Knox County Commission not interested in what the public thinks

Fri

Feb 2 2007

07:27 am

By: R. Neal

The Knox County Commission called for candidates interested in filling term limit vacancies to submit a letter and a resume. They put up a website listing the candidates, including some without any letter or resume. This was apparently their idea of an open process.

Three candidates were appointed who were not on the list. Following is a snapshot of the names on the website yesterday and the appointments:

4th COMMISSION DISTRICT CANDIDATES: Scott Davis, Joan Wagner, Lisa Bogaty, William H. Daniels, Robert A. (Archie) Ellis, Jr., James Smelcher, Jr., John Deatherage, Craig Fischer, Debbie Barton, Mike Alford, Richard T. Cate, Ed Shouse, Elaine Davis.

4th DISTRICT APPOINTMENTS: Lee Tramel (not on list), Richard Cate.

5th COMMISSION DISTRICT CANDIDATES: Tom Salter, Marilyn S. Cobble, Pamela Treacy, Teresa Shupp, Gregory Harrison, Kyle H. Phillips, John R. Schoonmaker, Ken Gross.

5th DISTRICT APPOINTMENT: Frank Leuthold (not on list, father of Commissioner Craig Leuthold).

9th COMMISSION DISTRICT CANDIDATES: Josh Lowe, Bob Norton, Rob Huddleston, Matthew Myers.

9th DISTRICT APPOINTMENT: Tim Greene (not on list).

Charles Bolus was on the list for 2nd District, but did not submit a letter or resume.

There were plenty of qualified people who expressed interest. In at least one case (Tramel) and possibly another (Greene), there were more qualified candidates. In other cases there was an opportunity to bring in new, qualified people with fresh perspectives. Clearly that wasn't the plan.

Commissioners Craig Leuthold and Mike Hammond had a "forum" in the 5th District. The News Sentinel reported: "Saturday's crowd burst into applause after Hammond made comments about the process. 'I would much prefer the people make these decisions,' he said." Yeah, right. Note the 5th District appointment above. People who showed up for that forum wasted their time and ended up being insulted by the whole charade.

Mark Harmon was the only Commissioner who at least attempted to have an open process with public input from his district. Some have criticized how it was handled (i.e. not announcing there would be a straw poll that some candidates knew about but others didn't) and some have also questioned why he didn't throw his support to Wimmer when it was clear his recommendation (Amy Broyles, the "people's choice" as he put it) didn't have the votes (the first vote had 6 for Bolus and 6 for Wimmer). But at least he tried to represent his district and seek public input and carry their message to the Commission.

What happened to the pledge to "respect" commissioner's recommendations for their district? Or the plan to replace Democrats with Democrats and Republicans with Republicans?

And what about giving Tindell the bum's rush after the vote for county clerk? The outcome would likely have been quite different had he been able to remain in his seat for the rest of the proceeding. I'm sure that had nothing to do with the surprise parliamentary maneuvering to remove him.

Topics:

R. Neal's blog
Login or register to post comments

I spoke to most of last

Submitted by Patricia on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 7:36am.

I spoke to most of last year's candidates and asked their opinion of the "open process". Every single one admitted privately that this "open process" touted by the commission (Harmon is the exception. He's the only honest one in the bunch)was a sham and they knew they didn't have much of a chance. Every one of them said they already knew that the appointments were a done deal long ago.

Why wasn't seat 2 at end of agenda?

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 8:34am.

Randy: "And what about giving Tindell the bum's rush after the vote for county clerk? The outcome would likely have been quite different had he been able to remain in his seat for the rest of the proceeding."

Frankly, I accept Owings' ruling that Tindell had to leave immediately after his appointment to avoid holding two offices concurrently. That situation could have been avoided, though, had they just placed seat 2B at the end of their agenda, as they ultimately did for seat 4B.

I have to assume, then, that their concern for scuttling Tindell to win the Hutchison vs. Ragsdale contest weighed more heavily on them than did the potential for an electoral logjam among the remaining 18 members.

And speaking of agendas--was a printed one distributed (I watched on TV)? Seems like someone among 400 in attendence might have anticipated this potential snafu, if the process had been previewed in print this way...

I didn't see a meeting

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 8:38am.

I didn't see a meeting agenda, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. (Obviously there was an agenda!)

On Tindell, seems to me he wasn't actually holding two offices because he hadn't yet been sworn in as clerk. But he seemed a little surprised. Guess he should have brought his own lawyer.

I think the rest of your speculation is spot on.

When was Billy Tindell "elected?"

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:04am.

Randy: "On Tindell, seems to me he wasn't actually holding two offices because he hadn't yet been sworn in as clerk."

Maybe so, or maybe Chad could clarify. Anybody recall whether Harry Tindell had to walk off the school board dias the moment his election results for winning state rep were certified (and before his swearing in)? Or is this not a parallel, since he moved from county to state office? If Harry isn't a parallel, is there another local contest we could apply as a reality check?

Correction: Why wasn't Co Clerk at end of agenda?

