December 8, 2014 Significant Open Meetings Act Hearing in Greene County Chancery Court Today

Tennessee has an Open Meetings Law which requires that governmental bodies meet and deliberate and vote in public.


Today, there is a hearing in Greene County before Chancellor Doug Jenkins concerning that law.
The issue is whether the public has a right to actually "hear" the discussion at a public meeting.


The current case results from an Industrial Board meeting in Greene County, TN where most of the public in attendance could not hear the discussion and debate because most of the Industrial Board members had their backs to the audience, were speaking softly, and had no microphones.


In a 2012 Tennessee Attorney General's opinion the following was stated:


QUESTION:

2.a. Does the Tennessee Open Meetings Act, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 8-44-101

to -111, require a county commission meeting to be held in any particular type of space or
facility?

ANSWER:

2.a. Tennessee courts have not addressed this specific issue. Under the Open Meetings

Act, county commission meetings are public meetings and must be open to the public at all
times. For this reason, county commission meetings should be held in a facility that can
accommodate a public audience reasonably expected to attend. The audience should be able to
hear the proceedings. [Emphasis added]

If Chancellor Jenkins holds that the state's open meetings law just means a citizen has the right to attend and "see" the meeting but no right to "hear" the discussions and deliberations, current Open Meetings Act will have been gutted.


At that point, the Legislature may as well repeal the Open Meetings Act or come back in January and immediately amend the Open Meetings Act to make it clear that an "Open Meeting" means one that the public can see AND hear.


Here is a Knox N-S article about today's hearing and what happened at the Greene County Industrial Development Board to lead up to today's hearing:

Pipeline meeting at crux of battle

Groups say interpretation of law absurd

By Hugh G. Willett

Special to the News Sentinel

Tennessee journalists and open government advocates are expressing concern that the outcome of an open meetings trial scheduled to begin next week in Greene County could reduce citizen access to public meetings.

The Tennessee Coalition for Open Government and the East Tennessee Professional Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists on Wednesday issued a joint statement of concern about efforts to interpret the Tennessee Open Meetings Act.

The lawsuit, brought by a group of Greene County residents, seeks to void actions taken by the local industrial development board that enabled a controversial 12-mile pipeline that would take water from the Nolichucky River for use by the US Nitrogen industrial chemical plant before returning the treated water to the river.

The issue arose after a July 18 meeting of the Greene County Industrial Development Board during which a local resident named Eddie Overholt was ejected from the meeting and arrested after asking the members of board to speak up.

Residents later filed 59 complaints with the state Office of Open Records Counsel Elisha Hodge. She agreed the meeting was probably illegal.

The Industrial Development Board of Greeneville, Greene County and US Nitrogen have filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the premise that the Tennessee Open Meetings Act does not require citizens be able to hear proceedings at a public meeting, only that a governing body give citizens an opportunity to be present .

Deborah Fisher, executive director of TCOG, described the motion to dismiss as absurd. TCOG and ETSPJ believe such a narrow interpretation would make a mockery of the state’s Open Meetings Act, also known as the sunshine law, and allow or even encourage absurd scenarios where a governing body could hold a public meeting but prevent attendees from hearing what they say, she said.

Fisher said the IDB had the option to redo the meeting to come into compliance with the law but chose not to do so within the required time frame.

Greene County resident Don Bible is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. He believes the July 18 meeting marked a turning point in public opinion.

­I believe that several members of that board would now like to have the opportunity to redo that whole event. I think that most of the members of that board now realize that by their actions they burned a lot of bridges that day, he said.

Representatives of the Greene County Industrial Development Board did not respond to requests for comment.

October 1, 2013 Councilmembers Violate Open Meetings Act at Kingsport Retreat

The City Council held a special workshop or "retreat" at the luxurious Meadowview Convention Center in Kingsport on Friday, September 13, and Saturday, September 14. Six councilmembers attended the retreat. [Mayor Thomas was present briefly on Friday but left and did not return.]

It appears that the six councilmembers attending the Kingsport retreat violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing, deliberating, and actually making a decision to give City Administrator Tony Cox a $7,000 increase to his deferred compensation package.

When you hold a "special" called meeting or workshop, there are special requirements for the public notice that is provided. The notice must include the agenda for the meeting and each item that will be deliberated on or on which a decision will be made.

