There are currently 8 users and 200 guests online.
Question on Amendments
Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Thu, 2008/06/26 - 2:47pm.
I've heard a few people say they think should the charter petitions make it through that we will get to vote each one yes or no. The media has been saying, though not very loudly, that they will be voted on in two groups like the petitions.
If these will be voted on in groups the media needs to make it VERY CLEAR.
And, if that's the case, its an irrepsonsible way to make those kinds of changes and irresponsible for the paper to get involved in it as they have. A few have merits, but I don't think shrinking the commission does, and I'll vote no if they must be taken as groups.
Submitted by Jake Jost (not verified) on Thu, 2008/06/26 - 2:58pm.
They will be voted on in two groups--each petition equaling one ballot item. The petition group reportedly did so to make it feasible to gather enough signatures. We've made an effort to be clear on that in our reportage, but I'll pass it along that it needs emphasis.
The Company remains independent in all political matters and will not make monetary contributions, directly or indirectly, to political campaigns or causes, or to political parties. Moreover, its officers will not make such contributions acting on behalf of the Company. Rare exceptions may be made to this prohibition, but then only if permitted by law and approved by the President of the Company.
Although the Company is independent in all political matters, employees are encouraged to register to vote, with party affiliations, and to vote. Employees may pursue their own personal political activities, but may not, either inadvertently or intentionally, represent their personal views or contributions to be those of the Company. Employees must avoid any suggestion that their relationship with the Company constitutes an endorsement of any kind.
Journalists and others working in newsrooms must abide by a more restrictive standard, given the disinterested neutrality from which news organizations must work. They must not serve in elected or politically appointed positions. They must not participate in political fund-raising, political organizing, nor other activities designed to enhance a candidate, a political party or a political-interest organization. They must not make contributions of record to political campaigns nor engage in other such activity that might associate an employee's name with a political candidate or a political cause.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Thu, 2008/06/26 - 3:46pm.
So after reading above about the McElroy ethical lapse, what can you do if you want to make a complaint?
You can call 1-888-397-4911 and register a complaint about Jack McElroy's conduct.
More:
HELPLINE
It has always been the Company's policy to conduct its business in an ethical manner. An employee should fully and promptly disclose to his or her direct supervisor in writing any violation or potential violation of these policies. If there is anything that an employee feels should be reported to the Company that he or she is unable for any reason to communicate through his or her supervisor, or is unable to resolve at the local operating level, that employee is encouraged to use the Company's Helpline. The Helpline augments established procedures. It was created to provide a confidential method for an employee to report any situation that he or she feels may not be in compliance with the Company's policies or with local laws and regulations.
The private Helpline can be accessed by calling 1-888-397-4911 (a toll-free number). This number will be answered only by the Ethical Program Director who will insure the matter is investigated, and that appropriate confidentiality is maintained. (If the Program Director is unavailable, a voice message may be left. Only the Program Director has access to this recording.) It is helpful if you leave your name when calling the Helpline so that a proper response can be made. However, identification is not mandatory. No retaliation will be made against any employee nor will notes be placed in an employee's personnel file regarding an inquiry to the Helpline.
Submitted by Scruffy Citysin on Fri, 2008/06/27 - 8:04am.
The current issue in not whether one agrees or disagrees with the amendments either individually or grouped as they have been in the petitions. The current issue is whether the Knox Accountability has the opportunity to make its case and whether the citizens have an opportunity to vote on the amendments. For many reasons, it is unlikely that either will pass as they are grouped; however, it will be the vote of the citizens who make that decision and not a minority of County Commission.
A vote of County Commission is a vote of citizens. Each commissioner represents a few tens of thousand citizens; that's their job. Pretending a mass vote is somehow more noble than a vote of representatives just undermines the importance of deliberation and understanding. Of course, electing closed-minded party ideologues as representatives accomplishes that as well.
I was going to post about this, but Stacy beat me to it and this is a good place discuss it.
The KNS running the petition in the paper is, I think, unusual. There is some controversy about it, and McElroy has said they aren't advocating any specific changes, just that people be allowed to vote on it. It is our understanding that the KNS printed the petition gratis. I never saw it (maybe they didn't insert it in Blount Co. papers?)
Recall that the KNS ran a multi-page spread as part of the Knox County One Question forums that explained Knox Co. government and some of the issues. Did the KC1Q people pay for that?
Also, I find it curious that I am unable to locate a copy of the actual petition anywhere online, not even at the Knox County Charter Petition website. Maybe it's there, and I'm just too addled to find it. There are lots of fundraising buttons, though. Seems like letting interested people download the petition and get their neighbors to sign it would be as beneficial as a donation, or more. But maybe they are relying on the KNS to distribute the petition.
Either way, they seem to have an unusually cozy relationship with the KNS.
This business of bundling the petitions into one referendum for county commission related items and one for executive branch items is a huge mistake in my opinion. People are not getting to vote on proposed changes. They are getting to vote on a package of proposed changes. The only option for someone who doesn't agree with one or more of the proposed changes in the package (i.e. reducing county commission size, which is a bad idea in my opinion) is to "veto" the whole package. That is not a true representation of the electorate's views on the individual issues.
I understand this saves money, but the group should have done a better job organizing public pressure to get Commission to put the referendums on the ballot. Commission should have done the right thing anyway and saved the taxpayers a lot of money. Why do they not want voters voting on these questions?
In fact, couldn't County Commission still do that, and eliminate all the confusion, controversy, and some of the expense?
The bottom line is that this whole thing has not been handled very well.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Fri, 2008/06/27 - 9:57am.