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:24am.

Just caught my error--the question I meant to pose was "Why wasn't *County Clerk appointment* at end of agenda?" since it was the one carrying the potential to leave 18 commissioners on the dias. Randy seemed understand my line of thought, though...

Charter provision

Submitted by KnoxCitizen on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:28am.

Section 2.03(F) of the Knox County Charter:

F. When any public office is to be filled by the Commission, if any member of the Commission accepts the nomination as a candidate for such public office, the following procedure shall be followed:
(1) No member of the Commission who is absent from any proceeding to fill a public office shall be eligible to have his/her name placed in nomination unless either the Chairman(woman) of the Commission or the County Clerk shall have present at such meeting of the Commission a written acceptance of such nomination signed by such member of the Commission.
(2) If a Commission member's name is placed in nomination, the Chairman(woman) of the Commission shall, prior to the first vote, require that member to either accept or decline the nomination. A refusal to either accept or decline shall disqualify that member for nomination.
(3) No vote shall be recorded in favor of any member of the Commission who has either declined nomination or has been otherwise disqualified.
(4) The acceptance of nomination by a member of the Commission shall automatically disqualify such member to vote to fill that office.
(5) If the Commission member is elected, his/her seat on the Commission shall immediately be vacant.

(5) If the Commission member

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:32am.

(5) If the Commission member is elected, his/her seat on the Commission shall immediately be vacant.

Guess that covers the Tindell gambit. They should have done that one last, then.

Is it over?

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 11:05am.

(5) If the Commission member is elected, his/her seat on the Commission shall immediately be vacant.

Guess that covers the Tindell gambit. They should have done that one last, then.

Herb has not picked up on the most obvious flaw. As each seat was appointed, that Commission could no longer vote. The Supreme Court ruling opined that Commissions could serve until "removed". The searing in process is NOT when the former Commission was removed.

They were clever but were they clever enough?

Johnny Ringo, you out there? Your thoughts?

Herb has not picked up on

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 11:08am.

Don't follow you here. The commissioners were voting on replacements, not their own appointments to something else. Tindell was the only commissioner being nominated for another elected office.

Should Commissioners have immediately rotated out?

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 1:05pm.

Previous point, charter: "(5) If the Commission member is elected, his/her seat on the Commission shall immediately be vacant."

Number9's comment: "Herb has not picked up on the most obvious flaw. As each seat was appointed, that Commission could no longer vote. The Supreme Court ruling opined that Commissions could serve until "removed". The searing in process is NOT when the former Commission was removed."

I scrutinized that text, too, but note that it falls under Sec 203/Item F, instruction for appointing "public officers" from among seated commissioners, as in Billy's Clerk appointment.

A preceding section of text, Sec 203/Item E, supplies instruction for appointing commissioners and it doesn't speak for or against any need to rotate out commissioners as their successors are appointed (possibly because authors foresaw only *physical* vacancies, not *legal* ones, and never imagined that commissioners would be warming their districts' seats as appointments were being made).

Really, since we don't consider a commissioner "removed" from office in the period between his loss of a general election in August and his swearing in in September, it makes sense to me that the swearing in *would* consistute the "removal" of a predecessor.

As much as I like your proposed process for appointing commissioners, I'm understanding the charter to apply it only to commissioners appointed to public office, like Billy, when that appointment causes them to otherwise hold two county elective offices concurrently.

(I have wondered, though, if state law offers any instruction in this question. I've tackled that kind of research task before, but it's both tedious and perilous for us amateurs...)

We will soon know

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 3:57pm.

I don't know the answer. I haven't had time to review Tennessee Code Annotated. However, tradition is not law. I hope you are correct. It is time to move on. But if there was a legal misstep you can depend on the fact someone will find it and use it to their desire.

We have already learned the hard way that the law can be interpreted in ways we would not think possible.

arg!

Submitted by Knoxquerious on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 4:23pm.

It just keeps getting deeper...

(link...)

Charter Provision

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:42am.

Ah, yes. Looking into the legal basis for Tindell's prompt dismissal makes more sense than scouring our local history for parallels. Sorry I didn't think to double-check the charter text lying on my desk...

So ditching Tindell from the dias was the foreseeable consequence of appointing him to another office and we're back to my original (if originally garbled) question: What motivation existed for *not* moving the County Clerk appointment to the end of the agenda? I think we know.

I know how to spell "dais"

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:25am.

...in spite of indicators to the contrary here (blush).

(1) No member of the

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 3:13pm.

(1) No member of the Commission.. who is absent from any proceeding to fill a public office shall be eligible to have his/her name placed in nomination unless either the Chairman(woman) of the Commission or the County Clerk shall have present at such meeting of the Commission a written acceptance of such nomination signed by such member of the Commission.
(2) If a Commission member's name is placed in nomination, the Chairman(woman) of the Commission shall, prior to the first vote, require that member to either accept or decline the nomination. A refusal to either accept or decline shall disqualify that member for nomination.

