Ex-State Rep. Armstrong sentenced to probation, house arrest fined $140K

Former longtime state Rep. Joe Armstrong was sentenced Wednesday to three years of federal probation for tax fraud and ordered to pay back the money prosecutors say he failed to report to the IRS in 2008.

In addition, Armstrong will spend six months on house arrest and wear an electronic monitoring device. He'll also have perform 300 hours of community service.

In total, the ex-state House member will pay $99,943 to the IRS; another $40,000 in fines; and the cost of prosecution.

After the 90-minute hearing, defense attorney Gregory P. Isaacs said he was “very pleased” for Armstrong and his family, noting that “the courtroom was packed with his friends, supporters, family members that traveled from all over the country, community leaders.”

“I think it was a very fair and just result based on the applicable considerations under federal sentencing,” Isaacs said. “There were two different sides of the courtroom, obviously the United States thought the sentence should be higher because he was an elected official public official, our position was much different. Joe has been a public servant. He’s not a professional politician, he’s someone that helped individuals tirelessly in his community for 28 years. And those are factors the court is required to consider.”

Armstrong, too, weighed in, saying he wanted to “thank the people for their support, prayers and reaching out particularly not only to my family my church family and the community, for their entire support.”

Prosecutors were initially seeking as much as three years in prison for Armstrong.

Last month, however, the U.S. Probation Office – using guidelines to determine his sentence – calculated a much lower penalty range based on the amount of taxes lost to the IRS.

PREVIOUS: State Rep. Joe Armstrong found guilty of filing a false tax form

RELATED: State Rep. Joe Armstrong retires in wake of felony conviction

Prosecutors argued Armstrong cheated the government out of more than $100,000, an amount that carries a stiffer sentence. The court, however, sides with Armstrong, finding that the lost was just under that at $99,943.

That $57 difference meant the ex-state representative was looking at a maximum of 21 months in prison.

A federal jury in August found the East Knoxville Democrat guilty of filing a false and fraudulent tax return, a felony, after prosecutors argued that the ex-legislator failed to report taxes on a $312,000 profit he made from selling cigarette tax stamps in 2008.

A month later, Armstrong officially retired from his 15th District the state House seat that he held for almost three decades.

Because he's a felon, Armstrong can no longer hold public office again.

Commish rejects superintendent's contract, but it doesn't matter

Jim McIntyre

Knox County commissioners voted at their regular Monday meeting to reject the contract of Knox County Schools superintendent Jim McIntyre.

That vote, however, was only symbolic.

Nine of 11 Knox County commissioners voted not to approve the contract. Commissioners Sam

McKenzie and Amy Broyles voted to approve it.

"We're kind of making the rules up as we go along, unfortunately," McKenzie said after the vote.

In fact, the item never should've come to a vote, McKenzie said.

A long-standing agreement -- called a consent decree -- between Knox County Commission and the

Board of Education says commissioners can't tell the school board how to spend its appropriated money.

School board members voted last month to approve McIntyre's contract, so all the commission legally could do was pass it.

"That vote just came up two for, nine against. What does that mean? It means absolutely nothing," McKenzie said. "I think we are - in spirit - disregarding the consent decree, and I don't think this last process was correct."

The "no" vote Monday, therefore, was symbolic.

The move came after county law director Bud Armstrong last week declared the contract unenforceable.

RELATED: Law Director: Superintendent's contract 'unenforceable' 

State law limits superintendents' contracts to four years, and Armstrong said this new contract effectively adds two years to McIntyre's existing four-year contract.

RELATED: Sanger blasts Armstrong over contract notation; law director counters

Armstrong cited a 2001 opinion from the Tennessee attorney general on a nearly identical case. In it, the AG's office said, a school board may not extend beyond four years the term of its contract with the director of schools. To do so, the opinion says, ties the hands of future board members.

The law does, however, allow school boards to renew a superintendent's four-year contract. The opinion then goes on to differentiate between extending and renewing.

