Personally, my thought is that none of those considerations should stop them from making recommendations (and personally, I wouldn't object to the county buying them some stationary on which to make them).

That Alabama/Knox County Commissioner joke won't wash, Beanster. Everybody knows a KC Commish would pack his own lunch with lobster tails.

Wearybottom Associates

The sad thing is that we have at least one or two Commissioners who would still think that the Commissioner in that joke somehow broke the Sunshine Law.

The sad fact is this is the same crap the State Ethics Commission employees told me.

Good luck suckers!

Basically, what they are going to do with this referendum is set us up so that if we would like to prevent county commissioners or their families from working directly for the county or city government, our only choice will be to forbid state and federal employment as well. Which is absurd, and a great way to get Mark Harmon off the Commission.

Forget school teachers, in a county dominated by UT, TVA, Oak Ridge, etc., this is a real poison pill in the recommended referendum, since you'll either have to vote down the whole thing and allow the current shenanigans to continue or severely limit the pool of qualified candidates.

Personally I dont see school teaching in the same type grouping as the Sheriff's Dept, or some fee office, etc.

I thought this 'ethics' committee ended up being a red herring. When the folks the ethics committee was formed to evaluate get to pick who is on the committee that diminished its legitimacy to me.

I don't find banning government employees (city, county, state, federal) from County Commission a "poison pill" for any referendum at all. It's not uncommon to hear, "We need more business people in public office." Rarely do you hear, "Wow, we really need more teachers or federal employees on County Commission."

Should a referendum make it to the voters banning government employees from serving on County Commission, regardless of whether federal/state employees are included, I believe it would pass overwhelmingly.

I don't think good people should be prevented from serving. I think having the ban include State and Federal employees is stupid and was intended as a poison pill.

While having some teachers and other county employees on Commission (NOT senior officials who work directly with Commission, develop budgets, etc) could be good for the County.

I don't think you could ever write it into election law, but you'd almost like to set a limit of, say, no more than X% of Commission could be employees- Commission functions better with a variety of backgrounds.

It's a very messy issue (and we should focus on disclosure of conflicts of interest first!!), but the current proposal from Ethics is D.O.A.

-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
(link...)

I think the county should follow the city's model.

I am guessing, but I would think the number of county employees dwarfs those in the city, particularly when you include schools, Sheriff's office, fee offices, etc. You're excluding a lot more people. Seems to me candidates should be judged on their merits. It might be good to have a school teacher or Sheriff's office employee on Commission. With 19, they wouldn't dominate. We spend a lot of money and effort on these departments. Some insight might be helpful.

I see no difference in a Sheriff's office employee and school teacher, other than someone's personal bias or preference for one or the other.

Also, would you also ban city employees from serving on Commission? There could be conflicts there (see stormwater ordinance). Wouldn't that ban Ivan and Tank?

Isn't that in part exactly what has happened?

No. There are some Commissioners who have ties to the Sheriff's office, three I think. That's a long way from domination. But, there is a group often tied politically to the former Sheriff. Those have amounted to a majority on many votes.

Political factions are present in all legislative bodies. Some are based on party affiliation. With Commission, party affiliation plays little or no role. However, Commissioners often line up ideologically and politically. But, that would be true whether or not you have county employees as Commissioners. Depending on who gets appointed to fill the 8 seats, you may see the influence swing on Commission to, say, the Executive Branch. It won't be because the appointees work for the county. It will be because of how they line up politically.

I've yet to see folks identify specific votes where Commissioners who are employed by the county (or have family members employed by the county) have cast votes to benefit themselves or their family. Specific votes anyone?

For now, that would mean allowing Tank and Ivan to stay where they are.

So, on stormwater, annexation, development of county property within the city and a host of other issues which would impact both the county and city, you're ok with Commissioners working for the city and voting on matters which directly impact the city? How is what any different than the purported purpose in banning county employees?

There should be no direct supervision by family members. With some votes, a Commissioner may ought to recuse themselves. But, I'm unsure about an outright ban. It's a lazy excuse to avoid having to examine the candidates running for office. That's the bottom line, getting good, qualified people elected to office. Some of those might hold county jobs.

This proposal seems to have cause and effect reversed. Nepotism is a result of officeholders using their positions to get jobs for friends and family. It is not the political offices that are the prize, but the regular jobs. What we need is a ban on hiring relatives of officeholders.

It seems this ethics panel is incapable of properly diagnosing the problem, much less curing it.

#9? All I said was that if you want to ban county employees from serving on Commission, would you also want to ban city employees. You indicated you'd be ok with city employees serving on Commission. I pointed out that they regularly deal with issues which impact the city, which seems to create the same conflict many want to prohibit. I'm not sure how that's going all #9 on you.

I think we need to have a more interested electorate who will examine candidates qualifications and vote accordingly. I don't think being a county employee should automatically disqualify you.

rikki - maybe you're on to something there.

...I would like to see City and County policies the same. For now, that would mean allowing Tank and Ivan to stay where they are.

Maybe the disconnect is you not being sure for now, but at present leaving Tank and Ivan where they are. To me, that means having a policy which bans county employees from serving on Commission and allows city employees to serve on Commission. If it's a conflict you're worried about, it's present in both scenarios. I have now sufficiently beat this dog.