Russ, I was at the meeting tonight and am absolutely disgusted with the result. I'm certainly not a fan of Scoobie Moore's or Lumpy Lambert, but man, it seemed like they were the only two people making sense tonight. I am extremely disappointed in Mark Harmon for casting a vote to delay things until after the elections. That was a horrible decision on his part and one that he'll hear about for the next 2 years. The upshot appears to be precisely what Lambert mentioned: these six Commissioners - Harmon, Smith, Leuthold, Hammond, Ballard, and surprisingly, Norman - have developed a coalition of power to thwart not only the Court-ordered appointments, but also the Ragsdale audit. This also means that Ballard, the swing vote, has lined up the Mayor's support in his race against Mike Lowe for Property Assessor. Finally, I'm lining up a group of bi-partisan plaintiffs to either intervene in the lawsuit in Fansler's court and ask him to enforce his order or file a new lawsuit in federal court because the 4th District remains unrepresented and other districts are underrepresented, and the Commission is still making decisions. We'll intervene or file suit by the week's end.

Don Daugherty

How we will be able to distinguish a fair appointment process from tampering with an election?

Are there ground rules for who can be appointed? If not, the election is irrelevant. If so, those rules should have been included in the resolution. I'm guessing they were not. Unless they voted on a specific process linking the primary results to their appointment proceedings, they are merely neglecting their duty, and Mr. Daugherty's threat to file a suit seems warranted.

I'm having a hard time seeing anything but interference with an election resulting from this dereliction, and I'd like to commend the commission for keeping its streak of finding the worst possible path intact. More than a decade of getting everything wrong has gone into this farce, and if we are lucky the laughs will never stop.

There are a ton of people running, and the primary will at least weed some of them out. It would be an awful move to appoint someone who is running, and have them lose in the primary, and then continue to serve for another 8 months.

After the primary, they may or may not be appointing either of the primary winners. Several of the people now running have said that they don't want to be appointed by Commission, they want to be elected by the voters. So they will not be asking to be appointed.

I haven't looked at all the races, but in some cases it may be quite obvious which candidate will be elected after the primary. There may be a Democrat elected in the First District, for instance.

With the input from the primary, they will be taking applications, holding a round of forums, and making a decision. They may go with one of the primary winners, or with a caretaker.

I am not at all uncomfortable with the two month delay. I live in the 4th District, and I would strongly oppose any legal action at this point.

If you have such strong opinions and were at the meeting last night, why didn't you stand before the commission at the podium, as the Knox Co. Dem Chair, and speak your mind? I would say that would have been your right and your duty.

As a lawyer do you find it easier to find a legal cure after the fact?

Personally, I much prefer to wait after the primary for this group to make an appointment. And I hope that those candidates that have said they do not want an appointment will reconsider should they win the primary.

Personally, I much prefer to wait after the primary for this group to make an appointment.

Yes, by all means, let's do appoint Bolus and Jordan nine months early. What a swell idea.

~Russ

What makes me nervous about waiting that long is that some districts are under-represented and some, like the fourth, are completely bereft.

As a resident of the Fourth, I'm thoroughly disgusted with the decision tonight by County Commission to put off the December forums and appointment process for another TWO MONTHS.

This idea that the primaries will give Commission some window into the hearts of voters is unfounded. Most primary candidates have already expressed that they will not seek appointment (and the winner would probably have to be crazy to accept appointment after winning the primary), so it would go to a 'second place' or 'third place' or... well, in some cases, to nobody who actually ran.

Ruthie Kuhlman made a great speech about "getting on with it." I felt there wasn't more to add to what she said. Six commissioners just either weren't listening or were just too scared to go through the appointment process without some kind of fig leaf.

Consider this- if the Commission had its normal 19 members, and two representatives of the Fourth died/resigned and left vacancies, would we accept Commission leaving those seats open for over four months? Clearly not.

Don- let me know if you need more names to sign on to whatever you do.

-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
(link...)

I told Mark & also Tom Salter I really thought waiting till Feb was a bit to long.

Personally I preferred Tank's position..not as quick as Dec 7 but not late Feb 5.

