Sat
Feb 10 2007
10:46 am
No Commission election until '08
By: S Carpenter

According to today's KNS report, the Tennessee Attorney General has opined, and Bredesen has passed down the word to Ragsdale (pdf), that the Tennessee Constitution does not allow the legislature to alter the appointment process. So, no election of commissioners until '08.

In other sad news, Commission Chair Moore says, "The only people complaining are the people who lost."

Topics:
Simply Ridiculous's picture

Special called meeting

Submitted by Simply Ridiculous on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 11:01am.

Everyone needs to go to the special meeting that Mayor Ragsdale called for. We need to show Moore how many people are upset!

D Mac's picture

No need to wait for special meeting

Submitted by D Mac on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 5:04pm.

From Simply Ridiculous:
Everyone needs to go to the special meeting that Mayor Ragsdale called for. We need to show Moore how many people are upset!

Ragsdale has requested the commission to call this special meeting. Scooby has 15 days to respond to the request and IF he agrees (not likely) it would have to be announced 5 days before being held.

Otherwise, you can still voice your concern to the commission, as Mark Harmon stated in an earlier post, but I have pasted here:

I encourage people to contact the County Commission office (commission@knoxcounty.org, 215-2534), to sign up for the public comments section, and to show up at the next meeting (Feb. 26th, 2pm).

I really hope the commission is getting many requests for people to speak out during this "public comments" section of the next meeting. Scooby needs to get a thorough "thumpin" if not an out and out thrashing by a large number of constituents. This is a part of the meeting that will get much media attention if many people take this opportunity to voice their concerns. And bring signs like the one that was on the front page of the paper that read "This really stinks". I can think of many more signs, especially if the commissioners vote down the Ethics Committee! Do you think Josh Jordan will say no to the EC? How about Cate?

Jeanne's picture

Scoobie is correct

Submitted by Jeanne on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 1:34pm.

The sad part is that he doesn't consider the entire population of Knox County long enough to realize that we ALL lost.

In fact, he seems unaware of our very existance. There can be no other explanation for his actions and comments over the last few weeks.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

The offer from our local

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 2:14pm.

The offer from our local delegation was to carry a so-called caption bill (affecting only a narrow area or constituency) to the legislature, and that only with the support of our Commission. It does seem now that not only would Commission be unwilling to extend their support for the measure, but our local legislators would also face an insurmountable obstacle in winning their peers' approval for a caption bill that would require a constitutional amendment to enact!

In one last query, then, is there any potential for such legislation to be promoted generally in the legislature, that is, in a form other than as a narrow caption bill?

We would have to know if, due to local events in other counties/municipalities, any motivation exists in any other TN counties/municipalities to obtain a constitutional provision for special elections. How likely is it that a coalition might be built across county lines to push for such an amendment?

As with our thoughts to amend the county charter to afford a recall provision, so would this state-level remedy take a good, long while to affect. Both amendments are forward-thinking, but neither offers much of an immediate fix, I'm afraid.

rikki's picture

This doesn't make sense.

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 4:20pm.

This doesn't make sense. Bredesen is talking about filling vacant seats. The seats are not vacant. The appointments have been made. The purpose of the special election is not to replace term-limited commissioners, but to replace the appointed commissioners with elected commissioners. The state is applying the logic that resulted in the Jan 31 meeting to the current circumstances.

Perhaps since Ragsdale is singling out the appointees, there is an issue, but it seems to me that the same power that allows commission to call for a referendum, as they did with the wheel tax, allows them to call for special elections. Yes, the Supreme Court decision required appointed replacements. We are past that. Now we have a sitting commission that lacks the confidence of citizens. Perhaps the special election needs to include the entire commission, as per Tony Norman, to pass muster, but Bredesen's logic simply does not apply.

Also, listening to the state attorney general is what got us into this whole can of worms. Since Brook Thompson had no trouble approving the one-man annexation referendum and the attorney general had no problem handing the investigation of that election over to Thompson despite Thompson's prior involvement, I'd say the state's opinion on the matter is worthless. This needs to be decided properly, by a judge.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

I see your point, Rikki, WRT

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 6:11pm.

I see your point, Rikki, WRT the seats no longer being vacant. And I, too, had already snorted at the value Bredesen seems to afford an AG opinion (i.e., the original term limits opinion his predecessor offered), BUT...

Aren't we still sittin' here reliant on either an altruistic CC's willingness to potentially vote itself out of office, or a lawsuit, presumably identical to the one already filed by the N-S, contesting CC's open meetings violations?

I re-read the N-S suit, BTW, and it appears they request not a special election, but another round of appointments (it's still up at the N-S site).

(Out for a bit. Will read up on my return.)