"Black’s Law Dictionary defines renewal as '(T)he re-creation of a legal relationship or the replacement of an old contract with a new contract, as opposed to a mere extension of a previous relationship or contract,'" the opinion says.

Read that full opinion HERE.

For now, McIntyre's board-approved, commission-rejected contract is set to go into effect the first of the new year.

McIntyre was at Monday's meeting but declined to comment on the results of the vote.

KCS Superintendent's contract not enforceable, law director says

Jim McIntyre

Knox County Schools Superintendent Jim McIntyre’s recently approved contract is not enforceable because it was an “extension” of an existing four-year contract – something not permissible under state law, according to the county’s top attorney.

Citing a Dec. 10 letter from the Office of the Attorney General, Knox County Law Director Richard “Bud” Armstrong said the school board cannot “extend” a contract for a school system’s superintendent beyond four years until it concludes.

In addition, Armstrong said, the school board cannot even “renew” McIntyre’s contract until it expires, which isn’t until Dec. 2017.

“Everything has to remain stable until it’s time to renew,” he told WBIR 10News.

Bud Armstrong

Armstrong’s opinion comes in the wake of the Knox County Board of Education agreeing on Nov. 30 to extend the McIntyre’s contract another two years from 2017 to December 2019. The extension also included a 2 percent raise, bumping his salary to $227,256.

The contract was sent to the Knox County Commission where officials are supposed to talk about it next Monday. Before it hit the commission desk, however, Armstrong wrote the word "not" before the phrase "legal as to form and correctness” on the signature page of the contract.

Rest of story RIGHT HERE.

Law director questions legality of KCS superintendent's new contract

Jim McIntyre

So apparently at least one Knox County School Board member is upset that county Law Director Richard "Bud" Armstrong is questioning the legality of the school system superintendent's new contract/contract extension.

I'm not sure why.

Armstrong and other board members during the Nov. 30 meeting in which the board ramrodded the two-year extension through said that there could be some problem with the contract's language.

In fact, it was suggested that the panel should consult the state before approving it.

But, no, they didn't. Now the law director - who represents the entire county government (he tries to prevent us from getting sued and breaking the law) - has erred on the side of caution.

Here's what BOE vice chair Tracie Sanger, who voted to approve the contract, said in a released statement: 

"Law Director Bud Armstrong has hand-written the word "not" before the phrase "legal as to form and correctness" on the signature page of Dr. McIntyre's approved employment contract, which has now been posted to the County Commission's public meeting agenda. Making this change without consulting or informing the School Board is a serious breach of trust, and represents the worst kind of passive aggressive political games.  As the School Board's attorney, the Law Director should seek to better represent his client.  It is hard to believe in and trust an attorney that has such little experience, shows inconsistency with his opinions, and portrays the appearance of having a political agenda."

To reiterate: The school board on Nov. 30 ramrodded a two-year proposal to extend Jim McIntyre's

Richard "Bud" Armstrong

contract through the approval process. The 5-member voting bloc that typically votes whichever way the superintendent wishes opted not to take a breath and sit back and wait until the state weighed in.

I mean, seriously, it's not like this wouldn't get approved in January or February if the state said it was OK. McIntyre isn't going anywhere. He wants to stay. Holding off a few months would not have changed that.

This contract - if legal - would have gone through. (At least until next September when a new board comes in but that's a whole different story.)

Here's what BOE member Amber Rountree, who voted against the proposal, had to say:

"I think there were a number of legal questions raised at the contract extension that could've used more discussion, which is why I tried multiple times to delay the vote. With no looming deadline, the only pressing reason to vote for a 2 year extension at that time was due to the upcoming election cycle. The insertion of the language in Section 2 about the AG opinion also indicates there were further questions about some of the language. I feel it would've been in the boards best interest to postpone the vote so that we could have voted on a contract that had been fully vetted. My hope is the matter can be resolved quickly so we can turn our focus to working on our goal of Excellence for Every Child."

Now, the proposed contract will go to the Knox County Commission for a vote. Typically, these things are put on the consent agenda, which means they just rubber stamp them and move on. I doubt that happens next week. This will be discussed further.

