And we wonder why... Part II

Hello, everyone,

I've been out of town, spending time with family for Mother's Day this beautiful weekend. So it wasn't until I started getting angry calls that I became aware of the article in yesterday's Daily Times about our county mayor's latest round of personal insults and attack. Unfortunately, by this point in my experience with public service, this kind of news is no longer a suprise to me.

Thank you, all of you who have called or written to offer your support.

In this and other recent stories, Mr. Cunningham repeatedly refers to his courthouse, his finance director, his accounting department, and now his county commission and his circuit court judge.

As much as he would like to make this about political parties-- or about me-- it isn't. It is, as it has always been, about the people of Blount County, the same people who elected both Mr. Cunningham, and myself. It's their courthouse, their circuit court, their county commission, and quite frankly, he's their county mayor.

I was elected to represent the people of Blount County, whether they've been here for five minutes, or five generations- and so was he. It would help us all move forward if we could remember that.

Until next time,
~Wendy

And We Wonder Why...

…we can’t get good people to run for office.

Hello, everyone,

Let's take a look at an emerging pattern in the current county mayor's administration.

On Conflicts of Interest: Last July (2007), I asked the Commission to seek a legal opinion before appointing a Commissioner to the Purchasing Committee who appeared to have a fairly serious conflict of interest with that appointment. The Commission said no. Later I personally called the Commissioner in question as a matter of courtesy (he was absent that night), to tell him he might want to look into the issue for himself, and I moved on.

The Mayor’s Response: For the next six months, the Mayor and “several Commissioners”, most of whom have yet to be named, engaged in a lengthy attack on my private practice, questioning who my patients were (in possible violation of HIPAA laws) and whether I had the right to see the 2 or 3 county employees I may see in a year. Other than two accusatory statements read by Commissioners Burchfield and Helton at the August 2007 meeting, none of this was ever addressed with me directly or during any meeting of the County Commission.

On Citizen Harassment: In January, I learned that a private citizen, who was elderly and in poor health, had been severely harassed at the County Commission meeting and afterwards. At the February meeting, I asked Assistant Chief Deputy Jeff French- the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the room- to keep an eye on him, maybe walk him to his car, make sure no one gave him a hard time. I did not get the response I sought, and quite frankly, got a little irritated.

The Sheriff’s Office Response: Jeff French never even spoke to the citizen I’d asked him to protect. Instead, he turned around and filed an ethics complaint against me.

On Towing Practices: Two different citizens complained about a bad experience with two different towing companies within a short period of time. One of those citizens gave me a copy of a receipt on which the towing company had written “BCSD (Blount Co. Sheriff’s Department) Commission”, and said her understanding was that that was why the cost was so high.

Having had no previous experience in such matters, I assumed this was perfectly legal, but agreed to find out a little more about it. And quite honestly, I just wanted to know where such commissions or fees (if that’s what they were) would show up in the county budget! So, I put the matter on the Commission agenda and asked Assistant Chief Deputy Jimmy Long about the practice.

The Mayor’s and the Sheriff’s Office Response: According to the papers, both Mayor Cunningham and Sheriff Berrong called District Attorney Mike Flynn’s office within hours of my asking about towing. Neither of them ever spoke to me about any of this, as usual, but the Sheriff was quoted in the press release he sent out the next day. He said that- when the TBI investigation was complete- he would “deal with Commissioner Reeves’ false and slanderous remarks”. I had been told that he’s already threatened a private citizen with a lawsuit for making critical remarks at Commission meetings. Was this a similar threat? I don’t know.

On the 2007 Blount County Audit: About a month ago, another citizen approached me and asked if I could arrange an audience for him with the State Comptroller, John Morgan. He had information relevant to the 2007 Blount County Audit published in December that he felt was important enough to present in person. He also wanted to invite a few other commissioners to hear his presentation.

Though I couldn’t get him in to see Mr. Morgan himself, I was able to arrange an audience with Jim Arnette, Director of the Division of County Audit, along with two other staff members in the Comptroller’s department. And because I care deeply about the Open Meetings Act (commonly called the “Sunshine Law”), I asked Mr. Arnette from the beginning if it was appropriate for this citizen to invite other commissioners. He said that depended on the objectives of the meeting. I assured him that the sole objective was to allow this citizen to make a presentation, and to ask a couple of questions about the 2007 audit. He said other commissioners were welcome. (More about that in a moment.)

On Wednesday, April 23, I traveled with Jim Folts and Kenny Anderson (a citizen from my district) to Nashville to meet with Mr. Arnette. When we arrived at his office, we met Commissioners Graham and Murrell, who had each traveled on their own to hear the presentation as well. Mr. Folts began his presentation around 10:05 or so, and it lasted about an hour. There was perhaps 10-12 minutes worth of conversation afterwards, mostly consisting of questions about how audits were conducted, what certain accounting terms meant, and how other counties (like Knox or Davidson) were handling audits these days.

Personal Note: In February, I myself sent a 3-page letter to Assistant County Mayor David Bennett with my own questions about the audit. Soon after, Mayor Cunningham responded with a lengthy letter stating that all requests for information now had to go through him. Not surprisingly, my own questions were never answered.

The Mayor’s Response: Less than 24 hours later, I began getting calls from all kinds of reporters. Robert Wilson of the Knoxville News Sentinel started calling at 10 a.m. on Thursday. Throughout the day, while I was at work, I got repeated calls from Joel Davis of the Daily Times, Anthony Welch of WBIR, and one from Lance Coleman of Blount Today. I didn’t mind, because the information Mr. Folts shared in that presentation is important and something I think everyone needs to hear. However, and as usual, the Mayor’s response has been to go on the attack. Now I’m being accused of breaking the law.

So what do these have in common?

Each of these situations has been about a problem, yet each response has been about a person. And I haven’t even mentioned the public attacks on private citizen Linda King, the Blount County Children’s Home, the South Blount Utility District Board of Directors, the Public Building Authority, the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Russian scientists and teenagers visiting through the Sister City program.

Leaders should spend their energy attacking the problems, and thanking the people who bring those problems to light.


Now About That Sunshine Law…

The following is taken from a document entitled “Review of Legal Requirements for Open Meetings and Records and Conflicts of Interest”, published by Douglas Berry and Karen Beyke of Weed, Hubbard, Berry & Doughty (law firm) in Nashville in 2003. Emphasis added for clarity.

***
“Does the Act apply only to a formal meeting?

The courts look at whether a meeting has taken place to determine if the Act has been violated. First, the phrase “meeting” has not been defined in the Act in terms of formality, time or place, instead, “meeting” has been defined in terms of its purpose. If a public body convenes for one of two purposes: (1) in order to make a decision or (2) in order to deliberate toward a decision, then it is a meeting within the scope of the Act. Neese v. Paris Special School District, 813 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990).

Do the requirements of the Act apply if we do not deliberate? What does it mean to ‘deliberate?’

The court used the definition of ‘deliberate’ from Black's Law Dictionary and said, "To deliberate is 'to examine and consult in order to form an opinion.... [T]o weigh arguments for and against a proposed course of action.' "Neese, 813 S.W.2d at 435. Deliberation under the Open Meetings Act ‘refers to discussing, debating, and considering an issue for the purpose of making a decision and does not include a discussion solely for the purpose of information gathering or fact finding.’ The University of Tennessee Arboretum Society, Inc. v. The City of Oak Ridge, slip op. (E.S. Tenn. Ct. App. 1983), permission to appeal denied (August 29, 1983).”

***

There are no secrets here, and no violation of the sunshine law, in spite of what the Mayor would like you to believe. He has also done his best to destroy the reputation of Jim Folts, a man I have found to be honorable, intelligent, and deeply concerned about our county. Everything Mr. Folts shared with the Comptroller’s Office should and will be shared with the public. And when he chooses to do that, we should all tell him thank you for his service to this county.

