Wed
Apr 30 2008
07:30 am

As you are probably aware, the Knox Charter Petition group will now take it to the streets. The group is launching an effort to get the 40,000 signatures needed (times two) after County Commission this week voted against sending the proposed amendments directly to the voters.

UPDATE: I asked Knox County Elections Administrator Greg Mackay "who pays the $80,000 cost of verifying the petitions, taxpayers or the petition organizers?" He said "taxpayers." So the County Commission just voted to charge taxpayers $80,000 to have their voice heard. That's a lot of lobster!

From the Knoxville News Sentinel:

"Anytime a group of commissioners decides to turn down restrictions on nepotism and conflicts of interests, it's disappointing and disheartening," [political consultant Gary] Drinnen said. "It sends a very strong message that the County Commission is interested in business as usual."

According to the article, it will cost the Knox County Election Commission approx. $80,000 to verify the signatures.

I'm not sure I agree with all the proposed changes, but I fail to see what is wrong with simply letting Knox County voters decide.

From the Knox Charter Petition website, here are the proposed changes some members of Knox County Commission do not want before voters:

• Consistency Amendment: Seeks to resolve any provisions of current and future charter amendments that may conflict with other provisions of the charter

• Commission/Employment Amendment: If enacted, would bar Knox County government employees from serving on the Knox County Commission

• Referendum Amendment: Seeks to lower number of signatures required for referendum petitions from 15% of total number of registered Knox County voters to 15% of those who cast a ballot in the last gubernatorial election (Note: this was the only amendment County Commission decided to put before the voters. It does not come in time to help the current petition drive.)

• Nepotism Amendment: Would add a clause to the charter that would expressly prohibit nepotism in the county government's hiring policies

• Inspector General Amendment: Would eliminate the office of Internal Auditor and create the Independent Office of Inspector General

• Restructuring of Executive Branch: Would require mayoral appointment and Commission approval of the County Clerk, Register of Deeds, Trustee, and Property Assessor

• Restructuring of County Commission: Would eliminate eight Commission slots, leaving one for each of the nine districts plus two "at-large" commissioners elected countywide

• Conflict of Interest: Legislative Amendment: Outlines an official, legally binding procedure for county lawmakers to follow in the event of a conflict of interest on a vote

• Conflict of Interest: Administrative Amendment: Outlines an official, legally binding procedure for nonvoting county employees to follow in the event of a conflict of interest

According to Knox Charter Petition, the changes "are the result of several months of the Howard Baker Center for Public Policy's research and the public's input, all part of the Knox County - One Question project." A series of public forums was held and the proposed amendments were citizen-driven through an open process.

We all understand the concept of our representative republic form of government in which legislators make the laws, and the efficiency and order it provides by not having a popular vote on every single issue. The foundation of that law, however, is the Constitution, or in this case the county charter, and there is a longstanding, fundamental principle that The People decide what goes in it.

Some Knox County Commissioners do not seem to get this, and you have to wonder why. Looking at some of the proposed amendments may provide the answer.

109
like
GDrinnen2's picture

I should Amend

I was in rare form when I talked to Rebecca, and I do think it's disheartening that 13 commissioners could not be found to support letting the people vote. However, it should be noted that a majority of commissioners supported that idea. The amendments failed for lack of a 2/3 majority. 13 was needed and most amendments got 12.

The commissioners that supported letting the people vote should be thanked and recognized. In particular Mark Harmon and Mike Hammond ponsored the amendments on Commission, and made excellent comments.

My favorite from Hammond: "Change will not happen from inside the city-county building. I guess it's up to the citizens now."

Rachel's picture

Yup, many failed by one

Yup, many failed by one vote. And the "no" vote I'm most disappointed in is Elaine Davis's. I expected better things from her.

Gary, contact me offboard about the petition drive. Commission just made me mad enough to take them around my neighborhood.

B. Paone's picture

All but two failed by one vote.

The only two of the six failed amendments that didn't fall by one vote were the inspector general amendment (8-11) and the commission restructuring/district realignment amendment (withdrawn by a count of 17-2).

Of the four that failed by one vote, Greg Lambert was the swing on two of them - the administrative conflict of interest policy and the amendment that would have barred county employees from serving on commission. He passed his vote on both occasions.

Don't know what that's worth, but there it is.

Anonymously Nine's picture

There are some puzzling

There are some puzzling issues here.