An extended discussion on this issue, complete with namecalling, character assassination and the occasional cogent thought can be found here.
This is about the E. W. Scripps Ethics Policy. It is not about free speech or the U.S. Constitution. I find it funny that McElroy defenders have to change the subject but there really isn't much else they can do. What McElroy did is a clear violation of the Sentinel's own Ethics Policy. And he could care less.
As far as KCP goes, they haven't done anything except run from the debate. This Sentinel ploy to participate in the process by giving more free advertisement to KCP happened because KCP was afraid that "Cavemen" would protest them if they collected signatures in the county proper at the local Walmart. It had been talked about on the radio and was well organized. There would have been a protest. But not now.
The hypocrisy of this is that KCP will only collect signatures in the City or inside friendly businesses in the City. Yet the KCP petition is about County government. Apparently KCP had no interest in actual debate. They don’t want their feathers ruffled.
There had not really been much of a debate in the past. At the local forums the format was questions from the audience to KCP members. One question one attempted answer.
Something as important as this should have had a real debate. This is about changing the structure of local government. But it is a one way street. Like other Metro moves this is the old "ram it down their throat" play. People don’t like that kind of play and that is why there is the great animosity.
A resolution on nepotism has already passed first reading in County Commission. Conflict of Interest is already in the County Charter. There is no need for all this drama.
Take out the window dressing and this is actually about two Amendments. The “Mayor King Amendment” where the County Mayor appoints the fee offices and the Law Director, and the “Feudalism Now Amendment” where people vote to give up their vote for their Commissioners. Some call it Metro Lite or Incremental Metro.
The argument has actually been made by KCP that by voting to give away your vote you actually strengthen your vote for your Commissioners.
From Link..., “Increase YOUR Influence by Shrinking County Commission
Allow every citizen to vote for 3 of 11 Commissioners, one each
from nine districts and two at-large, rather than the current
2 of 19 for most Voters now.”
KCP really will say anything. And that’s fine. It is their right. But why won’t they have a real debate? In the scruffy little county it is another done deal. Thanks a bunch Jack. Thanks a bunch Jim. And thank you also Jim. Keep believing this county is yours. We will see how the voters take to “Feudalism Now”.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Fri, 2008/06/27 - 10:28am.
"Some call it Metro Lite or Incremental Metro."
Wait, I thought this was about Scripps' ethics policy?
Or is that just tactical bullshit?
How do you sever the two? By their own admission KCP admits this whole exercise is about Metro.
From the KCP fund raising letter, "If successful, it will restructure Knox County government to face the urban/suburban challenges of the 21st Century. And it can be a major positive step that will create the environment, if the community desires, for future consolidation of overlapping and duplicative functions of our local governments."
The free ad was for KCP. So isn't your question a non-sequitur?
Not really. Although you essentially answered the question. This isn't really "about" Scripps Ethics Policy at all. The policy - or at least your dubious interpretation - is merely a vehicle you're pursuing to suppress the possibility of a vote that you sense you can't win. So, rather than attempt to sway the vote, you're determined to keep said vote from happening.
In other words, it's tactical bullshit. As is the Sentinel printing the petitions. But, hey, they have a printing press. And you post blather on any message board you can ferret your way onto. To each his own.
Carry on, however, as a casual observer I find your argument that you want to keep the question from coming up for a vote to protect "the peoples'" right to vote fascinating...
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Fri, 2008/06/27 - 9:22pm.
Carry on, however, as a casual observer I find your argument that you want to keep the question from coming up for a vote to protect "the peoples'" right to vote fascinating...
You had me at "casual observer". Mind if I borrow that one? You still write for the Pulse don't you?
KCP says, "let the people vote, to give away their right to vote".
I say, "let the people vote always".
Yet you find that argument "fascinating". Care to explain the philosophy behind that?
Do you believe what KCP says when they say, "Increase YOUR Influence by Shrinking County Commission
Allow every citizen to vote for 3 of 11 Commissioners, one each
from nine districts and two at-large, rather than the current
2 of 19 for most Voters now."
Now people vote for 2 or 3 Commissioners. So how is a person's influence increased by trading either 2 or 3 Commissioners for 1.33 Commissioners?
I do find that intriguing. How well does a .33 Commissioner represent people?
Something as important as this should have had a real debate.
You mean the kind of debate where one person arbitrarily decides that news content is advertising, then refuses to discuss that decision? The kind of debate where someone pulls a radical, unprecedented and incoherent new campaign disclosure policy out of their ass, then refuses to discuss the policy or its implications? Is that the sort of debate you are looking for?
Or are you maybe more interested in a debate where someone makes repeated claims against Jack McElroy that are potentially libelous but for the fact that no one takes the claimant seriously? When Ethics Point tells you your complaint has been looked into and no violation of the Scripps policy was found, will you have the decency to apologize to McElroy?
Submitted by wherethesundontshine (not verified) on Fri, 2008/06/27 - 11:38am.
rikki,
Is the complaint to Ethics Point and them potentially telling McElroy no violations were found a little like commission passing on the explanation of the travel audit and the p-card audit by the Mayor’s office?
Does rikki stand for real intelligent kinky knowledge impersonator?
Jack,
Do you notice no one but me has commented on your blog? Not many people get to this section of your site. I do think your move to choose to violate your own ethics code is a new low for editors everywhere. Have you read your company's political activity code? Here is a link as you might want to read it at least once if only to just say you have.
If you would really like to debate put “The E.W. Scripps Company Statement of Policy on Ethics and Professional Conduct“ on the front page tomorrow and we will have a debate. If you are busy collecting signatures I will understand.