However,as the meeting went on..I began to think the Feb 5 idea had legs & indeed it passed.It's only 2 more meetings & it does give plenty of time to create an open solid process.

Man did Lambert go on & on & on...we need to find a red light anonymous for that dude..because Lumpy hits that red light like a crack head hits the pipe.

I'm not sure I agree with this process. Knox County is trying to turn an election into a referendum/special election that is not provided for in state law. The appointments were declared void. Prior to that, the elections of the twelve term limited officers and legislators were also declared void.

(And technically, I believe the law says any action by the voided county commission seats, i.e. votes, are void, too. I guess that could be interpreted to mean going back and leaving out the ineligible votes and see what the result is then.)

So effectively, Knox County has been without a whole government since the Aug. 2006 election. The remedy is for the county legislative body to appoint temporary replacements until the next regularly scheduled election (i.e. no special elections) at which time permanent replacements are elected by the voters.

Knox County Commission attempted once to follow the law and appoint temporary replacements. Because of violations of open meetings laws, those appointments were ruled void. Knox County Commission is now obligated by law to appoint temporary replacements again. By not doing so, they currently appear to be derelict in their duty.

Unfortunately, neither state law nor the county charter provide any timeframes or scheduling requirements for the appointment process. A reasonable person would conclude that it should be done in a timely and orderly fashion at the earliest possible date so as to ensure proper function of the government and adequate representation of all taxpayers.

In my opinion, this solution does not accomplish that, and in fact complicates and perverts the existing primary and general election process.

Somebody needs to make County Commission do their job. It's too bad that Mayor Ragsdale is politically hamstrung, because some leadership is needed. I realize he can't order them to do anything, but he could be taking the lead and holding a press conference every day and finding any other ways he can to influence Commission through whatever obscure but legal rules he can use to "punish" them for not doing their duty, such as taking away their desks and chairs or parking places or whatever. That sounds pretty silly, but that seems to be what Knox County government is reduced to at this point.

In my view, the other simple solution is to appoint the second place finisher from the Aug. 2006 elections. Because the twelve winners were ruled ineligible, appoint the next in line who was eligible. Then leave the 2008 election process alone and let it play out.

It seems to me that another controversy waiting around the corner are the provisions in state law that make all actions of a voided officeholders retroactively null and void. There are probably hundreds of possible lawsuits over various funding and contracts and zonings etc. that litigants could argue are null and void. Knox County could have to do a whole year of government all over again.

I've said my peace about this before. Screw it up the first time, get a lawsuit and adverse decision, then delay for months and wait for the primary election instead of doing their job. Geez.

This delay is weak-kneed pandering, pushed by one or more Commissioners who have their eyes set on the 6th Floor. They don't want to rely on a good process and sound judgment, but rather the crutch of a primary election. So, if these Republican Commissioners vote for appointing a Democrat in any District, they'll surely be hearing about that in future elections when they are on the ballot as 'Republicans' and looking for support/money from Republicans. Same for Democrats voting for Republicans, right? At least with appointments now they could say they did their job. Just one of many pitfalls in calling for a delay.

And, Don, if you think Ballard is a swing vote, you need to attend more Commission meetings, particularly those dealing with the Ragsdale audits. Ask Lewis Cosby about the questioning he got from Comm. Ballard. The 'swing vote', if one exists, is C. Leuthold.

There are a ton of people running, and the primary will at least weed some of them out.

Or get a 'winner' with 25% of the total vote.

In my view, the other simple solution is to appoint the second place finisher from the Aug. 2006 elections.

Seriously Randy, make a list of the second placers. Do you think in each instance a more qualified temporary appointment couldn't be found with public input and an open process?

There's not an easy solution. But, we didn't elect Commissioners to do work that's easy.

a more qualified

That's the point. They were qualified and eligible to run according to state election law. The winners in those races weren't.

If commission chooses to appoint folks that ran & lost,last year or next,thats cool.I'm also down with appointing folks that win the primary.

What I'm not cool with is motions/process excluding those that have not run..in '06 or '08.

I will be talking to commissioners in the next couple of months & express my thoughts.

Here's the scorecard and what the lineup would be if commission appointed the Aug. 06 runners up.

