There are currently 19 users and 195 guests online.
Knox County Commission: The “Appointees’ Debut” episode
Submitted by B Harmon on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 4:22pm.
As Mark was switching his university hat for his commission binder I managed to get a summary from him of what we can expect of this evenings county commission meeting. We have a bet on how long this meeting will go tonight. I say it will go on past 10:00 and he says they will be done by 8:30.
(I take full responsibility for any editorializing contained in thisentry.)
Zoning starts at 4:00 pm and will include a request by Butler Homes for a zoning change to 6.5 units per acre/area. The Briarglen Homeowners Association is opposing this change. Apparently there is also some slope protection also at issue.
Commission will be electing a new Chair and Vice Chair. The local Sunday shows and the KNS have all predicted this to go to Tank Strickland, especially after the outstanding job he did during the appointment process. Apparently there have already been Committee assignments because I found this on the Commission website: Link...
The Commission agenda is here, Link..., and the zonings are the last 4 pages. The biggest issue on the agenda is the Knox County, One Question, charter amendments listed under ordinances. Expect at least one commissioner (guess who?) to offer many ways to re-word some of them which may water them down to nothing or introduce the “poison pill” in order to insure their demise.
There may be an attempt to add some items to the agenda and there may be discussion on the pending audits.
Submitted by B Harmon on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 4:33pm.
They should go on the ballot as 9 separate amendments. Let the people decide how the charter should be amended, not the commissioners. We have 5 months for Knox County residents to "study up" on what each means and for them to determine how they want to vote.
They should go on the ballot as 9 separate amendments.
I agree with this. I hope Commission will have the good sense to heed the message voters sent them on 2/5 and vote to put these on the ballot (non University twits not withstanding).
Submitted by Mark Harmon on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 4:41pm.
I favor each of the nine going as a separate item on the ballot as written. I'm hoping commission will leave this to the voters, and not force the advocates of change to clump items together via petition drives. The worst outcome would be some passed, some amended, and the unsatisfied advocates putting together two big clumps for the ballot. Thus, voters would face a confusing array in which some items appear twice, individually and/or as part of a larger package.
So the zoning appeals board has in past been County Commissioners whose zoning decision was being appealed? Did they think the commissioners were going to change their mind? So in court does the same court that passes down a decision also hear the appeal? That seems non-sensical. It would seem the zoning appeals board has more than a few significant problems.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 5:57pm.
I favor each of the nine going as a separate item on the ballot as written.
Three of these nine Knox County Charter Amendments are so far reaching and make such radical changes to the present form of government they should be denied by County Commission and "Knox Charter Petition" should be required to collect signatures to prove their worth. It is reasonable that petitions should be signed for such far reaching fundamental changes to the Knox County Charter.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 6:27pm.
Wouldn't putting them on a ballot for voters to decide prove their worth or lack thereof? Not following the logic...
I understand how it might appear that passing the buck to the voters is the most democratic thing to do. It is not. Should County Commission allow ANY referendum to go to ballot? Rubber stamping ballot referendums is not what these Commissioners swore an oath to.
County Commission gutted the Recall Amendment. County Commission changed it significantly and it lost some meaning with those changes.
Let's review the problem three amendments from "Knox Charter Petition" one by one.
This Knox County Charter Amendment makes the County Mayor a "Mayor King". This amendment asks voters to forever give away their right to vote for State Constitutional Offices including the Law Director and the Fee Offices of County Clerk, Property Assessor, Register of Deeds, and Trustee.
This Knox County Charter Amendment reduces representation by almost half. This amendment asks voters to forever give away their right to vote for two or more County Commissioners. This is a part time job. How can anyone who is a Commissioner handle double the workload? How is that even possible? Why should any voter willingly sacrifice their representation?
This Knox County Charter Amendment state that school teachers cannot be County Commissioners. It is the height of hypocrisy. Scott Davis, a developer and one of the worst storm water runoff polluters in Knox County was recently appointed to the Public Building Authority. The Metropolitan Planning Commission is stacked with developers. But we should ban a school teacher from Sarah Moore Green elementary school from serving on County Commission? It makes me sick.
Two readings in Knox County Commission and one short workshop is not enough public debate for such far reaching and fundamental changes to our government. The "Knox Charter Petition" group has already $150,000 for advertising and they say they can raise another $150,000.
Is that the way our government should be changed? By whoever can raise the most amount of money for advertising?
Submitted by GDrinnen2 on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 7:24pm.
I agree with #9. . . .The debate on this topic deserves much more than a workshop and two readings. This is a debate that should happen in the coffee shops, around breakfast tables, water coolers, and in forums like KV. Some of these amendments do represent major change, and therefore deserve major debate. . . .not a couple of meetings and a workshop.
Put them on the ballot and let the public debate nine individual amendments over the next 5 months.
Mike Hammond just made, as part of his motion to put these on the ballot, that Commission sponsor 9 forums before the August vote for citizens to come discuss and get questions answered.