Posted by: wherethesundontshine at June 25, 2008 8:21 PM
McElroy must not feel comfortable on his position on this ethics matter.
When Ethics Point tells you your complaint has been looked into and no violation of the Scripps policy was found, will you have the decency to apologize to McElroy?
Bah. He won't even have the decency - or the courage - to share that information publicly.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Fri, 2008/06/27 - 9:52pm.
Bah. He won't even have the decency - or the courage - to share that information publicly.
You have to be kidding. The second I get it I will post it. Regardless of what it says. You should know that after three plus years of our pleasant discussion and semi-debate.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Sat, 2008/06/28 - 7:40am.
rikki, what does this mean?
"The Company remains independent in all political matters and will not make monetary contributions, directly or indirectly, to political campaigns or causes, or to political parties."
A free four page color insert worth $7,500 is a monetary contribution.
Is your point that the Constitution makes the Sentinel's Ethics Policy null and void? They are two completely different things. Explain yourself?
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Sat, 2008/06/28 - 7:51am.
When Ethics Point tells you your complaint has been looked into and no violation of the Scripps policy was found, will you have the decency to apologize to McElroy?
There has been a response from someone but I am not sure if they are with Ethics Point or the Sentinel. It looks like an auto-response. As near as I can read it look like whoever this is, is calling what McElroy did "an endorsement". When did a free ad become "an endorsement". A free ad is a contribution.
Looks like this will be a contest to determine what the meaning of the word is, is.
Report Submission Date
6/24/2008
Reported Company/Branch Information
Name Newspapers
Location The Knoxville News Sentinel
City/State/Zip Knoxville, TN
Violation Information
Violation Type
Conflict of Interest
Please identify the person(s) engaged in this behavior:
Jack McElroy - Editor
Do you suspect or know that a supervisor or management is involved?
Yes
If yes, then who?
The above named.
Is management aware of this problem?
Yes
What is the nature of this conflict of interest?
Mr. McElroy is giving a full page add to the Knox Charter Petition, a political organization.
Where did this incident or violation occur?
In the news paper.
Please provide the specific or approximate time this incident occurred:
Add will run 25 June 2008.
How long do you think this problem has been going on?
Once
How did you become aware of this violation?
Other
If other, how?
The reporter read Mr. McElroy's editorial.
Details
The reporter states that Mr. McElroy is going to be in violation of the company's ethics policy on at least four points. On Sunday, 22 June 2008, Mr. McElroy ran an editorial in the paper saying that the paper is going to take the "unusual step of printing two petitions." These petitions are for the Knox Charter Petition.
Mr. McElroy is giving this political organization $3000 worth of free advertising. Again this is against the company's ethics policy, as the first paragraph states that, "The Company will not make monetary contributions directly or indirectly to political campaigns or causes." The reporter states that it is bad that he is doing so, it is worse that he is bundling it with a signed note from the editor of the paper.
The reporter states that this is in-kind contribution, as a monetary contribution could be documented. The reporter states that Mr. McElroy has not published a single letter against this petition drive.
The reporter would like an injunction to stop this from running.
Follow-Up Notes
There are no additional notes for this report.
Follow-Up Questions/Comments
Jun 24, 2008, 9:29 PM
Thank you for your interest in the Knoxville News Sentinel. The newspaper welcomes comments on the Knox Charter petition, opposing or not. You may comment online or write for print publication, by directing your letters to Jack McElroy at mcelroyj@knoxnews.com. If you would like to discuss these issues with the publisher, Bruce Hartmann, you may call him at 342-6920. The News Sentinel often endorses candidates and issues affecting their local communities, but prides itself on fully and objectively covering local news. Please let me know if you have additional questions, otherwise, I will consider this matter closed.
Denise Kuprionis
Ethics Officer
My Response to Denise Kuprionis:
Jun 28, 2008, 8:36 AM
Denise Kuprionis writes, "Please let me know if you have additional questions, otherwise, I will consider this matter closed."
What does that mean? How is the matter closed? This WAS NOT just an endorsement. It is participating in collecting signatures. It is a direct monetary contribution to political a cause. As such it is a violation of the Ethics Policy. What do you mean closed? Are you with the Sentinel or Ethics Point? Your response doesn't make any sense.
Submitted by bill young on Sat, 2008/06/28 - 11:12am.
For years & years the N-S covered
elections like this:
1.Endorse candidates
2.Election tommorrow
3.Election today
4.Election results
5.The End
Since Black Wednesday,in Jan of '07,the N-S has been acting like an old school newspaper.The N-S took a side & praised their folks & hammered the other folks.Right now the N-S is taking the side of "let the people vote" on the petition groups charter changes.The N-S is not saying they support any of the petition groups proposals but they should be on the ballot.
As I've pointed out I'm not keen on some of the petition groups proposals.Because of my opinion I'm not going to sign the orange petition.Myself I can not logically see why I would sign a petition I have no intent on voting for.
The N-S disagrees & printed the 4 page spread in the paper.
For me it's simple..If the N-S is with me they be cooler than Elvis..If not the N-S be the elite mainstream media.
The N-S got the ink & it's their right to drown you in it.
Submitted by bill young on Fri, 2008/06/27 - 1:03pm.
I'm not pissed at the County Commission or the N-S
for their actions on this issue.
It's the N-S's right to print whatever they wish & support whatever they want.
It's also the County Commission's right to place or not place referendum on the ballot.
I have talked to County Commissioners on both sides.
Some of the commissioners against did not trust the language
of the charter changes presented by the petition group.