Officers:

• Sheriff Tim Hutchison (R) replaced by J.J. Jones (R): Runner up: Randy Tyree (D, 47.2%)

• County Clerk Mike Padgett (D) replaced by Billy Tindell (D): Runner up: (Unopposed)

• Trustee Mike Lowe (R) replaced by Fred Sisk (R): Runner up: (Unopposed)

• Register of Deeds Steve Hall (R) replaced by Sherry Witt (R): Runner up: Scott Emge (D, 33.5%)

County Commission:

• 1-A Diane Jordan (D) replaced by Josh Jordan (D): Runner up: Nick Della Volpe (R, 27.8%)

• 2-B Billy Tindell (D) replaced by Charles Bolus (R): Runner up: Amy Broyles (D, 28.5%)

• 4-A John Schmid (R) replaced by Richard Cate (R): Runner up: Joan Wagner (D, 40.0%)

• 4-B Phil Guthe (R) replaced by Lee Tramel (R): Runner up: Elaine Davis (D, 44.6%)

• 5-C John Griess (R) replaced by Frank Leuthold (R): Runner up: Tom Salter (D, 40.1%)

• 6-A Mark Cawood (D) replaced by Sharon Cawood (D): Runner up: Chuck James (R, 47.4%)

• 8-B John Mills (R) replaced by Jack Huddleston (R): Runner up: Thomas Michael Pressley (D, 40.5%)

• 9-A Larry Clark (R) replaced by Tim Greene (R): Runner up: Steve McGill (D, 39.2%)

Chad, who among the runners up isn't qualified? The number of votes they got in the Aug. election is in parenthesis. Seems pretty respectable to me, especially since a couple of them were write-ins. It seems like the biggest problem is Republicans running unqualified, i.e. ineligible candidates.

the commissioners who supported waiting until February are not the commissioners who got the Commission in trouble on January 31.

That's true, Mark. Gives them a little more credibility I guess. I just don't like the process. Seems "back door" to me.

While it seems that what happened last night was that a special election was created, without having to create a special election, I believe that the commissioners' actions were what they felt like the best they could do.

Any move by the commission now is like crossing a mine field on a pogo stick, dangerous no matter what you do.

By waiting until after the election, the commissioners will have a legitimate declaration by the public, upon which it will be much safer to make the appointments. No group will be able to declare it wasn't listened to, or it wasn't allowed to be heard.

I agree that 27% is good for a Republican over here BUT 72% of 1st district voters did not for Nick.

No way would I support appointing a Republican in the 1st district.

I would fight that as hard as I know how.

But if R can get 6 votes for a 1st district Republican appointee..I would tip my hat to old chap & move on.

The law does not require public input from voters or public forums or special elections, or any of that. All it says it that the commission has to make the appointments. It's left up to them to how to do it.

They could have been doing any of these things last January. They could have gone down to Nashville and gotten a special election. They could have held public forums or at least had an open forum on Jan. 31st.

Instead, they chose to go with a process of secret deliberations and back room deals. One commissioner tried to have a public forum, but got smacked around by everyone for his troubles.

To me it seems the danger lies in doing nothing, or worse, perverting the election process.

I agree with Bill Young on Strickland's proposal. Doing the appointments in early January gives the public time to know who's vying for which appointment, and gives us time to dig into their backgrounds and find out more about these prospective appointees. The last time the process was rushed, we got a former crack dealer, a guy who was successfully sued in Federal court for sexual harassment, a handful of cronies, and two family members as representatives.

I live in Fourth District. I'm fully aware that I have no representative sitting on commission. I am also aware, though, that I can easily keep score of what's coming up for a vote that could affect me, and I also have not only the public forums during committee meetings and the General Session to speak my mind about it, I can also ask one of the other commissioners to call me up while the issue is on the floor to address it. In short, we can represent ourselves until we have enough information to choose a temporary replacement who suits the task.

February is too long, but better late than back to court.

I think Commissioners know that no matter what they do, a lot of people are going to be unhappy. So, after a fairly spirited debate, they narrowly chose to wait and not fill until after the voters have spoken. What they are hearing from people more than anything is that they, the people, want an election.

