I suppose Fansler could order an election,

Why do you say that?

I suppose Fansler could order an election,

Why do you say that?

I think Chancellor Fansler could order an election if he wanted to take matters into his own hands. The Open Meetings Law gives him jurisdiction to enforce the purposes of the law upon application of any citizen of Tennessee.

But it would be a real act of judicial activism, and I would be very surprised if he did, particularly given the circumspect manner in which he defined his authority in Friday's opinion.

Everybody wants to do what they can't legally do -- have a binding "special election" as that is defined under state law.

But nobody wants to do what Commission can do all by itself:

Tell the Election Commission to have a vote of the people on each of the vacancies.

Armed with the results of such a vote, the maximum input from the public that Commission could obtain, Commission would still need to appoint the replacements for the vacant seats at a meeting, which should comply with the Open Meetings Law in all respects.

It's not a perfect solution, it's just a doable solution, which essentially would allow the people to select the replacements.

install the second-placers in the 2006 elections. if we rushed a special election to be held before August, any loser could potentially sue, complaining they didn't have enough time for a fair campaign.

Second-placers could hold the offices until the August general.

For Mark Siegle to be fighting for the people is nothing new;he has always fought for the people's interest against the special interest.It's also nothing new for Siegle to take a position that is unpopular with the power structure.

Looks to me what Siegle is advocating would not change the course of the '08 elections but rather allow the voters a way to participate in the appointments that will serve until Sept of '08.

I agree with knoxrebel that the KCEC has no authority to hold a non binding vote.However,I also agree with Siegle..many are looking at what we cant do & not what we can do.

Commissioner Mark Harman advocated a plebiscite..I disagreed at the time but I'm willing to entertain the idea now & if 6 county commissioners have a meeting of the minds it could be a way out of this mess.

I would call it a caucus.As Ive said before..the County Commission,NOT the Election Commission,would set the rules & run the caucus.One in every commission district.Then the County Commission would pass a will of the caucus resolution.The will of the caucus resolution would resolve to abide the results.Present the plan to the court & see where it goes.

This maybe out of the box thinking but nowhere do I see where the court has precluded such action.Futhermore,this is not juducial activism because the court is not creating the plan simply reviewing the actions of County Commission & giving advice as to muster.

Additionally,the TCA or any aspect of election law is involved in this plan.Nor is the KCEC or the state adminstrator of elections or the Att General or the General Assembly.

It would be a breath of fresh air for the County Commission & the Mayor to work together to give the people a chance to decide..not a dog & poney show I fear we are going to have.

It would be legally ineffective, and therefore, meaningless.

Slow, clumsy and confusing also come to mind. Yeah, let's spend a few hundred thousand having an 'advisory' election in December, have Commission appoint replacements in January and then have a real primary election in February (along with that pesky Presidential race, I'm sure there will be a little advertising and news coverage from November to February, just a little). All that certainly wouldn't be confusing to mom and dad who don't spend every waking minute figuring all this stuff out because little Johnny has soccer practive and needs help with math.

Everyone's all for a vote. It will happen next year. In the meantime, let's focus on the probable, not the (near) impossible. I wish our elected officials would show some leadership instead of grasping for headlines and posturing political. Hey dingbats, given all that's happened the citizens would like some straight talk, insight on the process and leadership. Think you could manage that? The same goes for the News Sentinel printing all the headlines about elections when they could be educating the public on reality.

I suppose Fansler could order an election,

I say that because Moncier believes Fansler's mandatory injunctive powers extend that far, i.e. ordering a special election. He cites a Jackson, TN case where they moved an election because of a tornado. It's factually distinguishable, which Brook Thompson pointed out in the KNS story today.

While I don't limit Fansler's authority, given the law which provides for appointments in the event of vacancies, prior court opinions in the term limits litigation which point directly at that law and the legal and practical obstacles, I don't see it happening.

Could Fansler appoint something akin to a special master to watch over the process? Someone with power?

I'm not sure what power they would have. Most 'masters' conduct hearings in the nature of fact-finding and then report back to the court. I suppose Fansler could appoint such a person. But, absent some meetings in violation of the open meetings law, where the master wouldn't be present anyway, all the meetings, discussions, both as to the process for public input, appointments, etc. should be out in the open subject to coverage by the media, etc. I don't see that a master would do much good. That is, unless Fansler wants to have a specific report from someone he appoints to verify compliance with his order.

I suppose Fansler could order an election,

Why do you say that?

I say that because Moncier believes Fansler's mandatory injunctive powers extend that far, i.e. ordering a special election

You believe Fansler can call an election because Moncier believes it?

County Caucus rules I would advocate County Commission following.