At the 11th hour former Commissioner Leuthold pointed
out some troubling language in the proposed charter changes.
Additionally,the petition group was steadfast
in the language presented to County Commission.
The petition group moderated that position.
But it was to late to get a few commissioners to switch their votes.
Now dont forget the County Commission has placed recall
& a reduction of signatures to place referendum on the
ballot from 15% of total registered voters to 15% in the previous governors election on the county general
ballot.
I'm voting YES to both.
Plus,the County Commission may well place civil service
for county employees except schools & sheriff on the
presidential ballot.
I do not know how a proposed civil service system
would effect any of the proposals by the petition
group.
That needs to be hashed out during the petition drive
& the County Commission debate on placing civil service
on the presidential ballot.
I lean toward voting YES on civil service.
With respect to proposal on reducing County
Commission to 11 members.
I never really got a feel on
WHY 11?
Kinda Willy-Nilly.
Futhermore,I do not agree with at-large commissioners
as proposed.
It seams to me the 2 at large uber commissioners
does not accomplish the stated goal of the charter change.
The at large commissioners in theory
view the county as a "whole" & would
not get bogged down in "my district"
parochialism.
However with only 2 at large commissioners
& under the proposal it would take 6 to pass
anything..the 9 district commissioners would
control the commission.
In my opinion,either all commissioners are elected
at large or none.
Also,the US Justice department may have something
to say if any charter charter change would result
in a reduction of minority representation.
I say may becuse I'm not a lawyer & dont know
the facts.
However,I have heard the civil rights argument made forcefully by some indivduals.
I am trying to get my arms around how this proposal
effects the terms in the 1st commission district.
Please ..please correct me
if I'm wrong.
In commission seat 1-B
Tank is term limited.
The next commission 1-B election is 2010.
The individual that is elected serves 6 years.
If that individual is re-elected in 2016.
They will serve from 2010 till 2020.
Am I reading this right???
I struggle with the Inspector General.
To be honest I dont understand why or how
the IG can find savings that the present
system could not find..if folks wanted to.
It sounds like a new bureaucracy that needs more
money & will create a turf.
I like the idea of mayorial appointments.
But I never got a good explanation on why the
Property Assesor was dropped from the original
petition group proposal.
As with the 11 on commission
the dropping of the Property
Assesor had a willy-nilly feel.
The petition drive needs to sharpin it's
campaign.
R points out he couldn't find the petition on-line.
And,the N-S fails to give the final date the petitions are due to be turned into the election commission.
Plus the willy-nilly ways makes the voter
uneasy.
To sum up
I will vote yes on recall & the reduction of
signatures needed to place referendum on the
ballot in the county general.
Right now I'm leaning toward voting yes
on civil service if on the presidential
ballot but I need more information
before I cast a yes vote.
I believe the proposal on a 11 member
County Commission is flawed & will not sign
the orange petition.
I've got some reservation about the
white petition.
I need to get a good answer on why the property
assesor was not included as a mayorial appointment.
Somebody's got to tell me the advantage of an IG.
In conclusion
I agree this thing has been handled poorly
The petition group was high handed.
The commission let factions & hard feelings
cloud their thinking.
The advantage of an IG is that the office would be independent and have jurisdiction over all county operations. The Internal Auditor serves at the pleasure of the Commission and only looks at what they ask him to look at. No one has audited the Sheriff in who knows how long, so there are bound to be savings there. Also, an IG helps create better procedures to prevent waste and abuses, and contractors will be more inclined to play fair knowing an IG is around.
Submitted by bill young on Fri, 2008/06/27 - 4:26pm.
I looked over the TVA IG report.
Your point is well taken.
I'm just wondering.
Are you saying the problems in the Mayor's
office would not have happened if the county
had an IGs office?
Are you also saying that county government is run so poorly & sweetheart county contracts abound that the creation of an IGs office is the best way to straighten things out?
Are you saying the problems in the Mayor's
office would not have happened if the county
had an IGs office?
Any competent IG would recommend the use of p-cards, since they are a far more efficient and affordable way to keep records of small purchases than the bureaucratic paper-pushing that preceded them. Furthermore, an IG might consider a county-level politician loosening up state-level officials with liquor and lobster to be a legitimate, if not routine, lobbying expense. So probably not.
The TVA OIG did not prevent all those gambling and golfing expenses on TVA accounts 15-20 years ago. They are not perfect, nor can they fix our sick political system. NRR shorting the county its share of mulch and compost sales probably would not have happened with an IG around.
Well, if they must vote, why are you trying to keep the issue off the ballot? What's the matter, McElroy's end run take all the fun out of your planned walmart protest?
Oh, and speaking of comprehension issues:
"The hypocrisy of this is that KCP will only collect signatures in the City or inside friendly businesses in the City. Yet the KCP petition is about County government."
Remind me, again, which county the city of Knoxville is in?
Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Sat, 2008/06/28 - 6:15pm.
The Sentinel publishing the petitions, as well as encouraging their support should they make it on the ballot, which they did earlier, I think is too much involvement. Someone also needs to explain why commissioners elected to this new government would serve 6 YEARS their first term.
An idea, let's abolish all this and just let McElroy and Hartmann pick a government.
They will be voted on in two groups--each petition equaling one ballot item. The petition group reportedly did so to make it feasible to gather enough signatures. We've made an effort to be clear on that in our reportage, but I'll pass it along that it needs emphasis.
--Jake
Jack McElroy violates his own Ethics Policy but denies doing so.
Link...
The color four page FREE ad insert for KCP would have cost anyone else $7,500. But it cost KCP nothing.
This is the E. W. Scripps Ethical Policy:
Link...