An excellent idea.
I doubt that I would vote for all of these - but I want the chance to do so. I do not want Lumpy & Scoobie preventing me from having that chance.
Submitted by B Harmon on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 8:25pm.
He conceded an hour ago. I am going for dinner out at a restaurant of my choice. I had originally said midnight but the look on his face made me change it to 10 pm. He goes to the meeting with a fully packed lunch box so there is enough to share. I made several dozen cookies that they already passed around. Someone should order pizza for delivery to the CC.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 9:36pm.
I for one will not in any way vote for a consolidated list of changes. If they are individually listed, I will vote for the changes that I think benefit Knox COunty, but again will not vote on a consolidated grouping.
Here's the deal. Some folks seem confused about this.
Commission can put all 9 measures on the ballot, individually. This is what should happen.
But if Commission won't put them on the ballot, the supporters are forced to circulate petitions to get them on the ballot. Each petition requires 40,000 signatures. It is logistically and financially pretty close to impossible to circulate 9 such petitions in the time period allowed.
So the petitioners were forced to consolidate the 9 measures into 2. I don't think anybody thinks that's a good way to do it.
Bottom line - if you want to see 9 separate items on the ballot, lobby Commission to put them there.
Submitted by GDrinnen2 on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 10:02pm.
Thanks for the clarification Rachel. The other issue at hand deals with $$$$. During the last petition drive in Knox County the election commission had to hire additional employees to count signatures. According to Greg Mackay, the cost imposed upon the county was in the neighborhood of $17,000.
Commission can not only provide the voters with a more simple ballot, but also save some $$$ in the meantime.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 12:31pm.
Several false hoods were told by "Knox Charter Petition" last night involving the amount of money raised. I was very disappointed in the way the group conducted themselves.
John Schmid said on "Inside Tennessee" on January 27th that the group had raised $150,000 and could raise another $150,000.
This is what Schmid told the News Sentinel on January 27th:
[QUOTE]
"Schmid said about $150,000 already has been raised to hire professional signature gatherers for the new charter amendment drive.
In addition to securing signatures, the group plans to campaign for the amendments. Such an "education" effort could cost about $150,000, Schmid said.
The cost could depend on the amount of opposition to the referendums, he said. The group is estimating the entire project - petitions and politicking - could cost about $300,000.
"We're raising it as we speak," Schmid said."
[/QUOTE]
But last night he radically changed his story and said very little money had been raised and that $150,000 had been PLEDGED.
That is duplicitous, disingenuous, and dishonest.
Commissioner R. Larry Smith said he wanted to see the financial contributions. Don Parnell of "Knox Charter Petition" said that wasn't possible because they had just started fundraising last week.
So why the big story change by John Schmid? When was Schmid being truthful? On January 27th, when he boasted the group had $150,000, or last night when he said fund raising had just begun?
This group is trying to ram this down the peoples throat and they are not truthful. They say "trust us". But they give no reason for trust.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 5:44pm.
There's no reason to think that these pledges won't come in, Nine. Many pledges already have, and others have been promised in writing. The PayPal feature at the site is also generating donations daily.
However, as I explained previously, KCP was only formed as a non-profit (but not as a 501(c)(3)) with the state about two weeks ago, and the checking account was not opened until immediately after that. Prior to two weeks ago, then, we were unable to physically deposit any monies anywhere.
As to the financial disclosures some folks are asking about, the financial report we must file with the state is tied to the petitions we have submitted to the Election Commission. Until they've been certified by the EC, the state can't even accept our disclosure. That is, without certified petitions, we don't yet "exist" for purposes of filing any disclosure.
Some have asked why not prepare two financial disclosures, one now for the public and one soon for the state. However, tomorrow (February 27th) is the deadline for the Election Commission to opine on whether the form of our petitions is acceptable, and we have just until March 13 to cure any defects.
My guess is that rather than go through the gyrations of compiling two financial disclosures so close together, Culver (Schmid, the treasurer) will likely choose to compile just the one, as early as tomorrow or as late as March 13.
What I've been suggesting to folks, though, is that whatever names these periodic financial disclosures may reveal, they really shouldn't impact on our thinking on the viability of the amendments proposed. Either our amendments make sense, or they don't--and that's where our focus should be centered.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 6:32pm.
What I've been suggesting to folks, though, is that whatever names these periodic financial disclosures may reveal, they really shouldn't impact on our thinking on the viability of the amendments proposed.
Just trust them? I don't. Trust is earned. After last night that trust may be difficult to earn.
No more done deals. Too few people making too many decisions.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 7:49pm.
I'm not asking you to "trust" anybody, Nine.
I'm asking you to think about the proposed amendments--especially to think about them systemically, without regard to who you may like or dislike among current officeholders. Will they work over the long haul?
I don't know what you saw or heard "last night" that cost us your "trust," but it's my distinct impression that you've been opposed to our effort from the get-go. I suspect, then, that nothing anyone said or did last night would have changed your predisposition.
As for our effort being a "done deal," I think you're just being petulant. You were invited to the Knox County, One Question focus groups, too, along with everyone else in the county. On page A1 of the News-Sentinel, you were *repeatedly* invited. I don't know why you didn't choose to participate in that process, but I don't think you're reasonable to start clamoring now that you want the process started over.
The citizen participation process for this particular effort *is* over now, after seven months. If you don't like the product it produced, you're certainly free to launch your own new process.
If you should, though, keep these pointers in mind:
--It isn't possible to accommodate in one or two petitions every single suggestion from among thousands tendered in focus groups, without weighing them as to which suggestions arose most often, from the most people.
--It certainly isn't possible, under the new, more prohibitive state law for citizen referendum, to consider very many suggestions in total, as one must collect 40,000 signatures for each.
--It isn't possible to deposit money in the bank for an organization that doesn't yet exist.
--It isn't possible to keep submitting revised petitions to the Election Commission over and over, allowing them 30 days to review each submittal, to accommodate even more Johnny-come-lately suggestions.
--And on submitting repeated revised petitions, it isn't possible to keep changing with the state one's organizational identity tied to those certified petitions, either.
These are just a few of the expectations you seem to have for the Knox Charter Petition effort--and I think you'll find them impossible to live up to in your own independent effort.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 10:05pm.
I'm asking you to think about the proposed amendments--especially to think about them systemically, without regard to who you may like or dislike among current officeholders. Will they work over the long haul?
This Knox County Charter Amendment seeks to resolve any provisions of current and future charter amendments that may conflict with other provisions of the charter. This one got by me. It sounded safe enough. It is actually one of the worst of the nine amendments. It was voted down last night in Knox County Commission. I will have a special YouTube on this later today. This must be defeated. It would create a legal interpretation nightmare. If you like seeing Knox County in court, this amendment will do that.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 10:31pm.
That second link (your fourth objection) didn't work. I'm not sure what you're pointing out, but the "clean up" provision is standard verbiage. We included a similar "clean up" reference in the recall amendment text, you'll remember.
Someone (Laurens?) conceded last night that we might have included some measure of "clean up" language within each of our proposed amendments, as the earler recall amendment text did, rather than breaking it out as a separate amendment. In either event, it has to "happen" somewhere.
The KCP group hasn't met, or even talked to one another much, since last night's commission meeting, but I'm assuming that now, we'll either have to persuade commission to reconsider the "clean up" amendment very soon (possibly suspending commission rules barring reconsideration so soon, as they did last night), or we'll just proceed with the two-petition effort, and see the provision enacted that way.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 9:25am.
That second link (your fourth objection) didn't work. I'm not sure what you're pointing out, but the "clean up" provision is standard verbiage. We included a similar "clean up" reference in the recall amendment text, you'll remember.
Tom McAdams who represented the "Knox Charter Petition" admitted in County Commission that this was the easy way out. KCP didn't do it's homework. Each proposed amendment needs its own clean up language. Not one magic amendment the cleans up everything. Commissioner Leuthold is right, not enough thought or public debate has gone into these amendments.
This needs to slow down and have full and open debate. Your group does itself no favors with Laurens Tullock and John Schmid leading the way.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 10:38am.
"Severability clause."
Look into it. Just about every contract has one.
Yes, that is correct. But, have you ever seen a "Universal Severability clause"? No, because it would be a nightmare. Did you see Tom McAdams admit each amendment needed its own cleanup language? When I agree with Craig Leuthold it is a rare event. Leuthold was right.
Even their own attorney questioned how smart this was. These are Charter amendments, they need to be right. KCP tried to take the easy way out.
Submitted by Paul Witt on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 12:17pm.
i will vote no for 9 district 2 at large county commission...period..
Agreed.
If anything we need more representation and more diverse views. If anything is changed, they should create more commission districts and have one commissioner per district. I live on the far eastern edge of the 5th district and my neighborhood's issues are very different than the issues of someone that lives off of Watt Rd.
Creating county-wide commission seats is a HORRIBLE idea. Having a candidate need to spend $100K to win a seat that pays $19K/yr is not a recipe for good gov't.
Creating county-wide commission seats is a HORRIBLE idea
No, it's not. The current system allows Commissioners to pretty much ignore the rest of the County as long as their district is happy. At-large seats would help with that, as those folks would have to have a county-wide perspective.
I actually like the City system, even tho it's confusing. Candidates run in their districts only in the primary, but the two top vote getters then have to run citywide in the general. It was instituted with less than noble intentions (long story there), but has paid off by making every Council member responsive to every citizen.
Submitted by bill young on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 1:20pm.
i agree..even tho good government won in the primary..
turn-out beats machines & when will we ever have 92K vote in a county election again??
never say never but it wont be anytime soon
the general will get around 70K
in the '10 county primaries the democrats will be lucky to get 10K..the gop will get 25K
If the petition group cant figure out how to get a straight up vote on not electing the fee offices..the machines will live on.