On the other hand, this particular quote in a recent news article suggests something else entirely.

“There’s talk among commissioners about some possible condemnation, or censure, of the action or a vote of ‘no confidence’ in their fellow commissioners,” Cunningham said.

So, some commissioners are “discussing...an issue for the purpose of making a decision”? Some commissioners are "deliberating towards a decision?

Interesting.

Until next time,
~Wendy

A little more on Ethics

Hello everyone,

Though it's been a little chilly, I hope you're still able to take in and enjoy the beauty of the season that's all around us. This is my absolutely favorite time of the year, when the woods wake up into an explosion of chaotic color, and dogwoods and redbuds are dancing on every corner. Some friends and I made the trek up to White Oak Sinks last weekend, and found the flowers there just about ready to pop into bloom. I'd hoped to get back up there this weekend, but have been a little under the weather and so will probably miss the trip. Still- just driving across the county is a treat when it's this pretty.

Many of you turned out for the Ethics Committee meeting on April 1. Thank you! It's heartening to know that so many good Blount Countians are paying attention, and helping to monitor what your local government is doing. I imagine some of the discussion may have been frustrating, and probably confusing, to follow. Still, as I've said before, your Ethics Committee is doing everything they can to proceed slowly and carefully. The process is too important to handle in any other way.

So what happened?

Well, first of all, when I arrived at the meeting I learned that 2 additional complaints had been handed in that day. Because we do not generally address issues at commission that haven't come in at least 5 days in advance, we did not speak to those 2 items that night.

The primary discussion--and confusion-- centered around one small phrase on the 2nd page of our county's Ethics Policy. The majority of the policy is written to show that this committee is limited to hearing and addressing complaints that deal with two items only. They are: (1) a perceived "conflict of interest" involving anyone working with local government or (2) acceptance of gifts and other things of value.

However, this sentence under Section 5 of the Policy, something we've all read before but just hadn't caught, is what threw us for a loop.

"Questions and complaints regarding violations of this Code of Ethics or of any violation of state law governing ethical conduct should be directed to the Ethics Committee."[emphasis added]

Whoops! "Any" violation of state law? Somehow we'd all missed the implications of that particular phrase. Suddenly the door seemed wide open, and the committee spent a fair amount of time deciding what to do. Any recommended changes in the policy would have to be approved by the full commission. Until and unless that happened, we had to work with it as it stood.

Because there are no attorneys on this committee, and because the range of issues we might address suddenly seemed very broad, some committee members expressed concerns about legal liability. After much discussion, the committee agreed to send all 5 existing complaints to Attorney Rob Goddard for a quick preview, just to make sure they rose to the level of complaint that this committee should address. We agreed to hold a called meeting when we heard back from him.

Where are we now?

Well, a couple of important things have changed since April 1. First of all, Mr. Goddard appropriately recused himself from addressing the complaint filed against Mayor Cunningham (whom he represents) but also declined to deal with the other complaints. In response, Mayor Cunningham recommended hiring Kirk Andrews, of another Maryville law firm, to preview the complaints as requested.

Then, at last week's County Commission work session, the body as a whole addressed that troublesome phrase in the policy. Again, there was a somewhat rambling discussion while we sorted out what to do. In the end, the commission voted to forward to the full commission meeting a recommendation to remove that phrase from the policy altogether.

If that vote passes at tomorrow night's commission meeting, it will ensure that the Ethics Committee's scope of work is as limited as we'd believed. That is, with that change, we will truly only be addressing issues around conflicts of interest, and gifts.

And what's next?

In light of the change in policy, I've gone ahead and issued a call for the Ethics Committee to meet next Monday, April 21, at 6 p.m., at the courthouse. We'll review what this change means in terms of the complaints already filed, and determine what, if anything, should happen next.

So that's it for now. The County Commission meets tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. in Room 430 of the Courthouse. Hope to see you there.

In the meantime, enjoy the dogwoods.

~Wendy