Tune into Channel Nine for County Commission news you will not see anywhere else.

It seemed to me that Joe Jarrett and Brad Anders and Dwight Van de Vate weren't disparaging Brad Mayes' effort to get those records so much as they were just advising that he wasn't taking the most effective route toward getting them.

Assuming Brad's assertion that the records do exist is true, they pointed out that Brad is in open litigation with the county, his attorney could have (and should have) requested the records as part of the discovery process in that suit, and his attorney can (and should) ask the judge to cite the defendents for contempt if they don't produce them.

I'm not disparaging Brad, either, but I have to agree that with an open lawsuit underway, Brad doesn't need to beg these records from the wrong branch of government during the public forum segment of that body's meetings. 

The venue is changed and he now needs to take such requests to a judge. 

All I'm suggesting, Nine, is that Brad's decision to try this matter in a court of law was essentially a decision to cease trying it in the court of public opinion.

Therefore this time being spent on the matter in public forum during commission meetings seems at best tangential to the task before him, or at worst redundant.

We're all curious to hear a judge's read on the issues.  Why not get on with the trial? 

 Why does Mayes sit at the press table? 

Commission to Cut Babies in Half

 Brad Mayes is like the little boy who points out that the Emperor wears no clothes. If no one knows what is happening how is it over exposure? I doubt few people even know what happens in Commission meetings.

Oscar "Poor Boy" Brown was right about a lot of things, but he went to the well so often that people just started tuning him out. 

I don't follow the minute details of Mayes' case, and I don't have any criticism of anything he does in that regard. But I do not consider him a sacred cow just because he's critical of the Ragsdale administration. 

I'm just tired of seeing/listening to him when I watch these meetings on TV. He has evidently developed the belief that the rest of us are awaiting his opinion on a wide range of topics. I'm not going to go so far as to call him a 'showboat,' but I do think he ought to polish up his speaking style and his manners if he's going to continue to inflict himself on the rest of us. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if he eased up on trying to make a hero out of R. Larry Smith, too. 

J.J. Stambaugh was there and didn't write a single word about a private citizen being stalked by a Knox County employee in a Knox County vehicle. You may have forgotten that Rodney Rockett said he brought the shotgun to work because Tom Salter asked him to. And according to Mayes Rockett said he rode with Tom Salter on stake outs of Brad Mayes's business.

I wasn't at the meeting, Nine, but I did view your YouTube clip.  I had these questions:

1) From Brad's shot, I couldn't discern any figure--male or female, with or without binoculars--in the Knox County vehicle.  Doesn't Brad need a clearer shot to substantiate his allegation?

2) Yes, the Knox County vehicle was parked close by Brad's business, but it was actually parked closer to the Knox County school across the street from his business.  Couldn't Brad have strengthened his allegation by contacting the school system's central office to confirm that the county's engineering department had no reason to be visiting that school? 

3) Is Rodney Rockett a credible witness?  I don't know Rodney, but I do know Tom Salter just a bit.  I'll stick my neck out this far:  I can't see Tom ordering Rodney to bring a shotgun to work so that the two of them might ride across town to terrorize Brad with firearms on their lunch hour...

4) Most pivotal, stalking is a crime.  Why did Brad (presumably) not report the stalking to the Knox County Sheriff's Department?  Surely he doesn't imagine that the Sheriff's Department is "close" to Mayor's Office staff?

I don't know whether or not Brad's allegation is founded, but I can understand JJ's (or KNS's) hesitance to report it on just the basis of the evidence shared at the Commission Meeting.

And again, why isn't Brad sharing his evidence in a courtroom at this juncture?

Heck, when Van de Vate comes to the podium and falsely says Mayes is suing us, that was a huge story.

Brad Mayes himself referenced his lawsuit against the county several times during the meeting.  What do you mean?

 A strange turn of events.  I also heard that Commissioner Ivan Harmon escorted former Sheriff Tim Hutchison to the Pilot Oil warehouse to campaign.  Has anyone else heard that?

 A strange turn of events indeed.

Ivan is a city employee/political appointee. Was this during the work day? Did they have permission from the Pilot owners?

Ivan wants to be mayor, Shurf Tim wants to be mayor. What an empire that would be. 