According to the September 6, 2013, public notice for this special workshop/retreat, the council was going to Kingsport to work on "strategic planning" with MTAS facilitator Pat Hardy. 

Apparently, they did more than just strategize in Kingsport. In this video taken at the Finance Committee meeting on September 17, 2013, Councilmember Gary Chesney, who is chairman of the Finance Committee, admits that the six councilmembers discussed and deliberated and reached a decision on additional compensation for the City Administrator--even though this was not an agenda item on the public notice for the special workshop meeting.

You might ask whether council could have amended the published agenda to add the deferred compensation item for discussion and deliberation. The short answer is "no." A special called meeting is just that---it is called for a special and specific purpose. The public must be notified of the purpose or purposes and no other item(s) may be considered. [At a regular meeting, agendas typically can be amended to add items but special called meetings are different]

There is another irony to this violation of the open meetings act. Chesney has recently been posting on his City Hall website about being a "firm believer" in Tennessee's Sunshine laws. (1) The Open Meetings Act which calls for open meetings and adequate public notice of those meetings, and (2) the Public Records Act which requires that public records be available to the public. 

Click here to see what Mr. Chesney had to say about Tennessee's Sunshine laws right before he violated the Open Meetings Act as admitted in the video. 

Mr. Chesney was not alone in this violation. Councilmembers Kay Senter, Paul LeBel, Chris Bivens, Bob Garrett, and Dennis Alvis were present in Kingsport as well and, according to Chesney, all discussed and "agreed" on the additional compensation.

Today, the full council will try to "cure" this particular violation by taking up the deferred compensation issue at its regular council meeting.

[As a sidenote, I find Mr. Chesney's City Hall website very informative. I recently commended him at a public meeting for taking the time to post about city business and meetings. I wish other councilmembers would do the same and, as always, I continue to ask that the council put its council packets online so that the public can see the contracts, the resolutions, the ordinances, and background information for council actions]

September 30, 2009 City Finance Committee Meeting and the Tennessee Open Meetings Act

The regular meetings of the Morristown City Council are on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. The Finance Committee of City Council meets regularly on Thursdays prior to Tuesday council meetings.

Yesterday (Tuesday) there was a special called meeting of the Finance Committee. There was an announcement of yesterday's Finance meeting in the Tribune on Sunday (9/27) and Monday (9/28).  The announcement said the meeting would take place at 4:00 in the City Chambers, the usual meeting place of the full Council. There was no information as to why a special Finance Committee meeting was being called and no information as to what would be discussed.

I called the interim Administrator's office around 4:00 pm on Monday afternoon to find out why there was a special Finance Committee meeting on a Tuesday and what was on the agenda for discussion or action. The administrative assistant, Nellie, said that she had been on vacation and that she had only found out about the special meeting by reading the notice in the paper just like I did. Nellie didn't know what was on the agenda and didn't know if any packets or information had been given to the Finance Committee members. Interim Administrator Buddy Fielder was not there and did not have voicemail to get messages.

I went to City Hall yesterday and walked over to the City Chambers to attend the meeting but found that the council meeting room was closed. It turned out that the meeting had been moved without announcement to the "mayor's conference room" near the Mayor's and Interim City Administrator's offices. Just before 4:00 pm, the new Finance Committee chair Frank McGuffin passed out a lengthy agenda. Click on the image above to see a copy of the agenda.

The first item on the agenda was the KIA property next to the Golden Corral on the West A.J. Hwy. It is my understanding that Councilwoman Kay Senter, various city officials, Chamber officials, Tribune publisher Jack Fishman, and "others" have already met in groups and have toured the KIA building. The KIA property is in foreclosure, and apparently some people have been discussing a public-private partnership to purchase the building for a future community center and other uses.

As it turned out yesterday, there was very little discussion about the KIA property or any other item on the agenda.

There are laws in Tennessee covering Open Meetings, and these were enacted to ensure openness and transparency in the governmental process at every step of the way.  I talked to Finance Committee Chair Frank McGuffin privately right before the meeting about the Open Meetings Act.  Since this meeting was not a regular previously scheduled Thursday meeting, it appears to fall under the notice requirements for special called meetings.

I showed Frank an unpublished opinion of the Tennessee Court of Appeals which also cites a published opinion regarding notice requirements for special called meetings.  The main requirement for special called meetings is notice to the public of what is to be discussed, so the public can decide if this special matter concerns something in which they are interested.

Frank was polite but did not want to re-schedule the meeting. Instead, he chose to call the meeting to order and proceeded to announce the first item on the agenda (KIA property).

I then asked and was allowed to present to the full Finance Committee and other city council members in attendance the questions that I had initially raised privately with Frank. As concisely as possible, I explained that special called meetings are called to deal with specific items--most often items that can't wait for a regular meeting--and that these items should be announced in advance so that the public can decide whether the special issues to be discussed or considered are such that they wish to attend. 

Although Kay Senter clearly wanted to continue with the meeting, she did acknowledge that typically special called meetings do have a specific agenda and the council can only discuss what is on the agenda for the special meeting.  The agenda for yesterday's meeting was drawn up at the last minute and was only handed out to council and those in attendance right before the 4:00 meeting time. Neither the public nor the full council knew the topics that were to be discussed and considered at this special meeting in advance of the meeting.

Of course, the Clintonesque excuses were then bandied about. Mayor Barile said the meeting was to be primarily about the KIA property, but she had added several items at the last minute. Mayor Barile said that the document that had just been passed out-- the one entitled "Finance Committee Agenda"--wasn't exactly an agenda. It was mostly just her thoughts. 

Frank McGuffin and the others admitted that regular Finance Committee meetings take place on Thursdays, but Interim City Administrator Buddy Fielder argued that this Tuesday meeting wasn't a "special called" Finance Committee meeting, it was just an "additional" meeting of the Finance Committee.  Some wondered aloud, if no votes are taken at the meeting then that that would take care of any Open Meetings Act problems.

When the Clintonesque talk begins at any public meeting, you cringe. 

This is not a regular previously announced Thursday Finance Committee meeting, but it's not a special meeting either. [OK, so what is it? A semi-regular or semi-special meeting?] 

Even though this document that we just passed out says "Finance Committee Agenda" and lists what we are going to discuss and in what order,  it's not really an agenda, it's mostly just some "thoughts." [OK, so if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and even says it's a duck, it's not really a duck?]

If we don't take a vote, do we still have to worry about whether it's a meeting or a special meeting with additional notice requirements to the public per case law. [If there is discussion and deliberation of an item of public business or an item that will come before the governing body, then it is a meeting and adequate public notice applies. If the meeting takes place on a day/date (Tuesday) other than the day/date previously announced (Thursday), it requires a real stretch to say that it is somehow not a special called meeting and thus does not fall within the more specific notice requirements for called meetings.]

MTAS, upon whom the city frequently relies for legal opinions, has provided guidance on special called meetings and has included a reference to the unpublished opinion [Englewood Citizens] that I discussed with Frank and mentioned in my comments to the Finance Committee and other councilmembers. Click here to see the MTAS opinion.

There was notice of the Finance Committee meeting. Under the three-prong Englewood test cited by MTAS, there would be a question as to whether two-days notice was adequate public notice. In the case of a special called meeting, there would be a serious question as to whether the public was adequately informed of the public business to be discussed or deliberated upon at the special meeting.  In fact, since the "agenda" was only passed out to Finance Committee members at the meeting, there is a serious question as to whether the Finance Committee itself was provided with adequate notice of items to be discussed or considered at the special meeting.

NOTE 1: The city's website never provided notice of yesterday's Finance Committee meeting. As of several days ago and today, the city's website provides notice of the council meeting on 9/15; the Solid Waste Board meeting on 9/18; and the regular Finance Committee meeting on October 1 at 3:30. No website mention was ever provided of the 9/29 special Finance Committee meeting.

NOTE 2: It is my understanding that the items on the 9/29/09 agenda (shown above) will be considered at tomorrow's (10/1/09) regular Finance Committee meeting. Tomorrow's meeting, however, will start at Thursday's regularly scheduled time of 3:30 pm!
  

April 22, 2009 More Questions on the "Joint Meeting" That Was Announced But Didn't Take Place

Well, things just get curiouser and curiouser.