I think back to last September when “Knox County One Question” took their proposed Charter Amendments to County Commission. Joe Johnson spoke and gave a great talk that was well received by Commission. But there was no request for Commission to do anything. In the following months there was never a request for Commission to place the Amendments on the ballot. It seemed very odd.

This past January John Schmid came to County Commission as the spokescritter for the new group “Knox Charter Petition” and gave an ultimatum, approve these Charter Amendments OR ELSE. On February 25th Laurens Tullock told County Commission the KCP “would not accept any changes to the Amendments”. Again, that seemed very odd.

Why do that? Was this just clumsy Public Relations? Or maybe it just very clever politics? How could so many seemingly smart people make so many mistakes?

The threat was that if Commission did not approve all nine Amendments KCP would put them on two petitions. Five Amendments on the first petition and four Amendments on the second petition. Even more curious was that the two most unpopular Amendments were on different petitions, one for legislative issues and one for executive branch issues.

This separated the two Amendments that most people did not like. "The Mayor King Amendment where the County Mayor appoints the fee offices and Law Director was with the five Amendments. The Feudalism Now Amendment where the number of County Commissioners was reduced was with the four Amendments. This is classic pull through marketing. A Hobson’s choice of sorts. You have to take an Amendment you don’t like to get the ones you do like.

I kept wondering why would such smart skilled people be so rude and arrogant in front of County Commission? It sometimes looked like they were trying to fail. In retrospect it makes you wonder…

Even more curious was the group from Spokane Washington doing consulting work with KCP. Now there is a petition group from Portland, Oregon.

But what is really puzzling is the push poll in West Knoxville last night about the 2010 Mayoral race, again from a political consulting group in Spokane Washington. More curious still is that one of the major KCP players was listed in the push poll for County Mayor.

This is part of the push poll from last night:

Who would you vote for in 2010 for County Mayor?

Mike Hammond

Tim Hutchison

Mike Lowe

Tim Burchett

Brad Hill

What qualifications matter most?

Business executive who is currently on commission?

Former sheriff that understands Knox County politics and inner workings of Knox County government.

Former Knox County Trustee who understands county financing.

Physical conservative State Senator who has served Tennessee well.

Non-elected official who is a consultant who understands sound business practices and can bring this approach to county government.

Rachel's picture

"The Mayor King Amendment

"The Mayor King Amendment where the County Mayor appoints the fee offices and Law Director was with the five Amendments. The Feudalism Now Amendment where the number of County Commissioners was reduced was with the four Amendments.

I kept wondering why would such smart skilled people be so rude and arrogant in front of County Commission?

I keep wondering why a "smart skilled person" would make his arguments in such a rude and arrogant way.

Oh, wait....

RayCapps's picture

Citizens get to vote twice on these now...

First, you get to sign the petitions you support and politely decline to sign the ones you disagree with. Then, everyone gets to go to the polls to vote for or against the ones that got the necessary number of signatures. All in all, more difficult, more time consuming, and more expensive, but if some of these make it, it sends a stronger signal to the CC than if they had put them in place themselves.

I presume KCP will be offering a list of when and where to go to sign the petitions?

August is coming. Get Ready.

GDrinnen2's picture

Consulting Group

I apologize for the confusion on where Citizen's Solutions is located. They are a firm that consults soley on petition drives. They are located somewhere in Washington (Jackson Co. I think). They have consulted on numerous petition drives in different areas of the country. There is no group from Oregon. That was a mistake on our part. Oregon . . .Washington. . .Either way, we have contracted with them to provide logistical support to the petition drive.

This is not out of the ordinary. The wheel tax and the hotel referendums both used outside consultants. They also had much lower standards in terms of required signatures. To have these amendments placed on the ballot, we need 15% of all registered, county voters. The previous standard was 15% of gubernatorial voters. As you could imagine, this is a HUGE difference. Approximately 25,000 more signatures will be required than in previous efforts. To me, the interesting story is about how the standard was changed. It was obviously a power play by somebody to prevent citizen's groups from taking on this sort of effort.

By grouping the petitions into two categories, we are required to get 80,000 signatures. If every member of the currrent steering committee were to collect 1,000 signatures we would have around 90,000 signatures. I fully believe our steering committee will collect tens of thousands of signatures. However, most of the group works full-time. Add other committments, and we are asking these folks to collect 1,000 signatures in a little over 60 days? Hiring a firm, with experience, to supplement our efforts will help ensure the citizen's get a chance to vote on these issues.

