Knox trustee applicants now up to 17

Well, I knew some folks would come crawling out of the woodwork for this one, to become tax collection head honcho. Course it doesn't hurt that the job pays $113K in folding paper, either. Heh.

Anyhoo, we're now up to 17 applicants. You can check out the names, right smack here. The most well-known of the new batch is Craig Leuthold.

Craig, a former Knox County commissioner, spent 16 years in the Trustee's Office before moving over to the property assessor's department in 2010. He most recently served as chairman of the Knox County Charter Review Committee, and to his credit did a pretty good job. (Hey, I can say that - I sat in almost every one of those suckers.)

As noted, yesterday, right smack here, there are a number of good candidates. And, as I recall, folks can still turn in applications up until noon on Monday.

The commission at 1 p.m. will then hold brief interviews with folks and make a final decision the following Monday during the regular monthly voting meeting. Whoever is selected will serve until the end of August 2014 (unless he or she wins the election).

Wright wants 15 on the commission

Dave Wright

He's going to get absolutely zero traction from the rest of the dais, but Knox County Commissioner Dave Wright, the sharpest dresser on the board, wants officials to change the charter “to provide for a 15 member commission elected from 15 districts.”

Yeah. Heh. That one is going to go over lie a lead balloon. (The Zeppelin reunion show from 2007 is out on DVD next week – cheap plug.)

Anyhoo, Wright, who represents East Knox County, feels that voters reduced the board's membership from 19 to 11 in reaction to Black Wednesday. He called the move “the most poorly thought out charter change that went through” (whenever that was passed by voters – I forget what year).

“The people were mad with the occupants – not with the seats themselves,” he said. “We cut the size of the commission in half, but we didn't cut the work in half.”

He's got a point actually. Plus, you got those two at-large seats, which really have to cover some territory. And then you've got more than 11 committees and members are allowed to serve as chair on only one committee. Odd.

Wright doesn't expect the issue, which commissioners are expected to talk about briefly on Monday, to go anywhere.

But, he's “bringing it up again just to make a point.”

(As a side note, I think I've written about this proposal four or five times in the past couple of years and it went nowhere.)

“No one really wants to step up to it because they think the powerful that support how you go about getting elected . . . well they want to maintain control of what commission is doing,” he said. “The charter review committee didn't want the population to look at it, and the commission doesn't want to look at it. They want it to be a 'go away' issue.”

He continued: “I want to put some people on the spot. We need a little bit of frank, open discussion for 10 or 15 minutes, and then we'll go on because nothing can happen for two years – that's the earliest it can be put on the ballot.”

Wright didn't single out any commissioners, but I asked Tony Norman about it, just because he's the board's chairman.

“It came up in the charter review process, but I think it's the sense of the commission that it is too much of a change too soon given the type of redistricting issues we face,” Norman said. “I think it will take awhile.”

To be continued.

In a few years.

Ethics chair opposes law director plan

Knox County's Ethics Board Chairwoman Elaine Davis yesterday sent an email to a bunch of local big wigs that was addressed to the charter review committee.

She's against a possible proposal to let change the county law director's seat from that of an elected position to an appointed one.

Here's the email:

Dear Charter Review Committee Members,

Unfortunately due to prior commitments, I am unable to speak before the committee tonight during Public Forum. I appreciate the Chair allowing for me to speak to you at your last committee meeting on April 11, 2012. Due to time constraints, I was unable to fully express my concerns.

I am writing in reference to the April 25, 2012 Agenda item no. 9. (8.) under the Discussion heading with reference to Section 3.08-Appointment of Law Director. "Appointment of Law Director by the Mayor effective September 1, 2016. Other branches of government will be allowed to hire on a contract basis an attorney to represent their interests."

I am writing concerning a potential conflict of interest with the appointment of the Law Director and the Ethics Committee. As you may or may not be aware, the process in which ethics complaints are initially received originate with the Law Director's office. Either a sworn complaint is received by the Law Director or a complainant may call the office and speak with the Law Director who then discerns the validity of the concern as to whether it may rise to an ethics violation. The committee as a whole is made aware of sworn complaints that are received however any calls that are made to the Law Director's office and those conversations with complainants are not. This is an appropriate process. I believe, that any verbal complaints received, the Law Director deftly handles and gives appropriate instructions to that citizen based on their complaint and situation.

However, if the Law Director is appointed by the Mayor and can be fired by the Mayor at the Mayor's discretion, my concern is that this allows for any complaints received about the Mayor or any of the Mayor's staff to be manipulated to never rise to a violation or be determined to be a credible complaint, be used to warn any wrongdoers and cover up any malfeasance, or conversely retaliate against any political enemies. In my opinion, the Law Director's loyalties would lie with the Mayor instead of remaining independent.