The Tribune reported on Sunday, April 19, that there would be a joint work session meeting of the Hamblen County Commission and School Board on Monday, April 20, at 6:00 PM. That joint work session didn't happen.

Yesterday, the Tribune reported that County Commission Chair Stancil Ford and County Mayor David Purkey told Director of Schools Dale Lynch "last week" that the county commission wouldn't be attending. Click on Tribune for yesterday's explanation of why the joint meeting that was a front-page story on April 19th didn't happen. [And if the Tribune links above aren't working, call the Tribune 581-5630. For some reason, they are very quick to take down links to their stories.]

Here are the unanswered questions. If county commission cancelled out of the joint meeting "last week," why in the world did the Tribune go ahead and announce on April 19 that the joint meeting was still taking place on April 20? If the County Mayor and Commission Chair Stancil Ford told Dr. Lynch that commissioners would not be attending, why didn't the Tribune report that on April 19?

I know the county has trouble providing notice of meetings to the public. Now, it looks like the county, the school board, and the press are just plain confused about what's going on.

April 21, 2009 Open Meetings Act in Hamblen County: Now Meetings Are Announced That Aren't Taking Place!

On Sunday, the Tribune announced in a front-article that "Hamblen County commissioners and school board members will meet in a work session Monday to continue their discussion on the future of the school building program."

According to the paper, the work session was set for 6:00 PM in the old East High library.

The only commissioner present for the "commission-school board work session" was Ricky Bruce.

We've gone from no public notice of meetings to front-page notice of meetings that don't take place! [The "green" link to the Tribune's Sunday front-page notice of the meeting is working now but don't expect it to work for very long--for some reason, the Tribune doesn't leave permanent links up to its stories. My "blue" blog link is still good.]

The rumor is that the county called or attempted to call the meeting off last Friday, but the school board/Tribune either didn't get the message or ignored it and went ahead and announced the meeting in the paper.

At the "joint" meeting, Dr. Lynch discussed the commission's refusal to fund purchase of the McCorkle property on 25E for a new East High. He then passed out info to Board members and the press and discussed properties that could be purchased around the existing East High.

City Administrator Jim Crumley has apparently given the following estimated sales prices to Lynch: Talley-Ward could be sold to the school system for $810,000; Long-Reel track for $505,000; and King Park for $160,000.

Lynch said other private properties available have an estimated purchase price of around $692,000.

Then talk of one high school v. two came up. School Board Chair Janice Haun said she opposed one high school. Carolyn Spoone Holt (Commissioner Joe Spoone's sister) said most parents want two high schools.

Clint Harrison said he had never heard of one high school until recently, and added that one high school should not be built just to save money.

Carolyn Wolfenbarger said she was "adamantly" against one high school.

Former Morristown High and West High School teacher Coach Gene Quarles talked at length about maintaining two high schools and said he could see the benefits of a third high school in order to keep the population of each high school at around 900 students.

He said that some of those behind one high school are driven by a desire to have the top athletic program rather than a top education program.

March 17, 2009 Sunshine Week and Open Meetings Act Lawsuits in Hamblen County: Then and Now

March 15-21 is Sunshine Week in Tennessee. Usually, the local newspaper carries a series of front-page articles during Sunshine Week about openness in government, noting the importance of Tennessee's Open Meetings and Open Records Acts in ensuring open and accountable government. [Update: Thanks to Michael Silence for steering readers to this post]

Newspapers have traditionally been major proponents of open government, and there are some newspapers today who still continue the proud tradition of the press as guardian and protector of the public's right to know when government meetings are taking place and right to access to public records.

In this area, the Knoxville News-Sentinel has continued the tradition of the press as guardian and protector of open government. To protect the public from backroom deals and secret meetings, the Sentinel filed an Open Meetings lawsuit in 2007 against the Knox County Commission. The lawsuit resulted in an important victory for open government not only for the News-Sentinel but also for the people of Knox County.

And one time many years ago, the local Citizen-Tribune took the lead in exposing and stopping violations of the Open Meetings Law by the Morristown Civil Service Board.

The Tribune, a part of Lakeway Publishers, filed an Open Meetings lawsuit against the Morristown Civil Service Board some 15+ years ago. The Tribune asked for an injunction against the Civil Service Board to prevent secret deliberations and future violations of the Act and the Tribune asked that costs be assessed against the Board.

