Register of Deeds candidate Wiser writes letter to 'Mayor Tim.' Heh

So, uh, er, heh. Donald Wiser, who is running as an independent for the Knox County Register of Deeds seat, sent out an email today to a bunch of local leaders, the county mayor, the media and your mama. (Kidding on that last part.) Anyhoo, like I've always said: Send me your election stuff and I'll post it.
 
Wiser will face Sherry Witt, a Republican and the current Register of Deeds, in the August election.

You know, sometimes I comment on these things and even call people out when they make mistake or they're completely inaccurate. But, I'm just going to let this sucker speak for itself. Unedited.

The email subject line was "Open Communication to Mayor Tim." 

Cheers.

Honorable Mayor Burchett:

I have documentation from the Election Commission that Ms. Witt and Mr Jones have been elected to their office in two consistent elections. Now they have taken out petitions for a third term, solicited signatures of Knox County voters ,and had their name in nomination in violation of the Charter of Knox County and the will of the citizens. Term limits have been under attack by the Tim Hutchinson/Scott Moore group since its enactment with this gang armed with an  A.G. opinion term limits didn't apply to them. Then came BLACK WEDNESDAY!

           
Jones has had a hard time with the truth as we've discussed at best' or might be his disdain for the will of Knox Countians: he has decided his first term did not count[ Jones needs to read the Campbell Co. bondman's Courts  statement of law about A.G. or Law Director opinions] The only ones to benefit from this cavalier decision is Jones himself, and his close friend, the current Register of Deeds. Jones as you should recall tasted one of K.C.S.O.s' Finest [also a State Representative] with sneaking into a Bill an amendment removing the Sheriff and close associate Resister of Deeds from term limits. If you remember, we talked, and you took the right action: you kill the bill in the Senate which made us proud[also income tax] that you believe in the will of the people as C.B. taught you.

            
Tim, you ran on a platform of being a Stewart of the taxpayers money, transparency and increase  accountability. Now is the time for you to purge the deadwood in your office and clean up your own backyard. Thank you for the school in Carter and any help to stop busing of school kids but while you have been kissing babies and cutting ribbons the foxes have been robbing the chicken coop. We the people have a right to know the involvement of office holders under your  purview;

1.Involvement with Buumgartner by A.G. and Sheriff:

  a. Join with News-Sentinel  and the parents to investigate and have the T.B.I. Report made public.

  b. Answer, Who, What, When, and How. To paraphrase Fred Thompson during Watergate, What did [they] know and when did they know it. The source of Richards drugs needs to be known [history has shown a police agency is a great source. No Chain of Command in the drug section answering directly to Jones]..

 
2.The Police pension that Jones along with a Register of Deeds aid conspired to award this benefit to many undeserving ex-sheriff,lawyers,at least five ex commissionaires many voting for Jones and Witt on BLACK WEDENDAY, and who knows who else. Remember Herb told you so.

 
3.You have knowledge about the abuse of vehicles in the Sheriffs Department even talking about the black Mustang that uses 7$ a gallon gas[after denying now test driving].

4.Why is  Knox. Co. allowing a Office Holder that didn't pay his child support, pays no property tax, after a golf trip over seas [ who paid for this] along with A.G.,Mental Health official, and a D.U.I. Lawyer who's kin works the same try to sell a concept for a non-feasible program at $17,000,000 and a building. Who is it for the intoxicated, the drug addicted, or mental ill and who will decide. Maybe this person can receive bonus as large as the tourist bureau or maybe a job after retirement.

5.The Police is to protect our children but this sheriff must have a problem . We know he was a dead beat Dad according to past reports of the Knoxville News-Sentinel now one of his Officers is charged with sex crimes involving a 13 year old  which  brings to mind a K.C.S.O. Officer  assigned to be one of the very few to  patrol in our neighbors that was fired for sex and authority crimes with a child while working an undercover assignment in our schools by the previous sheriff but rehired by Jones. This individuals daddy  working there is alleged to be doing chores for Jones[ laundry, grocery shopping but not the quart of vodka]. The fired Officer was placed on diversion by the same A.G. that took the trip overseas with Jones.