The awful downside is that the citizens won't get a chance to vote on the amendments individually, and will have to foot the bill for the election commission to count the signatures.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Is Citizen's Solutions the

Is Citizen's Solutions the group doing the push poll? Is that part of your effort?

Bird_dog's picture

just wondering...

If 90 people got 500 signatures twice, in identical petition signature positions, would that save the election committee some time/money? I have volunteered on the KCP website to help get signatures.

GDrinnen2's picture

I will call to see if

I will call to see if Citizen's Solutions is doing a poll. I highly doubt they are, as my understanding is that they only do work on petition drives. We have not done any polling in several months, nor is Citizen's Solutions involved in any polling for us.

Just curious (silly me for taking the bait), but what you described sounded like a poll that tests positives and negatives for several candidates. .. not a push poll. Am I missing something?

Anonymously Nine's picture

The question about Brad Hill

The question about Brad Hill seemed more favorable than the others. Is it a push poll? Just curious that a poll came out of Washington at the same time the signature group is out of Washington. It was curious to see a KCP name in that special group.

GDrinnen2's picture

It certainly does sound like

It certainly does sound like its putting a positive spin on Brad. However, it also says that Timmy B has served Tennessee well. That's pretty positive.

Dr. Lyons could correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of polls is this:

A push poll is typically something along the lines of: "would you still vote for ______ if you knew he had a criminal record that involved
_____". Push polls are typically considered ethically undesireable to say the least. However, it is quite common for polls to test positives and negatives to develop message. For instance, I would assume Bredesen did polls to see if the fact he was from NY would affect opinions.

There is certainly a fine line, but I don't know for sure where that line is located. Dr. Lyons could probably comment more if he's paying attention.

Nonetheless, KCP is not doing any polling. Nor does the group have any interest in who is or is not running for Mayor in 2010.

Bill Lyons's picture

Push Polls

The purpose of legitimate survey research is to measure public opinion. To do so responses that are obtained must not in any way be a artifact of the instrument used to measure. Everything from question order to question design can introduce bias into the process. Ideally the only "error" in a survey should be sampling error attributable to pure chance in the folks selected to represent a population of interest.

A push poll is not designed to measure public opinion, but to affect it and thus is not survey research, but part of a campaign strategy masquerading as something else. Gary is correct. One great indicator of a push poll is when a person is asked if he or she support candidate X, followed by... "would you still support candidate (or proposition) X if you knew that he/she/it would lead to (fill in negative)."

As someone who has conducted large numbers of surveys for political candidates, organizations, etc. (haven't done any in the last four+ years, given my present position) I want to make it clear that the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) considers use of push polls among its members to be unethical and unprofessional. I have never done one and over the years have always advised against using them when asked.

Anonymously Nine's picture

A push poll is not designed

A push poll is not designed to measure public opinion, but to affect it and thus is not survey research,

Is there a term for that kind of poll? A positive push poll? It seemed skewed to one candidate.

Bill Lyons's picture

Push polls and just bad polls


Is there a term for that kind of poll? A positive push poll? It seemed skewed to one candidate.

Nine, I guess I would have to see / hear the survey to which you refer to comment, However, generally speacking, there are misuses of polls that sorta touch on what you are raising. A push poll is at one end of the spectrum in that it tries to affect attitudes among those who are called - a fundamental misuse of survey research. Some folks want to collect data from a biased instrument, not to affect those called, but to publicize the "results" to affect public opinion 'writ large' rather than of those of the folks who are called. There is a lot of that... basically just biased surveys and biased methods done for self-serving purposes, but still not a "push poll." To me a biased survey is worse than no survey, and people recognize self-serving releases of results, so why bother.

I will never forget when I was doing the Social Science Research Institute gig at UT and when an anti-death-penalty group leader wanted to commission a survey to show that Tenesseans were against the death penalty. I told the guy I found it pretty unlikely that a legitimate survey with unbiased questions would yield the results he wanted and told him that if his group wanted to commission a survey, we would construct and pretest an instrument that was appropriate and the results would be what they would be. There were good batteries of such questions out there already. He did not want a push poll, which would have tried to convert folks on the phone, but he did want to color what we found for a PR campaign directed at legislators. We did not pursue that contract.