 He has records to display every single month?

 Shannon, local government generates dozens, if not hundreds, of issues. Mulch is Mr. Mayes' issue, not mine. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to have the same level of interest, and he would be more persuasive if he made a better impression, that's all.

Ordering Jolie Bonavita around and being overly-familiar with the commission chair is just a  public display of bad manners.  

Repeition is not necessarily persuasion, and he's not somebody who is growing on me. I don't have a dog in this fight. No reasonable person could call me a Ragsdale supporter, and I don't know Mr. Mayes, except for what I see on TV. 

I find his dual approach (suing in court while pressing the case in public forum) bizarre.  

The News-Sentinel indicated on August 21, 2009 that, in addition to the NRR suit against that contractor and in addition to another suit against Knox County claiming a long-standing conspiracy among prior law directors*, Brad is also suing Knox County, Tom Salter, and Bruce Wuethrich personally over a mulch-related issue:

KNOXVILLE - A plaintiff in a lawsuit involving Knox County's mulch operations is suing the county and two key county officials to obtain e-mails containing vulgarities that he contends were sent in his name by County Solid Waste Director Tom Salter.

The Knox County Chancery Court lawsuit by Brad Mayes, who runs Plum Creek Mulch in Karns, against Knox County, Salter, and Bruce Wuethrich, director of the county's Engineering and Public Works Department, claims Salter sent an e-mail message to attorney David Draper, who represents Natural Resources Recovery of Tennessee in the ongoing lawsuit by Mayes.

The most recent lawsuit, filed Thursday, demands the county comply with the Open Records Act and turn over any e-mails sent by Salter in Mayes' name.

 http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/aug/21/mulch-plaintiff-alleges-e-mail-vulgar-link-sent-un/

Whatever any of us may think of Dwight Van de Vate, his allegation that Brad Mayes is "suing Knox County" is correct on TWO* counts.  My comment was also correct.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether Brad named NRR or Knox County as defendent in the suit directly involving mulch.  If Knox County has ignored an open records request that is pivotal to his suit, a judge can light a fire under Knox County easily enough.

There's just no need for Brad to beseech commissioners for their help. 

* Correction/edit:  Brad's suit claiming a long-standing conspiracy among prior law directors names only those prior law directors, not Knox County (see KNS story of June 20, 2009).  Brad therefore has ONE open suit against Knox County, namely the one over the open records request for Salter's e-mail.  Dwight was nevertheless correct to say so. 

I don't know you but I hope you're not as full of yourself in person as you are on line. Are you running for office or something?

See that little 'ignore user' button?

You will love it.

Visit us at:

The Home

 hey, that's a nice ride.

Nuttin' but the best for LeeT to chauffeur the shurf around to meet the voters in. That's the problem with having a big, flashy county car that people notice. 

People notice. 

One thing you can say about Tim Hutchison. He isn't Tim Burchett.

Burchett is a fine progressive. He likes new taxes.

State Senator Tim Burchett is currently running for Mayor of Knox County.  He is a well liked and personable candidate.

We understand that Knox County residents are mostly conservative Republicans and taxes in Knoxville and Knox County are now reasonable; at least relative to other parts of the State.

These principles have long standing importance to Knox County residents.

However, we are concerned about Senator Burchett’s activities in the Senate with respect to local taxes and how these may carry over into his taxing activities as the Knox County Mayor.

In the Legislature Senator Burchett is a member of two powerful committees; the State & Local Government Committee and the Finance Ways & Means Committee.  All tax legislation must pass through at least one of these committees.

 

Let’s take a look at his voting record on some tax bills for just 2009.

• He voted “Yes” to pass out of Senate Finance, Ways, & Means Committee the Unemployment Tax Increase bill (SB 2315) which cost the State’s (and Knox County) employers $ millions, at least $160 million.  When the bill hit the Senate Floor, he also voted “Yes” for passage.   Conservative Republicans in the Senate (more in the House) voted against the bill.   See our Post on the Unemployment tax increase.