You can criticize them for what they chose, but if they had chosen the other way they'd still be criticized.

Who do they appoint? That's up to them. But I suspect they will largely (if not entirely) follow the option of appointing the winner in the party that has traditionally held the seat and was ousted by term limits. That would mean 1,2,6th districts go Democrat, 4,5,8,9 go Republican.

The other possibility is they appoint whoever gets the most votes...but there are some problems with that. Say in District X, ususally Republican, 6 Republicans run...but just one Democrat. On primary day, the Democrat may have more votes even though the district went Republican.

There's also the chance that someone could win the primary that, for whatever reason, they are simply not prepared to appoint.

I'd suggest going with the party of the last elected person, or the winner of the primary in the party that has the most votes cast...not just the individual who gets the most votes.

I'd suggest going with the party of the last elected person, or the winner of the primary in the party that has the most votes cast...not just the individual who gets the most votes.

If they're going to have a pseudo-fake special election, that seems reasonable.

How does this affect/change primary candidate strategies? What about the ones who said they would not seek appointment but wait for a legit election by the people?

with extreme voter discontent, I think the commission decided to put the decision in the hands of the voters, for the most part.

Although Fansler's decision was clear, how to apply that decision really wasn't, so I think the commissioners decided if they were going to err, they should at least err in such a way as to be perceived as following the will of the voters.

Sure, the appointment process that follows the primary could influence the general, but both the primary and the genral will be decided, in the end, by the public rather than what is believed to be a group of insiders.

To paraphrase a famous quote, it's probably the worst possible plan, except for all the others.

Duplicate Message

Given yesterday’s decision, Mike Cohen ‘s suggestion appears reasonable. The flaw, however, is that County Commission did not commit to base the appointments on the results of the primary. As I read the News-Sentinel, they, in fact, announced that they would begin holding public hearings immediately after the primary for candidates to make their cases. Presumably, that would include candidates who are not seeking office in August.

In should be clear that the voters elected the current commissioners to conduct the business of the county in compliance with the Sunshine Law. That business includes the appointment of replacement commissioners when vacancies occur to assure that all Knox County voters are represented equally. Had the commissioners done so in January, there would have been no trial and there would be no talk of a special election. What the Commission should have done in January, they could have done in November, and can do in December.

The one good thing about being pessimistic is - at least it shows you understand the situation. -- Unknown

The best way for commission to respect the will of the voters is to convene shortly after the Dec 13 filing deadline and appoint nominees who are not running for office.

Candidates should not be forced to decide whether to seek appointments, nor should they have to alter their campaign strategies to conform with the commission's arbitrary appointment rules. The fact that some candidates have declared they will not seek to be appointed makes the post-primary plan messier than it already is.

Commission continues to operate without leadership or vision. There is no problem solving going on, no efforts to establish parameters and identify drawbacks and benefits of different approaches. Their proposals are half-formed at best because they will not constrain their options. If they want to use the results of the primary, they should have declared how those results will constrain their choices. For example, they could have voted on any of the several alternatives discussed here, such as appointing the primary winner from the party that last held the seat legitimately. Because they can still appoint whoever they want, regardless of the results, their decision ultimately amounts to nothing but a delay tactic. If they appoint a primary winner to one seat, a loser to another and someone who did not run to another, it will be obvious that the wait was pointless. Similarly, if they think public forums are a good idea, they need to formally define how those forums will constrain their choices.

Because all they have really decided is a timeframe for making arbitrary appointments, delay is all that has been accomplished. Maybe the chancellor should be asked how he feels about the delays and the potential interference with the election.

The one bright light in all this is that when the commission makes these appointments, they will have to publicly deliberate or risk court penalties, so we should have some understanding of why they might, for example, respect the will of one district more or less than another. That will be fun.

Or they could just appoint caretakers not running for the seats, stay out of the election process altogether, and spoil the fun of watching them drop on the deck and flop like a fish.

Chad, who among the runners up isn't qualified?