Like mark said if we pass at large commissioners & still have elected fee officers..the first place those candidates will stop is the courthouse & then go see the sheriff.
Submitted by SteveMule on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 9:50pm.
The City Council set-up is a Jim Crow hold over. What it did was effectively prevent any Afro-American (or any minority memeber) from being elected to Knoxville City Council. White guy gets 10% of primary vote, Black guy gets 90% of primary vote. Both go to City wide general election - guess who looses??
Knoxville would much better served if we did away with it.
The City Council set-up is a Jim Crow hold over. What it did was effectively prevent any Afro-American (or any minority memeber) from being elected to Knoxville City Council.
Submitted by SteveMule on Fri, 2008/02/29 - 1:36pm.
Rachel,
Opps! I was speaking in past tense. While it was set up to prevent minority representation on City Council it clearly doesn't work that way anymore. I should have been a little more specific about that. Nevertheless, I still think/believe that City Council should be directly elected from their districts.
Umm, I'm aware of the history of how Council elections are conducted. (See my earlier post when I said: It was instituted with less than noble intentions (long story there). But I do think it works well for the most part.
I follow Council and City issues pretty closely, and I can always get Council members from other districts to take issues in my district seriously, and to respond to phone calls. It's nice to think that would still happen if they didn't have to run citywide, but I'm not so sure it would. Certainly there would be less incentive for them to do so.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 12:36pm.
Creating county-wide commission seats is a HORRIBLE idea. Having a candidate need to spend $100K to win a seat that pays $19K/yr is not a recipe for good gov't.
It is a recipe to have three Commissioners in West Knoxville while every other district has one Commissioner. It is wrong, it is shortsighted, and it is unfair to everyone in Knox County. It is one of the worst ideas ever and is more about power than it is about representation.
County government should not be changed to mirror City government. It is a different area with different needs.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 6:24pm.
When I started covering Commission for the Journal, the 9th District had three commissioners -- John Mills (the chairman), Fred Flenniken and Ray Hill. That changed after the 1990 census when the 5th District picked up an extra seat.
The Charter allows us to change, at any time by vote, the # of districts and commissioners per district. This came up during the KCP discussions.
This questions is best revisited after the 2010 census. We could then change any of the district sizes (5th has 3 because they have rougly 50% more population than the other districts, but that's an artifact of drawig the district lines- make 5th smaller, make 6th larger, and you could give 6th three seats if you want).
The real question is- if we retain two commissioners per district, do we still want an odd number of commissioners to avoid more tie votes? Looking at the voting record, it's not often we have close votes, and the 2/3 vote wouldn't change much (with 18 commissioners, it would be 12 votes, not 13, it would be technically easier).
Assuming KCP fails on changing the size of Commission (my prediction), I would have no objection changing to 18 commissioners, other than the fact that each of the district lines would have to be redrawn somewhat, leading to some confusion amongst the redistricted voters. I think we'd have to look at the 2010 census to see how many people would get redistricted anyway.
I think there's good points made here about minority protection in the existing system (not just racial, but socioeconomic).
-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B Link...
... the Senate uses the VP, but since we don't have the vice-mayor, you could have the County Mayor act as the tiebreaker. Or you could just let ties be failures, that would be better, IMHO.
-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B Link...
That's kind of the way it works on City Council. Yes, they have 9 members, but they still occasionally get tie votes. The Mayor can choose to break them, but I don't think I've seen Haslam ever do that. Usually, tie votes just fail.
... where Haslam has said he won't break a tie on a land-use issue.
So that rules out him breaking a tie on some of the most contentious stuff Council deals with.
That said, we do have an odd system here in K-town, what with the Mayor (executive) presiding over Council (legislative) and (potentially) having a vote in their decisions.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2008/02/29 - 9:33pm.
jbr: "Is there not some sort of tiebreaker available? Like the US Senate?"
In most organizations guided by Robert's Rules of Order, the chair of the organization does not vote. In those, Robert's advises that to break a tie vote, the chair should do so.
Conversely, if the chair of the organization routinely does vote, Robert's says that to break a tie, he should recuse himself.
(So, had Scoobie known Robert's Rules, he would also have known how to avoid swearing in Bolus in a hallway.)
Does Mark favor the One Question charter amendments going on the ballot as one item or nine separate items?
(My feeling is that you'd have better chance of getting at least some less controversial reforms passed with separate items.)
They should go on the ballot as 9 separate amendments. Let the people decide how the charter should be amended, not the commissioners. We have 5 months for Knox County residents to "study up" on what each means and for them to determine how they want to vote.
They should go on the ballot as 9 separate amendments.
I agree with this. I hope Commission will have the good sense to heed the message voters sent them on 2/5 and vote to put these on the ballot (non University twits not withstanding).
