government job - it's because they don't know exactly what local government does or why it's important to them. We have centralized government and public responsibility to such an extreme extent that the only elections that seem to matter to people any more are elections for President. That's not some fireman's fault. This is a free country (yes still) and people can get involved in governance exactly to the extent they wish to. Make them wish to, rather than coming up with gimmicks like limiting the "terms" of secretaries, and you will move farther toward your stated aims.
"I like the way you talk" Sling Blade
This was the first year the term limit law would kick in per vote.Everything would have been resolved,in time for the '06 general election,if the Charter had been done per Tn code.Thats the legal hole these folks ran through when Weaver found the Charter fatally flawed.
Its true it was about holding on to power.However,the court system worked & in the end they only held on for only a few months..Sept-Jan.
It's highly unlikely the law director would have raised this issue if he didn't have some indication (an offer) from the KNS that it would accept such a re-do as settlement. Otherwise, the law director goes through all of this for nothing if the KNS finds the terms of the re-do are unacceptable, rejects the offer, and litigates. So it's likely the KNS has agreed they would accept a re-do, and whatever other terms, in exchange for dropping the suit, and now comm'n has to authorize it (accept the offer) before it can happen.
My understanding is that a confidentiality agreement is not an option for the county and that it's unenforceable even if executed. In any event, for political reasons I can't imagine the law director will ask for one- he's up for election too. Of course, that's not to say some cartoon character on comm'n won't move to amend the agreement to include one.
I voted for term limits & I like whats happening in the city.New blood & 8 years if you can get re elected. 8 yrs is enough after that its raising money & pork barrel to stay in.
The county will get its act in order & the same thing will happen.
To restore accountability to Congress.To end its cycle of scandal & disgrace.To make us all proud of the way free people govern.
10.The Citizens Legislature:A first ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizens legislators.
So CBT you think the contract was a fad??
We are a Republican county & good ole Republican voters voted in term limits...big..twice!!
Republicans lost congress because after twelve years..YOU GUYS..lost accountablity & mired the country in scandal & disgrace.
this things going to court
rachel askes what if they dont all resign.
That will be the deal breaker
Who knows but thats my bet
My bad
The "term limited" incumbents did not all win
Democrat Mark Harmon defeated David Collins
Sorry Mark
Today I noticed a new orange and white billboard in Halls that read, "Protect Knox County Do It Right or Do It Over."
Who's funding this billboard? Some of you Halls Shopper people probably are already on top of this.
And I was a little fuzzy about what it meant to "do it right." Anybody know wtf that is supposed to refer to. Seems to me it's too late for the Knox County commissioners to do Jan 31st right.
As I recall, wasn't there a billboard campaign associated w/ some other failed attempts around here (Metro government and Universe Knoxville come to mind).
I'm pretty sure that's a pro tough storm water ordinance promotion.
Sadly it could be the new county motto for multiple reasons.....
Was going to guess Brad Hill put up the billboard ... but Salter probably knows if it's a storm water thing.
By the way, I've got a 3 or 4 page amendment that Lumpy Lambert is planning to offer to the stormwater ordinance.
Asked which developer wrote it, Lambert apparently said, "John Valiant" -- lawyer for developers. -- s.
Why would I "know" if it's a storm water thing?
It looks like Salter wins the prize. The color scheme on the website and "Protect Knox" seem to fit the website.
Protect Knox County
Says to get involved contact Philip McGowan.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Tom: I just assumed you environmental types talk to each other. -- s.
Let's say commission votes to do a do over, and all those folks resign.
But Guthe said he's not going to go through it again, and someother ex-commissioner (Greis?) or two said the same. So what happens if any number of ex-commissioners refuse to come back? Can they go thru it if less than all agree to come back to reappoint?
Also, couldn't the same thing happen again, but this time be ok with the sunshine law? Scoobie and company could talk all day long with the ex-commissioners about who to appoint before the ex-commissioners came back to vote at the do over, and because they'd still be ex-commissioners, it would not break the law.
They need 13 votes to get Owings proposal on the already crowded agenda.
If you were an appointed commissioner, would you vote yes or no to adding this agenda item? We know the Lump, Pinky, Scoobster and Trummel will all vote for it, they think it will be good to 'get it on the table so they can chew on it' and they do not want to face Herb in court. But I really wonder if Jordan, Cawood, Cate, Huddleston, Greene, Bolus... do these guys really want to resign and hope their backs are covered to get re-appointed? Do they want to suffer the sting of the public again, if that happens? Better to 'agree with the will of the people and go for a court trial'. This thing will go past dinner tomorrow as it is.
Post new comment