Tim I know my great friend C.B. Placed in your heart to do right so make him proud.                       

Donald M. Wiser

Wiser releases official candidate announcement for register of deeds

Donald Wiser is running as an independent against Knox County Register of Deeds Sherry Witt. He initially picked up a nominating petition to run for the sheriff's post as well. What follows is his official announcement that he is seeking Witt's post.

In it, I think he believes that there's some kind of conspiracy against him to run for sheriff. I'm not sure as the news release makes little sense (at least to me). However, as I've stated before, send me your election stuff and I'll post it.

The general election is set for August. Neither has an opponent in the May primary.

On a side note, Wiser talks about Sheriff Jimmy "J.J." Jones and Witt seeking a third term in office, and says the law doesn't allow this.

No, not true. The voters recently amended the charter to define what a "term" is, and it doesn't include prior appointments. (JJ and Sherry each served roughly two years - as did Clerk Foster Arnett Jr - before winning their respective political races back in 2010.)

So, anyhoo, here ya go:

On 20 February 2014, I was forced to make a decision as to what course I was to travel in an endeavor to bring the honest and efficient government that the citizens of Knox County rightly deserve and to which they are entitled under the Constitutions of the United States, the State of Tennessee and the Knox County Charter.

But the road to the office of Knox County Sheriff is blocked with unconstitutional barriers that cry out for justice as surely as did the poll tax in times gone by.

A small county Peace Officer Standards and Training certified jailor with three years’ service and a GED qualifies as a candidate for sheriff.

The law requiring candidates for sheriff to be POST certifiedfor three of the last 10 years is an unconstitutional, incumbent-protection measure written to exclude qualified opponents. It denies my constitutional right to run for sheriff even though I am a career police officer, had 24 years of POST certification, and served as a POST commissioner.

I am an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Navy and hold a BS in criminal justice from East Tennessee State University and an M.S. plus 40 hours in Health and Safety Education from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. I have also completed 2 years of law school at Nashville School of Law.

I have been a Criminal Justice instructor at Walters State Community College, an administrator at a treatment program at Mountain View Youth Development Center in Dandridge, have taken a course in FBI Instructor Development and attended the Tennessee Correctional Academy along with numerous related police schools and training for Drug and Alcohol Counseling.

But under this unconstitutional and downright unconscionable law, I am not qualified to be a candidate for sheriff.

In addition to my educational background, I have 6 years as a field auditor with the Trustee's Office and private sector experience in land management.

Unlike the incumbent sheriff and register of deeds, who hand out promotions based on the good ol’ boy system, I understand company needs and people needs and the need for accountability and transparency in government.

The Hutchison-Moore Machine conceived both Jimmy “JJ” Jones and Sherry Witt on Black Wednesday. They were appointed, then unappointed by the court, elected for a term, re-elected for a second term and are now running for the third time.

If my math serves me right this will be three terms, not the two that the law allows.

Broyles goes to conventions. Yawn.

Photo by Dan Andrews

Well, credit to Knox County Commission Vice Chairman R. Larry Smith for tooling a couple of media outlets into reporting that Commissioner Amy Broyles – one of his political foes – goes on trips.

Yes, trips that he as a commissioner approved when he blindly – like most commissioners – approved the budget.

(Course R. Larry managed to chalk up some folding paper for a trip to Nashville when he probably could have just picked up a phone, but who’s counting?)

Now, before I really get into it, this entry isn’t to disparage R. Larry. It’s just a look at the inside baseball of politics and how it works sometimes. I don’t really have a dog in this fight. Personally, I never saw the story in the story. Hell, I told R. Larry that months ago.

In fact, we reported the real story. It wasn’t what Broyles attends, but rather what she doesn’t: meetings. Now THAT was the story.

Anyhoo, I digress.

Back to R. Larry.

Politically, it was an interesting move. On one end it was savvy that he convinced some reporters to   That’s usually smart politics.

Photo by Dan Andrews

Politically, it was an interesting move. On one end it was savvy that he convinced some reporters to (in my opinion) cover a non-issue, so he can use that as ammo when he talks about it during Tuesday’s work session. (R. Larry put this on the agenda to discuss. No, really.)