D Mac's picture

Questions

Submitted by D Mac on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 6:40pm.

The penalty for violating the Sunshine Law is a "do-over" of the appointments?

So if the Jack McElroy suit finds a violation of the law, do the original 8 term limited commissioners come back to "do-over" the appointments?

If there is a CC meeting before then (Feb 26th) will anything done at that meeting, with the potentially lame duck appointees, be valid?

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Does N-S suit request appointment "do-over?"

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 10:19pm.

DMac: "The penalty for violating the Sunshine Law is a "do-over" of the appointments?"

Well, I understood that to be their request, per the text of the February 5 news story:

"The News Sentinel is seeking to void all the appointments made by commissioners, have a permanent injunction laid down by the court requiring that all future deliberations be made in public, and that the case be expedited."

Do others read it as I do? Wouldn't the consequence of voiding the appointments be a "do-over?" And I thought that reference to "all future deliberations" also covered those inherent in the appointment "do-over." How do others understand this text? (And I'll go read the complaint again, too.)

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Second verse, same as the first

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 11:37pm.

Well, DMac, I took a second look at the N-S complaint, too (not just the 2/5 news story), and yeah, it still looks like they urge that the actions taken at the 1/31 CC meeting be voided. They cite TCA 8-44-105 as the statue specifying that actions at meetings in violation are null and void (in its entirety, the Open Meetings Act is covered under TCA 8-44-101 through 8-44-110).

The "do-over," though, looks implicit rather than explicit. That is, if the appointments are void, and if the constitution won't allow (per the AG) a special election to fill vacancies, then the only remedy would appear to be an appointment "do-over." It could also be that the N-S complaint is purposfully vague on this point, given that the question of a special election was still open at the time the suit was filed?

I would assume, then, that the parties charged with the "do-overs" would include the four term-limited commissioners. There *is* precedent for a commissioner's so-called "de facto" existance on commission, since the Supreme Court ruling awarded that status to the eight term-limited parties who served and/or voted between the time of the '06 general election and the date of the appointment process on 1/31, and the Court also deemed that the votes any had cast during that period would stand. Another rationale for allowing the four term-limited commissioners to return to "do-over" appointments would be that it just doesn't make sense to allow the four new appointees to vote themselves in!

WRT your question about any actions those four new appointees may take in the weeks (months?) before this muddled issue is settled, I can't imagine any way to hold onto this slippery process except to also afford those appointees "de facto" status until such time as the court delivers a decision in the N-S suit. Nothing else would work, it seems, and this interpretation wouldn't make for any overlap between the "de facto" status of the old team and the new one, I suppose.

All conjecture on my part...

rikki's picture

Article I, Section 1

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 8:20pm.

reliant on either an altruistic CC's willingness to potentially vote itself out of office, or a lawsuit

I'm not sure. An altruistic CC is certainly the easy path, but here's the rub:

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

That's the very first right enumerated in the Tennessee Constitution. If the people of Knox County think it proper to abolish county commission and elect a new one, they have the fundamental right to do so. If there is no such mechanism defined in the law, the law is deficient.

So Knox County CAN replace county commission. If making it happen requires either an altruistic commission or 20,000 signatures and neither happens, no special election. If there simply is no way to make it happen, our inherent power and authority has been undermined.

Sandra Clark's picture

The K-Town Tea Party

Submitted by Sandra Clark on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 8:52pm.

If the people of Knox County think it proper to abolish county commission and elect a new one, they have the fundamental right to do so. If there is no such mechanism defined in the law, the law is deficient.

Rikki: That inherent rights stuff got into constitutions of the 1700s to give cover to guys like Thomas Paine -- I guess Shurf Tim would call Paine the Herb Moncier of Philadelphia, but I digress.

We could just overthrow them, but with all the armed commissioners that might take some subterfuge.

All those gun-toting county commissioners remind me of an old bumper sticker: Support the Second Amendment. Keep the right to arm bears. -- s.

rikki's picture

loaded for bear or full of bull?

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 9:37pm.

Chief Justice Barker referenced the right to abolish the government a year ago in the Bailey decision, so he doesn't seem to think it's antiquated. I believe the purpose of specifying that right is to preclude the need for armed rebellion, but if there is no peaceful avenue available, you may be right that overthrow is the only option.

Perhaps we can get Scoobie to stake his chairmanship on proving there is a Constitutional basis for the claim he made to the Sentinel, "that one can't 'diminish' an officeholder's term of office."

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Second, Rikki

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2007/02/10 - 10:01pm.

I'll second that emotion, Rikki. I read the Bailey decision, also, and it was, indeed, Article I that Barker cited in affirming the validity of the Shelby County referendum establishing term limits. Not a dead concept.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives