Mike Hammond ditches push to merge Knox County criminal-civil courts

Knox County Criminal Court Clerk Mike Hammond is no longer pursuing a proposal to place most of the county’s court system under one umbrella, a plan he pitched in early November to some local leaders.

“It’s just not the right timing for it,” he told WBIR 10News Thursday. “I think politicians – elected officials – need to find ways to save money and streamline things and that’s what I was trying to do, but I didn’t seem to be getting the right traction from folks.”

Hammond first suggested the move to Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett in the wake of a WBIR 10News investigation in late October that detailed the county Circuit Court Office's failure to turn over any money to the county coffers – for the fourth year in a row and the fifth time in the past six years.

The criminal court clerk is responsible for the criminal, sessions and fourth circuit courts. The circuit court clerk oversees civil sessions and juvenile court.

MORE: Hammond to Mayor: Merge Knox County Court System

MORE: Hammond's memo to the Knox County mayor

MORE: Shanks' memo to the Knox County mayor

MORE: No extra fees from Knox Co Circuit Ct Clerk four years running

In a two-page memo sent to the Mayor’s Office, Hammond proposed several options.

He first suggested merging the criminal and civil sessions courts and putting them under the criminal court clerk's purview. He noted that the sessions court judges already hear cases in both courts and it “would be a relatively easy and smooth transition.”

Hammond’s second proposal - which he favored - would combine both operations but put everything under the control of the circuit court clerk, since the state constitution mandates that counties have a circuit court clerk, but not a criminal court clerk.

Hammond proposes making that move by September 2018 when his and Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Shanks' terms in office end. Since neither are term-limited they could each run for the circuit court clerk position.

Shanks at the time called the proposal "regressive."

"I think what he wants to do – he compared it to Blount County – and that’s the model for small counties," she said. "Large counties don’t do that because it provides better customer service for the court systems to be divided so that they can meet customer needs better."

The issue now is moot.

“Since Cathy had said she wasn’t running again, I thought it was a good idea to suggest it then,” Hammond said. “But it doesn’t seem to be the right time, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s not even an issue.”

Debate over whether to merge Knox Co. criminal, circuit court systems

Knox County Criminal Court Clerk Mike Hammond would like to put most of the county’s court system under one umbrella, a move that he says would help the offices “operate more efficiently” and “serve to once again generate excess fees” for local government.

His counterpart - Knox County Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Shanks - says the plan is "regressive" and the supposed financial benefits "are not realistic."

Hammond's proposal comes in the wake of a WBIR 10News investigation in late October that detailed the county Circuit Court Office's failure to turn over any money to the county coffers – for the fourth year in a row and the fifth time in the past six years.

MORE: Hammond's memo to the Knox County mayor
MORE: Shanks' memo to the Knox County mayor
MORE: No extra fees from Knox Co Circuit Ct Clerk four years running

As it stands, the criminal court clerk is responsible for the criminal, sessions and fourth circuit courts. The circuit court clerk oversees civil sessions and juvenile court.

Hammond's plan, which was detailed in a 2-page memo marked “confidential” and sent to Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett on Nov. 8, provides two options. WBIR obtained a copy of the memo under the state's open records law.

You can find the rest of the story HERE.

No extra fees from Knox Co Circuit Court Clerk four years running

The Knox County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office has again failed to turn over any money to the county’s coffers – for the fourth year in a row and the fifth time in the past six years.

In fact, the county – as it closes its financial books on the recently wrapped-up fiscal year – even had to underwrite the overall operation for 2016 to the tune of almost $80,000.

That’s because the juvenile court, which is under the Circuit Court clerk’s purview, spent more than the office brought in.

Now, top county leaders say they are troubled about the office’s lack of finances, but question whether they can step in.

“There’s always a concern, absolutely,” said Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett. “If they don’t collect it, then the deficit is going to come from somewhere else. Either you raise taxes or you raise the base.
We’re kind of limited in local government. At some point it’s going to come from the taxpayers . . . it’s not going to magically appear.”

Knox County Commission Vice Chairman Randy Smith agreed, saying he, too, is “very concerned.”

“They need to look at aligning their staffing with the revenue streams,” Smith told WBIR 10News. “This is supposed to be at least a break-even entity.”

The Circuit Court Clerk’s Office is one of five county fee offices. These departments are run by elected leaders and are supposed to be self-funded from the fees they collect. But, they also are expected to contribute to the county’s overall bottom line.

For example, whenever someone files a lawsuit in the circuit court, the plaintiff has to pay an upfront fee of $186.50. An adoption carries a $252 fee and name change runs $186.50.

Those monies first go to covering the salaries in the office and any excess revenue is turned over to the county.

That doesn’t happen often in the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office.

But, the office’s spokesman, Randy Kenner, said officials in the department are doing everything they can.

“I think the office is pretty well run,” he said. “I don’t think we have a lot of collections out there. We’re collecting the fees we’re supposed to collect . . . (but) there’s just not as much money as there once was.”

Rest of story RIGHT HERE.

Former aide sues Shanks, county

Wheeler

Knox County Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Shanks' former chief assistant alleges he was fired last year after he tried to report about wrongdoing on her part, a lawsuit states.

