Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Thu, 2008/02/21 - 3:22pm.
I think most people would agree that the appointments meeting yesterday was very well done and that Commissioner Strickland did a great job chairing the meeting. It was relatively short, sweet, and to the point, yet everyone who wanted to speak was able to, and there was opportunity for discussion of the issues, etc.
Why can't it always be this way? The rules for this meeting were:
1. No lobbying - No one could approach the commisioners once the meeting started.
2. No cell phones - Commissioners could not take phone calls on their cell phones during the meetings.
3. No recesses - There was no going into the back room to discuss a vote.
4. No votes while absent - Bathroom breaks were one-at-a-time, and while a commissioner was absent, there was no voting.
5. No private discussions - Commissioners were not allowed to talk to each other privately during the meeting.
I liked it and I think the general public felt that the meeting was very above-board and open, the way it should be. I think it also made the meeting go much quicker than it would have otherwise.
I think Commission should seriously consider adopting these rules for all future meetings. Not necessarily workshops, committee meeting or agenda meetings, but at the regular monthly meetings, these rules sure would make things go faster and remove the perception that things are going on outside of the public's view.
Submitted by knoxvegas99 on Thu, 2008/02/21 - 4:38pm.
I was among those who thought appointments should have been made before the primary, but after watching yesterday's process I can't complain. An argument might still be made that the power of the incumbency will work to the advantage of Sam McKenzie in the First District, but - realistically - could the Republican candidate secure that seat under any but the most extraordinary circumstances?
A similar argument might be advanced for Districts 5 and 8, although Briggs looks more and more like the annointed one in 5, and the Dems haven't yet put forth a candidate in 8. In the fee offices, Sisk and Witt gained the upper hand with no opposition to their appointments.
Tom Pressley provided at leaat a token alternative to Jones as sheriff but failed to make a compelling case. Tyree may mount a surprisingly stiff challenge to Jones in August despite the latter's incumbency, but Randy must still be considered a decided underdog.
I agree the meeting - indeed, this entire process - was well run, transparent, and effective.
See, guys, it wasn't that hard after all.
I usually do not like the "what if" scenarios, but here goes.
What if:
- They had allowed the original term limited commissioners back in to vote on these replacements? (Tindell, Schmidt, Jordan, Cawood, etc)?
- This appointment process happened before the primary election and Tramel, Cate, and others were still vying for a seat and Scoobie was still chair?
I bring this up because Tank did a great job, but the setting was very different than a year ago or even a month ago.
We are finally on our way to a better County Commission.
...Ragsdale's office were also well run, transparent and effective. Maybe the Commission has set a good example.
I was among those who thought appointments should have been made before the primary, but after watching yesterday's process I can't complain. An argument might still be made that the power of the incumbency will work to the advantage of Sam McKenzie in the First District, but - realistically - could the Republican candidate secure that seat under any but the most extraordinary circumstances?
A similar argument might be advanced for Districts 5 and 8, although Briggs looks more and more like the annointed one in 5, and the Dems haven't yet put forth a candidate in 8. In the fee offices, Sisk and Witt gained the upper hand with no opposition to their appointments.
Tom Pressley provided at leaat a token alternative to Jones as sheriff but failed to make a compelling case. Tyree may mount a surprisingly stiff challenge to Jones in August despite the latter's incumbency, but Randy must still be considered a decided underdog.
Larry Van Guilder
I'm no JJ fan, but Pressley's not a credible alternative.
Lisa, I strayed off point regarding your post. Sorry!
Your recommendations are solid down the line.
Larry Van Guilder
could the Republican candidate secure that seat under any but the most extraordinary circumstances
I thought Diane Jordan held it for, like, decades? :)
Touche, Randy! I should have been clearer - could the current Republican candidate, etc. Nice catch.
Larry Van Guilder
Do not forget that Strickland works for Haslam and the sprawl crowd. Another Haslam democrat. Look for developers to make out like bandits.
Tank did a good job I agree. But I still prefer Tony Norman for chairman.
Jordan ran for and held office as a Democrat. Even though she opted to vote in the GOP primary this year, she is a Democrat basically. -- s.
Sandra, that (and her being a big Haslam supporter) was the joke.
Post new comment