I favor each of the nine going as a separate item on the ballot as written. I'm hoping commission will leave this to the voters, and not force the advocates of change to clump items together via petition drives. The worst outcome would be some passed, some amended, and the unsatisfied advocates putting together two big clumps for the ballot. Thus, voters would face a confusing array in which some items appear twice, individually and/or as part of a larger package.
Mark Harmon
They should go on the ballot as 9 separate amendments. I agree, they should be separate amendments.
When did Mark Cawood, Diane Jordan, and Lee Tramel get put on the Board of Zoning Appeals? Who put them there?
Link...
That's old info that hasn't been updated in quite awhile.
Update: Apparently Becky has better info than I do. But I think it's weird.
If citizens are going to serve, then the board should be all ordinary citizens (as it is in the City).
They never left their original appointments. Apparently they can continue to serve on that committee as citizens, if they so choose.
So the zoning appeals board has in past been County Commissioners whose zoning decision was being appealed? Did they think the commissioners were going to change their mind? So in court does the same court that passes down a decision also hear the appeal? That seems non-sensical. It would seem the zoning appeals board has more than a few significant problems.
I favor each of the nine going as a separate item on the ballot as written.
Three of these nine Knox County Charter Amendments are so far reaching and make such radical changes to the present form of government they should be denied by County Commission and "Knox Charter Petition" should be required to collect signatures to prove their worth. It is reasonable that petitions should be signed for such far reaching fundamental changes to the Knox County Charter.
The three problem Knox County Charter Amendments:
Link...
Link...
Link...
should be required to collect signatures to prove their worth
Wouldn't putting them on a ballot for voters to decide prove their worth or lack thereof? Not following the logic...
Wouldn't putting them on a ballot for voters to decide prove their worth or lack thereof? Not following the logic...
I understand how it might appear that passing the buck to the voters is the most democratic thing to do. It is not. Should County Commission allow ANY referendum to go to ballot? Rubber stamping ballot referendums is not what these Commissioners swore an oath to.
County Commission gutted the Recall Amendment. County Commission changed it significantly and it lost some meaning with those changes.
Let's review the problem three amendments from "Knox Charter Petition" one by one.
The first:
Link...
This Knox County Charter Amendment makes the County Mayor a "Mayor King". This amendment asks voters to forever give away their right to vote for State Constitutional Offices including the Law Director and the Fee Offices of County Clerk, Property Assessor, Register of Deeds, and Trustee.
The second:
Link...
This Knox County Charter Amendment reduces representation by almost half. This amendment asks voters to forever give away their right to vote for two or more County Commissioners. This is a part time job. How can anyone who is a Commissioner handle double the workload? How is that even possible? Why should any voter willingly sacrifice their representation?
The third:
Link...
This Knox County Charter Amendment state that school teachers cannot be County Commissioners. It is the height of hypocrisy. Scott Davis, a developer and one of the worst storm water runoff polluters in Knox County was recently appointed to the Public Building Authority. The Metropolitan Planning Commission is stacked with developers. But we should ban a school teacher from Sarah Moore Green elementary school from serving on County Commission? It makes me sick.
Two readings in Knox County Commission and one short workshop is not enough public debate for such far reaching and fundamental changes to our government. The "Knox Charter Petition" group has already $150,000 for advertising and they say they can raise another $150,000.
Is that the way our government should be changed? By whoever can raise the most amount of money for advertising?
No, that isn't right.
At this point I agree with you on #1.
#2 I have not decided yet.
#3 the problem is the developer should not be on PBA nor should more than two developer industry related members be on MPC.
Personally I would like to see the nine options presented in line item form.
I agree with #9. . . .The debate on this topic deserves much more than a workshop and two readings. This is a debate that should happen in the coffee shops, around breakfast tables, water coolers, and in forums like KV. Some of these amendments do represent major change, and therefore deserve major debate. . . .not a couple of meetings and a workshop.
Put them on the ballot and let the public debate nine individual amendments over the next 5 months.
Mike Hammond just made, as part of his motion to put these on the ballot, that Commission sponsor 9 forums before the August vote for citizens to come discuss and get questions answered.
An excellent idea.
I doubt that I would vote for all of these - but I want the chance to do so. I do not want Lumpy & Scoobie preventing me from having that chance.
I'm glad Commissioner Harmon is using better judgement on the 9 amendments than he did on making that bet! What do you win in the bet?
He conceded an hour ago. I am going for dinner out at a restaurant of my choice. I had originally said midnight but the look on his face made me change it to 10 pm. He goes to the meeting with a fully packed lunch box so there is enough to share. I made several dozen cookies that they already passed around. Someone should order pizza for delivery to the CC.
Rachel,
Hammond's motion is a great one. 9 forums as opposed to 1? Who is in favor of public input?
I for one will not in any way vote for a consolidated list of changes. If they are individually listed, I will vote for the changes that I think benefit Knox COunty, but again will not vote on a consolidated grouping.
Here's the deal. Some folks seem confused about this.
Commission can put all 9 measures on the ballot, individually. This is what should happen.
