Wed
Jul 26 2006
03:37 pm
Moyers is misleading voters
By: Paul Witt

I just received a letter that outlines the real record of Mike Moyers with regard to term-limits.

Knox County Law Director and would-be Chancellor Mike Moyers has recently complained to the News-Sentinel that a flier prepared by supporters of term limits and bearing his name as a "term-limited politician" is "outright misleading."  Moyers understands perfectly well why his name is included on that list.

Voters will certainly recall that term limits were extended to all other county offices except judges by more than 70% of voters in 1994.  What voters may not recall is that Moyers personally drafted a charter amendment to remove those term limits from his office of law director when he penned an indefensible slate of proposals for the county’s Charter Review Committee in 2004. 

Two amendments Moyers proposed then, that commission and school board candidates should be allowed to run for these county offices on the day they move into Knox County, were debated in the media.  When voters learned that the two proposals were completely without precedent in federal, state, and other county governments and were instead Moyers’ attempt to impact a county school board race, they defeated both amendments.  Unfortunately, a third one of Moyers’ proposed amendments, that term limits should be lifted from his office of law director, received no such public airing and was enacted absent any debate.

How did Moyers affect this seeming reversal in voter support for term limits?  He simply garbled the ballot text to propose that "the Knox County Law Director shall be subject to the term limits provisions of this Charter to the same extent as any Constitutional officer of Knox County Government."

As Moyers anticipated, a majority of voters did not realize that the extent to which Knox County’s constitutional officers were subject to term limits is that they were not subject to them at all, at least per the state Attorney General opinion then standing.  As Moyers also anticipated, a majority of voters did not realize that the Knox County Law Director’s office is not a constitutional office, either.  Had they realized it is not, voters would have questioned why we would want to treat it as such by exempting it from term limits. 

In light of Knox County voters’ clear support for term limits in their vote of 1994, there is only one reasonable explanation for 70% of voters then lifting term limits from just the law director’s office in August of 2004.  These voters were intentionally duped by Moyers, who did, indeed, act in the spirit of a "term-limited politician."    

Now, in the matter of Mike Moyers’ bid for Division III Chancellor, chagrined voters will want to cast their votes for his more transparent opponent, Jim Andrews.
 
Tamara G. Shepherd
Knoxville

Emphasis mine.

It's also worth noting that Mike Moyers is misleading the voters in another way.  He's claiming that he "led the defense of the charter while his opponent sat on the sideline".  Two things occur to me: a) Weaver ruled against the defense so if you're not lying, then how exactly is this something positive and b) Where's the evidence that he did anything to help the defense?  What evidence did he enter for the defense?  Does anyone here have a copy of the court record?
Bbeanster's picture

With all due respect to

Submitted by Bbeanster on Wed, 2006/07/26 - 4:10pm.

With all due respect to Tamara, whom I know and like, it's misleading to say that Moyers "personally drafted a charter amendment to remove those term limits from his office of law director when he penned an indefensible slate of proposals for the county’s Charter Review Committee in 2004."

It's easy to make unsupported allegations, harder to rebut them -- what's that old saying about a lie going around the world before the truth can get its boots on? That's never truer than during campaign season.

Moyers represented the Charter Review Committee, and was responsible for drafting amendments at the committee's request and direction. In the minutes of the March 26, 2004 meeting, Diane Jordan requested the law director "to review the possibility of adding language to remove term limits for the county law director." The motion was seconded by Margaret Massey Cox (a member of the Orange T-Shirt crew and Democratic County Commission candidate), and passed on a 13-0-0-6 voice vote.

I spoke with Jordan subsequently, and she said it was her thinking that it was unfair to leave the law director as the only term-limited office in the county (Don't be too hard on her for this. At this time, the Bailey decision had not put term limits back on the radar, and NOBODY, including me, Tamara Shepherd, Jim Andrews, Amy Broyles nor anybody else was raising the issue, oh ye of short and selective memories).

Moyers objected to this, and at the April 15 meeting, said that term limits had not yet been fully adjudicated, and still might be imposed on county office-holders, depending on what the courts might rule, in which case such a charter amendment could muddle the legal situation. He suggested that they change the language of the amendment to make the law director's office subject to term limits "to the same extent as other Knox County elected officials." John Griess made a motion to use that language and it passed 13-0-0-6 on a voice vote (this means all 13 members present voted for it, with six members being absent).