At the end of the day, however, McIntyre's contract will more than likely be extended. I'm not sure what the big deal is. It's just not going to be this month.

By the way, in a letter to BOE members about Armstrong's move, McIntyre said: "I really have no idea what that means."

He has declined to comment further.

Law Director Armstrong kicking off re-election campaign on Thursday

Armstrong

Knox County Law Director Richard "Bud" Armstrong will kick off his re-election campaign at 7 p.m. Thursday at the Crowne Plaza.

I expect there will probably be a pretty big crowd that will feature a number of local leaders, including county Mayor Tim Burchett, Commissioner Bob Thomas and some Board of Education members.

The Knox County Primary is set for March 1. At this point only local lawyer Nathan Rowell has picked up a petition to challenge Armstrong in the Republican primary. As always, send me your campaign information.

The deadline to qualify for the election is noon Dec. 10.

Law director memo: Knox County BOE could renew teacher non-renewals

During last week’s Knox County Board of Education meeting, school boarder Amber Rountree asked the law director:

“What power does the board have with regard to the non-renewal of teachers’ contract?”

Well, apparently, a whole heck of a lot, according to Knox County Law Director Richard “Bud” Armstrong.

In a memo dated July 2, Armstrong, citing state and case law, said:

“The Board has absolute authority, in its discretion, to review any non-renewal or any other personnel matter that is brought to the attention of the Board. The Board may implement any procedure and take such action as the Board deems proper.”

In non-lawyerly language: If a principal fires a teacher, the school board – a voting majority – can overrule the principal and put that teacher right back in the classroom.

You can read the memo RIGHT SMACK HERE.

Now, why is this important?

Parents, teachers and students are upset that Christina Graham, a now former Copper Ridge Elementary School kindergarten teacher, was let go this past May. They feel that officials retaliated against her because she spoke out against SAT-10 testing for kindergarteners. Apparently Graham scored well on her evaluations, so it more than likely wasn’t about that.

A lot of folks will now probably look to the school board to see what happens next, and the pressure is on.

Does the board address the non-renewals case-by-case, or do members let it go? Right or wrong, the board will come dangerously close to micromanagement if it starts overruling principals, no matter how well-intended the situation.

Graham’s case could be the first big test.

And if I recall correctly, Copper Ridge is in board member Patti Bound’s neck of the woods, and she doesn’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with the administration.

We’ll see.

Some on BOE, law director question McIntyre's Broad grant acceptance

Knox County taxpayers are footing the bill for a Knox County Schools hire the county attorney says was conducted improperly.

Documents WBIR obtained show superintendent Jim McIntyre signed the grant agreement allowing for this hire, when County Law Director Richard "Bud" Armstrong believes McIntyre has no authority to do so.

The grant agreement is between Knox County Schools and the Broad Center for the Management of School Systems, which runs the Broad Academy.

That, essentially, is a training program for people with executive leadership experience aspiring to become school district superintendents and other leaders within large education systems.

McIntyre himself was a participant in the Broad Academy, and now, some KCS Board of Education members say, he has created a pipeline for other Broad fellows to come take high-paying jobs with the district.

PDF: Law Director's Memo

In September of last year, McIntyre signed a grant agreement with the Broad Center for the Management of School Systems. In it, the Broad Center agreed to give Knox County Schools a grant totaling up to $29,700, to be put toward the Broad fellow's -- or Broad resident's -- salary.

In exchange, the district would foot the rest of the fellow's salary, plus pay benefits on top of that.

The baseline salary for a Broad fellow, according to the Broad Academy in its grant agreement with KCS, is $90,000. The Broad grant would pay for up to $29,700 of that.

That means KCS - and therefore taxpayers - have to foot the bill for not only the difference ($90k - $29.7k = $60,300), but also for the cost of benefits.

The Knox County Finance Department, Armstrong said, generally uses a figure of 30 percent of an employee's salary to calculate the additional expense for benefits and taxes.

That would put the Broad fellow's position at a total of $117,000. The center is paying for nearly $29,700 of that, putting taxpayers on the hook for the remaining $87,300.