Timothy Wheeler is suing Shanks and Knox County in U.S. District Court in Knoxville.

He's seeking unspecified damages. Wheeler alleges Shanks violated his constitutional rights, including that of free speech, as well as his rights under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
Shanks dismissed Wheeler, 54, in April 2015. He'd worked for her since 2001, most recently as her chief deputy.

In March 2015, according to his lawsuit, he underwent hernia surgery, for which he was eligible for leave under the medical leave law.

He was supposed to be out four weeks, according to the lawsuit. Wheeler took leave from March 25, 2015, to April 15, 2015.

On April 16, 2015, when he reported back to work, Shanks told him she was moving him to General Sessions Court, which she also oversees. She wouldn't let him get to his former officer, where his personal belongings were stored, according to the lawsuit.

MORE: Copy of lawsuit

Wheeler then went to Mark Jones, Knox County's human resources manager.

He told Jones he thought Shanks was "retaliating against him," the lawsuit states.

Also, he told Jones he thought Shanks was doing things that were wrong in the office, including "knowingly continuing to pay full-time wages to a former employee and friend of hers who rarely, if ever, reported to work, ie. a 'ghost employee.' "

Wheeler previously has identified that person in a separate lawsuit in state court as Ray Hill, who still works for the office. As a result of his report to Jones, Wheeler alleges, he was terminated.

He alleges he was exercising free speech when he talked with Jones, and he alleges Shanks failed to give him due process in his dismissal.

Wheeler's termination notice listed "office reorganization" as the reason he was let go. He earned almost $82,000 annually.

Last year, Wheeler filed a lawsuit against Shanks under the false claims act. It alleges that Shanks paid Hill for work he didn't actually do.

Hill has declined comment about the action.

Records show Hill was hired in September 1998 by Shanks. For years, Hill worked at home because of a long-standing ailment, but subsequently returned to work in the juvenile court department.

Circuit Court Clerk Shanks argues Wheeler worked for her, not county

Shanks

Knox County Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Shanks argues former second-in-command Tim Wheeler was an employee of her office and not a county employee as he contends.

Tim Wheeler filed suit against Shanks, an elected official, last month after she dismissed him. Wheeler is seeking to get his old job back, and he argues he's a Knox County employee.

Wheeler has no right to proceed under the county's personnel ordinance to appeal his termination because he's not a county worker, Shanks states in a response filed Friday to his Circuit Court lawsuit.

"It is averred that (Wheeler) was an employee of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court-Divisions I, II, and III, the General Sessions Court, Civil Division and the Juvenile Court for Knox County, Tenn.," Shanks' response states.

Wheeler

As a county employee, Wheeler would have the right to appeal termination under the county's personnel ordinance.

Shanks fired Wheeler on Friday, April 24, as he prepared to go on vacation.

She sent him a text two days before that said: "Go ahead and take off until your cruise. We've got it covered and OBVIOUSLY you need the rest."

He had worked under her since December 2001. His termination notice lists "office reorganization" as the reason he was let go.

Wheeler earned almost $82,000 annually.

Wheeler lawsuit seeks Circuit Court job back, goes after Quist-Shanks

Wheeler

Two days before Knox County Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Shanks terminated her chief deputy, she sent him a text message, telling him to take some time off because "obviously you need the rest," according to court records.

She then fired him on Friday.

Now, Tim Wheeler, who served as Shanks' second-in-command, has filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court, seeking to keep his job.

In addition, he sent a letter of appeal on Wednesday to Shanks and the county's human resource director, Mark Jones.

Wheeler has asked the court to determine whether he is a county employee or an employee of Shanks, who is an elected official. Shanks oversees a fee office paid for by fines, fees and penalties rather than a traditional county department that is funded with taxpayer dollars.

As a county employee, he would have the right to appeal under the county's personnel ordinance.

Officials in the office have said little about why Shanks fired Wheeler, who has worked for the department since December 2001.

His notice of termination lists "office reorganization" as the reason he was let go.

Circuit Court officials on Wednesday referred questions to the county's law department, which doesn't comment about ongoing litigation.

Wheeler earned almost $82,000 annually.

Circuit Court clerk to make records available online by early next year

Remember how awhile back we broke the news that the Knox County Criminal Court Clerk’s Office has never bothered to draw down any of the coin from its $130,000 technology fund?

If you don’t, well, right smack here for the story.

Anyhoo, I was talking to Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Shanks (formerly Quist) and her right hand agent, Randy Kenner, about whether they’re using the money. (Circuit Court is kind of like the yin to Criminal Court’s yang.)

Here’s what I was told:

Last year the office kicked off the bidding process to get an electronic management system that would include an online component. Nine companies were interested and Databank IMX out of Monroe, Louisiana got the contract. (This was approved by the County Commission earlier this year.)

Overall, the plan is to use a scanning system that will allow “for the efficient electronic storage, retrieval and transmission of court records.”

The public, attorneys, media, etc. will then be able to access circuit, civil sessions and juvenile courts’ stuff online for a monthly fee, which will be used to keep the operation up and running. 