The minutes of the Charter Review Committee pretty much speak for themselves, and can be found in the Commission archives.

Lizajean Holt's picture

Moyers' Connection to the Term Limits/Charter Fiasco

Submitted by Lizajean Holt (not verified) on Thu, 2006/07/27 - 10:35am.

I find it curious that Betty Bean, close personal friend of Mike Moyers for many years, would have such quick access to the minutes of the Charter Commission when it took 18 years to get a copy of the Charter to the state authorities. While I really like Betty, she does tend to be less than objective when it comes to her personal friends, some of whom take full advantage of her loyalty. The local incumbent protection effort has been a very well orchestrated effort since 76% of the voters voted to term limit the elected officials 12 years ago. Of course, Mike Moyers, the incumbents, and others in their circles planned prior to the Commission Charter meeting a clever attempt to create the appearance that the referendum was not coming directly from Mr. Moyers. Mr. Moyers prides himself on being tricky and “clever” as evidenced by the confusing language of the referendum removing term limits from his office and as many voters still remember the profane insult he hid in a resolution he was directed to write by other commissioners that was supposed to honor the long service of former County Clerk Lillian Bean.

To refer to the points made by Tamara as “unsupported allegations” is rather silly since the supporting evidence is the very existence of the confusing term limiting referendum and the disgraceful Lillian Bean resolution. While Mr. Moyers failed to establish any record in defense of the Charter in Chancellor Weaver’s court (despite his radio ad claiming to ‘lead the defense of the Charter’), he has over the years established a clear record for manipulating language for his own personal pleasure and to hide his true intent.

Betty’s snide remark that Amy Broyles, Jim Andrews and others had not “put term limits back on the radar”, is itself misleading. As with any movement, a lot of planning and groundwork unbeknownst to those not involved has to be laid before a plan comes to fruition. Many of us have been wondering for a long time how to get the will of the people enforced, recognizing that such an effort would require that certain circumstances must first align. It was not practical to think that the incumbents holding office, who ignored the vote of 76% of the people would suddenly move forward simply because a group of citizens showed up at a meeting to ask them to do so. The Bailey decision was the catalytic factor that provided the right climate for those of us concerned about term limits to move forward. Now it’s up to the voters.

Mr. Moyers has always underestimated the common sense of the voters. Voters will see through his poorly veiled attempt to create the appearance that he had nothing to do with removing the term limits from his office. Perhaps this August 3, the will of the people will prevail.

Bbeanster's picture

Yep, I confess that Mike

Submitted by Bbeanster on Thu, 2006/07/27 - 11:16am.

Yep, I confess that Mike Moyers is one of the elected officials whom I genuinely like. I don't often agree with him politically, but I've found him to be honest and decent, something that goes a long way with me -- and I have owned up to this publicly on more than one occasion

But as long as you're putting personal agendas on the table and accusing me of the crime of liking Moyers, it's disingenuous for you not to reveal that you have had a very serious axe to grind with him ever since he let you go from your job in his office several years ago. And I presume you are quite close to Moyers' opponent, as well.

What happened at the meetings of the charter review committee has been a hot button issue for weeks now, and it baffles me that you'd be shocked that I'd try to get my hands on the minutes, which are public documents and available to anybody who wants them. This ain't my first rodeo, and I went looking for documentation -- something that you and Tamara are sorely lacking. All I see is unsupported allegations. Are you saying that Margaret Massey Cox was a party to a conspiracy to thwart the will of the people? Or are you saying that she stupid enough to be duped by this bunch of nefarious conspirators, including Bud Gilbert, whose name was synonymous with ethics reform when he was a state senator. Bud, by the way, was a strong supporter of term limits who put his money where his mouth and stepped down after serving two terms. He was an elected official I truly admired, and I would bet my last dollar that he would blow the whistle on anything this committee did that didn't meet his smell test.