BOE member Amber Rountree said that's a dollar figure that, roughly, could support two teacher hires.

"Is it the best way for us to spend limited funds?" Rountree said to WBIR in a phone interview Saturday afternoon. "We need to be making wise decisions with what little funds we have."

Armstrong, however, believes the contract is unenforceable, since he says McIntyre has no authority to accept a grant, especially one that requires matching funds.

In a memo to board members this week, Armstrong said, "The superintendent, under statute, is given no authority to unilaterally accept grants and to sign grant contracts. Further, the statute requires a resolution by the BOE and notification to the County Commission."

But McIntyre says he was acting in accordance with Knox County Board of Education policy and that the document he signed is "a grant agreement, not a procurement contract."

In an email to WBIR, he wrote, "Through written School Board Policy, the Board of Education has delegated the acceptance of grants, in some circumstances, to the Superintendent. In accepting this grant, I acted in good faith and in accordance with my understanding of School Board policy."

You can read the rest of the story RIGHT HERE.

Attorneys clash over Knox Co. Schools superintendent evaluation, law

Jim McIntyre

So, if I had a boss who told me just how I was going to be evaluated, the first thing I'd do would NOT be to run off and get a lawyer to argue otherwise. But, I'm not a superintendent.

Last night's story:

Attorneys for the Knox County Board of Education and Superintendent Dr. Jim McIntyre are at odds over who calls the shots about how to conduct the evaluation for the school system's top leader.

The disagreement comes as a superintendent evaluation committee, which is comprised of BOE members, is meeting to develop a new process to evaluate McIntyre for the next school year.

When Patti Bounds was elected to the school board last year, she said she wanted to see the board implement a more rigorous and data-driven evaluation in order to more accurately measure the superintendent's progress.

"The best solution is to come up with a very fair and rigorous evaluation protocol for Dr. McIntyre and future superintendents that he would agree with and that he finds acceptable to him, and then everything's OK," Bounds said.

A clause in McIntyre's contract states the board "shall evaluate and assess" McIntyre's work once a year, looking at job performance, student achievement, and his relationships with staff, personnel, board members and the community. The evaluation is an annual process mandated by Tennessee law.

Bounds chairs the committee tasked with recommending improvements to the evaluation process, which met for the first time in January and the second time Wednesday. Its third meeting is in May, and Bounds said she hopes to have a revised evaluation process recommendation to board members by August.

McIntyre's contract also says the evaluation "shall be in writing" and in a form that "is mutually agreeable" between the board and the superintendent.

When that came to Bounds' attention, she wondered whether "mutually agreeable" means McIntyre can reject an evaluation process he doesn't like, so she consulted Richard "Bud" Armstrong, the board's attorney and county law director.

As detailed in a memorandum to Bounds earlier this month, Armstrong concluded the clause is illegal and makes McIntyre a "super-majority of one."

"The effect of this contract clause is to grant a power to the Superintendent to veto an evaluation plan developed and passed by the Board of Education," Armstrong opined. "The Superintendent has no such power granted to him by statute."

State law, he said, gives the school board "the sole authority to create and implement" the superintendent's job performance evaluation.

The rest of the story RIGHT SMACK HERE.

Five, not 6, to fire superintendent

I have said this for a long time: A Tennessee school board can fire a superintendent with a simple majority vote - not anything more - no matter what the contract says.

Heck, you don't need a law degree to figure that one out. Still, there's those that argue otherwise. Now, a recent state ruling should put an end to that.

Here's the deal:

The contract for the Knox County Schools superintendent says the 9-member board needs a super majority to fire the system's director (in this case, Jim McIntyre). That means six votes.

State law, however, calls for a simple majority.

Betty Bean at the Knoxville Shopper reports that state Attorney General Herb Slattery early this month said:

“A board of education may not, by contract, limit its statutory decision-making authority by requiring a supermajority vote to approve termination of a director of schools when the statute provides for termination by majority vote. The supermajority voting requirement is unenforceable.”