• Voted “Yes” to pass out of Senate Finance, Ways & Means Committee SB 2318, the Governor’s Technical Corrections bill which contained numerous tax provisions adverse to taxpayers.  Included in this bill was the provision for the Department of Revenue to completely takeover the local gross receipts business tax reporting and collection function.  The bill also provided for fewer deductions for taxpayers (hidden tax increases) and for the State to keep all the local governments’ share of revenue collected from taxpayer audits.  The bill further provided that if a taxpayer is located inside a city limits, the business must pay the State twice for the privilege of operating one business.  When the bill hit the Senate floor, Senator Burchett again voted “Yes” for passage.  For more information, see our Post on the new law.

• Voted “Yes” to pass out of Senate State & Local Committee SB 2110 which would have deleted one of the important appeal rights the property taxpayers now have.  This right is to collaterally attack an illegally made assessment.  The Attorney General had stated that the taxpayer had this right, but the Executive Secretary of the State Board of Equalization wanted to remove it.  The bill passed out of Senator Burchett’s Senate Committee by a five to four vote, (Burchett’s vote being crucial) but the bill finally failed in the House State & Local Committee.  Please see our Post on the bill.

• Voted “Yes” to pass out of Senate State & Local Committee SB 2111.  This bill would have required property taxpayers to go to court from decisions made by the State Board of Equalization on a judicial review basis.  This would have forbidden taxpayers from introducing new evidence in court and would have denied their long standing right to do so.  The bill would also have prejudiced the right of taxpayers to select representatives other than lawyers to represent them in tax appeals.  The bill failed in Burchett’s Committee and his was one of only two votes the bill received from the members of the Committee.  For more information, see our Post on the bill.

• Voted “Yes” to pass out of Senate Finance, Ways, & Means Committee SB 0873 which permits local property taxpayers, who had received forced personal property assessments because they had not even filed schedules of their property with the assessor, two years to have their assessments corrected.  However, the Committee would not even listen to an amendment to give a similar correction period of two years to taxpayers who had actually filed property schedules, but filed the schedules late by just even a day.  These taxpayers only have two months to have their assessments corrected by the county board of equalization.  In addition, the bill penalized taxpayers who filed late, by even just a day, by denying them the right to receive automatic application of appraisal ratio.   Senator Burchett voted “Yes” once again when the bill came to the Senate floor.  Please see our Post on this new law.

• Voted “Yes” to pass out of Senate Finance, Ways & Means Committee SB 1570 which permits the State Division of Property Assessments to intervene as a party in local assessment and property tax appeals in the five largest counties in the State (Shelby, Davidson, Knox, Hamilton, & Rutherford).  Under the bill the Division has the unconditional right to intervene as a party equal to the assessor and may overrule an assessor’s position in the event the assessor wishes to settle an appeal.   The new law also allows the State Division to file appeals if the Division disagrees with a decision by any board of equalization, including the State Board.  The Division does not even make the assessments in these counties and are non-elected State representatives with powers equal to locally elected officials.   Senator Burchett again voted “Yes” on the bill when it came to the Senate floor for approval.  Please see our Post on this new law. 

 

We read Senator Burchett’s campaign website and about the only thing we could find about taxes was that he was against the State income tax.

While this is a popular stand and it would be hard to be a Republican without taking such a position, his position on other taxes, particularly local taxes,  is not mentioned. 

Mayors deal with all sorts of local taxes and Senator Burchett, as Knox County Mayor, will never have the chance to vote against the State income tax.

He will, however,  have great influence upon local taxes.

Before voting for Senator Burchett for County Mayor, Knox County voters should first consider his liberal voting record on taxes to determine how he may serve as County Mayor with regard to those taxes.

should first consider his liberal voting record on taxes

Sen. Burchett's "liberal voting record" is like former Shurf Hutchison's "ethics record."

In reality, it doesn't exist.

 Nine, odd you'd pick up on a self-serving piece of crap from a Memphis "consultant" who's floundering now that his main man John Ford's in the slammer. Dude's trying to carve out a statewide niche for himself as a property tax "expert" and is using Burchett as his vehicle. 

 Upon further reflection, however, knock yourself out with this Hutchison crap. He's about as likely to win as your buddy Tramel was to be elected to County Commission. 

