One thing that has struck me, since I am new to watching this closely, is how many people are developers in government. I didnt realize it was that prevalent.
No wonder they seem to have carte blanche in the area.

Trammel must have some good info on these guys. They are determined to get him in somewhere.

Why is John Schimd still voting? Schmid is seat A. Richard Cate replaced him for Seat A.

Should he not vacate his seat just as Billy Tindell did in the first appointment? It seems County Commission is violating the instructions of the Supreme Court which instructed that Commissioners would serve until they are replaced. Schmid has been replaced.

How does that work?

Josh Jordan's resume is hilarious. Is he serious? Someone should have told him not to just jot some things down on his cigarette break.

Who out of this bunch will and won't get the KNS endorsement in 08'? Any guesses?

So, you think if Bee were still sitting on Commission today, she would have sat quietly through the "let's make up the rules as we play" mentalities at work here?

At first I thought the Supreme Court decision was good, but now I actually miss our old commissioners.

Moncier has finally filed a good lawsuit. I note that Mike Whalen is one of the plaintiffs. He is a good lawyer. I doubt that he would join in the suit if he didn't think it had merit. Mr. Tindell is a politician trying to defend the indefensible.

Chad,

"My" candidate didn't get picked because I didn't have a candidate. I simply wanted a fair, open democratic process for the selection of commissioners and other office holders. I suspect I am not the only person in Knox County who felt that way.

Of course, I wanted a fair, open process democratically applied back when term limits were first deemed inapplicable 12 years ago (through a legal gymnastics process that would have scored a 10 at the Olympics).

The process is corrupt. You know it. I know it. The commissioners know it. Everybody knows it. Everybody. (Well, possibly old Fred Harkenberger over Skokie way don't know, but Fred's always been a little off, hasn't he?)

Since it is all about who scratches whose back, and who carries whose shit for whom, why don't we all just wallow in the shit?

Why not? Why can't commission just talk openly about who coerced or persuaded each of them to vote which way, what promises were made, and how much each vote was worth? Why not bring it right out into the light and see who got the most bang for their buck? And who got the best bargain?

I mean, if you suggest that the rest of us just roll over and accept the sleaze, can't you suggest to our government to reciprocate just a little by trotting the sleaze buckets out for us to peruse? Why not tell us how much we need to plonk on the table to buy some influence? Hey, you're probably still allowed up to the table, so why not throw us mutts a bone every once in while?

And if you can't do that, then your suggestion to not resort to lawsuits is probably not going to work. Because some people (not many, obviously, given the voting around here, but some) are incredibly frustated with the stench emanating from local government. Some people don't want to wallow in the shit. And a few of them will probably resort to lawsuits to try to get the local government to, you know, abide by the law.

Some people, geez. Some people just don't know what's good for them, do they? Some people should just shut up and do what they're told, shouldn't they? Some people, sheesh. Some people.

But me, I'll wallow in the shit. Because what has been, will be.

Chad,

Your initial objection to this lawsuit was hollow. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the thing you were objecting to. Now you've added a lot more words, yet remarkably little substance. I'm a bit embarassed for you, except I think you take pride in distracting people and talking around issues.

Your notion that only losers complain is stupid because it's true. I imagine if you lived next door to an abusive husband, the wife's screaming and crying would be what bothers you.

The substantive objections to yesterday's events are these: first, it was obvious the commission was hiding a great deal from the public. They didn't need to take recesses. They could have turned on their microphones and told everyone why they were voting for a nominee and tried to persuade others to join them. They are forbidden by law from holding secret meetings, yet off they went to the coat room over and over again. This is offensive no matter the outcome, and plenty of people here gripe about this practice in many contexts when they no strong stake in the outcome. If you don't want to hear it, have the courage to argue against the sunshine laws rather than taking cheap shots at those who want them respected.

The other substantive issue is they way Tindell was removed. We all know that had he remained seated, his choice of a replacement would have been honored by his junior commissioners. The issue of ordering the appointments was brought up on the day the Supreme Court decision was announced, and there should have been no surprises about the process. Commissioners attempted to set ground rules, but they were blown off. There was no reason why Tindell had to be placed in the position of holding two offices, which he technically was not in until sworn in as clerk, and the fact that putting him in that bind worked out so swimmingly for Scoobie strongly suggests it was not merely an idiotic lack of foresight, but deliberate subterfuge.

Anyone can see this stinks. I can smell it all the way out here in Blount County. Why are you rolling around in it?

Chad - with all due respect I must disagree on several points.

