The News-Sentinel home edition has a chart which didn't appear in the story on the Web.

The chart summarizes the positions of all the parties before the Court. It shows the position that the Sheriff, the County Trustee, and the County Clerk have taken on the validity of the charter and term limits to be "Valid if his job exempted." I suspect the News-Sentinel's summary is not an exact quote, yet is somehow accurate.

The article doesn't say if Shelby County submitted any argument to the Court. I'm surprised if they didn't, since their situation is almost identical to Knox County's.

rikki's picture

Thank you, John Schmid

 Knox County is fortunate John Schmid is involved. He is the only party in the suit not pursuing a selfish motive. Without him, there would be no one arguing on behalf of citizens.

Law Director John Owings is doing the incumbent's bidding by trying to keep the "constitutional officers" logic alive. That was the rationale used to ignore term limits ever since voters approved them in 1994, and it was ridiculed by the Tennessee Supreme Court in the Bailey ruling. Is Owings' legal brief available on the web? I'm curious how he plans to change the minds of the judges.

Shelby County's term-limits referendum was expressly limited to the county mayor and commissioners, so the Bailey case definitively resolved that issue for them. Perhaps they don't realize Weaver's ruling, if upheld, would deprive them of a charter too.

Or maybe they are just waiting to come kick Knox County's ass if their charter gets broken. Little do they know Knox County has helicopters and could easily blow up a dam or lock to neutralize their paddle-wheeled navy.

rikki's picture

watermelons

I'm sure if you put Cas Walker, Suttree and James Longstreet out in the middle of a big watermelon patch, they'd come up with a thumpin-good plan.

edens's picture

>I'm sure if you put Cas

>I'm sure if you put Cas Walker, Suttree and James Longstreet out in the >middle of a big watermelon patch, they'd come up with a thumpin-good >plan.

Longstreet lost, you know...

CBT's picture

Interesting chart. Of

Interesting chart. Of course, there are a numerous details in all these positions, from the enabling statute to the constitution and case law. While easy to read, the chart gives little insight into the why's in each of the positions and the end result.

Shelby Co. did file an amicus brief in this appeal. Owings referred often to Shelby Co. and it's brief in the arguments today. Schmid's position made the least sense, particularly as to the effect on the offices not named in the charter.

I would think the Justices have already read all the briefs. Most questions came from Barker, Clark and Wade. It may take a few weeks, but hopefully there will be a decision soon.

R. Neal's picture

CBT, off topic, but I've

CBT, off topic, but I've been meaning to note that I'm glad you aren't Knox Co. GOP Chairman any more. You are a far more formidable opponent than that guy they have in there now.

rikki's picture

While easy to read, the

While easy to read, the chart gives little insight into the why's in each of the positions and the end result.

Sort of like your post. Care to put any meat on the bones of your argument? What is the essence of the Shelby amicus brief? What about it did Owings find useful? What was Schmid's position regarding offices not mentioned in the charter? Why didn't it make sense? What sort of questions did the justices ask?

Tiny Tim's picture

Schmid Don't Like The Sheriff, Can't Beat Him, Term Limit Him

Bottom line is same old crap that permeates the city county building time and time again:

Schmid don't like the Sheriff, can't beat him at the polls, can only get rid of him through term limits. That's been the motivation since day one.

Gang of 5 have no life without their "commission" status, they can't wine and dine as celebrities, Griess hasn't sold or leased anything for HolRob in 4 years, but he has access to the deals coming down the pike which are funded and HolRob can jump right in, remember the Farmer's Market, without the commission label, the Gang of 5 are really unemployed and out of luck.

Mike Lowe needs to keep his spot until he runs for County Mayor in 2010 and his lawyer Al Harb needs the fees and percentages from the delinquent property tax sale, which is Harb's biggest client and fee generator, so they want to make sure they're not tossed by any ruling for term limits, otherwise, they're both out of luck and nearly broke

Ragsdale has enough problems as it is, he'd like to have a few folks on county commission that will at least listen to him, he might need a few character witnesses when the feds get their indictments down,

State Election Coordinator, Brook Thompson is sick and tired of the Knox County Election Commission not making decisions and dumping their issues in his lap. No other county election commission ties his office up day in and day out as does Knox County.

John Owings needs to keep the charter upheld, as he's got to run and there are already 4 or 5 bored lawyers looking to push him out of his seat, he can't term limit the sheriff because he needs his support in 2008 to be elected law director, the ads directed at Moyers will be directed at him come May, 2008, asleep at the switch while a bunch of bums try to live off the county payroll beyond their allowable 8 years.

The school board members might be term limited as well, however, most of them can't get it right anyway so they get tossed after 1 term. All the schools west of the mall are overcrowded and if the representative for that area can not decrowd one school, they're out after 1 term.