In addition, county Law Director Bud Armstrong reached a similar conclusion.

You can read her story RIGHT SMACK HERE.

Keep in mind - and this is directed to the anti-McIntyre crowd - just because it takes five to get rid of him, he's probably not going anywhere for now.

Law Dept. looking into whether West High PTSO email broke election law

Well, this is interesting . . .

Sooooooo, you might recall that back in January Sandra Rowcliffe, then-president of the Knox County Council PTA, sent an email to members, warning about the use of tax-exempt non-profit organizations for political purposes.

She noted:

“PTA is a non-commercial, non-sectarian and non-partisan organization. Because PTAs are 501(c)3 tax-exempt organizations, the IRS rules regulating some types of legislative activities of non-profit organizations must be followed.”

She also advised principals that “if your parent group is a PTO as opposed to a PTA that you inform them as well if they are, in fact, a 501(c)3.” 

“Certain political activities are absolutely prohibited: supporting or opposing political parties or candidates for federal, state, or local public office…”

Well, on Saturday an email started making the rounds, and it was forwarded to a number of reporters. It was initially sent Oct. 10 by West High School PTSO co-secretary Carolyn Rezler.

You can read it RIGHT SMACK HERE.

Anyhoo, as I noted, a number of us received this Saturday evening. Looks like Betty Bean over at the Knoxville Shopper beat everyone to the punch. Find her story RIGHT SMACK HERE.

Essentially, the email - written by a member of non-profit PTSO - is asking members to support a certain opponent in the 2nd District BOE race.

Um, folks, I'm not sure if you should be doing this. It appears to be a political email (soliciting political support) and these are the types of things that jeopardize non-profit status.

As Betty noted, the county law office is now looking into it.

By the way, here's another note that made the rounds. It's a document that talks about what PTAs (and by extension, PTSOs) may and may not do.

Find that one RIGHT SMACK HERE.

It may provide a glimpse into what the law department will say.

In the meantime, the three 2nd District candidates - Charlotte Dorsey, Jamie Rowe and Tracey Sanger - will participate in a forum beginning at 6 tonight at the Christenberry Community Center on Oglewood Avenue.

Go out, show your support, vote for whoever you want to. Try not to violate election laws.

Armstrong released from UT hospital

Armstrong

Knox County Law Director Richard “Bud” Armstrong was released from the hospital this afternoon and is at home recovering from a motorcycle accident.

Armstrong told WBIR 10News today that he was at a friend’s house test driving a motorcycle. He said he didn’t get very far before he spilled over after the back tire slipped hit the edge of the driveway, and “the wheels and I were parallel to the driveway.”

He said he landed on his knee and fractured the tibia in his left leg. The accident happened at about 6:20 p.m. Friday, and he had surgery that required screws placed in his lower leg on Saturday at the University of Tennessee Medical Center

Armstrong said he isn’t supposed to put a lot of weight on his foot, so he will do much of his work from his home office.

“I assure you this – I will be doing the job,” he said, adding that he will attend “critical” meetings, including office budget discussions, and talk daily with Chief Deputy Law Director David Buuck.

Armstrong said he will maintain that schedule until April 7 when he sees his physician again.

Again, all of us at the Porch, wish Bud a speedy recovery.

Hawkins responds to CTAS questions

Barry Hawkins (Photo by Dan Andrews)

Knox County Trustee candidate Barry Hawkins on Tuesday took exception to County Commissioner Dave Wright’s request to talk about an educational bonus he received while working in the Trustee's Office years ago, calling the discussion “a political witch hunt” and “backroom politics.”

All this of course ties into the $3,000 payments former Knox County Trustee John Duncan III gave himself and six other employees in December 2010. The payments were tied to the University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Services, or CTAS. To get the money, you must be certified as a “public administrator.” None of the employees were.

Everyone except for Hawkins paid back the money. Actually, you know what? Click right smack here for the original background post.

Back to Tuesday’s commission meeting.

Wright asked the board whether it should do something, like ask Hawkins to pay back the money.