But, not this time. This time he pretty much insulted women everywhere.

According to the News Sentinel:  Broyles “the lone female commissioner, went with Knoxville’s first female mayor, Madeline Rogero, to hear her speak in Nashville at the Tennessee Economic Council on Women.”

The Sentinel quotes Smith: “How’s women’s issues going to better Knox County’s government decision making?”

(Wow! Freakin’ wow! He really said that? Holy $%*!)

Also, credit to KNS reporter Gerald Witt. In his lede sentence, he notes that Smith “is targeting” Broyles. WATE’s story made it out like there was some huge uproar of officials. No, folks. It was one official.

Smith’s move pretty much killed any chance he had at a school board seat. Most teaches are women. Yeah, they vote.

The good commissioner, according to Witt, also said commissioners “should enter office ready to do the job.

“If I decide that I want to run for County Commission,” he told the paper, “I know what it all entails. I know there are large budget items.”

Smith also is rumored to run for the Register of Deeds gig next year. I wonder if he – or anyone else who is thinking about challenging Sherry Witt (no relation to Gerald) – knows what it entails.

Does he know how to oversee $2 billion in real estate transaction each year? What about $4.5 billion in lending?

Again, not to disparage R. Larry. But rather to point out what is no doubt going to be political ammo when he decides to run for office next time.

It’s also probably a lesson to Broyles (not that she will care): Next time the commission chairmanship is up, don’t nominate someone other than R. Larry.

Heh.

Commish Smith mulling another office?

R. Larry Smith

There's been some talk recently that Knox County Commissioner R. Larry Smith (or as he's sometimes called: AAAAARRRRRRHHH Larry) will run against incumbent Sherry Witt for the Register of Deeds gig.

Course about a year ago, folks said he was angling for the Trustee's job and that kind of died down.

Sooooo, I figured I'd ask him, since I had him on the line about an unrelated story.

His response?

“Every day, there's not a day that goes by that someone doesn't ask me: 'Larry, I think you should do this or that, or you should run for this, or maybe do that.' Everything is open next year from school board races to the judges so let's see what's available.”

Judge Larry?????!!!!

Anyhoo, I asked him again about the Register of Deeds deal, but he wouldn't commit.

“I enjoy public service, I really do,” said Smith, who is term-limited on the commission. “I enjoy trying to help people with issues that they have. I've always been that way. I just enjoy giving back to the community.”

Larry Smith, Sherry Witt bonus battle

Commissioner Rrrrr. Larry Smith (left) has been somewhat on a roll lately, calling out the county's trustee and his father, the good local Congressman.

Now, he's got his sites set on Register of Deeds Sherry Witt. In fact, the good commissioner sent Sherry a note, taking her to task for accepting some incentive payments, yet wanting to meet with her to discuss the issue.

Witt's response?

“The letter is at the bottom of my bird cage,” she told me.

Heh. Now, that's funny.

Soooo, what's going on?

If you haven't been living in a cave lately (or a jerk like someone who would post comments under a stupid name like “YankeeinDixie”), then you know that county Trustee John Duncan III is under fire right now because he paid himself and some staffers a bunch of coin for doing work they didn't really do.

At the same time, Witt and a number of other elected fee officers also accepted such payments, but they actually did do the work.

(Now, to get the payments you have to get designated as a “certified public administrator.” I've written about this; no point rehashing it. To keep your certification, you have to do 16 hours of coursework, or whatever each year. Then you're allowed up to $3,000 in coin.)

Argghh Larry, however, questions whether local officials should take the money, even if they've done the work.

So, he's been checking around the state, asking other folks whether they participate in the education program and collect the coin. He apparently talked to the Hamblen County trustee, yet thought he talked to the Hamilton County trustee.

So, he goes around telling people he talked to someone from Hamilton County and says that they receive only $200 in bonuses.

Now, Sherry (right) did some checking on her own.

She called Hamilton and learned that Our Larry never talked to anyone from the Chattanooga area. So, she called out the commissioner during Monday's work session, pretty much insinuating that he was full of crap.

Then, Larry did some checking and realized his mistake. (He had actually talked to Hamblen and they get $200 in bonuses.)