The Tribune won that battle, but only because it was willing to file suit on behalf of the public and the press.

What happens when there are local violations today?

In December of 2008, the Hamblen County Ethics Committee violated the Open Meetings Act by not providing notice to the public of its December 15 meeting. [Yes, as many have people have mentioned to me, there is real irony in the Ethics Committee violating state law.]

On January 22, during the public comments portion of the meeting of the county commission, Ethics Chair Joe Swann, Ethics member Stancil Ford, Ethics attorney Rusty Cantwell, and the full commission were informed of the Open Meetings violation by the Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee was asked to correct the violation.

A Tribune reporter was present. However, in the Tribune's coverage of the commission meeting, the alleged Open Meetings violation by the Ethics Committee was not mentioned nor were comments or responses from any Ethics Committee member reported.

With no concern, questions, or reporting by the press, the Ethics Committee just ignored and denied the violation. While I would hope that the Tribune is still as concerned about the Open Meetings Act as it was fifteen years ago when it filed its own Open Meetings lawsuit, that just doesn't appear to be the case today.

Stonewalling by the Ethics Committee left only one way to enforce the Open Meetings Act--a citizen lawsuit. The citizen lawsuit was filed on February 17, 2009, only after the Ethics Committee continued to refuse to admit and correct its violation.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Ethics Committee quit ignoring and denying its violation and held a re-do meeting on March 11.

At the Ethics Committee re-do meeting, Bill Brittain, a member of the Ethics Committee, recused himself from the vote regarding discipline of Frank Parker and Paul King after being questioned about a conflict of interest regarding Frank Parker.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Fifteen years ago, the Morristown Civil Service Board violated the Open Meetings Act but did nothing about its violation until forced to do so as a result of an Open Meetings lawsuit filed by the Tribune.

In December 2008, the Hamblen County Ethics Committee violated the Open Meetings Act but did nothing about its violation until forced to do so as a result of an Open Meetings lawsuit filed by a citizen.

Some helpful links on Open Government in Tennessee: Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. Tennessee Press Association.

March 7, 2009 After Lawsuit Is Filed, Ethics Committee Wants To Correct Its Violation of Tennessee Open Meetings Act

In a previous post, I reported that the Hamblen County Ethics Committee violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act (TOMA) by not providing notice to the "public" of its December 15, 2008, "public" meeting.

Commissioner Joe Swann, who is chairman of the Ethics Committee, Commissioner Stancil Ford, a member of the Ethics Committee, and Rusty Cantwell, attorney for the Ethics Committee, were put on notice of this violation during the public comments portion of the January 22 meeting of the Hamblen County Commission.

Fortunately, the TOMA provides a very simple way to fix such a violation--- just "re-do" the meeting with adequate notice to the public and then re-consider and fully deliberate again on the public business in a true public meeting. On January 22, the Ethics Committee was requested to re-do its December 15 meeting with proper notice to the public.

Unfortunately, the Ethics Committee chose to deny the violation and ignored the request to correct the situation. With the Ethics Committee stonewalling and refusing to remedy its violation, the only way left to enforce the Open Meetings Act was for a citizen to file suit against the violators.

After waiting weeks and weeks for the Ethics Committee to do the easy thing, the right thing, the "ethical" thing---call another meeting with proper notice to the public---Gwen Holden filed a citizen's suit against the Ethics Committee and its five members on February 17, 2009. I represent Ms. Holden.

After being served with Ms. Holden's lawsuit, the Ethics Committee rather suddenly decided that a "re-do" meeting sounded pretty good after all. The Ethics Committee "re-do" meeting to correct its violation of the Open Meetings Act is set for Wednesday, March 11, at 4:00 pm in the West Wing Conference Room in the basement of the new portion of the Courthouse.

The March 11 agenda includes review of the disciplinary actions taken by Mayor David Purkey against county employees Paul King and Frank Parker who were indicted for felony theft (Parker and King) and felony misconduct (Parker) in May 2008.

Government at its best. The Ethics Committee violates the law. Refuses to admit that it did anything wrong. Ignores a simple request to fix the violation with a "re-do" meeting. Then, after its bluff is called and a lawsuit is filed, suddenly the Ethics Committee thinks that a "re-do" sounds great after all!