Randy told me the numbers but, quite frankly, I forgot. I do remember that he said they’d probably need about 100 clients to break even.

(Nashville has a similar program and it’s actually turned into its own revenue stream.)

Randy said officials hope to have enough content available early next year. At that point they’ll begin offering online access.

They’ll use the technology fund to get the operation going. The money comes from a $2 computer and technology fee that state law requires as part of the filing fee for new cases.

Fee office questions to ponder

A few questions that got me curious. The first is just a natural question a skeptic would ask.

Cause, you know, the glass is always half empty.
Think the worst.

Always better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.
Whatever.

There’s probably a plausible explanation. But, it doesn’t hurt to ask.

So:

Authorities arrested Rhonda Gail Carter for allegedly stealing some coin from the county Clerk’s Office on Monday morning. The clerk, Foster Arnett, fired her that same day. Also, that same day the county commission was set to vote on a proposal that would give it more control over the fee office budgets. (Arnett is one of those offices although he’s on the record as saying he’d relinquish control.)

Question:

Did someone hold back this information?

It didn’t get out until Tuesday. Yes, the media could have missed this. That’s true. Deputies and police throw a lot of folks in the clink on a daily basis. But, typically the arrest of a public figure (or government employee) gets out rather quickly.

Now, it probably wouldn’t have made much of a difference whether the commission did have more authority over the financial process. She could have (allegedly) stolen this money anyway and gotten away with it (if the suspicious resident hadn’t caught her for allegedly taking it.)

Still, it would be on some folks’ minds and could have swayed the vote. Instead, the commission – because they love me so much – tabled it until next month, so they could vote on it in front of me.

Cause I’m on vacation, and they wanted me there. Cause they love me and all.

OK, that one is out of the way.

Say the commission decides not to sign off on the proposal. So far three fee officers – county Clerk Foster Arnett, Trustee John Duncan III, and Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Quist – say they’re cool with the plan.

Question:

Would they still turn over their budgets if the commission didn’t demand it?

A lot of folks have been throwing around the “transparency” word. These three say they’re onboard. Will they put your taxpayer money where their mouths are? Will they voluntarily turn over their budgets? Sure, they wouldn’t have to. But would they?

Obviously, there’s no reason to do it.

But, I’m just curious.

On a side note, I know some folks in the media have taken sides on the issues, whether the fee offices should submit annual spending plans to county Mayor Tim Burchett and the commission.

I don’t really care what they do, so long as someone finally makes a decision.

I’m tired of writing about it.

My fault officials delayed everything

I want to send a heartfelt thanks to the pension board members and some county commissioners for not taking care of business while I’m on vacation.

I mean surely that’s why the two panels delayed key issues many expected them to take a stand on Monday, right?

They were waiting for me to come back.

It’s not like the pension folks haven’t had some time to think about a proposal (to let to let four civilian employees jump onboard a retirement plan voters two years ago narrowly approved because they thought it was strictly for law enforcement and correction officers) since November.

Why not wait another month to make a decision?

Yes, the panel had some good reasons to initially delay it. That’s understandable.

The applicant’s attorney had some personal issues to take care of and had to bow out. But they’ve got a bad-ass attorney right now (the last one was pretty bad-ass, too, by the way.)

In fact, when the feds and Sheriff Jimmy “J.J.” Jones finally come crashing down on me, that’s who I’m hiring. Uh, that’s a bad joke – not reasonable cause. But I digress.

Anyhoo, according to News Sentinel Rebecca Ferrar – the poor sucker our editors tapped to cover a day’s worth of meetings for me – the good pension folks who love doling out money to lots and lots of attorneys (even though we have a pretty darn good group in the county law department that will do it for free) held off voting this time presumably because members wanted the pension board Executive Director Kim Bennett to write the county’s Top Cop and The Man with the Badge and ask him for details about the applicants’ duties, abilities and responsibilities.

I understand.

It’s tough, picking up the phone and making that call yourself. It practically killed me to do it when I wrote a story about this in one day. Tough stuff, folks. Tough stuff.

The board, according to my esteemed colleague, also must determine whether the four are deemed uniformed officers. That’s another tough one.

Because it is hard folks – hard I tell you – to call the merit office and ask yourself. It took me hours to muster the courage when I did it.

And, it’s also hard to look at these folks and determine whether they’re carrying guns and sporting shiny badges.

Heh.

I tell, you, they’re just waiting for me to get back because they love me.

The commissioners love me, too – unless they read my blog – because they must want to share the glory of their decision-making with me.

Because the commissioners also delayed a key vote on a controversial isssue – whether to seize control of the fee office budgets.

Granted, it was a 6-5 vote to table the proposal, so – then again – maybe five of those folks don’t like me.

But, I understand this one, too.

These good folks only had a week – that’s seven days or 168 hours – to mull over an issue.

Maybe they really needed more time to digest it. Maybe it really isn’t about me. Could I be wrong?

I mean, it’s not like any of the local bloggers or media outlets during those seven days actually reported on the issue. Right? Do a google search. You won’t find anything. I’m sure. Really. Do one.