I'm not sure these two rules were followed. I think there were some nominees who weren't there, but I could be mistaken. I'm pretty certain nobody accepted their nominations as per #2, unless it was hand signals or something like at an auction (oh, wait...).

One the surface and under it

Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:33am.

The law director's opinion should not be confused with black letter law. When Commission chair Moore asked Law Director Owings for opinions, they flowed like a mountain stream, and they all went Moore's way. No hestitation, not a shred of doubt, even though some of the issues were unique to the situation.

Perhaps people watching and evaluating maybe should have allowed to know that Law Director Owings has a son who works for the sheriff and Chairman Moore has three.

Yes, I thought Owings was

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:38am.

Yes, I thought Owings was ready on the spot with a thoroughly crafted opinion on the Tindell deal, and Moore was quick to ask him for it. As I've said all along, this was pre-arranged, and pretty much set the course for the outcome. Those guys are smarter than they look.

Three sons?

Submitted by Hoseman19 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 4:50pm.

Perhaps people watching and evaluating maybe should have allowed to know that Law Director Owings has a son who works for the sheriff and Chairman Moore has three

Could you name Chairman Moore's three sons that work for the Sheriff? I know he has one son, but he can't reach the pedals yet.
Yes, his wife works for the Sheriff, but she worked there before she became his wife.

Oops. I cut that sentence

Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 6:42pm.

Oops.
I cut that sentence off too quickly.
Scoobie has three relatives who work for the sheriff. His wife, his father and his nephew. His wife was hired after she married Scoob.

I may go for an office

Submitted by Patricia on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 6:45pm.

I was great at musical chairs when I was in elementary school, I had never thought about "running" for office until now.

Chairman Moore's wife was

Submitted by Hoseman19 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 8:57pm.

Chairman Moore's wife was employed at KCSO before he ran for office,and before she was his wife, but maybe not in the same capacity as now. A records check would confirm this.

Sorry, but I'll have to

Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:16pm.

Sorry, but I'll have to take the word of my source over that of somebody called hoseman19.

But don't fret -- every media organization in town is looking into the employment situation of Moore's family members, so I expect it'll come out anyhow.

Want to take a crack at explaining away the daddy and nephew's employment?

Explanations

Submitted by Hoseman19 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:07pm.

Sure, the Daddy's and Nephew's employment is political. That is how the system works. We all know it, just few are willing to admit it.
Just look at all the other jobs and recent hirings taking place, Mr Caywood (Courts), Mr Mills (Health Dept), former elected officials, they are all political. Any of us would use whatever we could to help our family members, so we had might as well admit it. If we looked at the all of the local gov't jobs, my guess is that many of them have some type of connection to elected officials and department heads. And it isn't just here, it is all over the country, at all levels of gov't.
Call it what it is, it's politics. I'm not condoning it, and I'm not condemning it. It's just the way it is, and I doubt if it will ever change.

Hoseman said: Any of us

Submitted by lotta on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:17pm.

Hoseman said: Any of us would use whatever we could to help our family members, so we had might as well admit it.

Have to disagree with you there hoser. I might do what I could to help someone get a shot at something but I wouldn't "use whatever I could" to secure a position for anyone. I was lucky enough to have parents that wanted me to have the life skills to survive with or without help. I was also taught that liars come to no good end.

Hey, Hoseman, I've

Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:20pm.

Hey, Hoseman, I've double-checked and Lori Walker Tipton worked for Mike Padgett in the drivers license bureau at the mall formerly known as East Towne when she married the Scoobster. She went to work for the Shurf later. She has a high-paid job and a take-home car.

Thanks, Bbeanster

Submitted by Hoseman19 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:34pm.

I was sure of my timeline there, but I will sit here corrected.

"Any of us would use

Submitted by ultron on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:30pm.

"Any of us would use whatever we could to help our family members, so we had might as well admit it."

You've obviously never met my family!

hatching ugly babies

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 11:22pm.

Call it what it is, it's politics.

Actually, it's called cronyism. Politics is a much bigger concept that includes taxes, budgets, regulations, fees, elections, debates and, yes, often government employment and contracts and cronyism. Cronyism is a potential defect of any power structure, whether political, corporate or otherwise.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does have a tendency to get out of control. The main reason home rule and term limits took more than a decade to crack the incumbency shell was calcification caused by cronyism.

Discussing:

Are Chat bots a waste of time? (1 reply)
Smith & Wesson noise problem (1 reply)
Musicians dropping out of President's Freedom Concert Series (1 reply)
It's time for new blood in Congress, Barnett in - Burchett out (1 reply)
Burning Down The House... (2 replies)
Behind Lege Lies (1 reply)
Peace (1 reply)
Speak your truth, fight and believe. (1 reply)
Large banks have too much AI data center debt? (1 reply)
GOP misleading on federal health care funding (1 reply)
Feds indict civil rights group (3 replies)
Georgia issues burn ban, first time in state history (2 replies)

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

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

Comment viewing options

Discussing:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

Search and Archives

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Government

About