Law Director Richard “Bud” Armstrong said he wasn’t sure the commission could do anything, noting that Hawkins no longer worked in the office when the workers were initially asked to return the payments.

He suggested that it was up to the Trustee’s Office – not the commission – to address the matter.

Hawkins spoke briefly, saying Wright was “trying to intimidate a candidate and abusing the power of the commission to help a candidate and colleague.”

Commissioner Ed Shouse, and interim Trustee Craig Leuthold (both Republicans) and Democrat James Berrier are also vying for the job.

Hawkins, who worked in the office for 17 years, said that after he received the payment he questioned Duncan but was told it was “office policy and procedure.” He said he also asked his other superiors and was told the same thing. He added that his job was eliminated before he could finish the training.

“I have done nothing wrong and don’t appreciate any accusation otherwise,” he said

You can find Hawkins’ complete speech right smack here.

Wright denied that his discussion was politically motivated. He suggested that if it was then he would have called out Hawkins on some of “his campaign promises.”

“I could say that my feelings are hurt by what he said, but then I’m the seated commissioner and I have no feelings,” he added.

Clarity sought about counsel question

Yesterday, KNS reporter Lydia X. McCoy wrote a story about the Knox County school board seeking clarity on legal representation, right smack here.

In it, she asks whether the school board can hire counsel outside the county's law department, cause apparently there's some bickering going on. Hey, it ain't KC government if there isn't at least a little squabbling.

Anyhoo, read her story.

And you can read the email from county Law Director Richard “Bud” Armstrong to school board Chairwoman Karen Carson, right smack here.

School system reaches out to leaders

Ah, now we're talking. Soon after posting this bad boy, Knox County School Board Chairwoman Karen Carson let me know that on Friday the school system reached out to Knox County Mayor Burchett, Commission Chairman Norman, PBA head honcho Dale Smith, schools Superintendent Jim McIntyre, Sheriff Jimmy "the Man with the Badge" Jones, county Law Director Bud Armstrong and Chief David Rausch to set a meeting.

The note:

Feb 22
Dear Sirs,
School Board Chair Karen Carson requests that you meet with her on Monday, February 25th at 9:30 am in the board conference room regarding school security. If you have questions please feel free to call Karen Carson. Please let me know if you will be able to attend.
Thank you,
Kay 

Here's hoping that everyone shows up.

Jarret, Armstrong meet, move forward

Georgiana Vines in her column – click right smack here – on Saturday provided some insight into incoming Knox County Law Director Bud Armstrong’s plans. She noted that Bud and his former political foe and GOP primary challenger Joe Jarret were gonna meet today.

They did, according to Jarret, who will leave office at the end of August. And the meeting went pretty well.

He said the office ordered coffee and bagels and held a small reception for Bud as employees introduced themselves. Also along for the ride was local GOP Chairman Ray Jenkins, who – according to Jarret – will lead Armstrong’s transition team.

Not sure that works. I know presidents have transition teams. But law directors?????

Heh.

Anyhoo, Joe said everyone “was very cordial and Bud and I both agreed that was best for everyone and for the county was to put everything behind us and have a completely seamless transition.”

He said he has an empty office that he offered to let Bud use and said he’s putting together a transition notebook for him.

“I told him I’ll share everything I can except those things privileged by law,” Jarret said.

Joe said he, Ray and Bud talked about “the challenges (i.e. charter review) that lie ahead as (Bud) takes over,” but didn’t go into many details, noting that whatever he told me would make its way onto Screams from da Porch.

That’s about it.

Bud takes office Sept. 1.

As Georgiana noted, Bud told her that David Buuck is on his list for a possible gig in the law director’s office. To my knowledge there’s only one open position and that’s for law director junior (or whatever the right-hand man or woman position is called). Joe never filled the job, opting to do all of it himself. That’s not to say Buuck will get it. Bud could promote someone and then fill that position.

Ray has said publicly that he has no plans to join the department.

Oh wait, one more thing. You might have noticed that Georgiana reported that Bud would have people representing him or whatever at the charter review committee meetings. He wouldn’t, however, tell her who they were.