The parts McElroy violated:
POLITICAL ACTIVITY
The Company remains independent in all political matters and will not make monetary contributions, directly or indirectly, to political campaigns or causes, or to political parties. Moreover, its officers will not make such contributions acting on behalf of the Company. Rare exceptions may be made to this prohibition, but then only if permitted by law and approved by the President of the Company.
Although the Company is independent in all political matters, employees are encouraged to register to vote, with party affiliations, and to vote. Employees may pursue their own personal political activities, but may not, either inadvertently or intentionally, represent their personal views or contributions to be those of the Company. Employees must avoid any suggestion that their relationship with the Company constitutes an endorsement of any kind.
Journalists and others working in newsrooms must abide by a more restrictive standard, given the disinterested neutrality from which news organizations must work. They must not serve in elected or politically appointed positions. They must not participate in political fund-raising, political organizing, nor other activities designed to enhance a candidate, a political party or a political-interest organization. They must not make contributions of record to political campaigns nor engage in other such activity that might associate an employee's name with a political candidate or a political cause.
So after reading above about the McElroy ethical lapse, what can you do if you want to make a complaint?
You can call 1-888-397-4911 and register a complaint about Jack McElroy's conduct.
More:
HELPLINE
It has always been the Company's policy to conduct its business in an ethical manner. An employee should fully and promptly disclose to his or her direct supervisor in writing any violation or potential violation of these policies. If there is anything that an employee feels should be reported to the Company that he or she is unable for any reason to communicate through his or her supervisor, or is unable to resolve at the local operating level, that employee is encouraged to use the Company's Helpline. The Helpline augments established procedures. It was created to provide a confidential method for an employee to report any situation that he or she feels may not be in compliance with the Company's policies or with local laws and regulations.
The private Helpline can be accessed by calling 1-888-397-4911 (a toll-free number). This number will be answered only by the Ethical Program Director who will insure the matter is investigated, and that appropriate confidentiality is maintained. (If the Program Director is unavailable, a voice message may be left. Only the Program Director has access to this recording.) It is helpful if you leave your name when calling the Helpline so that a proper response can be made. However, identification is not mandatory. No retaliation will be made against any employee nor will notes be placed in an employee's personnel file regarding an inquiry to the Helpline.
I have never seen or heard of anything like this. It looks like McElroy knows what he did and does not care.
The current issue in not whether one agrees or disagrees with the amendments either individually or grouped as they have been in the petitions. The current issue is whether the Knox Accountability has the opportunity to make its case and whether the citizens have an opportunity to vote on the amendments. For many reasons, it is unlikely that either will pass as they are grouped; however, it will be the vote of the citizens who make that decision and not a minority of County Commission.
A vote of County Commission is a vote of citizens. Each commissioner represents a few tens of thousand citizens; that's their job. Pretending a mass vote is somehow more noble than a vote of representatives just undermines the importance of deliberation and understanding. Of course, electing closed-minded party ideologues as representatives accomplishes that as well.
I was going to post about this, but Stacy beat me to it and this is a good place discuss it.
The KNS running the petition in the paper is, I think, unusual. There is some controversy about it, and McElroy has said they aren't advocating any specific changes, just that people be allowed to vote on it. It is our understanding that the KNS printed the petition gratis. I never saw it (maybe they didn't insert it in Blount Co. papers?)
Recall that the KNS ran a multi-page spread as part of the Knox County One Question forums that explained Knox Co. government and some of the issues. Did the KC1Q people pay for that?
Also, I find it curious that I am unable to locate a copy of the actual petition anywhere online, not even at the Knox County Charter Petition website. Maybe it's there, and I'm just too addled to find it. There are lots of fundraising buttons, though. Seems like letting interested people download the petition and get their neighbors to sign it would be as beneficial as a donation, or more. But maybe they are relying on the KNS to distribute the petition.
Either way, they seem to have an unusually cozy relationship with the KNS.
This business of bundling the petitions into one referendum for county commission related items and one for executive branch items is a huge mistake in my opinion. People are not getting to vote on proposed changes. They are getting to vote on a package of proposed changes. The only option for someone who doesn't agree with one or more of the proposed changes in the package (i.e. reducing county commission size, which is a bad idea in my opinion) is to "veto" the whole package. That is not a true representation of the electorate's views on the individual issues.
I understand this saves money, but the group should have done a better job organizing public pressure to get Commission to put the referendums on the ballot. Commission should have done the right thing anyway and saved the taxpayers a lot of money. Why do they not want voters voting on these questions?
In fact, couldn't County Commission still do that, and eliminate all the confusion, controversy, and some of the expense?
The bottom line is that this whole thing has not been handled very well.
An extended discussion on this issue, complete with namecalling, character asassination and the occasional cogent thought can be found here.
An extended discussion on this issue, complete with namecalling, character assassination and the occasional cogent thought can be found here.
This is about the E. W. Scripps Ethics Policy. It is not about free speech or the U.S. Constitution. I find it funny that McElroy defenders have to change the subject but there really isn't much else they can do. What McElroy did is a clear violation of the Sentinel's own Ethics Policy. And he could care less.
As far as KCP goes, they haven't done anything except run from the debate. This Sentinel ploy to participate in the process by giving more free advertisement to KCP happened because KCP was afraid that "Cavemen" would protest them if they collected signatures in the county proper at the local Walmart. It had been talked about on the radio and was well organized. There would have been a protest. But not now.
The hypocrisy of this is that KCP will only collect signatures in the City or inside friendly businesses in the City. Yet the KCP petition is about County government. Apparently KCP had no interest in actual debate. They don’t want their feathers ruffled.