Emge for one. There are others. In 5 of the 8, you're replacing a D for an R in districts which have almost always been R's. In 2 others, the reverse is true. Is that the goal with appointing so-called 'runner-ups', a Democrat majority by appointment? A Republican wins and you appoint the Democrat loser? This also runs contrary to the idea of appointing Dems to traditionally Dem seats and Repubs to traditionally Repub seats.

I understand the mine field Commission faces. But, searching for the easy way instead of doing their job irks me. I wish Commission would have proven to the public that they can do the job and do it right. It seems that would go a long way to restoring trust in Knox County government.

it's probably the worst possible plan, except for all the others.

Good quote.

Emge for one.

How come?

There are others. In 5 of the 8, you're replacing a D for an R in districts which have almost always been R's. In 2 others, the reverse is true.

So party affiliation disqualifies someone for office now? But I understand what you're saying. On the other hand, I hope you understand what I'm saying re. there wouldn't be a problem (or at least as big of a problem) if the Rs hadn't run so many unqualified, as in not eligible, candidates.

(And yes, I realize that because of a bunch of legal maneuvering at the time they were sort of technically eligible, at least for a brief moment on election day. But that has since been proved wrong and voided.)

But, searching for the easy way instead of doing their job irks me.

I agree, but I also think whereas we would hope that

Commission would have proven to the public that they can do the job and do it right. It seems that would go a long way to restoring trust in Knox County government.

The "public" monolith will divide, as is usually the case, into agenda driven constituencies that will make accusations that commission violated the "people's will" when the constituencies don't get their way.

Commission seems to be setting it up so that, if commission takes its cue from the primary, the commission will simply be spreading the risk and turning the voters and candidates into stakeholders in the appointment process. I think commission knows whatever it does will be criticized, so it always makes sense to share.

This second place finish idea has been floating around for a year & half....first proposed as a way to select '06 county Democratic nominees by the Executive Committee..if nominees had not been allowed to be on the general election ballot.

I was opposed to that proposal because the 2nd place candidate for commission received 9.2% of the total 1st district primary vote(1,096 total vote..2nd place 101 votes).To me that wasn't enough support to gain the nomination.The same holds true for 27% support in the general election to gain an automatic appointment.

However,I over re-acted & was being closed minded when I said I would no way support a Republican for the seat.

If,when the time comes,a 1st district Lincoln Republican or an independent is our best choice to get on with the bidness of Knox County..so be it.

I think we need to listen to Rikki when she suggests to appoint those who are not running. It would not be fair to allow one candidate to have name recognition as an advantage over another. Basically, it would be letting the commissioners choose who will be elected.

We need a fair election that focuses on the issues and vision for the future.

I think we need to listen to Rikki when she suggests to appoint those who are not running.

She definitely needs to shave more often; some of us are beginning to think she's a guy.

Did I just call a guy a girl?

Did County Commission explain why they want to wait? Do they have a specific plan? How will this effect the independents?

I do hope that commissioners in the appointment process do their level best to not be partisan but look for appointees that help us thru what we've got ourselves into.

That is why,after reflection I wanted back off my partisan rant per the 1st district.However I do think a Democrat will be appointed in the 1st but I'm not set in stone.I will talk with Tank per this appointment.

Futhermore,I did tell a friend of mine Ray is the kind of person I would be interested in being appointed.

Let be clear on one thing...when it comes to county elections I am a Democratic partisan to the core.I will always support the nominee & I will always support a Democratic incumbent in the primary.

I supported Mark Harmon when he was the 2nd district nominee & I will support him in the 2010 Democratic Primary.

Emge for one.

How come?

Uhh, no experience in the Register's office or anything remotely related to the work in the Register's office (title work, maps, document retention). What's his profession again? I think I asked before on this blog and was told he was a house painter. No offense to painters or Mr. Emge personally, but he has zero qualifications to be Register of Deeds. Turning it over to him because he qualified for ballot purposes and put up signs in intersections and right-of-ways 6 months early is ridiculous.

And Randy, you know and I know "R's" didn't run anyone. Each candidate made their own decision. The Republican Party played no role whatsoever in what Republicans ran. There were (now declared) term limited D's who ran also. Of course, as you point out, there was a lot of confusion back then as to who could run, should run, etc.