Greg Mackay's picture

Knox County Election Commission not making decisions

Tiny Tim claims:
"State Election Coordinator, Brook Thompson is sick and tired of the Knox County Election Commission not making decisions and dumping their issues in his lap."

OK, I'll bite. Tim, in your opinion what "decisions" has the Knox County Election Commission failed to make that they were supposed to?

CBT's picture

Well, considering there are

Well, considering there are thousands of pages of briefs and transcripts, you'll forgive me if I don't go into much detail.

Honestly, I don't know the answer. I think Weaver was right because the enabling statute required certain things which simply weren't done (providing for all offices(?), registering with the state, getting proclamation from Sec. of State that charter is approved, among other things). Weaver followed the law.

However, Knox Co. has clearly operated "de facto" as a charter government for the last 12 years. That means something and can have legal effect in the suit challenging the charter. so, I think the Court could ratify the past acts, even if it invalidates the Charter.

As for the new charter gov't., given Knox Co. operated with an Executive and Commission for 10 years or so prior to the new charter (1980-) and the goal with the new charter was to enable Knox Co. to pass ordinaces without private acts of the General Assembly (I believe that was the real purpose), the fact that so-called "constitutional offices" are assumed to exist in the charter (they are referred to in various parts) and the only additional duty is that the Sheriff was given power to enforce the ordinances which Knox Co. would be passing under it's new form of government, it seems logical that all Knox Co. intended to do was create it's own Executive and a Commission. The other offices were not part of the Charter and are governed by state law. In other words, it was intended to operate like it has for the past 12 years.

This won't make the term limits folks happy, because everyone other than Mayor and Commission (and I think Law Director) would be out of term limits. But, it seems to make a lot of sense legally. Of course, it leads to the question of whether the Charter can be valid if it does not provide for all of these offices specifically, including the duties of each.

I don't know what the Supremes will do. There are a whole lot smarter lawyers out there than me. I don't know if the Court will include term limits and who it applies to in the decision. I know it was indirectly presented to Weaver, but he was only asked to determine the validity of the Charter. The Supreme Court does not look beyond the trial court record. It would be a stretch, maybe a small one?, to also rule on who is subject to term limits. That also depends on whether the Charter is valid in the first place.

If I heard right, Schmid argues that because the offices, such as register of deeds, trustee, etc., were not in the charter, they do not exist and the county would be left to simply create finance departments, records offices, etc. (sort of like the city). He argues the charter can't therefore be thrown out because of not providing for these offices (which the enabling statute required...maybe). McAdams is a very good lawyer, but this argument just struck me as odd. Maybe I misunderstood something.

Sorry for the too long post. This is complicated stuff, with a lot of sides.

Bbeanster's picture

Much as I'd like to see

Much as I'd like to see Schmid prevail, I agree with Chad in thinking McAdams argument was kind of bizarre. The contention that these offices "don't exist" was very hard for me to follow.

Rachel's picture

Betty and/or CBT,Could you

Betty and/or CBT,

Could you get any sense from the justices' questions which way they were leaning?

bill young's picture

whose next?

first mackay...now siegal...whose next..Malone?..Nolan?..i've worked for all these folks when they ran for office..& was proud to do it..

rikki's picture

Sorry for the too long post.

Sorry for the too long post. This is complicated stuff, with a lot of sides.

Au contraire, thank you. The information is much appreciated.

I agree the argument that the unnamed offices don't exist sounds bizarre. I've been worried that in this case the voters would lack an advocate or be poorly represented. What makes the offices-don't-exist argument more strange is that the Supreme Court already laid out in Bailey a stinging rebuttal of the concept that a charter county is a hybrid beast composed partially of true county officers and partially of officers serving the county under the auspices of the state. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me the best strategy in any courtroom is to offer the judges' own words as the basis for your argument, but McAdams seems to have taken another tack entirely. Owings argued for the charter's validity, but he can not have used the reasoning from Bailey, because it thoroughly undercuts the notion that some officers remain under state control.

The enabling legislation includes a catch-all clause that obligates a charter county to perform all duties expected of a normal county, even if those duties are not explicitly assigned by the charter. The defects Weaver found are all legitimate, but his remedy is extreme and unnecessary. That catch-all clause implies that an incomplete charter can still be valid, and it seems to assume the commission would decide how to fill in such holes. That is presumably the basis for Schmid's line of reasoning, though he should have brought the matter before commission, not in court.

Chad, you didn't discuss Shelby County's position, and I'm itchingly curious. Their charter does not define offices other than the commission and mayor. My understanding is this was deliberate because they felt it was implied in the enabling legislation that undefined offices and duties would automatically revert to constitutional form. Shelby's drafters served as consultants for Knox County and persuaded the charter commission to take the same approach. In some ways they got Knox County into this mess, so I'm eager to know what their stance is now. 