There had not really been much of a debate in the past. At the local forums the format was questions from the audience to KCP members. One question one attempted answer.
Something as important as this should have had a real debate. This is about changing the structure of local government. But it is a one way street. Like other Metro moves this is the old "ram it down their throat" play. People don’t like that kind of play and that is why there is the great animosity.
A resolution on nepotism has already passed first reading in County Commission. Conflict of Interest is already in the County Charter. There is no need for all this drama.
Take out the window dressing and this is actually about two Amendments. The “Mayor King Amendment” where the County Mayor appoints the fee offices and the Law Director, and the “Feudalism Now Amendment” where people vote to give up their vote for their Commissioners. Some call it Metro Lite or Incremental Metro.
The argument has actually been made by KCP that by voting to give away your vote you actually strengthen your vote for your Commissioners.
From Link..., “Increase YOUR Influence by Shrinking County Commission
Allow every citizen to vote for 3 of 11 Commissioners, one each
from nine districts and two at-large, rather than the current
2 of 19 for most Voters now.”
KCP really will say anything. And that’s fine. It is their right. But why won’t they have a real debate? In the scruffy little county it is another done deal. Thanks a bunch Jack. Thanks a bunch Jim. And thank you also Jim. Keep believing this county is yours. We will see how the voters take to “Feudalism Now”.
"Some call it Metro Lite or Incremental Metro."
Wait, I thought this was about Scripps' ethics policy?
Or is that just tactical bullshit?
"Some call it Metro Lite or Incremental Metro."
Wait, I thought this was about Scripps' ethics policy?
Or is that just tactical bullshit?
How do you sever the two? By their own admission KCP admits this whole exercise is about Metro.
From the KCP fund raising letter, "If successful, it will restructure Knox County government to face the urban/suburban challenges of the 21st Century. And it can be a major positive step that will create the environment, if the community desires, for future consolidation of overlapping and duplicative functions of our local governments."
The free ad was for KCP. So isn't your question a non-sequitur?
"isn't your question a non-sequitur?"
Not really. Although you essentially answered the question. This isn't really "about" Scripps Ethics Policy at all. The policy - or at least your dubious interpretation - is merely a vehicle you're pursuing to suppress the possibility of a vote that you sense you can't win. So, rather than attempt to sway the vote, you're determined to keep said vote from happening.
In other words, it's tactical bullshit. As is the Sentinel printing the petitions. But, hey, they have a printing press. And you post blather on any message board you can ferret your way onto. To each his own.
Carry on, however, as a casual observer I find your argument that you want to keep the question from coming up for a vote to protect "the peoples'" right to vote fascinating...
Carry on, however, as a casual observer I find your argument that you want to keep the question from coming up for a vote to protect "the peoples'" right to vote fascinating...
You had me at "casual observer". Mind if I borrow that one? You still write for the Pulse don't you?
KCP says, "let the people vote, to give away their right to vote".
I say, "let the people vote always".
Yet you find that argument "fascinating". Care to explain the philosophy behind that?
Do you believe what KCP says when they say, "Increase YOUR Influence by Shrinking County Commission
Allow every citizen to vote for 3 of 11 Commissioners, one each
from nine districts and two at-large, rather than the current
2 of 19 for most Voters now."
Now people vote for 2 or 3 Commissioners. So how is a person's influence increased by trading either 2 or 3 Commissioners for 1.33 Commissioners?
I do find that intriguing. How well does a .33 Commissioner represent people?
Carry on, "casual observer".
I say, "let the people vote always".
Excepting, of course, on certain charter amendment referendums you find objectionable.
People have a vote.
They may choose to keep their vote or give it away. They must vote to do either.
Some say, "let them vote to give away their vote".
Others say, "let them vote to keep their vote".
You are in the first category?
That must be so embarrassing.
>Some say, "let them vote to give away their vote".
>Others say, "let them vote to keep their vote".
Ah, but they can't "vote" if it's not on the ballot, can they?
Ah, but they can't "vote" if it's not on the ballot, can they?
I addressed that, "They may choose to keep their vote or give it away. They must vote to do either."
For a professional writer you are not very good at "Reductio ad absurdum".
Something as important as this should have had a real debate.
You mean the kind of debate where one person arbitrarily decides that news content is advertising, then refuses to discuss that decision? The kind of debate where someone pulls a radical, unprecedented and incoherent new campaign disclosure policy out of their ass, then refuses to discuss the policy or its implications? Is that the sort of debate you are looking for?
Or are you maybe more interested in a debate where someone makes repeated claims against Jack McElroy that are potentially libelous but for the fact that no one takes the claimant seriously? When Ethics Point tells you your complaint has been looked into and no violation of the Scripps policy was found, will you have the decency to apologize to McElroy?
"When Ethics Point tells you your complaint has been looked into and no violation of the Scripps policy was found..."
Isn't it obvious? Ragsdale treated 'em to a lobster lunch on his P-card.
rikki,
Is the complaint to Ethics Point and them potentially telling McElroy no violations were found a little like commission passing on the explanation of the travel audit and the p-card audit by the Mayor’s office?
Does rikki stand for real intelligent kinky knowledge impersonator?
rikki posted:
“Something as important as this should have had a real debate.”
I invited McElroy to debate:
Link...
Jack,
Do you notice no one but me has commented on your blog? Not many people get to this section of your site. I do think your move to choose to violate your own ethics code is a new low for editors everywhere. Have you read your company's political activity code? Here is a link as you might want to read it at least once if only to just say you have.
Link...
