You are so infantile, Nine.

I'm a friend of Lisa's (and former KCP-er Brian Paone and Rikki Hall and Elaine Davis and Sharon Cawood), and that won't change through this difference of opinion on the proposed charter amendments.

Conversely, my admiration for KCP's Laurens Tullock, who is also a board member for Project Grad-Knoxville and Project Grad-USA, hasn't changed since I researched Project Grad's track record nationally and concluded the program isn't working.

We are all reasonable people, and also people likely to remain inquisitive and involved in local issues. I'll look forward to working with Lisa or any of the above the next go-around.

Meanwhile, I'm sure my reasons for supporting KCP's efforts are well known--and already taking up bandwidth on blogs all over town.

(Establishing an office of Inspector General) effectively addresses oversight of the fee offices and serves as a deterrent to conflicts, nepotism and other forms of corruption.

I agree in part--I just wouldn't say that adding the independent IG "effectively" addresses oversight of the fee offices. After all, the IG's attention to fee offices would be sporadic. I tend to think that the offices should be overseen day-to-day.

Other of my beefs are that 1) I think these employees should be bound by the same policies and rules applicable to other county employees, and 2) I suspect salaries for the chief and deputy administrators--and possibly salaries for other positions--are inflated relative to the complexity of their duties. I think making changes to treat fee office employees (of any rank) just like other county employees will be key in bringing down "fiefdoms," and I can't imagine how just adding an IG could bring those changes about.

A lesser concern I have, but still a valid one, is ensuring that voters know more about both the duties of the offices they elect and the candidates wanting to fill them. As has been observed before, if our governmental structure established as elected offices just those that make policy, voters could exercise their greater understanding of officeholders' duties to choose from among the fewer candidates they'd likely know better.

(I'll respond to these items one-at-a-time. Sit tight--that Blue Book's in my lap for a reason.)

As far as Commission goes, it should be expanded. If we need at-large commissioners, they should be added to the total. I would favor splitting each district into halves or otherwise redistricting the county. If 19 is a good size, the county should be carved into 19 districts. I like 23 or 29, but that's just because I have a thing for primes.

Simply changing to 19 districts would bring citizens closer to government and make campaigns more affordable and probably enhance participation and trust among citizens.

I agree that creating 19 districts would bring citizens "closer to government," since they'd be more likely to know candidates running for commission from their districts, or else could get to know them more quickly. Keeping the number of districts at nine and electing fewer commissioners also affords voters an opp to know their reps better, if only after they're elected--but back to that in a minute.

I'm not sure I agree that campaigns would be "more affordable" if we had more districts/commissioners, though (at least in terms of candidates' need to self-finance). Nine districts and fewer commission seats to be filled also means more voters to a district who might potentially become contributors. Also, I would expect to see better qualified candidates emerge from a larger district than from a smaller neighborhood, and that's certainly desirable.

It seems we don't disagree, at least, that at-large candidates might add some less territorial folk to the dais and that their existence in the legislative structure might negate concerns that minority representation would be reduced on a smaller commission.

If all that separates us is this notion of which is the better size of commission to bring citizens "closer to government," why not go with this thought that "less is more," cognizant that if it's not so, the 2010 census is right around the corner. Legislative redistricting could more reasonably be undertaken then, anyway, and our charter form of government allows us to change and adapt.

(Now where's that Blue Book...)

I recognize teachers, fire fighters, deputies and anyone else elected by their community as the rightful representative of that community, and I am far more concerned about the inherent conflicts between standard commission business (zoning variances) and those who work in real estate, construction and insurance than I am about what might happen to the school system budget if a couple teachers joined the 19- or 29- or however-many-member commission...I would sure like to see a class-action suit on behalf of county employees if they are forced to relinquish employment to serve. That's not reform; it's disease.

NOW to turn to that Blue Book...

The standard for barring a governmental entity's employees from representing that entity in elected office is widespread. I wonder, in fact, how the anomoly of letting them serve ever arose in our existing county practices.

At the federal level, it's the U. S. Constitution's Article I, Section 6, Item (2) that disallows federal employees from serving in either house.

At the state level, it's the Tennessee Constitution's Article II, Section 10 that disallows state senators or representatives from serving in any other appointed office, and it's Article II, Section 26 that disallows any person in the state "to hold more than one lucrative office at the same time." (Disclaimer: I don't understand how an existing statute expressly *permitting* county employees to serve locally, and expressly *prohibiting* their being barred from service has sometimes stood in counties lacking home rule, since it appears unconstitutional. When I inquired of the state AG's office, I was told that case law is mixed and that no state supreme court ruling yet exists. Knox, of course, *has* home rule...and the Jordan decision.)

At the local level, as you know, city employees can't serve on City Council and school system employees can't serve on the school board. On this last point, the separate Knoxville City School Board enforced the same rule, prior to consolidation of school systems in 1987.

I guess we're miles apart here, then. For the reasons cited above, I'm strongly convinced that we need to establish this same divide between government employees and the parties setting their budgets/policies/ etc.

As to legislators potentially voting their vested development interests, though, we agree and I think that the conflict of interest amendment should give what is esentially our existing ethics policy the force of local law.

(Sorry to creep along like I have. My daughter has been sticking college admissions apps in my face.)

I'm not altogether happy with either side, but overall, my belief that the fee offices desperately need to be reformed overrides the misgivings I have.

I am not defending the fee offices. That is not the point. Yes, they need reform. But not like this.

This is about power. It is too much power for one person.

The fee offices can be fixed without creating an Oligarchy.

There is one clause that should wake up everyone, The Mayor can fire the fee office people WITHOUT cause. That one clause should be enough for a NO vote.

You are raising the specter of two new elected positions in the context of arguing against these petitions. It's an irrelevancy.

Yes, the specter of unintended consequences is upon is. Many people want an elected Knox County School Superintendent. Jordan gives them a way to do it.

After what Mackay has done I would like that post elected. You can call it irrelevant. Your are entitled to your opinion.

Jordan was a travesty of law. It opened a Pandora's box of legal mischief.

rikki is your friend so he will let it slide.

Oh no he wouldn't.

On this particular point, I think Rikki has already done the math, too.

Nine, EVERY district would lose 50% of district-level representatives under the proposal (and would pick up two at-large representatives).

This is a conversation about how relative share of minority representation is affected...and I give you credit for knowing that.

Once again, shoo.