And it’s not like anyone – opponents, critics, crazies and others – called the commissioners, proudly claiming their stance. Just ask them.

And of course, no fee officers, like Criminal Court Clerk Joy McCroskey or Circuit Clerk Cathy Quist – held public tours of their officers last week, even after the commissioners requested it.

(Feel the sarcasm, baby. Cause, as I recall, only Commissioner Amy Broyles took the tours, along with the media.)

Wait, did I just say there were more media folks taking the tours than there were commissioners?

Hearsy!

I must not have said that. I must have rambled it.

My bad.

Oh well.

The public understands. Oh yes it does.

You never hear the public complain about public officials delaying votes. If it does, it does not understand the need for transparency and research. No sir. The public doesn’t.

And hey, even if the executive branch and legislative branch takes control of those budgets, it won’t go into effect until the FY 2012-13 budget, so everyone has more than a year to figure out how to count your coins and spend your scratch.

But really, we get it. The elected and appointed leaders wanted to wait on me.

They don’t want to study this thing to death. They don’t want to call in The Pope and seek input from him. They’re just, er, waiting.

Seriously, why decide today on something you can put off tomorrow?

In the meantime, I look forward to the fourth Monday in April when we get to hear the same information we’ve been hearing all over again.

Cause that’s when we’ll finally get a decision.

Or not.

Quist: 'Go ahead, take my money'

As I sit in the metal shed on top of the hill, I can hear the hootin' and hollaring, the high-fiving and the whooooooohhhing taking place on the sixth floor of the Knox County Deathstar.

Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Quist has jumped shipped, and now sides with the administration and commissioners in their effort to gain more control over the fee offices budgets.

It's now even. Three of the offices are on board. And three - as I write this - are not.

But that doesn't really mean squat.

It takes six commissioners to pass this mess. And it is a mess. I haven't been able to do any real work, since the proposal hit the commission dais last Monday. I could be out covering a sewing circle right now. But, naw, I got to deal with this.

Anyhoo, from what I understand, it appears the commission is still set to sign off on the proposal. And Quist switching sides reaffirms this - to me, anyway.

(Read the initial story right smack here, I'm too tired, bored, whatever, to go into its history and give you the background about which side of the Deathstar wants to spend, I mean, manage your money. I've also got lots of posts on this if you just scroll down, too.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, it appears that the commission is still set to sign off on this (and if they do, I'm sure Criminal Court Clerk Joy McCroskey is still gonna sue all their asses), but I have heard - from one fee officer - that "the tides are shifting."

Of course the person who told me this is going to put such a twist on it that it makes even county communications manager Michael "The Spin Doc" Grider (he who manages one person) look like a school kid with a coloring book.

Heh.

So, if you're interested in hearing the word "transparency" and "accountability" a few more times, then here's the press release. (And if you want tunnel carpel syndrome, head to the mayor's office where he's waiting to give you a fist bump.)

Knoxville, Tenn. - Knox County Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Quist today announced that, after studying the proposal to bring fee offices under budget, she believes that the resolution before commission truly is about transparency and accountability for Knox County taxpayers. She is happy to join Trustee John Duncan and Clerk Foster Arnett in supporting the proposal before commission.

"The public desverces nothing less than full transparency and accountability and a funding process that is unified across all of county government," Quist said. "I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Briggs and McKenzie for bringing this proposal tot he table, as well as Mayor Burchett's leadership in supporting this measure. I hope commission votes to approve this resolution Monday.

Robocalls? Hahahahahahaha WTH

So I get this call today. I’ve been getting a lot of calls lately. Heh.

So I get this call, and I’m told that some of the fee officers - who don’t want to lose their budgets to the administration and the county commission - and the sheriff (who is completely safe from this whole mess), and the property assessor (who’s also safe) met with Steve Hunley, publisher of The Focus.

Now, that’s cool. Public officials meet with newspaper people all the time. And Hunley writes about them. (Actually, he's been putting a walloping on some of them lately. Click here for the latest and scroll down.) But, I don’t really keep up with who meets with whom (or however you use those “who” and “whom” words). So, a meeting isn't really that big of a deal.

But, this tip was interesting. I was told that the group was either (a) asking Hunley to fund some robocalls (one of the dumbest terms I’ve ever heard) or (b) he was offering to fund some robocalls.

The idea, according to the tip, was that the fee officers – particularly Criminal Court Clerk Joy McCroskey, Register of Deeds Sherry Witt and Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Quist – wanted to gain public support in their fight (initial story right here) against the nefarious establishment that wants to take them out of the so-called dark era of non-transparency and shed a little so-called light on their financial doings.

Or whatever.

So I made the calls (human calls - not robocalls). Hey, why not? If it’s true, it’d make for a good story.

First up was Property Assessor Phil Ballard. (Actually, I think he was the first to return a call.)

He verified that there was a meeting in Fountain City at Litton’s (which is purported to have the best hamburger around).

Phil, though, said he missed the lunch, arriving late because he was in his office. From what he understood, he said, was that the conversation focused (ha, get it? Focus?) around the fee offices, but he didn’t hear any talk of robocalls. He said everyone was leaving by the time he got there. He just made it clear his office wasn’t technically a fee office. Or at least not one that falls under the charter. Or whatever this whole mess is about.