Additionally, there is a conflict with the language of "other branches of government contracting counsel". The Ethics Committee at one point did have a budget in order to pay for the noticing of its meetings. However, at present, the committee does not have a budget and would be unable to contract outside counsel. As a quasi-governmental body that can make recommendations of violations of T.C.A. to the District Attorney's Office that could result in a criminal charge, it is imperative that the legal advice that the Ethics Committee, a citizen's committee, receives is to be trusted.

To date, I can state that the Law Director has aided in creating Whistleblower Protection and the Process and Rules by which a formal hearing is conducted. Having served on the Ethics Committee during the hearings in which the prior Mayor's administration was found guilty of retaliating against a County employee, I can firmly say that having the Law Director independent of the administration allowed for me to make an informed decision based upon my trust of the Law Director's counsel not political machinations.

I am currently Chair of the Knox County Ethics Committee. Please know that I write this letter to you as a citizen who serves not as a spokesperson for the committee as we have not met nor discussed this matter as a body.

Thank you for your time and attention to these serious matters. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thank you for your willingness to serve.

Sincerely,
Elaine Davis

Ramblings, yappings from da Porch

So, awhile back I got tickets to check out Diamond Dave and the boys in Nashville later this month. And today, I see that they're playing in Knoxville on Aug. 4. What the deuce? Someone suggested I sell the Nashville tickets and hold off, but I figure the band will have broken up by then.

A couple things/feel like rambling.

Best Buy should rename its Geek Squad the “We Suck/Suck Squad.”

The other day I posted about a proposal from the Charter Review Committee that would require the pension board to increase its membership to include finance experts (whatever that means) and to send its annual operating budget to the mayor and County Commission for approval. Well, as one pension board member noted to me yesterday, four commissioners and the mayor sit on the pension board, so aren't they pretty much doing that already?

My Twitter account got one of those viruses where it sends messages to contacts. If you got one it wasn't from me. I think the problem has been fixed.

County Mayor Tim Burchett over this weekend was in Athens, metal detecting with his former finance director, Burton Webb. He took me metal hunting with him once. Just goes to show that he'll hang out with anyone. Heh.

There's some rumors going around that the school folks have six votes on the County Commission to raise taxes to fund the system's proposed $35 million education plan. At this point, that's BS. That could change, but I doubt it. (At the most, they'd pass a waaaay slimmed down version, but I don't even see that happening.) All sides will meet May 22 to talk more about it. Expect someone to have a substitute plan in place before then. (No, this has nothing to do with a slimmed down version.)

And speaking of school stuff. The other day I saw a large, dark bird circling above the Andrew Johnson Building. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything.

Finally, I know it's unorthodox, but taking a whiz on campfires always seems to extinguish them. What say we send a couple hundred homeless and a couple dozen kegs down to the mulch fire and see if we can't put this thing out.

County pension board says leave it alone

Last week the Knox County Charter Review Committee, an unwieldy bunch that, maybe, one day will get down to the tough decisions, decided to give the county's pension board first crack at determining whether its budget should be approved by the County Commission (yeah, I'm laughing, too) and whether it should increase its size by adding four outsiders appointed by the commission and the county mayor.

You can find the story right smack here (although the headline, which I don't write, is completely misleading).

Anyhoo, the pension board today, in an 8-1 vote, said screw that. Members said they don't need to add four more people to the board. Only Casual Chris Caldwell, the mayor's appointee to the pension board and the county's new finance director, dissented (no-doubt at Tim Burchett's request/demand).

County Commission Chairman Mike Hammond, also a pension board member, said:

“The worst thing we can do is put this pension program and these millions of dollars in the hands of politicians. And any time you're talking about appointees, you're talking about political appointees.”

Heh. Good point, Mike. (Also, the idea was to put financial experts on the board, and some members noted that the board has money managers, actuaries and other financial wizards under contract.)

The board also in an 8-1 vote (again, Casual Chris dissenting) said they didn't think it was such a hot idea to let the commission approve its budget. They argued that the budget, which is funded by the county and then reimbursed by the board is “revenue neutral,” meaning it costs the county nothing, so there's really no reason the commission needs to approve it. They also used the “we're independent from regular government” card.

That might be true. But that budget isn't exactly revenue neutral. You see, the money that the board uses to reimburse the county comes out of employee investment funds. And guess who contributes to those funds? Yeah, the county.