So, he then gets in touch with Hamilton County (for real this time) and the trustee there tells him that he gets $0 in bonuses.

Larry, then calls out Sherry and accuses her of telling half-truths.

Good stuff.

He then pens her a note – click right smack here for that bad boy – and says that her “personal attack on my character (was) absolutely uncalled for, discourteous, and beneath your position as an elected official.”

He also says that accepting the incentive payments “is an affront to the taxpayers we serve.”

(I'm not sure if other fee officers who also get the incentive payments got a similar letter. Probably not.)

Sherry, though, isn't having any of this. And she probably won't be meeting any time soon with R. Larry.

“It's all about media attention for him,” she said, noting that the reason the Hamilton County trustee doesn't take the money is because he isn't certified. “I'm sorry he's offended but he should check out the validity of his statements.”

Heh.

Like I said: good stuff.

One year in, Burchett says he delivered

Click here for today's story on Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett's first year in office. My editors gave me 60 inches. In newspaper terms, that's about half of an empty page. I wanted more. But, whatever.

Here are some of the quotes from the mayor that didn't make the story.

On the overall past year:

"I think we've accomplished a lot of things that we set out to do - transparency and restoring a great deal of trust back to Knox County. People worked really hard in this administration and I've enjoyed it immensely."

On the transition from a legislative body to the executive branch:

"There really wasn't any honeymoon. We immediately went to work, starting to implement things. I was used to dealing with the executive branch (as a member of the state House and Senate), so I knew the role from the other side."

On what he would do different:

He said early on he didn't meet regularly with commissioners and other public officials, but he's since changed that. He said he took it for granted that they were up-to-date on all the issues, but then realized that because a commissioner job is part-time and most have other jobs, then that's not always the case.

On whether he would change anything:

"I don't know if I'd change anything. We accomplished our major goals from putting together a budget and paying down the debt, and things that are important. They're not sexy and don't make headlines but that's what we do."

On the hardest part of the job:

“Having to tell friends that I can't find them work. I can't create a job and you have to go through the process. There's a set of procedures in place. I refuse to make this a good ol' boy system up here.

On the best part of the job:

"The people I work with – all of the departments."

On a campaign promise to improve education:

He said he thinks he has.

"I've given them the funding they've asked for. I meet regularly with them, I've visited numerous schools and I go to lunch with the kids – not the teachers and principals. I want to find out what's going on with the schools. You have to give them the funding to support"

On his battles with other elected officials:

"It's not my role to be a cheerleader for office holders. When I talked about a 'new direction' (during the campaign), I meant it. People are tired of the same old stuff."

On the fee office controversy:

"When we came to a disagreement with the fees office, we still accomplished everything we want to do. We just had to get our heads together and discuss it and that's what we did. We got the transparency we're looking for and they kept their autonomy."

On not filling an MPC position with someone from the south side of the city/county:

"I just looked for the best person that I think would fit the job. I wanted someone with a business background."

On his plan to not fund the area's "save the homeless initiative" because the campuses allow booze:

He said he did include the county's $50,000 in this year's budget to help with the office's transition.

"But I still stand by my original (statement). I'd revisit it with a new city mayor, but my position hasn't changed.

But, he added, he doesn't "want it to be one against the other."

On the safety center:

"I'm against it, although I never said I was publicly against it. It's a funding issue."

On the Midway Business Park:

Now this is the interesting one. Don't kid yourself: The administration wanted the business park. Note how members never took a stand one way or another for it. But, Burchett didn't like how the whole thing was handled.

"I inherited that. I think it was mishandled. I think there was a distaste in the public's mouth on what appeared to be an inside land deal with connected people. They had it three years and dropped it in my lap but the damage was already done. I think if you go out to the public and tell them what you'd like to do and get their ideas, then it goes a long way. Don't be disrespectful about it."

He then said: "I'd like to see something out there . . . and I don't want to see a bunch of apartments."

On the Ridgetop and Hillside Protection Plan:

"I'm a property rights person and I think ultimately we have good laws in place and the ultimate goal is enforcement."

On why he pushed so hard for Carter:

He said his father taught him to support the underdog and that's always stuck with him.