Thanks to who called me about what was being said here,

First,
I set at the table rather than the podium because every month I show and explain documents to commission. The patch cord does not reach the podium and also it is hard to do this while trying to stand and hold a laptop in your hands. This is something I have permission to do. CTV does not always show the documents but this happens every month and the only useable space to do this from is at the table.

Second,
I refer to Commissioner Strictland as Tank because over a year ago I was speaking to Commissioner Strictland one day and he told me to just call him Tank. If you notice, when he introduces me he will state my name for the record once and from then forward will say "come on down Brad" and refer to me as Brad, not Mr. Mayes. It is not a form of disrespect. The same is true for Julie. She is very sweet lady and who I am not disrespecting at all, that’s just how we address each other and have for over a year. I would never address these people by their first name if I felt for one second they were offended and would not address them as such if they were. when I need to have my computer patched in She has told me to just tell her over the microphone when to patch me into the big screen so that people at home and commission can see what I am talking about. I do this because this is how I was told to do this.
I present documents because every month I have several commissioners tell me to keep it up and that putting the documents up for them to see is helpful. It is important to many of these commissioners to know what all they were lied to about by Knox county employees.

Third,
Why do I use this forum? Because it works. Several documents necessary in prosecuting county contractors to collect Knox county's money have been withheld by Engineering and Public works. Many of the incriminating documents I have recovered were withheld by solid waste but were later turned over after public forum appearances. Sometimes when I do this the documents are "discovered" that were withheld from discovery. These documents should have been turned over using the legal system but often this is the only thing that works.

Fourth,
If you listen to the presentation when I am rebutting Mr. VanDevate I openly state in the video that I have sued Knox county but that suit is for Knox County to turn over public records that are being illegally withheld that I feel would be helpful in getting Knox county paid. These documents are admitted to exist but have not been turned over just as many documents that are incriminating have been withheld. The main lawsuit is to make NRR pay Knox county and profit Knox county.

Fifth,
As far as Larry Smith, he became involved when I discovered that Solid Waste was steeling money in his district. As he was the commissioner for the district where the theft was taking place I thought he would be the commissioner to notify. When he heard what was happening he wanted proof so Smith went to the Halls center and got copies of receipt books from the green waste attendant. He then could say, O.K. prove it. When the deposits vs the receipt books were compared there was thousands and thousands of dollars in cash missing that was turned into Solid Waste management. A reporter from the halls shopper was involved with this as well. I sent a open records request to Salter concerning the halls green waste money and he sent me a misleading letter insinuating none of the money had been stolen despite the fact we could prove he knew about some of the theft. When Smith saw how blatant and large scale the thefts were he was outraged at Solid Waste.

  When the receipt books were returned a white knox county truck was waiting at the convenience center. Then the white Knox county pickup truck followed the vehicle that returned the receipt books for several miles and stops. If Mrs. Bean doubts the white truck allegations, one of her coworkers was in the car that was being followed by the white truck. Salter is also assigned a white truck as a take home vehicle. Ever since then Smith has been enraged at the behavior and the theft in solid waste. This department has cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. I did tell this from public forum not to paint Smith a hero. I told this so that other commissioners would know that the story engineering was giving about how the theft was discovered and that it was only a thousand dollars stolen was a lie and Larry Smith was there first hand when this all went down and could verify that I was telling the truth about the theft. Ever since then he has been outspoken about this Solid Waste/NRR mess and rightly so.

Solid waste and Engineering also endangered the public when they knew the mulch was contaminated and lied about it and also withheld this issue of public health from the customers who purchased the material from NRR. Someone has to be held accountable for dishonest activities by public servants. That is what public forum is for.

In summery public records are public records. Any citizen should be able to view them. In the case of Knox County Solid Waste I have discovered one has to go to commission, file litigation, public forum, and enlist commissioners in sting operations to witness theft first hand of thousands in cash month after month for themselves before anything is done. The bad part is that many of these public records needed are to be used to collect money for the Taxpayer. I know that there are some who like Smith and some who don’t. I hope that opinions during a political year about candidates would not be used to discredit the witnessing of public theft. Those who dislike a particular political candidate I would appreciate if they left the dislike of a candidate out of the NRR mess as I would hate for the dislike of a candidate to hurt the taxpayers chances at getting paid.

Brad.