Bbeanster's picture

Shelby county's attorney

Shelby county's attorney didn't present a case today, because all they filed was an amicus brief, but I believe you correctly summarized their charter and their county attorney's advice to Knox County.

THe other amicus brief was filed by Joe Leavitt for the porn shop. He didn't speak, either.

The whole thing was the fastest, most efficient hearing I think I've ever seen -- took less than two hours. John Owings had the most time (20 minutes), and some had as little as a minute 4o seconds.

CBT's picture

The only thing I know about

The only thing I know about Shelby Co's position is that it appeared to match Knox Co (Owings repeatedly cited Shelby Co's brief). I believe Shelby Co's fate likewise hinges on the Supreme Court's decision, given the similarity in charters.

I do believe that both Knox and Shelby counties simply wanted to pass their own ordinances and thought all the other offices would just stay in place. That's the way we've all operated in both counties since the adoption of a charter. The fly in the ointment was the term limits amendment. When that issue was raised it called into question what offices the charter could control and now whether the charter as a whole is valid.

I'm glad to finally (for once) not get blasted on this blog, well some have agreed with my opinion on food....hehe.

Socialist With A Gold Card's picture

Hell, CBT, I agreed with you

Hell, CBT, I agreed with you about NASCAR; I consider that a major breakthrough in bipartisanship. ;-)

And thanks for reporting on the hearing in such detail.

--Socialist With A Gold Card


"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." --Brett Butler

 

CBT's picture

My apologies for being

My apologies for being forgetful.

rikki's picture

electoral diaper

The fly in the ointment was the term limits amendment. When that issue was raised it called into question what offices the charter could control and now whether the charter as a whole is valid.

True, but the Supreme Court ridiculed the idea that the state retains any control over parts of a home rule county in the Bailey decision. Cheif Justice Barker called it "absurd" and "an unworkable anomaly." He explained that a home rule county can set qualifications for any office, and included constitutional offices. Whether you have served prior terms is a qualification for office.

As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court already settled the term limits question. The strict, formal order in Bailey only applies to mayor and commissioner because Shelby County's term limits referendum applied exclusively to those offices, but the opinion justifying the order makes short work of the notion that the state retains control over any offices in a home-rule county.

I suspect the sharp tone of their reach-down declaration was inspired at least in part by disgust over Knox County officials being too dense to notice they tried to resolve our problems already, though we lacked the decency to file an amicus brief in Bailey alerting them to Knox County's interest in that case. That to whom term limits apply  is still unresolved in the City-County Building is as much an insult to the Tennessee Supreme Court as it is to the voters who approved the term limits referendum.

I say that, btw, as someone who voted on that referendum in 1994,  though I am now registered in Blount County. I voted against term limits. Term limits are for sissies with no self control. I do have enough regard for democracy, however, to feel the sissies of Knox County deserve what they vote for. 

lotta's picture

I say that, btw, as someone

I say that, btw, as someone who voted on that referendum in 1994, though I am now registered in Blount County. I voted against term limits. Term limits are for sissies with no self control. I do have enough regard for democracy, however, to feel the sissies of Knox County deserve what they vote for.

I don't have much tolerance for apathetic citizens and they do get what they vote (or don't vote) for but I view term limits as a way to keep some sort of check on anyone with a tendency to hang on to the "lifestyle". Besides, the lawyer/lobbyists are too comfortable - don't know when I've seen them work so hard!

Mark Siegel's picture

It occurs to me that

It occurs to me that, although the Bailey decision was only a few months ago, the composition of the Supreme Court has changed dramatically since then. While the Court's own recent precedent is surely highly persuasive, if the new members think they went too far, they might be inclined to be as strong as the Bailey court was.

CBT's picture

Like you, I didn't (and

Like you, I didn't (and wouldn't) vote for term limits. That's for the ballot box. I know all the arguments regarding the power of incumbency. I've personally campaigned with that help and against it. So, I know of what you speak. I believe term limits was a fad which sounded good until you applied it to particular offices. Note, our Knox County term limits amendment also requires the county clerk to demand that our Congressman and Senator serve a limited number of terms as well. How many Knox countians will vote to term limit Jimmy Duncan? No doubt, very few. People want to term limit those they don't like and want to keep those they do. I just don't agree with setting some arbitrary number of terms.

My point on term limits (and I don't know that it was missed) is that Knox (and Shelby) counties operated in a fashion for more than 10+ years which 1. allowed us a commission to pass/enforce our own ordinances, i.e. home rule and 2. left the other elected offices such as register, trustee and yes, sheriff the same as they had been in all the years passed. Seems to me that was what was intended. But, when term limits was proposed and passed it raised the issue of who the charter could regulate. Now, that's been taken a step further when elected officials, otherwise term limited, have now questioned the validity of the entire charter. Term limits brought us to where we are today.