"I think the people out there have been misled and it's the right thing to do. I have a place in my heart for the underdog."

He also said he "got caught up a little in their enthusiasm," and liked how the East Knox County residents tend to stay to themselves, but thoroughly research an issue when it affects them. It was a great quote, but I don't have that part of my notes on me, and most people would probably read it the wrong way. It's all in the tone. But it was pretty funny what he said.

Burchett also pointed out that during his campaign he never promised to build a new school, but rather, he "would look into it."

On the Carter opponents:

"People don't like it because I ruffled some feather and I understand that. Or people are upset that I don't want to put us in 20 to 30 years of debt."

Heh.

On the severance packages:

"It's been rehashed a 100 times. I established a no severance policy so the issue won't come up again. It was done by executive order."

On his attendance:

"I've been attending more meetings. You've seen me in there."

That's true.

On his next budget:

"It's all on the table. I caught a lot of heat because we didn't give raises and the county employees haven't had raises in four years. But, if you talk to some folks in the private sector, some of them haven't had raises in 6 years. If I can, I'd like to do it but not with a tax increase."

He also said that he's "not looking at a tax increase right now. My directors know to bring me other solutions. A tax increase is too easy."

On future concerns:

"It's always the budget."

But, he added: "I want to continue to restore confidence and transparency in county government and continue to provide services that we're constitutionally mandated to do."

COMMMENTS FROM OTHERS

This was from Commissioner Amy Broyles:

"I think local government works best when everyone is encouraged to participate, to bring their best ideas and collaborate with their colleagues. There has been a definite shift away from that in the past year, which I attribute to the current administration. I have been very disappointed in the adversarial rhetoric and lack of honest communication. Keeping a tally of ‘wins’ and ‘losses’ shifts one's focus from where it ought to be - on the citizens of Knox County.

“We have all worked very, very hard since the 2008 elections to restore the public's trust, and we have made great strides towards a more respectful, transparent, and responsive government. I think we have one of the most effective, most progressive legislative bodies in Knox County history. We work well together, and Mike Hammond has done an excellent job of keeping us focused and moving forward. He is sensitive to everyone's right to be heard - public figures and private citizens alike.

“Community organizations and other non-profits provide valuable services to the people of Knox County, and I am pleased to see the administration is acknowledging that by restoring some of the funding they cut. I think it shows sincere growth, and I am very proud of the Mayor. I also admire his willingness to consider out-of-the-box solutions to stubborn issues, and his perseverance. One on one, it is obvious he cares about people and wants to make a difference in their lives. I think he will continue to develop as he settles in and finds his balance as an executive. I look forward to that. Working together, the Commission and the administration have the potential to do some truly great things for Knox County over the next few years."

Commissioner Ed Shouse said the following:

"I think it's been a pretty good year for the mayor. Certainly, there's a learning curve from working the halls of the Legislative Plaza to the nuts and bolts of running a county with 450,000 people and a budget of $650 million. He's had some missteps but that's expected for anyone, but I'd certainly say it's been a good year.

"He followed through on his campaign promises to reduce government and no tax increases and run it as efficiently as he saw fit, and I think that's what he's attempting to do. I think that sometimes the communications can probably be improved upon but I believe he's gotten better at that in the last six months than he was in the first."

Knoxville Chamber President and CEO Mike Edwards said the following:

"I think he's had a successful first year. I've watch from the peripheral other mayors – city and county – in my tenure and the learning curve that first year is steep regardless of your background. And everybody that I could cite has come in with some degree of knowledge and there's always a learning curve, but I think he mastered it relatively quickly. I think he's been able to work with the commission, but they're not necessarily a rubber stamp. But he has been able to get important agenda items through, not the least of which was his budget, which was not easy."

Edwards added: "He also took home the Carter school deal. And he has not been afraid to take on a tough issue. He worked Carter extremely hard and had success. He's not done yet, but he has gotten it a pretty good ways down the road."

Edwards also said Burchett "made a very good stand with no tax increase and he kept public education No. 1. He kept (the school system) as a priority when there's a lot of pressure to go in a whole lot of different directions.

"I think he has maintained a high level of integrity. There's been no instances of impropriety. You can tell if a guy's heart is in the right direction, so I think he's had a great first year."