It is ironic that a violation such as this would involve the Ethics Committee.

It is unfortunate that the Ethics Committee, faced with an obvious violation of the Open Meetings Act, got its back up and refused to admit the violation and simply correct it. This could have been taken care of right away--at no-cost to the taxpayers--if the Ethics Committee had said 'oops, we're sorry and we're going to fix this right now with a proper meeting with adequate public notice.'

Now, the Ethics Committee and its members will ask the taxpayers of Hamblen County to pay the legal fees that the Ethics Committee has incurred for a lawsuit that they caused by their refusal to correct their Open Meetings violation at the start.

The good news, however, is that Ethics Chairman Joe Swann and the other members of the Ethics Committee have seen the light ("Sunshine") and are now aware that you really can't have a "public" meeting without letting the public know about it.

Hopefully, other local governmental bodies will also be careful to make sure that the public is informed about their meetings.

The Open Meetings and Open Records Acts are Tennessee's Sunshine Laws and help protect and preserve the public's right to know what the government is doing. Visit the website of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government.

[3/8/09 Special thanks to Taxing Tennessee for mentioning and linking to this post! Click Taxing Tennessee to see the complete website.]

February 28, 2009 More Official Pow-Wows Without Notice To The Public?

This blog contains my opinion on many issues. I share links to news stories that are reported across the state by various media. And I do some independent local news-gathering, posting information that the local newspaper ignores.

While I am cautious about mentioning things that I hear that have not been verified, there is a rumor going around that there was recently an (unannounced) meeting of a small group of elected and appointed officials who were engaged in important discussions of public business and expenditures.

[NOTE: This meeting may have been held in violation of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act. While not all elected or appointed officials are covered by the Sunshine Law, this meeting allegedly included two or more officials who are covered by the Sunshine Law and whose participation in an unannounced meeting to deliberate about public business could rise to a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act. This is not an accusation of a violation because I don't know the specific nature of the discussions nor the identity of all participants.]

The public was not notified of this meeting.

The press apparently was not notified, but we'll have to wait and see if that glitch creates a problem for any of those involved in the meeting.

While the press has never reported when lowly John and Jane Taxpayer are not notified about public meetings, the press just may be ticked when the NEWSPAPER isn't notified!

One solution to solve the dilemma of whether a particular discussion or meeting is a true violation of the Sunshine Law would be to have a public message board for local public officials to use in order to share information with one another---AND THE PUBLIC. Knox County did this after the Knox County Commission was cited for private meetings and deliberations between commissioners. You can also reach the Knox County website here and then click on Commission Forum to see the public message board.

We are approaching the annual celebration of Sunshine Week in Tennessee. And the Citizen-Tribune, as it has always done, will have a wonderful editorial extolling the virtues of Tennessee's Open Meetings and Open Records Acts ("Sunshine" laws).

And at the same time, the Citizen-Tribune knows that there are unannounced meetings taking place in Hamblen County where important discussions and/or deliberations about the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars are taking place in the dark.

You can't have a "public" meeting without adequate notice to the public!

Wouldn't it be refreshing if the Tribune did more than write an editorial once-a-year about how important the Sunshine Laws are?

February 10, 2009 Ethics Committee Violates the Sunshine Law--No Notice to the Public of its December 15 "Public" Meeting

Oops, they did it again--another county government meeting without notice to the public.

THEN: The Commission held a special meeting in May 2007 to appoint the Ethics Committee and did not provide public notice of the meeting. See my post here and the opinion of the county attorney that informing the press about a meeting meets the requirements of "adequate public notice"---even when the press doesn't mention the meeting to the public.

NOW: The Ethics Committee, which rarely meets, has held a special meeting (December 2008) without providing public notice of the meeting. What irony! The Ethics Committee is appointed in a meeting without notice to the public--- and then the Ethics Committee itself meets without notice to the public.

Tennessee's Open Meetings Act (TOMA) is one of our Sunshine Laws. The purpose of TOMA is to make sure that the public's business takes place in the "sunshine" with "adequate public notice" of any meetings.

Tennessee Code 8-44-103 requires Notice of public meetings. —

(a) Notice of Regular Meetings. Any such governmental body which holds a meeting previously scheduled by statute, ordinance, or resolution shall give adequate public notice of such meeting.