“I won’t be affected no matter what happens,” he told me. “My role will stay the same.”

I also talked to Sherry Witt, register of deeds. (Always thought that was a cool title.)

She said: “I heard that too. I don’t know anything about robocalls. I don’t think it would be particularly flattering for us to make calls. This isn’t a campaign. We take this serious. We did meet. We did have lunch. Steve wrote an editorial about it last Monday (ha, boy did he ever), and he’ll do another one next week.”

(Personally, I can’t wait. You know, the whole entertainment at the expense of others. Whatever. I digress.)

Witt then said she is meeting individually with the commissioners to argue her case.

Now, I predicted that the commissioners would sign off on the plan to take control of the fee offices’ budgetary process, but she said “the tides are turning.”

She said a few of them claimed they were blindsided that it was placed on last Monday’s commission work session agenda at the last minute.

She also took issue with the mayor’s claims that he wants “transparency” and “accountability” but those are “words to run on during a campaign and if you look you’ll see that we’re accountable.”

She said if there was a problem, then the commissioners should call.

“But no one has ever asked as anything. Ever.” (She said.)

(By the way, Joy McCroskey pretty much echoed the same thing earlier today, but I didn’t hear back from her about the robocalls. Ha. I like writing that word.)

Cathy Quist agreed. Then said “anytime I get a robocall, it doesn’t take me long to hang up on it.”

You tell ‘em, Cathy.

But, “Our doors are always open," she said.

Actually, they were opened earlier today. She invited the commissioners over, but I think only Amy Broyles showed up.

Then she started on that whole kick about how the mayor and commission only want to oversee the budgets ‘cause it’s a “money-grab.”

Maybe. They got to find some way to pay for those fancy new squad cars they just bought the sheriff.

And speaking of the sheriff.

I also talked to the Man with the Badge, too.

He said he wasn’t at the meeting (everyone else verified that by the way), but said – and he stressed that he was only guessing – that Hunley would continue to side with the fee offices and that was nothing new. He also noted that the publisher campaigned against an amendment years ago that would have made the officers mayoral appointees rather than elected folks, which people are saying that this whole issue is the same thing, but it's really not the same thing.

(On a side note, I didn’t call Hunley because I initially wasn’t going to do anything with all this information, but then I got bored and started typing this drivel and, quite frankly, he probably doesn’t want me calling him at 11 p.m.)

Anyhoo, I doubt you’ll get any robocalls. Heh.

Just some rumor. Maybe. If there was some truth to it, I doubt it will happen now. 'Cause everyone is expecting it. And that’s no fun.

In the meantime, all that money that everyone is arguing over?

It’s kind of funny how possessive folks are about it.

You see it’s really not the mayor/commissioners’ scratch. Nor is it the fee offices’ coin.

It’s your dollars.

And there’s lots of ‘em.

And I’ll be happy to hold onto all of it until they get this mess worked out.

Fee office tour, salaries, more mess

The good doctor and Commissioner Richard Briggs told me the other day that the move to bring the fee office budgets under the mayor and commission would be as big – if not bigger – than the proposal to enforce term-limits for some elected leaders.

Privately, I scoffed at the suggestion.

But, it's certainly picked up some steam since Monday when the commission initially talked about it. (I wrote about it here.)

A lot of local papers and bloggers have touched on it, looking at all the angles, the perspectives, the whatever.

Anyhoo, Commissioner Amy Broyles asked some of the fee officers – Criminal Court Clerk Joy McCroskey and Circuit Clerk Clerk Cathy Quist – if they'd give her a tour of the offices. (The two clerks noted to commissioners that they didn't know squat about how to run the departments, so they shouldn't be meddling with their budgetary affairs.)

The meeting was sun shined and Broyles was the only commissioner who made it. As McCroskey said: “No one has bothered to ever come up here and see what we do.”

Broyles asked McCroskey to “show me what you think I need to know about how you run things and what the differences would be be if we changed (the budgetary process).”

I give credit to Broyles for attending. Other than that, it was pretty boring.

It's like, uh, well, here's the pretty office. There's the fax machine, there's a zillion old, yellow files (guess they haven't heard of electronic systems), there's a person clicking away on the computer, there's a nice room with a view, there's a stapler and there's a telephone.

Fascinating stuff.

I took off after 10 minutes, wading through some potential jurors in the hallway, listening to them talk about an upcoming criminal trial that they probably shouldn't have been discussing.

But I digress.

I'm rambling. I know.

I also recently asked the county bean counters to run me some numbers I wanted to know how much the fee offices requested in their recent salary suits and what the current salaries are. I also wanted to know about vacancies.

I got some back. Not everything. There's six fee offices. They listed five, but one was blank. Heh. What's up with that?

Anyway, for the number nerds:

• County Clerk: Filed a $3.65 million salary suit and has $2.83 million on the books with four vacancies.
• Trustee: Filed a $2.22 million suit and has $1.93 million on the books with four vacancies.
• Criminal Court Clerk: Filed a $6.36 million salary suit and has $2.98 million on the books with 11 vacancies.
• Register of Deeds: Filed for $1.58 and has $1.11 on the books and six vacancies.