Register of Deeds Sherry Witt:

"I think he's had some great ideas and it's just implementing those great ideas. I hoped we helped with doing that. We sure tried to.”

She said the fee office debate "was a true compromise. It wasn't ever that I was trying to be a radical. But me being here as long as I have, I knew there were certain duties I couldn't give someone else.

"We look forward to working with him in the future."

Superintendent Jim McIntyre:

"From my perspective, the mayor has really always been a friend to public education going back to his years in the Legislature and I think that continues today. Part of his educational background was his parents – they were both educators – and I think he understands the importance of public education, and more particularly, high-quality public education for the future of our community.

"I think we've developed a good working relationship over the past year and I meet with him every other week. I think we've really worked to establish that working collaborative relationship around supporting the children in our community."

I asked him to characterize the mayor's approach to Carter Elementary School.

"It's really the same. I believe over the past year we've worked to build a collaborative relationship, and I think the mayor has tried to be creative in working through his interest and the Carter community's interest, and I think that he has tried to be respectful of the (school) board's authority . . . . One example is that early on the board of education had voted several times for renovations, and I think the mayor really listened to the board when they said if they were to consider a proposal for a new school it would have to come out of resources that wouldn't impact the school system. I think the mayor listened to that, took it back and really tried to respond."

He added: The good news is that he shares our priority in ensuring that we provide a great education to our children. He has really engaged with us. For example, over the last two weeks (McIntyre has been touring the schools), the mayor has been to probably eight or 10 of them with us and observed instructions with me. He generally seeks to be supportive of the work we've done. He cares for the children, he's good with kids and has a heart for public education, and I look forward to working with him."

Chief of Staff Dean Rice:

"I think it's been a great year. I've thoroughly enjoyed working for the mayor. I learned a lot and look forward to doing a lot more. My favorite part of the year was watching an elected official actually do what they said they were going to do. You may not win every time, but I think the people and the voters appreciate him and what he's trying to do, and I look forward to doing anything I can do to help him for as long as he wants."

Rice added: "If you look at what he's done coming into office this year, I think you'll continue to see a mayor who is pushing for those core things – more transparency, efficiency and fiscal responsibility. They may be broad things, but they have real consequences as far as policy goes."

He also said: I truly enjoy working with a lot of talented people and getting to know many of the county employees who get to do a tremendous job for the taxpayers."

Communications Manager Michael "Big Sexy" Grider said:

"Huh, what? What are you asking me for? I just work here."

Heh.

Yeah, I made up that last one.

Commish to table fee office plan

I slapped this together for tomorrow's newspaper. Some commissioners held a meeting today (yeah, it was sun shined) to talk about items on this Monday's commission agenda. The Good Doctor, Commissioner Richard Briggs, said they would table a plan to talk about the fee office mess. Because happy hour was approaching, I left, so I could call county Mayor Tim Burchett and Register of Deeds Sherry Witt (to talk about the issue - not to hit happy hour with). Here's some variation of what will run in tomorrow's paper:

The county commission on Monday expects to table a proposal to take control of some fee office budgets now that the mayor and register of deeds – the one holdout to the proposal – are working through the issue.

“I think we both have the same objective and we’ve both been in government a long time and I think we can get a compromise worked out where we can both agree on the objective,” said County Mayor Tim Burchett, adding that he met with Register of Deeds Sherry Witt earlier this week. “We’re not that far apart, so if we slow down, we can get there a little faster.”

Witt agreed.

“I’m hopeful that we can all work together and we can come to a compromise that I feel comfortable with in regards to my duties as register of deeds, protecting my employees and protecting the taxpayers of Knox County,” she said.

At issue is a proposal by commissioners – and backed by the mayor – to take more control over the staffing levels and salaries for half the county’s fee offices - the trustee, the register of deeds and county clerk. The commission was expected to vote on the much-discussed plan during its regular meeting on Monday.

Now it looks like they’ll put it aside for 30 days, said Commissioner Richard Briggs, who is sponsoring the plan.

“I think (Witt) was concerned that there were things she needed to run her office and the money wouldn’t be there and it would fall negatively on her,” he said.