Knoxquerious's picture

I just don't agree with

I just don't agree with setting some arbitrary number of terms. - CBT

Here are a few reasons term limits are important. During the first 150 years of this country's history, term limits were unnecessary. For instance, turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives was routinely over 50 percent. Over the last decade we have experienced reelection rates averaging over 90 percent creating a class of career politicians who have insulated themselves from the public will and grown less and less representative of the people.

Want more?

  1. Overwhelmingly, voters prefer term limits. (reference 1994 vote)
  2. Term limits downgrades seniority, favors meritocracy.
  3. Increases competition, encourages new challengers.
  4. Builds a ‘citizen’ Congress, vs career politicians.
  5. Breaks ties to special interests.
  6. Improves tendency to vote on principle.
  7. Introduces fresh thinking, new ideas, eliminates 'old bulls'.
  8. Reduces power of staff, bureaucracy, lobbies.
  9. It will create a natural reduction in wasteful spending.
10. Encourages lower taxes, smaller government, greater voter participation in elections.

Socialist With A Gold Card's picture

And don't forget:11. If you

And don't forget:

11. If you can't steal everything you need within two terms, you probably aren't competent to serve anyway.

--Socialist With A Gold Card


"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." --Brett Butler

 

rikki's picture

Not quite

Here are a few reasons term limits are important.

Actually, those are reasons why election reform is important. There are much better ways to accomplish the goals you listed, instant runoff voting, for example. 

Scott1202's picture

True, but the Supreme Court

True, but the Supreme Court ridiculed the idea that the state retains any control over parts of a home rule county in the Bailey decision. Cheif Justice Barker called it "absurd" and "an unworkable anomaly." He explained that a home rule county can set qualifications for any office, and included constitutional offices. Whether you have served prior terms is a qualification for office.

As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court already settled the term limits question. The strict, formal order in Bailey only applies to mayor and commissioner because Shelby County's term limits referendum applied exclusively to those offices, but the opinion justifying the order makes short work of the notion that the state retains control over any offices in a home-rule county.

I suspect the sharp tone of their reach-down declaration was inspired at least in part by disgust over Knox County officials being too dense to notice they tried to resolve our problems already, though we lacked the decency to file an amicus brief in Bailey alerting them to Knox County's interest in that case. That to whom term limits apply  is still unresolved in the City-County Building is as much an insult to the Tennessee Supreme Court as it is to the voters who approved the term limits referendum.

 Well said Rikki.

 Knox County voters aren’t stupid, apathetic maybe, but not stupid. We overwhelmingly voted for term limits and we voted to include every elected official. Debating in this forum whether or not this person wants them or that person wants them is irrelevant. Term limits have been the law of the county for 12 years. Speaking from the viewpoint of a voter, it’s obvious what this whole mess boils down to: term limited, self serving career politicians in our county government don’t want to give up their power, status or their jobs. Period.  Don’t insult my intelligence or the intelligence of any other Knox County voter by trying to claim the career politicians are doing this for a noble reason. They will do whatever it takes and try whatever legal squirming they can to keep their jobs. They don’t care if they are in violation of county law. The voter’s will be damned. Anyone who thinks that this mess is about anything else is fooling themselves or trying to fool others.

 

Here are a few questions and maybe Greg can answer them. Please don’t reference the state AG’s opinion that term limits are unconstitutional because an opinion does not negate our county term limits law. It was just that…his opinion. Why were obviously term limited office holders allowed to be placed on the ballot this spring to run for an illegal third term in direct violation of county law? Why were these term limited career politicians not removed from the ballot? Weaver’s decision has nothing to do with it as we have been operating under a stay of his decision and thus, our charter along with its amendments is still in force. Why did the election commission certify an election that had term limited candidates illegally running for a third consecutive term on the ballot in direct violation of our county law?

I am personally looking forward to hearing the TSC decision.

 

Greg Mackay's picture

Egmee knows

Egmee knows these are issues for a Judge to decide. That is why he filed suit in Chancery Court.

Scott1202's picture

Greg...

I'm not trying to nit pick, but my last name is actually Emge, not Egmee.

 

Take care.

rikki's picture

The timing of the legal

The timing of the legal decisions is what caused the ballots to be so fouled. There was nothing the election commission could do about it. When the primary ballot was finalized, Bailey had been overturned by an appellate court, meaning no term limits in home rule counties was the law of the land. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court after absentee ballots had been mailed.

Likewise, with the general election, Weaver nullified the charter before the filing deadline, allowing the ineligible incumbents to file, then stayed his decision after the deadline passed. 

Rachel's picture

I voted against term limits

I voted against term limits for all the reasons Rikki cites.

 However, looking at the relative performance of City Council and County Commission since the City enacted term limits has made me re-evaluate my position.

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