The commission is set to vote on this Monday. I think they will. This will probably be the rare occasion where officials don't form one of those silly sub-committees that never gets anything done. (Or at least makes recommendations that never get approved.) They want to fast-track this bad boy. Why give opponents a chance to rally?

Still, that's not going to stop folks from trying.

This Saturday, the county's GOP party will apparently talk about a resolution opposing the issue, according to Brian Hornback. Click here for more. He's also got some other stuff about about the fee office debate.

There's also a post over here at the site run by my favorite hippie.

Joe Sullivan has a piece here.

And I blogged the other day about it here.

If I left anyone out, it wasn't intentional.

I've got to run. There's someone in the county Deathstar ducking me. And if they don't think I won't sit outside their office all day and haunt the staff, then they're really not paying attention. Which wouldn't surprise me.

Fee office proposal: one big mess

I don’t even know where to start with this post. Of course I usually don’t know where to start with any of them.

So how about: The sheriff is an instigator. The mayor, a puppet. The criminal court clerk is sue happy. The trustee, a chicken.

Yeah, figured that’d get your attention (to all three of my readers).

Here’s the deal: The county commission during its work session today talked about forcing the six fee offices to submit budgets – rather than file salary suits – to the mayor’s office. Probably sounds pretty boring. But what it does is it actually gives the administration a little control and the county commission a lot of control over how those officials – trustee, county clerk, circuit court clerk, criminal court clerk, clerk and master, and register of deeds – staff their offices.

In other words, they’re taking away the pocket book.

If they get the six votes needed.

If you watched this on TV (does anyone really do that?), then you pretty much missed the animosity going on in the background. The commissioners talked about the issue briefly, then listened to a number of fee officers tell them why they opposed it.

In the end, the commission forwarded the proposal to next Monday’s agenda without a recommendation. (No recommendation doesn’t mean anything. Just a formality. I’ll tell you how they’ll probably vote in a second.)

Meanwhile, county officials not on the dais were all over the place, forming factions, and trying to figure out just what was going on and why.

A little background for those who haven’t read the story (click right smack here for it):

County Mayor Tim Burchett, who constantly reminds everyone that he campaigned on transparent government (just ask him), recently asked county Law Director Joe Jarret whether it was possible for the commission to somehow take total control over the fee offices’ budgets.

(Right now, the offices do submit small budgets that cover minimal costs, like some contracts, supplies and Crayons. But, not the big bucks – not the coin that pays for all those employees who are somehow related to everyone but you and me. Kidding. That scratch is determined in the salary suits. Read the story. I’m not explaining again what a salary suit is.)

Anyhoo, Jarret said: “Yes, it’s possible.”

Now, what happened next is not exactly clear, because some of these stories are somewhat contradicting each other. The sequence of events, I mean. You see, the administration is saying this is a commission deal. Commissioners are saying this is an administration deal.

I’m saying it’s both. The driving forces, though, are the mayor, Commissioner Richard Briggs (who was absent today for reasons I cannot remember) and commission Chairman Mike Hammond (the two commission co-sponsors).

So, why are they doing it?

Heh.

Depends on who you are talking to and when.

It’s for transparency. No, it’s for the money. No, it’s for the power, No, it’s for governmental consolidation.

Whatever.

I, personally, think it’s for the entertainment of the home viewing audience.

All arguments have merit, and there’s probably some truth to each side. (Even mine). No matter what they say. (Remember, the glass is always half-empty.)

Anyhoo (damn, used that word twice in this post), you probably want to get to some of the more gossipy-gossip stuff. Which is kind of unmanly, but whatever. (If you claim to not read the tabloid headlines in the check-out line then you’re fibbing.)

Soooooo . . . .

Some behind the scenes action from today’s commission work session.

Here’s some players, what was said about them and a little bit of clarity:

The Commission: My prediction is that this proposal is going to pass. It’s either going to be a close 6-5 or it’s going to be a blow-out, possibly unanimous. I don’t see one or two commissioners trying to make a point here. They’ll test the wind, but – regardless of how they really feel – I don’t believe they want to fall on the sword for this one. That’s no disrespect to the fee officers, but it’s just not the right fight to pick at this time. Here’s the breakdown that I put together from talking to commissioners and observers: Mike Hammond, Richard Briggs, Sam McKenzie, Jeff Ownby and Ed Shouse are for it. R. Larry Smith and Dave Wright are undecided but leaning toward supporting it. Amy Broyles, too, appears to be supporting it (but remember she’s no fan of the administration). Tony Norman is a tough one. People think he’s undecided, too. But the mayor kind of ticked him off on the whole hillside-ridgetop thing a few weeks back. Vice Chairman Brad Anders is another tricky one. He’s a police officer, so a lot of folks think he’ll side with the fee offices, if only because the sheriff is supposedly on that side (more on that in a minute). That leaves Mike Brown. You never know with Brown. At this point, he wants everyone from the Pope to the attorney general to research the proposal before making a decision. (Some say he’s stalling because he doesn’t want to approve it.)