Right now, the fee offices file salary lawsuits in Knox County Chancery Court, outlining much of the departments' annual spending plans. The mayor as a matter of protocol signs off on the suits. Under the new plan, the offices – much like the school system and sheriff’s office – would submit budgets to the mayor first for initially review and then to the commission for final approval.

As it stands, Trustee John Duncan III and County Clerk Foster Arnett Jr. support the plan.

Odds and ends from the meeting

I’ll have a story tomorrow in tomorrow’s paper about what the commissioners did regarding the fee office tug-of-war.

In the meantime, here’s a few things that won’t make it because of space.

Early on in the meeting, the administration rolled out some organization – the PFM Group, I believe – to talk about the county’s “benchmarking and debt analysis.”

Apparently, they were asked to provide “an independent assessment of debt profile, ways to save money and looking for specific risks in the financial profile.”

Uh, OK.

Despite having roughly $620 million in debt, we’re in pretty good shape, group members said.

Like I said: Uh, OK.

I’m actually still scratching my head on this one. I’d think the administration would rustle up someone who would talk about how bad off the county is. Because you know, the debt scares the hell out of county Mayor Tim Burchett and his right-hand-man Dean Rice.

But, they didn’t.

Of course, this could be one of those moves where officials wanted to brag about how all that refinancing they did back in September makes them look good. Former county Mayor Mike Ragsdale refinanced a bunch of debt, too, during his first year. (Course he also racked up a bunch.)

Still, with this news maybe they should have given Sheriff Jimmy “J.J.” Jones a couple extra cars if the future is so bright.

Anyhoo, some other notes:

Carter Elementary School: The evaluation committee that will determine which of the six bidders who wants a shot at trying to convince the county why they should get paid $13 million to $15 million instead of the PBA to build a new school on the county’s eastern side will meet Wednesday and Thursday. By early next week, officials will make the choice public and it will go before the IDB on May 10. Apparently, the bidding/request for proposals process so has cost the county about $4,600. I’ll try to figure out what it was spent on. I imagine it was advertising the bids.

NRRT: The county is going to auction off some 157 acres of Solway Greenwaste property. Remember, the county is cutting ties with Natural Resources Recovery of Tennessee on July 31. I wrote about that some time back. I’m not sure whether the land is any good. Commissioner Mike Brown said: “I wouldn’t consider it a building lot. I’m not sure I’d even want to raise my cattle on it.”

Fee Offices: During the meeting to discuss the fee office mess, local attorney John King (who isn’t cheap) spoke on behalf of Register of Deeds Sherry Witt. A lot – and I mean a lot – of folks were immediately asking me whether the county would pick up the tab. Apparently, they were asking Commission Chairman Mike Hammond the same thing. Because, he asked King. (So did I, but it was after the meeting). King said “I have a fee arrangement with her.” He also said county money won’t be used. Witt told me after the meeting that it will come from her own pocket. She also said she won’t use campaign money. I hope that puts that one to rest. But, there’s one other thing. I wasn’t in the back of the room when this happened (I usually sit up front), but Brian Hornback caught an interesting tidbit involving some of the fee officers who oppose the commission’s plan to take control of their budgets. (You can read about it right here.)

Senate seat: The county commission will begin taking applications soon to fill Jamie Woodson’s state senate seat. It should be up on the Deathstar’s web site maybe as early as tomorrow, which is good considering it hasn't updated its spin in over two weeks. I’ll post more when I know.

Scott Frith: I’ve asked the interim election administration twice to comment on some things I’m working on. He’s given somehow managed to use the word “focus” about a dozen times. When I called him out on it, he said that tomorrow the words of the day will be: “concentrate, pinpoint, direct, knuckle-down, fixate, hone-in . . . “

Good deal. No matter what you say about the guy, at least he returns calls. There are a number of folks in this area – elected or appointed – who don’t. Not a lot of transparency when you can’t return a call. Not a lot of guts, either.

Later.

Some officials to get major back pay

A few days ago I wrote a story about some state-mandated pay raises 12 Knox County elected officials. (You can read the masterpiece right smack here.)

What I didn't get into, however, was that three fee officers actually get some retroactive coin.

