what's the big deal about letting voters decide whether county employees should be allowed to hold elected office?

Voters already get to decide that on a case-by-case basis, every time a county employee runs for office.

This proposed ban on county employees running for office is idiotic, and it proves that we are allowing people with dubious ethical standards to set policy. There is no problem with county employees running for office. In fact, their employment experience often makes them better candidates. Do we really want someone with decades of experience in the clerk's office or the trustee's office ineligible to run when their boss retires?

The actual problem is people using elected offices to obtain patronage appointments and hires for family and friends. This ban would do absolutely nothing to end that practice. The ethics committee seems unable to even recognize problems. They are banning practices that pose no ethical dilemma, and they are so confused, they are on the verge of excluding some of the most qualified candidates for certain offices from being eligible.

Lumpy and Pinky are right on this one, even if their rhetoric is silly.

Voters already get to decide that on a case-by-case basis

That's a good point. But voters also got to decide term limits on a case-by-case basis.

I think there's an argument to be made that someone on County Commission should not be voting on their own department's budget or pay raises.

Also, this is already policy in city elections.

Do we really want someone with decades of experience in the clerk's office or the trustee's office ineligible to run when their boss retires?

Also, that's not what I understood the proposal to be. It would prohibit a county employee from serving on county commission.

But even if it applies to any employee and any office, in your example are you saying the clerk's office or trustee's office employee should be able to hold office of clerk or trustee and keep their old job?

And is the proposal to prohibit someone from running for office or holding office and their job at the same time if they are elected? If the latter, couldn't they just resign if they win, or go back to their job if they don't?

Here's the agenda item in question (I think):

33.) Consideration of an Ordinance of the Commission of Knox County, Tennessee amending the Knox County Charter to prohibit any person who holds an elective office or who is a Knox County employee from eligibility to serve in the office of County Commission. (FIRST READING) (Commissioner Hammond) Ordinance 08-1-101

"Voters already get to decide that on a case-by-case basis"

What a joke if that was the case we would never have passed term limits...

As I just posted regarding voter turnout... the problem as I see it with voters is the attitude that it is someone else's idiot politician who is the problem...

My elected politician is great so let's vote theirs out but keep my idiot politician...

Right now, we have multiple sitting senators running for president. If any of them should be the eventual winner, (s)he would have to give up their senate seat prior to taking the oath.

This seems like a reasonable way to do things here. If you work for the county in ANY capacity, and you are elected to ANY of the county elective offices, then you must give up your county employment prior to taking the oath. I would probably expand it to say that if any of your immediate family are county employees in any capacity, then they too would have to give up their jobs, at least for the duration of your elective service.

As I have stated before, when I was in the Navy, there were posters up in our work spaces exhorting us to "Avoid Even The Appearance of Conflict of Interest". That still sounds like really good advice.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

"Avoid Even The Appearance of Conflict of Interest". That still sounds like really good advice.

Gingrich used to talk about leaders being held to a "higher standard." Until he became one, then he changed his rules and Congress quickly fell apart. So yes, that seems like good advice.

Scumby is kind of like the Gingrich/DeLay pair of CC. They've changed the rules to protect all the little people. Either that or they're drunk on power.