Dean Rice: There were a lot of jokes going around today that the county’s chief of staff is actually the real driving force behind this. That he’s pulling the mayor’s strings. (Dance for me puppet!) I don’t think so. This has the mayor’s fingerprints all over it. But, it’s still funny. (On a side note commissioners in an unrelated matter asked him about 100 times if he bought a new truck.)

Joy McCroskey: No way in heck does the criminal court clerk (a fee officer) support this plan. In fact, when I was in the hallway after the commission mulled over the whole mess, she told some folks near her that if the legislative branch approved the measure, she would sue. Don’t think she won’t do it, either.

Sherry Witt: The register of deeds (a fee officer) also does not support the plan. She said she doesn’t want to wait 30 to 45 days to get commission approval if she needs to hire someone.

Cathy Quist: Go ahead and put the clerk of circuit court (a fee officer) in the “no way in heck am I signing on to this" category.

John Duncan III: Ah, the trustee (a fee officer). Now, Duncan is for the proposal. In fact, he was actually going to get up there today and publicly support it. But then he disappeared. Word going around was that he earned a little enmity from some of the other fee officers because he wasn’t on board with them. He didn’t want to deal with it, they said. He got cold feet. Yeah, well, so what? I don’t blame him. I mean, does anyone really want to be at a commission meeting?

Jimmy “J.J.” Jones: The sheriff! The man with the badge! The top cop! Folks said he was instigating (not the same as investigating) Witt, McCroskey and Quist, because he was in the back of the room, hanging out with them. They said he was stirring up trouble. You see, two years ago – when Briggs first proposed this plan (more on that in a minute) – the sheriff’s office was a target. Folks said “J.J.” hasn’t forgotten. Course he’s untouchable in all this (legal reasons that I can’t remember). And if he’s anything like me, then – heck yeah – I’d stir some stuff up, too. Because entertainment at the expense of others is always the best fun. Honestly, though? Who knows? He always stands in the back.

Foster Arnett: The county clerk wasn’t there today. But, he’s with Duncan on this one. Oddly enough, I’m apparently the only one who knew that. No one else bothered to pick up the phone and call him. On a side note, I talked to him the other day about his wife, who was diagnosed with cancer. Please say a prayer for her. (That’s my good deed request for the day, by the way.)

Howard Hogan: the clerk and master of chancery and probate court (fee officer) was not at the meeting. But he called me after it. Let’s say he isn’t on board with the mayor. Here’s what he had to say: “I’m baffled. No one asked the clerks and the fee offices about this – no one approached us and said ‘you’re doing something wrong and this isn’t transparent.’ Well, we (the fee offices) have more transparency than any other offices in this court house, including the (executive branch). We submit (revenues and expenditure reports) every month to the mayor and commission and we’re subject to annual audits. It’s a little frustrating to have something dropped on us like a bomb without any discourse or discussion. But, it seems to me, anyway, that it’s a power play by the mayor and Mr. Hammond to do what the voters in this county said they didn’t want to have happen, and that’s to make the fees offices under the direction of the mayor.” Hogan then said he didn’t like it that under the proposal the fee offices’ reserve tanks would go into the county’s general fund. “They want to get that money and balance the budget on the backs of our reserves.” He also said that it wasn’t very transparent of the commission and administration to talk about it today without a proper heads-up. (On a side note, it was put on the agenda rather quickly.)

Joe Jarret: The county law director takes a lot of hits. This is mostly because he represents the county – not one office, officer, department, etc. Now I know a lot of people don’t believe this, but if you look back on some of the decisions he’s made, they haven’t necessarily favored one side over the other. I figure if you’re making everyone mad, then you must be doing something right. (Today, I’m getting paid by the cliches. But I digress.) Jarret based his opinion on the county charter and the Tennessee Code. But, he also contacted the County Technical Assistance Service, which was created by the state Legislature and “promotes better government through direct legal and administrative assistance,” and sought an opinion from those folks. They agreed with him. Jarret, it should be noted, told me he has no opinion one way or another as to how the commission should proceed. He did say that if one of the fee officers sues the county, he’d have to step aside. That means outside representation. That means big bucks. That means your dollars.

Richard Briggs: The good doctor and commissioner was not there today. But I talked to him prior to the meeting. He tried this before. In March 2009, he and local attorney Tom McAdams put together a 16-page legal analysis that essentially said a 2007 state Supreme Court ruling that enforced term limits made clear that the county charter created many of the elected offices, which had previously been creations of the state. That meant, the two argued, the county commission could require the other elected office holders to submit all expenses, positions, salaries and other relevant information to the mayor for inclusion in the annual budget recommendation to commissioners.

Bill Lockett: Yes, the former county law director was there today – in spirit. You see, Lockett at the time disagreed with Briggs, saying the offices are creations of the state constitution, not the charter. (In fact, his opinion was announced exactly two years to Monday’s date.) He did not address the state Supreme Court ruling, but rather relied heavily on discussions by the 2006 Charter Review Committee, which crafted the ballot language regarding the offices. Subsequently, the commission voted down Briggs’ proposal.