That’s strange. But whatever. It’s not like you can’t look around the room and figure it out.

Joe Jarret says he'll stay as law director

Ah, that sneaky Joe Jarret. Last night he sends me a text at 6:04, saying his last day would be March 30. There had been some rumors going on earlier in the day that he would rescind his initial proposal to step down, so I asked him about them. But, this morning, Jarret said, he talked with some more people and his wife and opted to stay. Here's the story:

Knox County Law Director Joe Jarret on Saturday morning withdrew his letter of resignation and said he’ll continue to serve through the rest of term which ends in late August, according to an email he sent to county commissioners.

Jarret submitted his submitted his resignation effective for March 31 a few days after losing to Richard “Bud” Armstrong in the March 6 GOP primary. He said he wanted to give Armstrong, who faces no opposition in the August election, a chance to come in early as the interim director and walk the charter review committee through the process.

Armstrong, though, declined.

In the meantime, the County Commission began taking resumes to fill the position. Local attorney David Buuck, former attorney for the town of Louisville, and former Law Director Richard Beeler applied. The county commission on Monday was supposed to interview them.

Now, however, members aren’t so sure.

For example, commissioner Vice Chairman Brad Anders said members may decide to just ignore Jarret’s original resignation letter and let hi stay.

“I think it will be a better transition to have Joe stay until September and have Bud ease into the job,” he said “That way we have consistency and don’t have to appoint someone to a five or sixth month term.”

In the next few months, the person in charge will have to represent the Charter Review Committee, which will meet through the summer, look over the county's governing documents and decide whether voters in November should make changes to them.

In his email to commissioners, Jarret said he first proposed stepping down to give Armstrong the chance to “become involved with the Charter Review Committee during its formative stages. But because Armstrong declined and “coupled with the fact that most elected officials and a large number of citizens have asked me to serve until Aug. 31” Jarret said he would stay.

He said during Monday’s work session, though, he would like permission to retain outside legal counsel to help advise the review committee on “those issues that raise any potential conflicts of interest, thereby de-politicizing the process.”

He also said he would encourage Armstrong to spend time in the office during the next few months “thereby ensuring a seamless transition come September, 2012.”

Jarret told the News Sentinel on Saturday that during the past weeks "citizens and elected officials told me that they wanted my expertise and asked whether I would continue to serve." He said he reached the decision Saturday morning and then sent the email to commissioners.

"I only had a single reason (to leave) and that reason is gone," he said.

The job pays $156,800 a year and oversees a budget of $1.7 million and 15 employees, including seven other attorneys.

Beeler to apply for interim law director job

Been a lot of rumors going around about who will replace Joe Jarret as law director before his former opponent Bud Armstrong takes over.

I'm thinking it's probably going to be Richard Beeler, the law director from 1990 through 2000 and the pension board's litigation attorney. He told me today that he would apply.

Personally, I can't think of too many more people qualified at this point in time. He knows the job, he can step in and run the office. And he can help oversee/represent the charter review committee. Heck, he helped write the charter back in 1987. (Plus, the guy skydives, which is kind of cool.)

Anyhoo, he'll be submitting his resume tomorrow morning. I don't think a lot of people are going to apply for the gig.

But, that's just my guess.

UPDATE: Just saw that the rogue blogger says David Buuck will also apply. Click right smack here for his thoughts. As I recall, Buuck applied for the spot back when the county commission appointed Jarret. He also practices government law.

Jarret seeks audit of own department

Knox County Law Director Joe Jarret this evening sent an email to the county's internal auditor, Richard Walls, asking him to audit the legal department.

Don't read a whole lot into this. The move is pretty much protocol for Joe. He did the same thing after he took over for Bill Lockett a few years ago.

"I kindly ask that you conduct an audit of my office . . . to ensure my (successor) is inheriting an office that is in full compliance with our auditing policies and procedures," Jarret wrote. "My last day with the county is March 31, 2012, as such, I kindly (ask) that the audit be completed by then."

The Knox County Commission later this month will pick an interim law director to serve until Bud Armstrong is sworn in Sept. 1.