Mr. Tindell,

First let me say that I have previously stated that I will not seek or accept appointment as Register of Deeds by this County Commission. I will only serve as Register if elected.

In reference to your comment that I have no experience in title work, maps, document retention, etc…you are absolutely correct. I have not worked in the Register's Office, therefore if elected, I will have to complete the mandatory CTAS training for County RoD's that all newly elected County Registers are required to go through. I will also voluntarily complete the Certified Public Administrator program just as former Register Steve Hall and Ms. Witt have done. I have every bit as much experience with title work, maps, document retention, etc… as Mr. Hall had when he first became Register and Ms.Witt had when she started working in the office.

As you know, The Tennessee Legislature sets the requirements for eligibility to seek and hold public office in our state. The following is an excerpt from the University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS) manual for County Register of Deeds…

Legal Qualifications of the Officeholder

Article 7, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution requires each county to
elect a Register for a term of four years. The Tennessee Constitution, like all state constitutions, is essentially a limiting instrument which restricts the discretion of the Legislature. The Legislature may pass any law which does not violate the state or federal constitution. Therefore, since the state constitution does not define qualifications for the office of Register, this task is one for the Legislature. The Legislature has chosen not to place any requirements regarding education or experience upon the person holding the office of Register. Any person who is a citizen of the United States and of Tennessee, who is not otherwise disqualified from holding public office, may be elected to the office of Register. Also, the person elected must be eighteen (18) years of age upon taking office. T.C.A. § 8-18-101. The Register must also reside in the county during the term of office or vacate the office. T.C.A. § 8-13-104.

If your opinion is that I am not qualified to hold the office of Register of Deeds, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but please note that your opinion is at odds with that of the State Legislature.

If we operated under your assertion that only persons who have working knowledge of the office were entitled to be the Register, we could just do away with elections and replace the Register every 8 years with their chief assistant. I would contend that in a democracy, election is always the better method. Luckily in our country, any concerned citizen who desires to help their community and who qualifies has the right and ability to run for and hold public. It doesn’t matter if they work in the residential home painting business, the legal council field, or even as a used car salesman.

If anyone would like information about my campaign and my plans for the Register's office if elected, please visit my web site, emgeforknoxcountyregister.blogspot.com (and I apologize for the simplicity of the site… as a person who is not a political insider, with no big financial donors, I am operating on a small campaign budget). You can also reach me by phone anytime.

Scott Emge

Mr. Emge,

Thank you for confirming you have no experience for the job of Register of Deeds. You will note I made an important difference between 'ballot qualifications' and actual qualifications for the job of Register of Deeds. You are ballot qualified, but so are tens of thousands of other people in Knox County. You have no more qualifications than these other thousands. On the other hand, if Knox County wants someone who has experience in the actual work of the Register of Deeds office that's a completely different comparison.

Contrary to your assertion that Knox County would simply elect the Register's assistant every eight years, there are lots of other people who would certainly have qualifications you do not possess. Folks such as title attorneys, title searchers, those who deal with mapping, information technology, records retention and other positions which have some relation to the business of the Register's office. People who work in the Register's office would also be in this category of people with job qualifications. These would no doubt be better choices than someone who has virtually no idea what goes on in the west end of the second floor of the City-County Building.

The Legislature passes laws which sets minimum criteria for candidates to run. I trust that the voters in Knox County will have higher standards for the person they elect to the office of Register of Deeds.

Sir,

As I said, I have just as much experience with title work, maps, document retention, etc… as Mr. Hall (who you supported) had when he first became Register and Ms.Witt (who I assume you support) had when she started working in the office.

It is certainly your perogative to support whom you choose.
If you prefer a title attorney as Register, by all means find a republican title attorney and get them to pick up a qualifying petition.

I hope you and your family have a Happy Thanksgiving.

SE

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. By the way, the last time I checked Steve Hall isn't running for Register of Deeds. Comparing yourself to Steve's qualifications some, what, 20+ years ago, seems meaningless. I would mention that prior to running for Register of Deeds Steve had served as a State Representative in Nashville and was very active in local government at the time. So, he did have qualifications you do not possess. For now, you might want to compare your qualifications to candidates currently in the race.

(link...)