(b) Notice of Special Meetings. Any such governmental body which holds a meeting not previously scheduled by statute, ordinance, or resolution, or for which notice is not already provided by law, shall give adequate public notice of such meeting.

(c) The notice requirements of this part are in addition to, and not in substitution of, any other notice required by law.

Notice of the special December 15 Ethics Committee meeting was provided to a limited number of people---Ethics Committee members, commissioners, the county attorney, and the press but these were the only people who were notified.

So there's not really a question of whether there was adequate notice to the public. There was NO notice to the public.

[And strangely, the notice that was provided to the press and to the Ethics Committee didn't even mention why there was a special meeting or what it was about.]

As it turned out from reports after the meeting, the Committee considered the "resign or be ousted" letter sent by Mayor David Purkey to then-Constable Paul King, discussed and got county attorney Rusty Cantwell's opinion on the actions taken by Purkey in regard to Paul King and Frank Parker, and then took a vote supporting the "resign or be ousted" letter.

The Parker-King saga at Cherokee Park is a lengthy one of theft, lies, pre-trial diversion, and plea deals, culminating in both keeping their county jobs but with demotions and/or transfers. Of course, it was their boss County Mayor David Purkey who made the decision to keep them on the county payroll and he just happened to be the #1 character reference for both men.

But I digress. Back to the Sunshine Law.

At the January 22 meeting of the full Commission, I spoke to the county attorney before the meeting to point out that there was no notice to the public of the December 15 Ethics meeting. The county attorney repeated his previous opinion that notifying the press is all the county must do. In other words, we tell the press and if the press doesn't pass the word along to the public, then too bad, so sad.

During the visitor's comments portion of the commission meeting, I spoke to the full commission about the apparent violation of the Open Meetings Act, pointing out that the law requires "adequate public notice" and that this is the second meeting that I know of where a limited number of people are notified, but there is NO notice to the public at all.

Actions taken at a meeting in violation of the Sunshine Law may be declared void, but there is a very easy way to correct the violation, and that's what I asked the Ethics Committee to do. Hold a new meeting--with notice to the public and with full deliberation and re-consideration of the actions taken. Problem solved.

After two weeks passed and the commission had not responded to my request for a re-do of the Ethics Committee meeting, I contacted Chairman Stancil Ford to see what, if anything, the county intended to do. Ford stated that he had talked with the county attorney and that the county attorney continues to maintain that notifying the press is all the law requires. Ford suggested that I call the chairman of the Ethics Committee Joe Swann, which I did, and discuss my concerns with Joe.

Joe Swann told me that he had also talked with the county attorney. Swann informed me that the county attorney maintains that there is no violation of the open meetings act and that notice to the press meets the requirements of the law. He was firm in stating that there would be no re-do of the meeting.

I shared with him that it is my opinion that at least two "public" meetings of county government have been held without any notification to the "public." While I fully agreed that there has been "adequate press notice," I believe that the law clearly and in plain words requires "adequate public notice."

In the two instances mentioned, no one has to spend much time bickering over whether "adequate" notice to the public was given, because there was NO public notice at all. Let the Sunshine in.

October 31, 2007 Local Government: If Tennessee's "Sunshine Laws" Are Gutted

How about private meetings of government officials where decisions are made without the public or press around and then a public meeting where the votes are taken to make the private, backroom deals "official"?

If city, county, and school board officials get their way in weakening Tennessee's Sunshine Laws (Open Meetings and Public Records Acts), private meetings could be coming to a local government near you.

The Memphis Commercial-Appeal recently ran an excellent editorial on this topic as did the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

If the Tennessee General Assembly does change the Open Meetings Act to allow officials to meet secretly and privately-- in groups of "less than a quorum"-- what would this mean locally?

MORRISTOWN CITY COUNCIL: Up to three members of the Morristown City Council--one less than a quorum--could meet together secretly or with local power/money interests to deliberate, swap votes, and do whatever they want to do in reaching an agreement on how to vote at the "public" meeting. When the "public" vote is later taken at a "public" meeting of the council, it will all be a sham because the decision will have already been made by small groups of council members who have met in the dark, in the backroom, outside of the public's view.

