In the I'm-not-a-lawyer-but-I-play-one-on-TV department, here are some thoughts about the focus that Moncier's latest suit takes. (In a second disclaimer, I rely only on Barker's story, page A1 today, because the link to the complaint itself at the knoxnews.com site isn't working.)

It seems Moncier chooses an uphill, not to mention well-trodden, path in his attempt to temper or undo an existing supreme court opinion. That opinion has already defined, on the basis of *state* law, when an office is vacant and we need not rehash it.

Besides, our collective question now isn't whether vacancies existed, but what process should have been used to fill those vacancies. Since the court was virtually mute on that subject, they seemed, by implication, to validate the instruction available to Commissioners in our *local* law, namely the County Charter they upheld.

So, if the question of what constitutes a vacancy has already been answered in state law and if the instruction for filling vacancies lies in local law, why is Moncier posing this redundant question of vacancies and why is he looking to the wrong body of law, state rather than local, to undo a botched appointment process?

To wit, these are some matters of *local* law which should have guided yesterday's appointment process, but which Moncier fails to cite in his suit:

The Charter says nominations may be made by members of the Commission only. While the irony isn't lost on me, I think we saw Commission violate that instruction yesterday when they appeared, at least, to entertain nominations from the floor.

The Charter also says that each member of Commission may vote in favor of one nominee, by name, only. While that's ultimately what they did, I personally question Moore's repeated offer to Commissioners, after every Commissioner had cast a vote, to then change their votes.

Most compellingly, the Charter says that prior to voting, Commission *shall* (not may), by resolution or ordinance, establish the procedure for arriving at a majority vote. We didn't see a resolution or an ordinance either one, but we did see agenda-juggling, out-of-earshot discussion, and the appointment of two late-filing applicants.

I fear, then, that our would-be champion's focus is fuzzy.