Anyway, sorry for the excess verbiage, but it gets to that saying that always bothered me.. "You can get any result with a survey" or "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." Well, true, you can get results you want, but not with a properly constructed survey that passes professional scrutiny. And people lie with statistics just like they lie with other evidence. A little consumer awareness does wonders in both cases.

Anonymously Nine's picture

He did not want a push poll,

He did not want a push poll, which would have tried to convert folks on the phone, but he did want to color what we found for a PR campaign directed at legislators.

That captures what my question was about. Clearly the poll in question was not a negative push poll. But it didn't seem to be a straight up poll either. There was only one civilian and the question for the non-politician seemed more favorable than the favorable summaries for the politicians.

Had it not come out of Spokane Washington I would have thought maybe it was just a local poll done by amateurs. For most people I think the subtlety would go unnoticed.

Is this the future of polling? Polls that go farther than statistical research?

GDrinnen2's picture

"Is this the future of

"Is this the future of polling? Polls that go farther than statistical research?"

I think this kind of polling has been around for awhile. One type of poll that is often confused with push polling is one that tests both positives and negatives. I don't know if this has a specific name, but I think that it may be different from a push poll. Maybe I'm wrong.

An example would be something like:

Who do you plan to vote for in the upcoming election? Candidate A or B.

If the answer is A, then a follow up like: Would you still vote for candidate A if you knew he/she voted this particular way on an issue?

If the answer is B, then a simliar follow up: Would you still vote for candidate B if you knew he/she had a criminal record?

Campaigns use these occasioanlly for various info. It tells a campaign what issues are effective in a campaign. Now that I type it out, it doesn't read a whole lot different from what I consider a push poll other than it is pointed on both candidates. I've never done a poll like this, but have read research from others. It does provide some sort of interesting insight into what drives voter opinions.

Bill Lyons's picture

Positives and negatives

Gary is correct about folks sometimes wanting to "test positives and negatives," but to me that is pretty much code for a push poll. There is no way to test this in a poll. If you say.. "would you still be for x if some bad y" you telegraph a preferred answer of "no" and will overstate any reaction as well as plant the negative seed. There is no way to phrase a legitmate survey question that way.

Focus groups are totally diffent animals, not for generalizing, and generally overused. But if done very carefully they are often useful to test ads, etc. that might get into postives and negatives of a candidate or proposition.

GDrinnen2's picture

Just called Brad Hill to Check

He vehemently denied doing any polling. He was quite flattered to be mentioned in a poll, however. He also agreed that he would probably garner near 1-2%. He did wish to relay his gratitude to those who chose to mention him in the poll.

I do love a good conspiracy theory though.

scottfrith's picture

Conspiracy theory? Sounds

Conspiracy theory? Sounds like a practical joke to me...

bill young's picture

???????

The one on the appointments by mayor.

I thought the property assessor was going to
continue to be elected.

Or at least thats what I understood @ the 1st district
meeting I went to.

I maybe wrong but I'd like for someone to clear this
up for me.

Thanks

Anonymous's picture

You betcha.

All of the games stay the same, it's just the names that are changing. Move one in, move one out. Tighten up the strings....the puppets are getting ready to perform.

Conspiracy? Nope. I call it paranoia. When you lay down with dogs, boys, you might start to itch.

GDrinnen2's picture

Property Assessor

Bill,

We have not submitted the new petitions to the Election Commission. That will need to be done in the new couple of weeks. However, I think it is safe to say that the group will honor the changes it presented to County Commission, including dropping the Property Assessor.

One frustration from the County Commission meeting was the fact that they railed on us for making changes to the amendments. At first, we were too rigid because we prefered they pass our versions. We then went through a public process that included forums and discussions with the Law Director's office. We made changes to clear up any questions of legality or consistency, based on these meetings. Many of the changes were ideas that came directly from commissioners. Come 2nd reading, they turn them down at least partially because "These things have changed too much, and I can't keep up" (Scott Moore).

Anonymously Nine's picture

I don't understand the two

I don't understand the two petition choice by KCP. Law Director John Owings has said twice that is not legal. It sure would be smart to get a ruling from the Tennessee State Election Commission before another huge mistake is made.

This is very similar to what happen in 2006 with term limits. Term Limited Commissioners got on the ballot because of a mistake. Then there was no recourse to fix the problem.