But if Commission won't put them on the ballot, the supporters are forced to circulate petitions to get them on the ballot. Each petition requires 40,000 signatures. It is logistically and financially pretty close to impossible to circulate 9 such petitions in the time period allowed.
So the petitioners were forced to consolidate the 9 measures into 2. I don't think anybody thinks that's a good way to do it.
Bottom line - if you want to see 9 separate items on the ballot, lobby Commission to put them there.
Or is there any chance that the petitions could choose the most palatable amendments to group?
Thanks for the clarification Rachel. The other issue at hand deals with $$$$. During the last petition drive in Knox County the election commission had to hire additional employees to count signatures. According to Greg Mackay, the cost imposed upon the county was in the neighborhood of $17,000.
Commission can not only provide the voters with a more simple ballot, but also save some $$$ in the meantime.
Several false hoods were told by "Knox Charter Petition" last night involving the amount of money raised. I was very disappointed in the way the group conducted themselves.
John Schmid said on "Inside Tennessee" on January 27th that the group had raised $150,000 and could raise another $150,000.
Link...
Schmid was quoted in the 1-27-08 column in the New Sentinel boasting the group had RAISED $150,000.
Link...
This is what Schmid told the News Sentinel on January 27th:
[QUOTE]
"Schmid said about $150,000 already has been raised to hire professional signature gatherers for the new charter amendment drive.
In addition to securing signatures, the group plans to campaign for the amendments. Such an "education" effort could cost about $150,000, Schmid said.
The cost could depend on the amount of opposition to the referendums, he said. The group is estimating the entire project - petitions and politicking - could cost about $300,000.
"We're raising it as we speak," Schmid said."
[/QUOTE]
But last night he radically changed his story and said very little money had been raised and that $150,000 had been PLEDGED.
That is duplicitous, disingenuous, and dishonest.
Commissioner R. Larry Smith said he wanted to see the financial contributions. Don Parnell of "Knox Charter Petition" said that wasn't possible because they had just started fundraising last week.
So why the big story change by John Schmid? When was Schmid being truthful? On January 27th, when he boasted the group had $150,000, or last night when he said fund raising had just begun?
This group is trying to ram this down the peoples throat and they are not truthful. They say "trust us". But they give no reason for trust.
Hmmm, duplicate post from the Blab. Over there it's signed #9. Did you let him back on, Randy?
There's no reason to think that these pledges won't come in, Nine. Many pledges already have, and others have been promised in writing. The PayPal feature at the site is also generating donations daily.
However, as I explained previously, KCP was only formed as a non-profit (but not as a 501(c)(3)) with the state about two weeks ago, and the checking account was not opened until immediately after that. Prior to two weeks ago, then, we were unable to physically deposit any monies anywhere.
As to the financial disclosures some folks are asking about, the financial report we must file with the state is tied to the petitions we have submitted to the Election Commission. Until they've been certified by the EC, the state can't even accept our disclosure. That is, without certified petitions, we don't yet "exist" for purposes of filing any disclosure.
Some have asked why not prepare two financial disclosures, one now for the public and one soon for the state. However, tomorrow (February 27th) is the deadline for the Election Commission to opine on whether the form of our petitions is acceptable, and we have just until March 13 to cure any defects.
My guess is that rather than go through the gyrations of compiling two financial disclosures so close together, Culver (Schmid, the treasurer) will likely choose to compile just the one, as early as tomorrow or as late as March 13.
What I've been suggesting to folks, though, is that whatever names these periodic financial disclosures may reveal, they really shouldn't impact on our thinking on the viability of the amendments proposed. Either our amendments make sense, or they don't--and that's where our focus should be centered.
What I've been suggesting to folks, though, is that whatever names these periodic financial disclosures may reveal, they really shouldn't impact on our thinking on the viability of the amendments proposed.
Just trust them? I don't. Trust is earned. After last night that trust may be difficult to earn.
No more done deals. Too few people making too many decisions.
I'm not asking you to "trust" anybody, Nine.
I'm asking you to think about the proposed amendments--especially to think about them systemically, without regard to who you may like or dislike among current officeholders. Will they work over the long haul?
I don't know what you saw or heard "last night" that cost us your "trust," but it's my distinct impression that you've been opposed to our effort from the get-go. I suspect, then, that nothing anyone said or did last night would have changed your predisposition.
As for our effort being a "done deal," I think you're just being petulant. You were invited to the Knox County, One Question focus groups, too, along with everyone else in the county. On page A1 of the News-Sentinel, you were *repeatedly* invited. I don't know why you didn't choose to participate in that process, but I don't think you're reasonable to start clamoring now that you want the process started over.
The citizen participation process for this particular effort *is* over now, after seven months. If you don't like the product it produced, you're certainly free to launch your own new process.
If you should, though, keep these pointers in mind:
--It isn't possible to accommodate in one or two petitions every single suggestion from among thousands tendered in focus groups, without weighing them as to which suggestions arose most often, from the most people.
