>I'm sure if you put Cas Walker, Suttree and James Longstreet out in the >middle of a big watermelon patch, they'd come up with a thumpin-good >plan.

Longstreet lost, you know...

Bottom line is same old crap that permeates the city county building time and time again:

Schmid don't like the Sheriff, can't beat him at the polls, can only get rid of him through term limits. That's been the motivation since day one.

Gang of 5 have no life without their "commission" status, they can't wine and dine as celebrities, Griess hasn't sold or leased anything for HolRob in 4 years, but he has access to the deals coming down the pike which are funded and HolRob can jump right in, remember the Farmer's Market, without the commission label, the Gang of 5 are really unemployed and out of luck.

Mike Lowe needs to keep his spot until he runs for County Mayor in 2010 and his lawyer Al Harb needs the fees and percentages from the delinquent property tax sale, which is Harb's biggest client and fee generator, so they want to make sure they're not tossed by any ruling for term limits, otherwise, they're both out of luck and nearly broke

Ragsdale has enough problems as it is, he'd like to have a few folks on county commission that will at least listen to him, he might need a few character witnesses when the feds get their indictments down,

State Election Coordinator, Brook Thompson is sick and tired of the Knox County Election Commission not making decisions and dumping their issues in his lap. No other county election commission ties his office up day in and day out as does Knox County.

John Owings needs to keep the charter upheld, as he's got to run and there are already 4 or 5 bored lawyers looking to push him out of his seat, he can't term limit the sheriff because he needs his support in 2008 to be elected law director, the ads directed at Moyers will be directed at him come May, 2008, asleep at the switch while a bunch of bums try to live off the county payroll beyond their allowable 8 years.

The school board members might be term limited as well, however, most of them can't get it right anyway so they get tossed after 1 term. All the schools west of the mall are overcrowded and if the representative for that area can not decrowd one school, they're out after 1 term.

Well, considering there are thousands of pages of briefs and transcripts, you'll forgive me if I don't go into much detail.

Honestly, I don't know the answer. I think Weaver was right because the enabling statute required certain things which simply weren't done (providing for all offices(?), registering with the state, getting proclamation from Sec. of State that charter is approved, among other things). Weaver followed the law.

However, Knox Co. has clearly operated "de facto" as a charter government for the last 12 years. That means something and can have legal effect in the suit challenging the charter. so, I think the Court could ratify the past acts, even if it invalidates the Charter.

As for the new charter gov't., given Knox Co. operated with an Executive and Commission for 10 years or so prior to the new charter (1980-) and the goal with the new charter was to enable Knox Co. to pass ordinaces without private acts of the General Assembly (I believe that was the real purpose), the fact that so-called "constitutional offices" are assumed to exist in the charter (they are referred to in various parts) and the only additional duty is that the Sheriff was given power to enforce the ordinances which Knox Co. would be passing under it's new form of government, it seems logical that all Knox Co. intended to do was create it's own Executive and a Commission. The other offices were not part of the Charter and are governed by state law. In other words, it was intended to operate like it has for the past 12 years.

This won't make the term limits folks happy, because everyone other than Mayor and Commission (and I think Law Director) would be out of term limits. But, it seems to make a lot of sense legally. Of course, it leads to the question of whether the Charter can be valid if it does not provide for all of these offices specifically, including the duties of each.

I don't know what the Supremes will do. There are a whole lot smarter lawyers out there than me. I don't know if the Court will include term limits and who it applies to in the decision. I know it was indirectly presented to Weaver, but he was only asked to determine the validity of the Charter. The Supreme Court does not look beyond the trial court record. It would be a stretch, maybe a small one?, to also rule on who is subject to term limits. That also depends on whether the Charter is valid in the first place.

If I heard right, Schmid argues that because the offices, such as register of deeds, trustee, etc., were not in the charter, they do not exist and the county would be left to simply create finance departments, records offices, etc. (sort of like the city). He argues the charter can't therefore be thrown out because of not providing for these offices (which the enabling statute required...maybe). McAdams is a very good lawyer, but this argument just struck me as odd. Maybe I misunderstood something.

Sorry for the too long post. This is complicated stuff, with a lot of sides.