Will we ever learn from our mistakes?

Rachel's picture

I don't understand the two

I don't understand the two petition choice by KCP. Law Director John Owings has said twice that is not legal.

Once again, slowly. Owings said it was not legal for COMMISSION to approve an amendment with more than one subject. He said it WAS legal for petitions to deal with more than one subject.

Obviously, it would be better to have one-subject amendments on the ballot. But with every amendment requiring another (what is it, 40,000?) signatures, that would put an impossible burden on the petitioners. And also run up the cost for the EC to verify signatures.

You do remember that thanks to Commission, taxpayers are going to be out that expense?

GDrinnen2's picture

9

The confusion tactic is alive and well. Owings has never said that it was illegal to group the amendments. It is certainly not the best option, but it is most definitely legal.

reform4's picture

Certainly

...you could have a single item on the ballot to amend 200+ items in the charter. Good luck getting it into 300 words, though. That will be the issue with KCP's two-petition process as well.

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

Anonymously Nine's picture

The confusion tactic is

The confusion tactic is alive and well. Owings has never said that it was illegal to group the amendments. It is certainly not the best option, but it is most definitely legal.

Good grief. Your group had 46 errors in 9 Charter Amendments and you are going to tell me what Election Law is? You couldn't even remember where the city of Citizen Solutions was. You even had the wrong State.

We need a written ruling from Nashville. Guessing won't cut it.

Anonymously Nine's picture

You were wrong about this

You were wrong about this last time and corrected yourself. Do you not remember?

Rachel's picture

If you're talking to me, no.

If you're talking to me, no.

GDrinnen2's picture

Mike, I clearly don't have

Mike, I clearly don't have the time to memorize the location of the subcontractors I have done business with. We feel quite confident that we are legal in regards to the idea that multiple amendments can be made on one petition. . . .especially given the fact that so far you are the only person to raise that question. If you feel a ruling from Nashville is necessary, I'm sure you could find a way to go get a ruling.

Anonymously Nine's picture

If you feel a ruling from

If you feel a ruling from Nashville is necessary, I'm sure you could find a way to go get a ruling.

Yes, you are correct. I do know how to get a ruling in Nashville. In fact, that was requested on Tuesday. As soon as I know I will share the ruling with you.

bill young's picture

My 2 cents

1.If you got questions on the petition process
call the state election commission.

I feel confident you will be told the KCP
method is legal.

2.At the 1st district meeting I told the KCP folks
if they are going to win this thing they better get
the message down to a one page pass-out.

Voters are not going to sign a petition or vote for
these charter amendments if you folks insist on a 4 page
rambling explanation.

3.If I was KCP I wouldn't spend my time in the neighborhoods
spinning around pointing fingers @ the County Commission.

Get to the point of the amendments before mamaw got to stir the beans & get back to her story.

4.KCP needs to quit getting their kicks outa
gettin on the TEE-VEE & in the paper &
start dotting the i's & crossing the t's.

R's front page post says property assesor will be appointed &
is driving folks to KCP website that says property assesor will be appointed.

I had a 5 minute rap about property assesor appointed or elected with the KCP folks @ the 1st district meeting.

Misinformation means you take 5 minutes to explain something
that if KCP had doted the i & crossed the t by getting it right on the KCP website & this thread KCP would never needed to explain.

5.My KCP billboard

VOTE YES for GOOD GOVERNMENT!!!

Anonymously Nine's picture

Citizen Solutions charges

Citizen Solutions charges roughly $1.50 per vote. 80,000 votes will cost about $120,000. KCP has said they will pay the Knox County Election Commission to verify the votes. Cost $80,000.

Then you have to promote the Amendments that make it to the ballot. Cost $30,000.

Is this worth $230,000 in private donations? Why the big rush?

Why not wait until 2009 and do this with a Charter Review Committee and do it right?

There is only one reason I can think of to explain this. It is a Presidential Election and people are upset with County government. Is that the best way to amend our County Charter, with shrill emotion?

Haven’t we learned better than this?

Rachel's picture

Why not wait until 2009 and

Why not wait until 2009 and do this with a Charter Review Committee and do it right?

So you trust Commission not to kill that next year too? I don't.

GDrinnen2's picture

KCP

KCP has never said we would pay the election commission to count the signatures.