--It certainly isn't possible, under the new, more prohibitive state law for citizen referendum, to consider very many suggestions in total, as one must collect 40,000 signatures for each.
--It isn't possible to deposit money in the bank for an organization that doesn't yet exist.
--It isn't possible to keep submitting revised petitions to the Election Commission over and over, allowing them 30 days to review each submittal, to accommodate even more Johnny-come-lately suggestions.
--And on submitting repeated revised petitions, it isn't possible to keep changing with the state one's organizational identity tied to those certified petitions, either.
These are just a few of the expectations you seem to have for the Knox Charter Petition effort--and I think you'll find them impossible to live up to in your own independent effort.
I'm asking you to think about the proposed amendments--especially to think about them systemically, without regard to who you may like or dislike among current officeholders. Will they work over the long haul?
I have.
Link...
Plus:
The fourth:
Link......
This Knox County Charter Amendment seeks to resolve any provisions of current and future charter amendments that may conflict with other provisions of the charter. This one got by me. It sounded safe enough. It is actually one of the worst of the nine amendments. It was voted down last night in Knox County Commission. I will have a special YouTube on this later today. This must be defeated. It would create a legal interpretation nightmare. If you like seeing Knox County in court, this amendment will do that.
That second link (your fourth objection) didn't work. I'm not sure what you're pointing out, but the "clean up" provision is standard verbiage. We included a similar "clean up" reference in the recall amendment text, you'll remember.
Someone (Laurens?) conceded last night that we might have included some measure of "clean up" language within each of our proposed amendments, as the earler recall amendment text did, rather than breaking it out as a separate amendment. In either event, it has to "happen" somewhere.
The KCP group hasn't met, or even talked to one another much, since last night's commission meeting, but I'm assuming that now, we'll either have to persuade commission to reconsider the "clean up" amendment very soon (possibly suspending commission rules barring reconsideration so soon, as they did last night), or we'll just proceed with the two-petition effort, and see the provision enacted that way.
Don't know yet...
That second link (your fourth objection) didn't work. I'm not sure what you're pointing out, but the "clean up" provision is standard verbiage. We included a similar "clean up" reference in the recall amendment text, you'll remember.
Tom McAdams who represented the "Knox Charter Petition" admitted in County Commission that this was the easy way out. KCP didn't do it's homework. Each proposed amendment needs its own clean up language. Not one magic amendment the cleans up everything. Commissioner Leuthold is right, not enough thought or public debate has gone into these amendments.
This needs to slow down and have full and open debate. Your group does itself no favors with Laurens Tullock and John Schmid leading the way.
Correct link:
Link...
"Severability clause."
Look into it. Just about every contract has one.
"Severability clause."
Look into it. Just about every contract has one.
Yes, that is correct. But, have you ever seen a "Universal Severability clause"? No, because it would be a nightmare. Did you see Tom McAdams admit each amendment needed its own cleanup language? When I agree with Craig Leuthold it is a rare event. Leuthold was right.
Even their own attorney questioned how smart this was. These are Charter amendments, they need to be right. KCP tried to take the easy way out.
i will vote yes for the reduction of signatures per petitions
i agree with the appointments of the fee offices by the mayor.
however,how i vote on that depends on how it is presented on the ballot...if by itself ..i will vote yes...if not we will see.
i will vote no for 9 district 2 at large county commission...period..
if the 19 commission members stand..
i would vote separately
for non partisan...
What i'm for is 15 districts..& non partisan elections
i agree with nepotism/conflict of interest charter changes..as before my vote will depend on how presented on the ballot.
Agreed.
If anything we need more representation and more diverse views. If anything is changed, they should create more commission districts and have one commissioner per district. I live on the far eastern edge of the 5th district and my neighborhood's issues are very different than the issues of someone that lives off of Watt Rd.
Creating county-wide commission seats is a HORRIBLE idea. Having a candidate need to spend $100K to win a seat that pays $19K/yr is not a recipe for good gov't.
Creating county-wide commission seats is a HORRIBLE idea
No, it's not. The current system allows Commissioners to pretty much ignore the rest of the County as long as their district is happy. At-large seats would help with that, as those folks would have to have a county-wide perspective.
I actually like the City system, even tho it's confusing. Candidates run in their districts only in the primary, but the two top vote getters then have to run citywide in the general. It was instituted with less than noble intentions (long story there), but has paid off by making every Council member responsive to every citizen.
i do not agree with at large county commissioners
the deal is all council members run city wide
the district/at-large primary is different
but the general is city wide.
county at-large commissioners would be considered super commissioners..i get elected county wide not just some district.
i'm not going to vote fot it
County-wide commissioners would almost inevitably be beholden to county-wide political machines. IMO.
i agree..even tho good government won in the primary..
turn-out beats machines & when will we ever have 92K vote in a county election again??
never say never but it wont be anytime soon
the general will get around 70K
in the '10 county primaries the democrats will be lucky to get 10K..the gop will get 25K
If the petition group cant figure out how to get a straight up vote on not electing the fee offices..the machines will live on.