Charter Amendment: The fee officers who do not support the proposal kept citing a November 2008 charter amendment that voters shot down. It was argued a number of times by a number of different people today that “the voters didn’t want it.” That’s hard to say. The voters did shoot down a proposed amendment that shifted control over the mayor’s office. But what it really did was take away the public’s ability to elect the fee officers. Instead the mayor would appoint them. That’s not apples to apples.

There’s probably a bunch of stuff I’m forgetting, but it’s getting late, and I’ve got to proof-read this mess, which I no doubt have crafted to include lots and lots of typos (this is my longest blog to date). So if you see any mistakes, blame the county for them.

In the meantime, this debate could turn into a real spitting match (they won’t let me say “p---ing contest” on the blog). And both sides could make it real miserable for the other.

The fee offices could sue. And that will cost a lot of money.

And maybe – just maybe – the administration and commission could boot the fee officers out of that big, pretty Knox County Deathstar. And somehow, that, too, will cost a lot of money.

But, remember: In the end, it’s really your money.

Tattletale line loads of fun

I love the county's so-called fraud hotline.

It caters to my smart-ass sensibilities. (Uh, not that I've called it or anything.)

It's entertainment at the expense of others.

And that's the best kind of fun.

But, really, this thing in and of itself is a waste, and someone needs to report it.

Then send the bill - $8,000 the first year and $2,000 each additional year – to the state lawmakers who mandated the thing in the first place. (By the way, does the state actually have one of these things?)

You see, folks aren't really using this thing correctly. You're supposed to call the hotline to report government waste, fraud or abuse – associated with coin, scratch, money. Whatever.

You're not supposed to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. (Love them cliches.)

Or as county Mayor Tim Burchett says: Don't hide behind your mama's skirt and throw rocks. (Yeah, he really did say that. Heh.)

Anyhoo, a bunch of wild tips came in this past week. And, yes, I did check up on them. (I can't speak for the county. They move a heck of a lot slower than I do.)

But, I didn't find anything. Still, I'll keep looking and feel free to send me – not that silly hotline – any tips you have.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

In the meantime, enjoy the anonymous tips folks so far have left on the hotline service, and my side comments.

(Also, please remember, I'm more professional in real life than I am on this company-mandated blog for which I am not getting paid any extra to do.)

Here ya go:

• “One of my friends who works for the county says that Allison Burchett (the mayor's wife) was hired to work there but never actually comes to the office, and didn't even go to law school.” (Well, one of my friend's cousins who kind of knows Allison but really doesn't says he disagrees. Human resources also says the mayor's wife isn't on the payroll. And county Law Director Joe Jarret wouldn't put up with that crap anyway.)
• The caller said the Knox County law director was involved in fraudulent activity. (Tell Jarret's political opponent to have another one. Unless he or she was talking about the last law director. Then, they're only a year or so too late.)
• “A friend of mine who is a jailer said there was a detail of DUI prisoners sent to the mayor's house to plant bushes and clean out brush. And I also heard the same jailer took prisoners to the sheriff's mom's house to paint the house and fix the back porch.” (I can't testify to whether JJ hooked up his mom with a new paint job, but if the prisoners worked on the mayor's landscape, they need to be sent back to jail. Because they seriously did a bad job. Last time I checked, Tim Burchett's mayoral manor didn't have any new bushes there. Unless the caller was talking about those dead things by the mailbox.)
• “My buddy at KPD said he heard over the police radio that Mayor Burchett was pulled over for drunk driving last weekend but the sheriff got him out of it. If I got a DUI, I'd lose my job! This is the same crap we here in Knox County had to put up with for 10 years.” (Uh, if I'm not mistaken, the mayor is a teetotaler. He's probably had more booze spilled on him then he's drank. But nice try. On a side note, I'm not sure I trust a person who doesn't drink. But I digress. Again.)
• The caller said four employees (names unknown) slept while working at the park. (Are you sure they weren't working for the school administration? If one of them looked like guy or this gal, let me know. Heh.)
• The caller said the employees should not drive Knox County vehicles when they are not performing work-related activities. (Yeah, they shouldn't do a lot of stuff in life. Truly remarkable observations. You got anymore details?)
• “(Chief of Staff) Dean Rice just got a new truck and I understand it is actually paid for with county money. This is wrong and I think it's ridiculous.” (Dean owns a gas-guzzler and petrol prices are skyrocketing. That in itself is ridiculous. But unless you're talking about his taxpayer-funded paycheck, he didn't use “county money” to buy it.)
• “I keep hearing that Dean Rice gets paid $200 a week for mileage that he claims he drives for official county business. But there's no way!” (Are you sure you weren't thinking about schools Superintendent Jim McIntyre. Or Clerk of Circuit Court Cathy Quist?)

OK, all the rest of the reports are all true, so I'm not going to post them. Kidding. My fingers are tired and this blog wasn't all that witty to begin with.

On a side note, I encourage people to call the audit hotline (866-858-4443 ), especially late at night after you've had a few.

And, again, feel free to send me tips. I do check them out no matter how fantastic they might sound.

You never know.

Anyhoo, I need to run. I have to make more calls to the audit hotline.