If you would really like to debate put “The E.W. Scripps Company Statement of Policy on Ethics and Professional Conduct“ on the front page tomorrow and we will have a debate. If you are busy collecting signatures I will understand.
Posted by: wherethesundontshine at June 25, 2008 8:21 PM
McElroy must not feel comfortable on his position on this ethics matter.
When Ethics Point tells you your complaint has been looked into and no violation of the Scripps policy was found, will you have the decency to apologize to McElroy?
Bah. He won't even have the decency - or the courage - to share that information publicly.
Bah. He won't even have the decency - or the courage - to share that information publicly.
You have to be kidding. The second I get it I will post it. Regardless of what it says. You should know that after three plus years of our pleasant discussion and semi-debate.
The second I get it
The second you get anything, we'll all pray that hell freezing over is the perfect antidote to global warming.
Speaking of which, when I quote you in a post, then you quote me quoting you and attribute it to me, is that ethical?
rikki, what does this mean?
"The Company remains independent in all political matters and will not make monetary contributions, directly or indirectly, to political campaigns or causes, or to political parties."
A free four page color insert worth $7,500 is a monetary contribution.
Is your point that the Constitution makes the Sentinel's Ethics Policy null and void? They are two completely different things. Explain yourself?
When Ethics Point tells you your complaint has been looked into and no violation of the Scripps policy was found, will you have the decency to apologize to McElroy?
There has been a response from someone but I am not sure if they are with Ethics Point or the Sentinel. It looks like an auto-response. As near as I can read it look like whoever this is, is calling what McElroy did "an endorsement". When did a free ad become "an endorsement". A free ad is a contribution.
Looks like this will be a contest to determine what the meaning of the word is, is.
----------------------------------------------------------
Report Submission Date
6/24/2008
Reported Company/Branch Information
Name Newspapers
Location The Knoxville News Sentinel
City/State/Zip Knoxville, TN
Violation Information
Violation Type
Conflict of Interest
Please identify the person(s) engaged in this behavior:
Jack McElroy - Editor
Do you suspect or know that a supervisor or management is involved?
Yes
If yes, then who?
The above named.
Is management aware of this problem?
Yes
What is the nature of this conflict of interest?
Mr. McElroy is giving a full page add to the Knox Charter Petition, a political organization.
Where did this incident or violation occur?
In the news paper.
Please provide the specific or approximate time this incident occurred:
Add will run 25 June 2008.
How long do you think this problem has been going on?
Once
How did you become aware of this violation?
Other
If other, how?
The reporter read Mr. McElroy's editorial.
Details
The reporter states that Mr. McElroy is going to be in violation of the company's ethics policy on at least four points. On Sunday, 22 June 2008, Mr. McElroy ran an editorial in the paper saying that the paper is going to take the "unusual step of printing two petitions." These petitions are for the Knox Charter Petition.
Mr. McElroy is giving this political organization $3000 worth of free advertising. Again this is against the company's ethics policy, as the first paragraph states that, "The Company will not make monetary contributions directly or indirectly to political campaigns or causes." The reporter states that it is bad that he is doing so, it is worse that he is bundling it with a signed note from the editor of the paper.
The reporter states that this is in-kind contribution, as a monetary contribution could be documented. The reporter states that Mr. McElroy has not published a single letter against this petition drive.
The reporter would like an injunction to stop this from running.
Follow-Up Notes
There are no additional notes for this report.
Follow-Up Questions/Comments
Jun 24, 2008, 9:29 PM
Thank you for your interest in the Knoxville News Sentinel. The newspaper welcomes comments on the Knox Charter petition, opposing or not. You may comment online or write for print publication, by directing your letters to Jack McElroy at mcelroyj@knoxnews.com. If you would like to discuss these issues with the publisher, Bruce Hartmann, you may call him at 342-6920. The News Sentinel often endorses candidates and issues affecting their local communities, but prides itself on fully and objectively covering local news. Please let me know if you have additional questions, otherwise, I will consider this matter closed.
Denise Kuprionis
Ethics Officer
My Response to Denise Kuprionis:
Jun 28, 2008, 8:36 AM
Denise Kuprionis writes, "Please let me know if you have additional questions, otherwise, I will consider this matter closed."
What does that mean? How is the matter closed? This WAS NOT just an endorsement. It is participating in collecting signatures. It is a direct monetary contribution to political a cause. As such it is a violation of the Ethics Policy. What do you mean closed? Are you with the Sentinel or Ethics Point? Your response doesn't make any sense.
For years & years the N-S covered
elections like this:
1.Endorse candidates
2.Election tommorrow
3.Election today
4.Election results
5.The End
Since Black Wednesday,in Jan of '07,the N-S has been acting like an old school newspaper.The N-S took a side & praised their folks & hammered the other folks.Right now the N-S is taking the side of "let the people vote" on the petition groups charter changes.The N-S is not saying they support any of the petition groups proposals but they should be on the ballot.
As I've pointed out I'm not keen on some of the petition groups proposals.Because of my opinion I'm not going to sign the orange petition.Myself I can not logically see why I would sign a petition I have no intent on voting for.
The N-S disagrees & printed the 4 page spread in the paper.
For me it's simple..If the N-S is with me they be cooler than Elvis..If not the N-S be the elite mainstream media.
The N-S got the ink & it's their right to drown you in it.
Link...
"This matter is closed unless we hear back from you."
Unbelievable. Apparently everyone gets the same form letter response. Still don't know who Denise Kuprionis works for.
>Still don't know who Denise Kuprionis works for.
Ragsdale, like the rest of us.
