Rikki, Sixth District Commissioner Brad Anders chose David Page as our citizen rep.

(And note that Bob Roundtree, a former Sixth District Commissioner himself, appears to have been "redistricted" to the Seventh District.)

As to why we're seeing this committee formed now, my understanding is that the committee formed a couple of years back reviewed ONLY those charter defects identified by the courts.

The charter, of course, calls for a more comprehensive review than just that, on an every-eight-years schedule.

Personally, I was pleased to see a KNS editorial this morning entitled "Trustee office woes example for charter review panel."

I note that KNS is also linking this morning The Tennessean's story regarding the just-released comptroller's audit of Davidson County Clerk John Arriola's office.

As this committee begins its work, I hope KNS continues to advocate for some oversight of these fee offices.

I'm aware that before winning an at-large seat, Commissioner Ed Shouse formerly occupied a Fourth District seat. I'm also aware that Shouse is a more experienced officeholder than relative newbie Jeff Ownby. I like Shouse just fine, too.

Still, as to commission having chosen Shouse over Ownby to serve on this committee, the charter's text reads thusly (at Section 9.05(D)):

The Charter Review Committee shall be composed of twenty-seven (27) total members with one (1) member of the Commission from each Commission district to be nominated by the Knox County Commission...

Did commissioners consult the law director concerning their ability to elect At-large Commissioner Ed Shouse to this committee, when Fourth District Commissioner Jeff Ownby was presumably able to serve?

(My apology in advance if possibly KNS or some other media outlet has already answered my question previously.)

Pelot seems a little to compromised to be involved with this; (link...)

I think one could safely assume if this group challenges anything regarding KCSO operations or budget, she'll be there to defend. It would be hard for anyone familiar with Henry's case to believe her positions would be coming from anywhere other than allegiance.

I think one could safely assume if this group challenges anything regarding KCSO operations or budget, (Pelot will) be there to defend.

IF this committee should choose to examine how to better oversee the Constitutional offices, it seems to me that they'd have two tasks.

First, they'd need to establish some process for confirming or denying the existence of a concern.

Next, they'd need to establish some process (or changed structure, possibly) for responding to any substantiated concern.

Irrespective of her own personal read on whether the Sheriff's office handled the Granju case correctly, I would expect Pelot to posses the intellectual honesty to make suggestions as to what that first process should be.

I would also expect a 27-member committee to generate at least 13 1/2 different opinions on the subject.

Right this minute, I am not aware of any reason to fear this committee's majority rule--although I don't know several of its members.

It was just mentioned that everyone but Hammond and Ownby was nominated. I don't know when nor how that was decided.

Thanks, Rikki.

I just wondered when/how Shouse's election came about and whether others--especially Jarret--think the charter allows it.

Mine was a question as to the process employed, not necessarily an objection to the result that process produced.

If the process was open and legit, I suppose it's a matter between Ownby and his peers.

I phoned the commission's office and they said that commissioners publicly discussed which of them would would serve on this committee first at the work session, then again at the regular monthly meeting.

They said their vote as to which commissioners would serve was also conducted publicly at the regular monthly meeting.

I didn't ask if Jarrett opined at either meeting on this matter of Shouse substituting for Ownby on the committee.

They referred me to the Clerk's office if I cared to read the official minutes (which, given the answers clerical staff gave me, I don't really care to do).

So please excuse that momentary interruption and carry on.

I truly don't know what to think about how commissioners reached this decision--much less whether the charter allows it--now that I have conflicting info...

Well, I don't care to track down meeting minutes from the Clerk to answer these two questions, so I'll wait to hear from anyone else who maybe attended that luncheon, or has some other insight.

I tend to think this commission would not knowingly run afoul of the law, so no biggie, really.

Thanks, Sam and Rikki.

Yes, I knew Ed lives in the Fourth. I was just curious to know whether there was any discussion with the law director as to how we should interpret that section of the charter calling for a member "from each district."

And again, I certainly see the wisdom in Jeff's deferring to Ed's "seniority" on this.