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.

Tom Humphrey files this report on the recommendations by the committee studying changes to the state's open meetings act.

After all the study and debate, it appears all they can agree on is to change the law from not allowing deliberation among two or more officials to not allowing three (or a majority, whichever is less) or more to deliberate. By not allowing two or more, the current law effectively allows no deliberation. The new law, if as described, would now allow two to deliberate. It is not clear how this is a change for the better.

It should also be noted that the article contains a factual error. The article states "Current law says that a meeting of two or more officials can be a violation." Actually, the law says that deliberation between two or more officials is a violation, not a meeting, and even provides for exceptions such as chance meetings or visits to a project site.

According to the article, there were also arguments to allow deliberation by phone or e-mail, as these would not be a "meeting."

It's pretty sad that elected officials have so much trouble understanding that they can't deliberate in secret and that the public's business must be conducted in public.

Knox County Law Director John Owings has issued a recommendation to the Tennessee Legislature's Open Meetings Subcommittee.

In his petulant response to the recent trial and questions raised, he proposes to basically rewrite the Open Meetings act to make everything that happened on Jan. 31st A-OK.

There's just too much good stuff to single out one best part, but this is pretty good:

Please make it clear that if there is no discussion about a matter at a meeting, but instead, a motion, second, a call for discussion, no discussion, and a vote, that is not a violation of the act.

Why not go ahead and make it "a motion, a second, a recess to go discuss it in the hall and decide you need another vote and get a judge down to swear somebody in and when you get caught doing that give somebody else a copy of the oath and directions to the judge's office to get sworn in and seated and THEN vote" it is not a violation.

(They way it's written, is Owings suggesting that people might think things have already been decided if there's no discussion? Where would they get that idea?)

The whole thing is based on the premise that county business will grind to a halt because commissioners are now afraid to speak to one another. Nobody who has been paying attention is aware of any such prohibition in the Open Meetings Act. Who does The county law director represent -- Knox County and its citizens, or Scooby and Lumpy?

Knoxville City Council passed the resolution opposing any changes to the state's Sunshine Law. Rachel notes in comments that all Council members voted for the resolution and signed on as sponsors.

It's my view that the only change needed to the Open Meetings Act is a clear definition of "deliberate" for those who don't seem to get it.

And maybe stiffer penalties for violations, but there won't be any violations if there aren't any secret deliberations.

My dictionary says the definition of deliberate in this context is:

4. to weigh in the mind; consider: to deliberate a question.
6. to consult or confer formally: The jury deliberated for three hours.

To me, this means that the following is deliberation:

"I think this zoning request should be denied because it will increase traffic in the neighborhood. You should vote against it too. What does Jack think? Can we get him to go along?"

The following is not deliberation:

"This rezoning will increase traffic in the neighborhood. How's the coffee?"

What do y'all think?

I must admit that I am watching and reading the news reports about the trial with an amused fascination. It was fun to see the sparring between Moncier and Scoobie. There has been some interesting new tidbits of information, such as the fact that Lumpy is the only commissioner that has failed to provide his cell phone records and that he now has to get his own attorney.

We can wonder if they are going to make him the scape goat but maybe he really was key in orchestrating the events leading up to Black Wednesday.

I found this amusing note from Gene Patterson's blog:

At tonight’s Bearden-Farragut football game, Moore was on the field at halftime for a check presentation. When he was announced, rather than cheers, Moore was soundly booed by the crowd.

Perhaps this trial may finally convince Knox Co. residents of the need to change the faces of the commission.