Law director term limit considerations

By now, you probably know that county Law Director Joe Jarret is stepping down five months early. He's also suggested that Bud Armstrong, who defeated him earlier this week in the elections, apply for the position.

(Keep in mind, the County Commission, which is currently accepting resumes, is charged with appointing an interim director.)

Now, a few folks, including commission Chairman Mike Hammond say that Bud is the front runner for the gig. And that would make sense.

But, it's not a given that he'll apply. He says to call him later next week.

You see, Armstrong has his own business to think about. But, he also has to think about term limits.

As it stands right now, county officials, including Jarret, say that if you've been appointed to a term and then you serve a term, you're still eligible to run one more time. The Charter Review Committee, however, is expected to address this and let voters determine the definition of words like “term limit” and “appointment” and “elect.”

Voters in November could very well decide that an appointment is considered a term. So, if Bud got the gig, he could end up doing four years in five months. In other words, he'd serve one term before he even began serving the term residents actually elected him to.

Then again, voters might not do anything.

I asked Bud about this.

“I'm worried more about what's in the best interest of Knox County than what's in the best interest of (my) career,” he said.

He added that when he ran for the post he “wasn't looking for a life-time position and not necessarily eight years or even eight years and five months.”

He suggested that at this point his clients – he still has a law practice and cases to close – are what would stop him from applying for the job.

In the meantime, if you want to apply for it, then click right smack here for the directions.

Jarret and that pesky mediation thing

Click right smack here to read about Knox County Law Director Joe Jarret’s “mediation business.” Cause it’s Part I.

Now, on to Part II in MediationGate. Heh.

OK, good readers, the other day we discovered that I learned how to take screen shots on the computer. I know, I know, hold the applause. Anyhoo, some folks say that the county’s law director has a mediation business on the side. There’s even a web page for it (click right smack here for that bad boy).

Now, Jarret says he hasn’t conducted a mediation session since becoming employed with the county. Again, I encourage you to read one of the links above 'cause I’m not recapping.

However, one of my readers – whom I care way more about than the knuckleheads who comment over at the KNS site – sent me a screen shot from Jarret’s mediation page from a week or so back.

Here's that one:

And here’s the one I took the other day:

Now, you should note a couple of things. In the first one, Jarret says he’s the county’s chief deputy law director – not the law director. Also, in the second (and more recent) one he adds the statement: “Presently employed full-time by Knox County, precluding private mediations.”

This means, according to Jarret, that he does not run a private business. But, some folks are now curious why he now felt the need to add the additional language. I was told that he was lying to us and that we weren’t doing much to call him on it. So, I picked up the phone and called him on it.

Jarret verified that the screen shot was legit and that it was up for about two years before he recently changed it. He said:

It gets updated every year when you renew your dues, and I updated it. But I have never done a private mediation ever in the state of Tennessee. I’ve only volunteered to do public mediations and I conducted those on behalf of the Community Mediation Center on behalf of the sessions court judges. When I first came here, I did two things. I joined the East Tennessee Legal Aid and did pro bono work and I did pro bono mediation for the courts.

OK, so I asked Joe when exactly did he update it? He said about a month ago when a local mediator called and asked him to do a private mediation for free. He told him that he couldn’t. Joe gave me the guy’s name and number to verify it.

All I can do is ask. If you don’t like his answer – and I know some won’t – there’s not a whole lot I can do. But, I did take the time to ask. (And I do all this blog crap for free and mostly on my own time.)

UPDATE: A reader already pointed out that under the first screen shot, the heading is "Deputy Law Director," but the text at the bottom says "Law Director." The reader suggest Joe has been keeping this up to date the whole time.

Disclaimer: Jarret is challenged by former county Commissioner Richard “Bud” Armstrong for the law director’s seat. Both are Republicans. The Democrats were too chicken to field a candidate, so whoever wins in the March 6 primary takes the prize. As always, Screams from da Porch endorses neither of the candidates and encourages all readers to write in its author’s name as your preferred candidate.