Anonymously Nine's picture

KCP has never said we would

KCP has never said we would pay the election commission to count the signatures.

Pardon? Isn't that what Laurens Tullock said on February 25th? Were you at the February 25th meeting?

If it is a big deal I will look through the YouTubes. The point is you are spokesperson Number 5 for KCP. Or is it 6? Keeping up with all that has been said from KCP would take a court secretary. I heard it. I thought it was unusual. Did someone misspeak? Because there has been a lot of that.

Since you are now the current spokesperson and you say the taxpayers have to pay for the verification then so be it. Your group should be held accountable for the inflexibility of KCP on February 25th when Laurens Tullock said, "we will not be taking any changes to the Amendments". If KCP had worked with Commission from the beginning the petition route would not be required.

That inflexibility and refusal to work with the Law Department and County Commission will now cost the taxpayers. Your group should have to pay for the verification, as your group is the reason for the cost of verification.

Again, the petition route is the least desirable method. The Charter Review Committee is the method prescribed by the Knox County Charter. Your group could have asked for a Charter Review Committee in September of 2007 and the taxpayers would not have to eat $80,000. But your group chose not to. For government to work everyone has to work together. This has been a valuable civics lesson.

Rachel's picture

If KCP had worked with

If KCP had worked with Commission from the beginning the petition route would not be required.

Oh, baloney. The last thing some Commissioners were going to do was let these amendments on the ballot - in any form.

For government to work everyone has to work together.

That's a pretty ironic statement coming from you. When have you ever done anything but throw rocks?

Anonymously Nine's picture

Oh, baloney. The last thing

Oh, baloney. The last thing some Commissioners were going to do was let these amendments on the ballot - in any form.

The Recall Amendment went up with no problems. That could have been a contentious Amendment. But it was approved unanimously.

Two Charter Amendments were approved Monday on First reading. One was 18-1 and the other was 19-0.

The difference is how these Amendments were presented. You don't come into a governmental body and dictate how it is going to be. Unless you want to stand in the sun and collect petitions.

Others have no problems with Charter Amendments and Knox County Commission. It is this group that has difficulty.

Be sure to wear a hat and sunscreen while collecting your signatures. Good luck.

Rachel's picture

Be sure to wear a hat and

Be sure to wear a hat and sunscreen while collecting your signatures. Good luck.

Thanks. I doubt I'll need it.

Be sure to let us know what you hear from Nashville now.

bill young's picture

ridiculous

To say a political organization will
pay the election commission to count petitions.

Is ridiculous 9.

Hell the election commission isn't a non proffit
organization that goes out door to door raising money
to hold elections or count petitions.

There are so many ways to refute this
ridiculous statement that a political organzation
would pay the election commission to count petitions.

I dont know where to start

so i won't

Anonymous's picture

Using emotion to help get

Using emotion to help get signatures is worthy of applause. It won't take near the convincing to get folks to put their John Hancock on a page or 2 when the petitioners ask, "Are you angry about the way that County government is being run? Sign here and here".

Timing is everything. Waiting for the people to understand the Charter changes, would result in them choosing not to sign the Amendments, as they are currently written. Meaning, strike while the iron is hot. "Them voters, they'll sign anything".

It's time for change in government. It's always time for change in government. It's the players that will change, not the game. Also, just because the players change in name doesn't mean that the same good old boyz won't be in control. Look at the list of people on this committee. I believe that you will recognize that they are the same people as days gone by. I also believe that you will note several folks who are related to some of them good old boyz.

Let 'em try for their 40,000 signatures....wait, that's 80,000. Good luck. Make 'em all believe that they aren't mushrooms.

GDrinnen2's picture

Nobody ever said we'd pay

Nobody ever said we'd pay for the signatures.

Anonymous's picture

Yessir, yall did. Here's

Yessir, yall did. Here's the thing. Yall know that the good old boyz of Downtown will pay whatever it takes to make this happen. Simply, ego. BIG ASS ego. Be weary of those who profess to wanting your newest idea. What about those folks that yall try to convince. How's that going???

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Local Media Blogs

Shopper Columns

Local News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Site Statistics

Last 7 days:
  • Posts: 24
  • Comments: 210
  • Visits: 10,178
  • Pageviews: 22,363
Last 30 days:
  • Posts: 129
  • Comments: 1452
  • Visits: 44,340
  • Pageviews: 108,561