A lot.

I didn't have the space.

But I do now.

So, here's the deal:

Officials with the six fee offices – criminal court clerk, circuit court clerk, clerk and masters, trustee, register of deeds and county clerk – are supposed to get paid the same now. That would be $106,906.

Good money.

But the three judiciary office holders – Criminal Court Clerk Joy McCroskey, Circuit Court Clerk Cathy Quist and Clerk and Master Howard Hogan – get an additional 10 percent because they also have additional court responsibilities.

Or something like that. I can't remember.

The issue is that they essentially all have the $106,906 base. Or they should now that the county's population increased. (It's a state thing. Just click on that initial link to the story if you need to know more.)

They're all going to get that now, if they don't already have it.

But there's a catch.

Three officers – Register of Deeds Sherry Witt, Quist and Hogan – weren't paid what they were supposed to get under this formula, which is retroactive to last April.

So, they all sent notes to the mayor, payroll, the law director, whoever the heck will hear them out.

And they're going to get their money. One big lump sum.

Witt is down for $22,493. Here is her letter of request.
McCroskey gets $21,501.67. Here is her letter of request.
Hogan also should get $21,501.67. Here is his letter of request.

Yes, all of this is legal. The real question is why the others were making a higher class of pay. Nothing said they couldn't. But, they probably should have received less pay prior to the county's population jump.

In the meantime, the administration – never afraid to weigh in – had some thoughts.

“They're entitled to it, but it's an odd time to ask for $22,000 in back pay,” said administration Chief of Staff Dean Rice, taking a shot and reminding everyone just how much some folks want more control over the fee office budgets.

Heh.

Thoughts on the pay raise story

I was thinking today’s story that Tom Humphrey (the best state government reporter in Tennessee) and I teamed up on about state-mandated pay raises for some county elected officials.

The political enemies of those who get them are going to have a field day.
And really, they shouldn’t.

The issue is that these salary hikes exist.

Perhaps that should be changed. I don’t know. (Rep. Mike Sparks, R-Smyna, tried but then all his buds shut him down.)

But, you can’t fault them for taking the money. As county Register of Deeds Sherry Witt told me: “It’s probably illegal if we don’t.”

I think she’s right, certainly for county Mayor Tim Burchett.

The charter says he has to make more than any other county elected official. If he turned down the raise, then he’d violate the charter.

Not a good thing for him.

(On a side note, the mayor actually can get up to 5 percent more than any other elected official, although Burchett and his predecessor, Mike Ragsdale, only accepted $1 more.)

Burchett did, however, years ago vote for the pay hikes. But at the time – 2002 – I really don’t think he had plans to be mayor. Governor maybe. President even. Not mayor.

Anyhoo, the deal was that county officials each year would nag the state officials for the pay increases. It got to be such a headache, that they tied the raises to the census and the consumer price index. That way they wouldn’t have to deal with the pesky county officials.

Everyone – except for five state senators (including Burchett) and two representatives – approved it.

Then they all promptly forgot about it.

Until now.

And I doubt the issue is dead.

Far from it.

Witt: You want transparency? OK

Sherry “I'm more transparent than you are” Witt just fired a shot across the bow.

Heh.

You'll know what I'm talking about if you've been following the whole fee office mess.

In a press release, the county register of deeds (pictured to the left during her September swearing-in ceremony) said she will now post all her office's monthly financial reports, operating budget and salary suits online right smack here.

I'm not going to sum up what's going on. You can click here for that. But Witt is adamant that she's not turning over her budget – the one that sets staffing levels and wages – to the commission or even county Mayor Tim Burchett.

She even hints that the whole “transparency” issue – a word that politicians just looooove to throw around – is a front for something else.

“If the recent debate about the fee offices really is about transparency, I certainly hope this will help answer some question the public might have,” she said. “If the debate is really about something else, then I'm sure there will be more to come.”

That's nice that she did this. How long has she been in office?

Anyhoo, let's see whether the other five do it. Or at least the other two – Criminal Court Clerk Joy McCroskey and Clerk and Master Howard Hogan – who are not on board with the mayor/commission plan.

Cause, you know, it's all about transparency.

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 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.