Ballot question: Wording can trump issue

The Charter Review Committee tonight could get into some good stuff. I wrote about it right smack here.

As noted, one issue that more than like will see some heavy debate is whether to let the mayor appoint some of the fee offices, like trustee, register of deeds, county clerk, blah, blah, blah. And, yes, I know, the voters already shot it down.

And that's what I wanted to note here that I didn't have a chance to do in today's story.

On November 4, 2008 voters overwhelmingly said he!! No to giving the mayor the authority to appoint (and subject to County Commission approval) the law director, trustee, county clerk and register of deeds.

Almost 118,500 voted against it and close to 45,000 voted for it. A real beat down. Since then the issue has been brought up from time to time and folks like to point to the now-four-year-old election as to why we should put the issue behind us. (It kind of reminds me of how Superintendent Jim McIntyre likes to point to a more than 10-year-old study that says his administration isn't top heavy. But I digress.)

Anyhoo, I don't care, really, whether the positions are appointed or elected. Makes no difference to me. But, personally, I wouldn't use the 2008 vote to measure just how the voters of today feel.

Two reasons. First, Mike Ragsdale was the county mayor at the time. A lot of people didn't want him appointing dog catcher, let alone someone who manages property, money and records.

Second: Just read the actually ballot question. It was written by a thief who wanted to keep his job. I mean read it. Seriously.

Click right smack here for the ridiculousness. (It's County Charter Amendment Question 4 by the way).

It asks whether the charter should be amended “to take away from the people the ability to vote . . .” and whether the mayor should have the power to "create or eliminate major departments of county government . . ."

Really?

Why was this guy law director again? Oh yeah, he got voted in.

Heh.

Chatter review committee onto other stuff

At this point, the Sheriff's Office pension plan has received most of the attention of the Knox County Charter Review Committee, which will be henceforth known as the "Chatter" Review Committee (shout out to the rogue blogger for the assignation).

However, the unwieldy 27-member panel has voted on a couple of items - housekeeping mostly - that will more than be put on the November ballot. (The board has to vote twice and then the county law department has to review it.)

Here's a look so far at the proposed amendments to the Knox County charter that were approved on first reading last night:

Strike through shows deletions

Bold show additions

Sec. 1.02. Private and local affairs.

With regard to private and local affairs, all lawful powers are vested in the Executive of Knox County and the Commission of Knox County, except those powers reserved to the judiciary., Board of Education, and elected Charter and Constitutional Officers as defined by the Constitution of the State of Tennessee.

Sec. 2.02.I. Other powers.

I. By resolution, the Commission may appoint members to those boards and commissions the County Commission deems necessary in the furtherance of its duties and responsibilities under this Charter or as provided by state law. of the following boards and commissions: Knox County Board of Adjustments and Enforcement; Knox County Agricultural Extension Committee; Knox County Air Pollution Control Board; Knox County Ambulance Review Commission; Knox County Board of Construction Standards and Applications; Knox County Board of Equalization; Knox County Board of Health; Knox County Housing Authority; Knox County Jail Inspection Committee; Knox County Library Board of Trustees; The Public Building Authority of the County of Knox and the City of Knoxville, Tennessee; Knox County Old Records Commission; Knox County Sheriff's Department Merit System Council; and two members of Knox County Personnel Board. All such appointees shall be residents of Knox County at the time of their appointment and at all times while serving on said board or commission. The Commission shall have the authority, by resolution, to remove and discharge all such members for good cause shown.

Sec. 2.02.A. Other powers.

A. The Commission is vested with all other powers of the government of Knox County not specifically, or by necessary implication, vested in some other official of the County by the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, by this Charter or by law not inconsistent with this Charter. However, neither the Commission nor the Chairman(woman) of the Commission shall exercise any powers or perform any functions of the County Government which are vested, by the terms of this Charter, in either the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch. in the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, Board of Education, and elected Charter and Constitutional Officers as defined by the Constitution of the State of Tennessee.

It should probably be noted that there is no such thing as a constitutional officer in Knox County, but since it's a little detail it probably doesn't matter. I mean, you know, we ignored term limits for about a decade. Why sweat this?

Charter review tonight, pension on or off?

Tonight the Charter Review Committee will meet to talk about a couple of issues, including whether to take up the Sheriff's Office pension plan. As reported (naw, I'm not going to bother linking because I'm too lazy), there's some debate about whether the committee or the actual County Commission should address the issue.

Here's the background discussion:

If the committee takes it up, then voters more than likely will have a choice on whether to keep the plan or close it (only to future employees) altogether That's it. Don't kid yourself that they'll be talking about tweaks.