I'm not pissed at the County Commission or the N-S
for their actions on this issue.
It's the N-S's right to print whatever they wish & support whatever they want.
It's also the County Commission's right to place or not place referendum on the ballot.
I have talked to County Commissioners on both sides.
Some of the commissioners against did not trust the language
of the charter changes presented by the petition group.
At the 11th hour former Commissioner Leuthold pointed
out some troubling language in the proposed charter changes.
Additionally,the petition group was steadfast
in the language presented to County Commission.
The petition group moderated that position.
But it was to late to get a few commissioners to switch their votes.
Now dont forget the County Commission has placed recall
& a reduction of signatures to place referendum on the
ballot from 15% of total registered voters to 15% in the previous governors election on the county general
ballot.
I'm voting YES to both.
Plus,the County Commission may well place civil service
for county employees except schools & sheriff on the
presidential ballot.
I do not know how a proposed civil service system
would effect any of the proposals by the petition
group.
That needs to be hashed out during the petition drive
& the County Commission debate on placing civil service
on the presidential ballot.
I lean toward voting YES on civil service.
With respect to proposal on reducing County
Commission to 11 members.
I never really got a feel on
WHY 11?
Kinda Willy-Nilly.
Futhermore,I do not agree with at-large commissioners
as proposed.
It seams to me the 2 at large uber commissioners
does not accomplish the stated goal of the charter change.
The at large commissioners in theory
view the county as a "whole" & would
not get bogged down in "my district"
parochialism.
However with only 2 at large commissioners
& under the proposal it would take 6 to pass
anything..the 9 district commissioners would
control the commission.
In my opinion,either all commissioners are elected
at large or none.
Also,the US Justice department may have something
to say if any charter charter change would result
in a reduction of minority representation.
I say may becuse I'm not a lawyer & dont know
the facts.
However,I have heard the civil rights argument made forcefully by some indivduals.
I am trying to get my arms around how this proposal
effects the terms in the 1st commission district.
Please ..please correct me
if I'm wrong.
In commission seat 1-B
Tank is term limited.
The next commission 1-B election is 2010.
The individual that is elected serves 6 years.
If that individual is re-elected in 2016.
They will serve from 2010 till 2020.
Am I reading this right???
I struggle with the Inspector General.
To be honest I dont understand why or how
the IG can find savings that the present
system could not find..if folks wanted to.
It sounds like a new bureaucracy that needs more
money & will create a turf.
I like the idea of mayorial appointments.
But I never got a good explanation on why the
Property Assesor was dropped from the original
petition group proposal.
As with the 11 on commission
the dropping of the Property
Assesor had a willy-nilly feel.
The petition drive needs to sharpin it's
campaign.
R points out he couldn't find the petition on-line.
And,the N-S fails to give the final date the petitions are due to be turned into the election commission.
Plus the willy-nilly ways makes the voter
uneasy.
To sum up
I will vote yes on recall & the reduction of
signatures needed to place referendum on the
ballot in the county general.
Right now I'm leaning toward voting yes
on civil service if on the presidential
ballot but I need more information
before I cast a yes vote.
I believe the proposal on a 11 member
County Commission is flawed & will not sign
the orange petition.
I've got some reservation about the
white petition.
I need to get a good answer on why the property
assesor was not included as a mayorial appointment.
Somebody's got to tell me the advantage of an IG.
In conclusion
I agree this thing has been handled poorly
The petition group was high handed.
The commission let factions & hard feelings
cloud their thinking.
We will see how it plays out
Somebody's got to tell me the advantage of an IG.
The advantage of an IG is that the office would be independent and have jurisdiction over all county operations. The Internal Auditor serves at the pleasure of the Commission and only looks at what they ask him to look at. No one has audited the Sheriff in who knows how long, so there are bound to be savings there. Also, an IG helps create better procedures to prevent waste and abuses, and contractors will be more inclined to play fair knowing an IG is around.
As a reference, check out TVA's Office of the Inspector General, which just released a report on what it has achieved in its two decades.
I looked over the TVA IG report.
Your point is well taken.
I'm just wondering.
Are you saying the problems in the Mayor's
office would not have happened if the county
had an IGs office?
Are you also saying that county government is run so poorly & sweetheart county contracts abound that the creation of an IGs office is the best way to straighten things out?
Are you saying the problems in the Mayor's
office would not have happened if the county
had an IGs office?
Any competent IG would recommend the use of p-cards, since they are a far more efficient and affordable way to keep records of small purchases than the bureaucratic paper-pushing that preceded them. Furthermore, an IG might consider a county-level politician loosening up state-level officials with liquor and lobster to be a legitimate, if not routine, lobbying expense. So probably not.
The TVA OIG did not prevent all those gambling and golfing expenses on TVA accounts 15-20 years ago. They are not perfect, nor can they fix our sick political system. NRR shorting the county its share of mulch and compost sales probably would not have happened with an IG around.
I still don't recommend signing either petition.
Well, if they must vote, why are you trying to keep the issue off the ballot? What's the matter, McElroy's end run take all the fun out of your planned walmart protest?
Oh, and speaking of comprehension issues:
"The hypocrisy of this is that KCP will only collect signatures in the City or inside friendly businesses in the City. Yet the KCP petition is about County government."
Remind me, again, which county the city of Knoxville is in?
The Sentinel publishing the petitions, as well as encouraging their support should they make it on the ballot, which they did earlier, I think is too much involvement. Someone also needs to explain why commissioners elected to this new government would serve 6 YEARS their first term.
An idea, let's abolish all this and just let McElroy and Hartmann pick a government.
Post new comment