1.Hold a caucus @ the high schools in every district.
2.To be held the last thursday in November.4 till 9.
3.All write-in ballot.
4.Adopt an id process that would include light bills ect.
5.Hire 15 people per caucus to run it.pay $12 per hr
6.Take the ballots to the civic collseum
7.Same people come back Fri & start counting;count from 10-5 daily till finished(not sunday).If need be hire some more people.
8.Results not due to the County Commission till wed dec 12.5pm

I think that most people who are interested in govenrment at all are paying attention

Too bad this would only get you about a 5% turnout. Our elected officials and media need to meet people where they are. They need to make it easy and available. As it is, you have to be politically obsessed (like many who post here) to keep up. The vast majority of people read the headlines not the details. Let's help those people/voters out.

What reality would you have them educate the public on?

That's quite simple. I want Commissioners and the Mayor's office to restore some confidence in the legal appointment process. The process for filling vacancies isn't bad standing alone. It doesn't require a violation of the open meetings law. I have said a number of times the appointment process wasn't designed for doing 12 at once, but it is the law we have to live by.

It would be far better for Commissioners and the Mayor to talk about making the appointment process open and inviting for public input rather that talking about a 'special election' which won't happen. Tell us how it will work and how we can be involved. Plus, how dumb do these folks look when the headline one day is 'Ragsdale and Hammond Want Special Election' and the next day the headline reads 'Law Doesn't Allow Special Election'. It's as if Homer Simpson issued the press release...DOH!

It's just my opinion (which I shared with Commissioner Hammond in person this morning) that Commissioners would start rebuilding some confidence by fulfilling promises as opposed to making empty ones. We can fulfill the promise of having an open, public appointment process. That's the road we need to be travelling, not pandering with promises of an election which will never happen.

I think the voters want to know if anybody @ the courthouse can do anything right.

Why not look into a county caucus? We've tried everything else...special election..no go...appointments..uh..oh

In Hamblen County we used nominate our partisan candidates in convention.Some countys still do..so its not beyond the pale for a caucus to be a part of a process.

Before you start that but we're KNOX County bs

Last week I went to Morristown for the East-West game.
Folks are focused on the big game...but I was stunned(Malone was stunned that I was stunned)that everywhere I turned people we're shaking their heads & telling me..We've pulled some shit up here but nothing as fucked up as whats going on in Knox County.

Can Knox County do anything right?

Thats the question...from Mountain City to Memphis...from Farragut to Four way Inn.

Why not a county caucus?

I know it's hard to refrain from lumping Ragsdale into any and all negative - like this mess the commissioners have gotten us into. But we all know that Scott Moore is only going to "work with" a few, select allies - and Ragsdale isn't one of them.

I think it has been overwhelmingly stated by the people that a special election is the preference; so why give up on that until we have exhausted every avenue? We have some legal opinions telling us to pursue a special election, and we have some legal opinions telling us that it absolutely cannot happen. So we now ask the question, who is the final legal opinion?

And in regards to CBT:

Plus, how dumb do these folks look when the headline one day is 'Ragsdale and Hammond Want Special Election' and the next day the headline reads 'Law Doesn't Allow Special Election'. It's as if Homer Simpson issued the press release...DOH!

If you read the entire article, you might remember that this is actually what Ragsdale stated:

“An overwhelming number of citizens would prefer this option,” Ragsdale said. “If it’s not possible, we need to move forward with an appointment process that is open and is transparent and allows our citizens the opportunity for significant input, which is critical to this process.”

I'm not defending any of the actions exposed recently about the Mayor's administration, nor am I any less disappointed than most people. But I am amazed that some people with emotional or professional interests in current county government have sat back silently during this entire commission debacle, but scream and yell about the Mayor every chance they get. Seems like these people may be part of a faction, too.

“An overwhelming number of citizens would prefer this option,” Ragsdale said. “If it’s not possible, we need to move forward with an appointment process that is open and is transparent and allows our citizens the opportunity for significant input, which is critical to this process.”

Number one, how do we know what the heck an overwhelming number of people want in Knox County? I frankly think most of them know half the facts and got more confused as the days passed.

Second, the Mayor is right (and I have pointed out he has done some good things) that we need to have the right sort of appointment process. We went down this road about a special election months ago. It was not possible then and is even less likely now. So, my point is, why bring it up? Stick to talking about promises and ideas which can be fulfilled. That would go a long way with the citizens in Knox County.

But I am amazed that some people with emotional or professional interests in current county government have sat back silently during this entire commission debacle, but scream and yell about the Mayor every chance they get.

I don't know if you're putting me in this group, but I have commented in almost every thread and to to friends, family and others about the Commission's problems. Yes, I have also been critical of the Mayor and some in his office. So have lots of people.

I know all too well that political people always want to lump people in factions, With political parties, lump you into one set of ideas. As GOP Chairman I was positioned with whatever Republican elected official was up for election. Over the past 20 years, I've been supposedly a member of FOV (that's Friends of Victor), part of the Bean Machine, a Hutchison boy, one of Ragsdale's allies...well, you name it. The simple fact is, I've worked with all these people at different times. I've also been critical of some at times. IMHO, there's too much made of 'factions' and too little made of the person.

did parkey say a one day special session of the general assembly
to get a special election? He did on wate.