If the commission takes it up, then voters more than likely (if it even gets seven votes) will have a choice on whether to keep the plan or adjust it somewhat – maybe increase retirement age, or eliminate cost of living adjustments, or whatever. That's it. Don't kid yourself that they'll be talking about killing it altogether.

And that's the problem. No one – OK, maybe one or two people – actually believes either board would look at the whole picture. (Personally, I think it would be funny if each board addressed it and then put their own questions on the ballot. Couple that with the expected vote on city pensions of some sort and . . . . But I digress.)

So, obviously the Man with the Badge, Sheriff Jimmy “J.J.” Jones, wants this going to the commission. That makes sense. He doesn't want to close it.

And, of course, county Mayor Tim Burchett does not want this going to the commission. That makes sense, too. He wants to close it.

Some have argued that the committee, comprised of 27 members, has other issues on its plate and that it will take too long to understand the details to the pension program. Burchett said “it can be explained in 15 minutes.” Heh. Not exactly. But, it's not going to take six months, either.

We'll see what happens in the next months or so. I'm not crossing my fingers that the committee even gets to the issue tonight – not after the last meeting when they beat themselves with minutiae for two hours.

Then again . . . .

Charter review board facing the politics

As someone told me on Wednesday night: I didn’t think I could find anything denser than pensions. Until now.

They were talking about the Charter Review Committee meeting.

Man, seriously, boring stuff. Put the public in charge and they don't know what to do. Reminds me of when Jesse “the Body” Ventura won the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial elections in 1998. Once he got into office, he was like: “Now what.”

Heh.

I bet none of this makes sense.

Here's the deal. The charter review committee, which is supposed to be comprised of 18 residents and nine county commissioners, is supposed to be looking at the charter, making decision and figuring out whether it needs changing.

The committee has now met for four hours – actually five if you count the meet and greet – and as of now, it's figured out how to ask the local government for open records. It's also decided that if somehow and someway the members do get to vote on something, then they'll vote on it twice. And – heck – they might even revisit it for a third time.

Flip. Flop.

In the meantime, the review committee really only got about nine more meeting before it has to give the law department, and subsequently the election commission, the information to go on the ballot.

Actually, I'll quit beating around the bush and be blunt: This thing is a mess. And you can already see the personalities and political persuasions taking over. Oh, man.

So. What are they going to talk about? At the next meeting, they'll address residency issues for those running for office when their pad gets redistricted and whether they can run. Or whatever.
They're also supposed to decide whether to let the County Commission talk about the multi-million dollar Sheriff's Office pension plan.

Apparently, the folks are the charter review committee are too dumb to figure out the intricacies of the retirement program on their own. And, no, those are not my words. I understand that there's a ton of complexities to this. But, here's where the argument that only the County Commission should analyze it fails.

Commissioners say they're more in tune to what's going on with the pension. That's because they have four commissioners on the pension board, they say. Yes, well, at this point it appears those same four commissioners are also on the charter review committee.

Commissioners say it will take time to get up to speed on the details to the pension plan.
Yes, well, the charter review committee meets at least nine more times before the deadline runs out to get a question on the ballot, and the commission will hold about 10 meetings in the same time (and I'm being generous with that “10”).

Commissioners say the review committee will have too much on its plate. Really? Right now, it doesn't have jack on its plate.

But, the commission is about to have a big budget sandwich on its plate. Oh yeah, and a $7 million school funding problem, a billboard ordinance and that little thing called Midway Business Park.

They must have some good jugglers on that commission.

Also, something else that some commissioners have failed to tell the public.

There's been some insinuating going on that only the charter review committee can make changes to the charter. That is not the case. The commission can, too. Why do you think they'd even want to address the Sheriff's Office pension plan (which is in the charter)?

So, the whole argument about “woe is the charter review committee because it just won't have time to do everything” really doesn't fly. Cause, maybe the review committee would rather address the pension than, say, something like increasing the amount of members on the County Commission. (Yes, that proposal has been kicked around behind the scenes.) Yeah, maybe the review committee would rather have the commission look at THAT.

The reality is that the pension should probably be tweaked if the county wants to save money. But, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be killed. I think there's a fear that if it goes to the charter review committee, then that's just what members will do – put an “up or down” vote on the ballot. The other thought is that if it goes to the commission, then members won't have enough votes to float that type of question (they'd need seven). Instead, there would be a move to only make tweaks.

Now, I'm not making an argument about who should take up the pension plan. Maybe both bodies should. Maybe only one. I'm just saying that you're going to hear a lot of BS about why one body is better than the other.

Maybe both boards should look it over.