Yes, Betty, we organizers had this same thought, of course. In the end, we elected to invite Jarret to the meeting primarily as a courtesy to the commissioners we had also invited. After all, they had specifically requested that Jarret advise them at commission meetings and he has already been advising them on this subject there. Not so crazy, then?

Jaret initially indicated that he'd attend, but when I spoke with him by phone this aft, he told me he'd just been contacted by the school board to attend their 4:30 Executive Committee meeting to precede their 5:00 work session (this on the subject of the botched Kim Kallenberg case, I believe).

Whether he could have arrived late, I don't know, but commissioners present tonight didn't seem uncomfortable hearing from just Richard Beeler on this subject, so all's well.

As to Nobody's needling on the subject of Tim Burchett's absence, I wasn't necessarily expecting him. Shannon, Peter and I had met with him last week to ask whether these two heavy-handed ouster options available in statute, namely for the governor to direct an ouster or for the state AG to initiate one absent any lawsuit, had ever been employed. Burchett said no, they hadn't, but he did agree to write the governor on our behalf (and it was he who advised that this public meeting might be a logical next step for us).

Burchett has since written that letter to Bredesen and Shannon has shared it with all commissioners and local media. If she possibly neglected to copy you, I'll ask that she attend to that?

I, for one, had no active roll in the kCP nor did I attend any meeting, so I don't understand your reference.

Yes, we made mistakes with regard to some officials, but we did not know there was an alternative, especially in the Ragsdale ouster.

This is new territory and one mistake does not justify another by taking no action because one way did not work to remove a percieved corrup official.

We have no law direcotr until Lockett is removed, so this does have some urgency

I, at least, am not concerned about the criminal matter but rather seeing he is removed from ffice so another law director can replace him asap.

This effort has nothing to do with KCP, Herb. The meeting has been arranged by just three private citizens and I am the only one of those to have worked with KCP in the past. However, I haven't contacted anyone on that roster in planning tonight's meeting, nor did I need to.

Even if some former KCP volunteers should later express an interest in joining an ouster lawsuit, though, I don't follow why you think their possibly doing so would lead a chancellor to dismiss a lawsuit of which they were a part?

As I understand the ouster process, a chancellor hearing such a lawsuit would dismiss it only if its allegations against the respondent failed to fulfill the standard of "misconduct in office" required by statute.

I'm pretty sure the chancellor wouldn't share your appetite for tangential and convoluting conspiracy theories relating to the suitability of the lawsuit's plaintiffs.

Gone now. Busy afternoon.

Shannon is referring to those two statutes in ouster law that allow plaintiffs to ask the chancellor for the respondent's temporary unpaid suspension while the ouster case is being tried.

Chuck Bowers and plaintiffs in the ouster against Ragsdale were not aware of this provision in statute until Beeler explained it to commissioners at their June 10 called meeting (then again, Bowers et al don't have any attorney other than General Cooper, the state AG). On learning about the provision, Bowers promptly wrote General Cooper making a request for Ragsdale's temporary suspension, too.

That called meeting really was a chance for commissioners and the public to devote an uninterupted hour to this topic, and our meeting last night was a similar opportunity.

At the end of last night's meeting, Mark Harmon invited us to attend his and Amy Broyles' routine Second District neighborhood meetings (which are "sunshined") to further discuss a citizen ouster suit.

We'd appreciate knowing about any other such neighborhood-level meetings going on elsewhere in the county, too, if this topic is of interest to others in other areas.

what is up with the law suit filed by moncier/bowers against beeler at the same time?

interesting development and interesting timing...but of course Lockett still needs to go

Yes, the standard to be met in statute is "misconduct in office." It is Beeler's contention, which he first voiced at the June 10 called commission meeting, that Lockett's failure to disclose either his defalcations or his "loan" solicited from Graham constitute "misconduct in office." That is, Beeler contends that the failure to disclose is itself "misconduct." Beeler did concede at that called meeting that such an assertion would take the prosecution into "uncharted waters."

I think we'd agree that of Lockett's transactions at KMF before he took office, it is the Graham "loan," already confirmed to exist per the Disciplinary Counsel's Petition for Discipline, that was most important for Lockett to have disclosed. It is the transaction that most compromises him in his capacity as Law Director.

(On a quick tangent, Scott Barker recently popped up in a KNS comment thread to report that he and Rebecca Ferrar had reviewed commission meeting minutes since September 1, 2008 and they determined that Graham has not appeared before the commission since Lockett was sworn into office. I asked Beeler whether this point would weaken any request to a chancellor for Lockett's temporary suspension due to his being compromised and Beeler thinks not. Beeler says Graham has appeared before commission for years in the past, he continues to work as a developer so he is expected to appear before commission in the future, and furthermore his $5 million TIF request of Knox County is still pending.)

Also, since the date that Petition was released, KMF has alleged their discovery of additional "loans" Lockett solicited from their clients. It isn't clear yet whether KMF later reported to the BPR the details emerging on these additional "loans," but if they did the expectation among attorneys I've asked is that the Disciplinary Counsel will soon release an amended Petition for Discipline incorporating these new allegations. Such confirmation from the BPR would add fodder to any "failure to disclose" prosecution.

Finally, an anonymous KNS reader has recently posted a link to a disclosure Lockett filed with the Tennessee Ethics Commission after he took office on which Lockett indicated he owed no such "loans." All four commissioners present at last night's meeting had viewed the report on-line and all agree that Lockett should have disclosed his "loan" from Graham there (as well as any others the BPR may yet confirm). Lockett's incomplete filing with the TN Ethics Commission while in office also adds fodder to any "failure to disclose" prosecution.