The CC could indeed put in the runner ups if they wanted to.

If we get a fast track to a special election who would it help?
If the general assembly puts in place a special election thats it.
We vote a primary in Dec...general in Feb..game over.Those folks are in until Sept 2010.

How much money does JJ got? The devolopers put 20,000 on some commission seats... can we beat em? It would be 2 month primary campaign.R U READY???

Is the N-S now working for its real clients...the folks who buy the adds???

Dont throw me in that special election briar patch

We will see..

I like both the runner up and the caucus ideas.

It seems the runner up idea would be legal if the CC passed a resolution just for the record (in public) agreeing to appoint the runners up and then proceeded with that.

The caucus seems to be legal as as described by Bill Young.

Both would seem to be within the CC's powers and duty to appoint replacements, and there does not appear to be much guidance in state law as to how to do that.

As for a special election, couldn't Gov. Bredesen call an emergency special session of the legislature to pass a private act or whatever it is that is needed?

Why yes, I think Steve McGill would be a fine Commisioner. But do I think that Pinkston would willingly see him appointed? Not for an instant.

I suspect similar scenarios in the other districts.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Navy all tied up with Pitt @ 1/2

I will support the the '08 Democrat county ticket.

Having said that in both the Democrat primary & the Republican primary there are insurgent candidates running..the Election Commission list for folks thinkin about it is what?...60+

I agree with the Chair..let em run...give em time to make their case.

Don't cut your nose off to spite your face.

Didn't Mark Harmon actually host something like what you are proposing Mark? I know you said he suggested it back in January, but didn't he actually go through with something, though maybe less formal, at the public forum held at Whittle Springs for candidates? I think I remember reading that ballots were handed out and then collected at the end of the forum? I'm not sure who got the majority (though I'm fairly certain it wasn't Bolus).

Of course, given the circumstances, one might wonder about the validity of the outcome unless some "formal" oversight of the votes is involved.

And Chad,just one response to:

Number one, how do we know what the heck an overwhelming number of people want in Knox County?

Maybe I over-stated, but IMHO I agree with that statement. Based on all I have read and heard that seems to be the consensus.

thread hike

Staubach in the house..last Navy qb to beat N-D

Navy wins!!

The runner-up idea is ridiculous. What if the runner up has zero qualifications for the office...? It's not as if every 2+ person race is a serious contest. There's a better way to pick.

Remember the Runner-Up Bowl?
The NFL's answer to not being a champion
Didn't work then wont work now

Let's try to limit the appointees to folks who want to serve until September and pledge not to run

We need to remember these folks will still be called on to make important decisions. There is a lack of accountability if every one of the appointees knows they won't run. They can do what they want for 8 months or so and leave it someone else to clean up. Our government, schools, etc. are far more important. We need to pick qualified people.

The runner-up idea is ridiculous. What if the runner up has zero qualifications for the office...? It's not as if every 2+ person race is a serious contest. There's a better way to pick.

Maybe, but the qualifications to get on the ballot are pretty minimal. How would you propose to change that?

The logic of the runner up idea is that, as it turned out, some of the candidates on the ballot weren't in fact qualified.

If a NASCAR team is caught cheating in an after the race inspection, doesn't the win go to the second place finisher? They don't void the whole race. And the election wasn't voided, just the races where unqualified candidates were elected.

But I understand it's not necessarily a popular idea. And Goose Creek makes a good point about why it probably wouldn't fly politically.

Maybe, but the qualifications to get on the ballot are pretty minimal. How would you propose to change that?

Getting on the ballot and being judged by the voters is markedly different than being automatically presumed to be qualified by finishing second (even in cases where it was a far distant second).

Chad, wouldn't the same logic apply to all the second term commissioners?

I suppose that's true, but those ducks were put in place in an election, not appointed as 'caretakers'. Those who want to run will have to demonstrate they can do a good job if they want the voters to keep them. Not so with caretakers. They can create whatever mischief they choose and leave the mess for others (remember, if there were 8 caretakers, with 2 more they control every vote). I don't think so-called caretakers should be automatically excluded. I just don't think they're the only ones who should be included.

We need to pick responsible, accountable and qualified people. I added the two other descriptive terms. Before I have presumed they were included in 'qualified'.

I saw Brook Thompson today at a training session in Kingston. He said a non binding referendum/election/ plebiscite, call it what you will, would also require legislative approval. Just like the special election.

Keep in mind, I cannot do a county wide vote of any kind by November 6th. It is logisticlly impossible.

Clearly, the election commission can not conduct an election of any sort, but nothing that formal is needed. Candidates could simply gather signatures for one week, and the election commission could count the verified signatures as though it were a petition.

Since the voter database is now free, it would not be hard to set up laptops at each high school to verify registrations, then use purple ink to keep people from voting twice. Write-in votes only, hand counted.

The runner-up idea would work great if we had instant runoff voting, but as it is, it's a blatant attempt to hand most of the seats to Democrats.