First, though you state the appointment process "wasn't designed to deal with a wholesale replacement of 12 offices", it appears from yesterday's fiasco there was no process designed at all. What it turned out to be was not what the people heard from Chairman Scott Moore or others as giving representatives from each district a chance. If that were the case at least 4 of the commissioners wouldn't have been sworn in yesterday.

Second, regarding "much was made over Bolus and Trammel...", I think a lot should be made of that. Though Bolus has an education, he was also Scott Moore's 2006 campaign Treasurer and Moore nominated him yesterday. This is another "family member" that people haven't picked up on yet. Also, it was clear that in this district there were other qualified candidates that expressed interest and they weren't considered at all - while Bolus never even made himself known until the end. This was nothing more than a power play on Scott Moore's part in hopes of gaining one more vote - and Bolus will be nothing more than a puppet on a string for Moore. Though it might have been legal, there was absolutely nothing ethical about how his appointment and subsequent swearing in were handled.

Regarding Lee Trammel: come on. Everyone knows that Scott Davis was the more qualified, fair candidate. More importantly, he planned only to "serve" during the interim. Trammel has no formal education and his experience with the Sheriff's office is nothing like what you tout in your comments. He has never worked in the jail, on patrol, etc. and just after his re-hire a couple of years ago attended the training academy. So, though there may be no other current Sheriff's Dept employee on the commission, my opinion is that there are some as experienced in this area as Trammel. And though it may be true that he has been involved in politics for years, who cares? The term limit issue is about bringing people in to "serve" and not about career politicians. And one more thing - in my mind there is nothing ethical about a county employee being able to vote on his own budget or other issues related to his career - but after yesterday it is clear that commission has no code of ethics.

Regarding Guthe and the vote for this (Trammel) seat, nobody seems to be questioning why Diane Jordan changed her vote either? Maybe someone should ask her.

Although you say every commissioner was given the opportunity to be sworn in, AGAIN the process for appointments was never clearly defined. This "you can if you want to" mentality doesn't cut it. I'm sure it was confusing for appointees since there was already a "ceremony" for this scheduled for later in the afternoon. You know as well as I do that this was nothing more than a ploy to get Bolus (since the Cate effort failed) in order to get Trammel.

I agree that what's done is done and we have no hope except for the upcoming elections in '08 and '10. But our County Commission has made a laughing stock of Knox County. Though I don't know him, I appreciate the efforts of John Schmid in trying to do the right thing. That is, after all, what public service is about.

Steve Hall wins overwhelmingly...

Steve Hall may be ok. Frankly I dont know. But I think being an incumbent
at that level of a local election is an almost insurmountable. You have name
recognition that an opponent will find virtually impossible to match. `So unless
the incumbent does a noticeably poor job they are probably going to be re-elected.
The resources required to market an opponent are just unreasonable for that position.

If you want new blood in there, term limits are a possible solution. No
reflection on anyone personally.

The sort of incestuous method by which the positons were filled
will prevent new ideas and persepctives and strengths from
being introduced into the mechanism. The weaknesses will stay the weaknesses.As far as someone being mad 'their choice' did not get selected, I think its more that their choice has not in the past and may never be selected. Imagine not having your thoughts or views reflected in your governance. It seems
a noticeable part of the population is in that position currently. If this
is a government for all people then it seems they should make the decisionsas frequently as reasonably possible.

I dont know where the '6 months' figure came from but I doubt it would take anywhere near that long.

I direct these comments to CBT (I don't know you--Hello). You make some good points, but I see these holes in your arguments:

1)Witt, Sisk and Jones were all good picks? I agree, but what of ignoring Stooksbury in the Clerk's office to find a job for Tindell? 2)It would take 6 months to have endless meetings, forums, and preference elections? Harmon proved otherwise, quickly organizing a district-level forum and a straw poll. 3)Citizens claim a fix when their choice isn't appointed? Commissioners might have fostered understanding if they had offered *any* advance rationales for their picks.

No, officers were appointed arbitrarily and commissioners were chosen absent any constituent input or other rationale offered the public. Even late applicants were entertained (and two appointed), contrary to Commission's own instruction to applicants. Commissioners also treated their peers badly(at least in D2 & D4) by failing to act on Harmon's and Schmidt's/Guthe's recommendations. Most importantly, it doesn't appear to me that the process outlined in our charter was followed, especially with regard to establishing in advance of the meeting the manner in which appointees would be "elected." Quiet simply, we saw Commission making up the rules as they went.