I've got nothing to gain from this argument professionally or personally, and I'm not looking for a paycheck or a political favor out of the deal. I was a strong supporter of term limits, but I believe that there are perfectly honorable people on the other side, and that reasonable people can disagree. I also stick by my observation that the term limits issue wasn't being raised by anybody in politics here over the last few years. You suggest that you and others were "wondering how long it would take" for the issue to bubble up to the surface, but I find that pretty difficult to swallow, since you guys aren't known for suffering silently. You don't need groundwork and committees and a climate change to raise a point of principle. Any issue can be demagogued -- even a good, legitimate one, and that is what I see happening here.

Lizajean Holt's picture

Glad you mentioned that.....

Submitted by Lizajean Holt (not verified) on Thu, 2006/07/27 - 2:31pm.

Betty, Betty, Betty,
After the lovely article you wrote about me regarding the KNOXRECALL effort in City Views, I’m a little puzzled as to why you now call me “disingenuous”. I thought it was common knowledge that I worked in the Office of Law Director for four years and like you I have often discussed the issue when speaking to various workers’ rights groups. Besides, this is about the term limits issue and who is most qualified to serve as Chancellor. It's not about me. But for those folks who may not know what happened, I’ll “disclose” completely since you left out some relevant information.

After I had been very active in Jim Andrews’ 2002 campaign for sheriff, the day Sheriff Hutchison took his new oath of office, Mike told me that, “Your services are no longer needed”. There was nothing wrong with my job performance; I had never been reprimanded and only positive letters were in my file.

I have “no ax to grind”. I’m very happy and blessed with my employment working for the honorable Rev. Dr. Harold Middlebrook. Prior to this opportunity, I had the honor of working for a union, which due to the anti-worker climate in Tennessee, had to downsize and consolidate my duties with an already existing position within the Atlanta Regional Office. I had no intention of continuing to work for an office that I believed to be engaged in unethical behavior. Mike and I had numerous disagreements regarding the duty of the Law Director to the citizens of Knox County. As he has stated under oath on numerous occasions, he does not consider the people who elected him to be his clients. He believes his duty is to the other elected politicians. Of course, when I asked why, if he had no duty to the citizens, the position was an elected one versus appointed, Mike had no answer. Unless the Charter has been changed (or there are various versions floating around which is entirely possible), the Charter defines the duty of the Office of Law Director as “to protect the interests of Knox County”, it does not say the interests of elected officials.

The circumstances of my termination is in part why those of us working on positive community change are not always so quick to publicize our strategies during the planning stages. Too many Knox County employees are not active in the political process because they live and work in fear of loosing their job for being on “the wrong side” of a political issue or candidate. One thing that happens over time, is that we learn through experience what is and is not effective in organizing initiatives. One thing that is certain in Knox County, if you are trying to take on the power structure, you need to get your ducks in a row before you start working on mobilizing the general public.

I’m glad you brought the issue up so that folks understand that my strong support of Jim Andrews is based on a first hand perspective of Mike’s character and moral compass (or lack thereof). By the way, I- like you, “have nothing to gain from this argument professionally or personally, and I'm not looking for a paycheck or a political favor out of the deal” either. Unlike Mike, who has already said he would be replacing the staff in the Chancellor’s Office (he presumes he will win), Jim Andrews’ will not be using the office for his own patronage purposes and will not fire the existing staff.

Bbeanster's picture

When I got to know you

Submitted by Bbeanster on Thu, 2006/07/27 - 4:29pm.

When I got to know you through your work in the recall movement, I thought you were one of the hardest-working and most selfless activists I'd ever seen, and I have not changed my mind about that. But there's a line between activism and zealotry, and your reality is quite different from mine. I stand by my previous remarks, and am skeptical of yours. FYI, a chancellor's "staff" consists of a personal secretary.

bobwhite's picture

moyers term limits

Submitted by bobwhite (not verified) on Fri, 2006/07/28 - 11:35am.

"It seems to me if somebody is gonna sell somebody something, and tell 'em it's good, then it ought to be good."
-the real Leroy Mercer

Bbeanster's picture

You got any dogs up there?

Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2006/07/28 - 1:19pm.

You got any dogs up there?

bobwhite's picture

just one, but he's a mean

Submitted by bobwhite (not verified) on Fri, 2006/07/28 - 3:28pm.

just one, but he's a mean un, probably an infidel

Bbeanster's picture

You that little skinny

Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2006/07/28 - 3:58pm.

You that little skinny sumbitch?

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