Like mark said if we pass at large commissioners & still have elected fee officers..the first place those candidates will stop is the courthouse & then go see the sheriff.
The City Council set-up is a Jim Crow hold over. What it did was effectively prevent any Afro-American (or any minority memeber) from being elected to Knoxville City Council. White guy gets 10% of primary vote, Black guy gets 90% of primary vote. Both go to City wide general election - guess who looses??
Knoxville would much better served if we did away with it.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
The City Council set-up is a Jim Crow hold over. What it did was effectively prevent any Afro-American (or any minority memeber) from being elected to Knoxville City Council.
Have you looked at Mark Brown lately?
Rachel,
Opps! I was speaking in past tense. While it was set up to prevent minority representation on City Council it clearly doesn't work that way anymore. I should have been a little more specific about that. Nevertheless, I still think/believe that City Council should be directly elected from their districts.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
Umm, I'm aware of the history of how Council elections are conducted. (See my earlier post when I said: It was instituted with less than noble intentions (long story there). But I do think it works well for the most part.
I follow Council and City issues pretty closely, and I can always get Council members from other districts to take issues in my district seriously, and to respond to phone calls. It's nice to think that would still happen if they didn't have to run citywide, but I'm not so sure it would. Certainly there would be less incentive for them to do so.
Isn't that the point of disticts in any legislative body?
Creating county-wide commission seats is a HORRIBLE idea. Having a candidate need to spend $100K to win a seat that pays $19K/yr is not a recipe for good gov't.
It is a recipe to have three Commissioners in West Knoxville while every other district has one Commissioner. It is wrong, it is shortsighted, and it is unfair to everyone in Knox County. It is one of the worst ideas ever and is more about power than it is about representation.
County government should not be changed to mirror City government. It is a different area with different needs.
My understanding is that in recent history it was South Knoxville that had 3 seats. Something about giving an extra seat to the biggest district.
I never remember anyone accusing South Knoxvillians of being power hungry.
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
When I started covering Commission for the Journal, the 9th District had three commissioners -- John Mills (the chairman), Fred Flenniken and Ray Hill. That changed after the 1990 census when the 5th District picked up an extra seat.
The Charter allows us to change, at any time by vote, the # of districts and commissioners per district. This came up during the KCP discussions.
This questions is best revisited after the 2010 census. We could then change any of the district sizes (5th has 3 because they have rougly 50% more population than the other districts, but that's an artifact of drawig the district lines- make 5th smaller, make 6th larger, and you could give 6th three seats if you want).
The real question is- if we retain two commissioners per district, do we still want an odd number of commissioners to avoid more tie votes? Looking at the voting record, it's not often we have close votes, and the 2/3 vote wouldn't change much (with 18 commissioners, it would be 12 votes, not 13, it would be technically easier).
Assuming KCP fails on changing the size of Commission (my prediction), I would have no objection changing to 18 commissioners, other than the fact that each of the district lines would have to be redrawn somewhat, leading to some confusion amongst the redistricted voters. I think we'd have to look at the 2010 census to see how many people would get redistricted anyway.
I think there's good points made here about minority protection in the existing system (not just racial, but socioeconomic).
-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
Link...
Is there not some sort of tiebreaker available? Like the US Senate?
... the Senate uses the VP, but since we don't have the vice-mayor, you could have the County Mayor act as the tiebreaker. Or you could just let ties be failures, that would be better, IMHO.
-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
Link...
That's kind of the way it works on City Council. Yes, they have 9 members, but they still occasionally get tie votes. The Mayor can choose to break them, but I don't think I've seen Haslam ever do that. Usually, tie votes just fail.
... where Haslam has said he won't break a tie on a land-use issue.
So that rules out him breaking a tie on some of the most contentious stuff Council deals with.
That said, we do have an odd system here in K-town, what with the Mayor (executive) presiding over Council (legislative) and (potentially) having a vote in their decisions.
I don't like the Mayor presiding over Council. I think Council, as a legislative body, should elect its own chair.
Haslam does a good job presiding over Council meetings. Victor used Roberts' Rules as a stick to beat folks over the head with.
Doesn't matter tho - it's just not a good idea.
jbr: "Is there not some sort of tiebreaker available? Like the US Senate?"
In most organizations guided by Robert's Rules of Order, the chair of the organization does not vote. In those, Robert's advises that to break a tie vote, the chair should do so.
Conversely, if the chair of the organization routinely does vote, Robert's says that to break a tie, he should recuse himself.
(So, had Scoobie known Robert's Rules, he would also have known how to avoid swearing in Bolus in a hallway.)
over @ tabloid boys place..& if anybody knows how to link it please do
I got the feeling the fee office appointment amendment
was the birth of "King Mayor"
I differed..I believe it's the death of King Courthouse.
Post new comment