HAMBLEN COUNTY COMMISSION: Up to seven members of the Hamblen County Commission--one less than a quorum--could meet together secretly or with local power/money interests to deliberate, swap votes, and do whatever they want to do in reaching an agreement on how to vote at the "public" meeting. When the "public" hearing or "public" vote is later taken at a "public" meeting, it will all be a sham because the decision will have already been made by small groups of commissioners who have met in the dark, in the backroom, outside of the public's view.

HAMBLEN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: Up to three members of the Hamblen County School Board---one less than a quorum---could meet together secretly or with local power/ money interests to deliberate, swap votes, and do whatever they want to do in reaching an agreement on how to vote at the "public" meeting. When the "public" vote is later taken at a "public" meeting, it will all be a sham because the decision will have already been made by board members who have met in the dark, in the backroom, outside of the public's view.

If they succeed in eliminating public oversight and ridding themselves of the disinfectant effect of Tennessee's Sunshine Laws, county commissioners, city council members, and school board members will jump at the opportunity to have secret meetings well before the "public" meeting---especially where important and controversial issues are concerned.

And if, by chance, a snag arises during the public meeting over a decision, the chairman can just ask for a short recess during which the officials can again meet in their little groups to have their "private" discussions about "public" business.

Why do local government officials want to gut the Open Meetings Act? The official line seems to be that government officials need freedom to deliberate in private so they can share information and get "special insight" into public business.

If local government officials think that secret, private meetings are good, why not just have one big private meeting of ALL commissioners, city councilmen, school board members. Now, THAT would really maximize insight and efficiency at the later public meeting!!!

It is obvious that local government officials simply aren't interested in open and accountable government and that they view public participation and comments as a nuisance. Local government officials want Tennessee's Open Meetings Act changed so they can have special private meetings where the decisions are made and then have a public meeting where the votes are taken to make the backroom deal "official."

Quick and efficient. Yes. Open, accountable, and ethical. No.

October 28, 2007 Local Government Officials Want To Gut Sunshine Laws

A state legislative study subcommittee has decided to recommend that political backroom deal-making and secret meetings of local legislative officials be made legal.

If the full committee and later the General Assembly adopts the subcommittee proposal, local public meetings will be a sham, a shame, and nothing more than a "public" vote/rubber stamp of whatever the local officials have already decided during their private deliberations and secret dealmaking.

The "Open Meetings" subcommittee wants to allow groups of county commissioners, groups of city council members, and groups of school board members to meet in secret (or with the rich and powerful) to deliberate and decide public issues---just as long as the secret meeting involves less than a quorum of the members of the whole body.

The Knoxville News-Sentinel has a good editorial 'Sun' burn sends officials scurrying.

The Tennessean offers its opinion Bolster, don't soften, open meetings law.

The Memphis Commercial Appeal recalls the history behind Tennessee's Open Meetings Act and labels as "hogwash" Memphis state representative Ulysses Jones' public excuse for wanting to allow secret meetings. The C-A has another biting editorial on Redefining 'open' meetings.

If the nightmarish proposal of the subcommittee is adopted by the Tennessee General Assembly, local government officials will be ecstatic and the public will be left in the dark!

You can bet that local government officials will happily revert to the "good old days" when the good old boys and girls had the meeting before the meeting without the pesky public or press (newspaper, radio, TV) around to ask questions.

The subcommittee's proposal is a real step backward for open government. It will dash whatever hope and possibility existed for accountable and ethical local government.

The proposal will give county commissioners, city council members, and school boards state approval to make decisions on both routine and controversial issues in "secret" small group meetings and then come out in "public" only when it's time to vote.

August 25, 2006 Thank You to the Voters of the 14th District

At yesterday's August meeting of the Hamblen County Commission, I shared my thoughts and feelings about my decision not to run for re-election and my hopes for the future.

I want to share with my blog readers the statement that I read aloud and that I asked to be included in the official minutes:

Linda Noe Statement of August 24, 2006

I would like to express my gratitude to the voters of the 14th district for their support in electing me in 2002.

I have remained true to every campaign promise I made.

While I chose not to run again for personal reasons, I am still concerned about the handling of public money.

Accountability was my focus then and accountability is my focus today.

We have made some positive strides, but there is a long way to go.

Our system of government provides for a system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by any of the three branches of government—executive, judicial, legislative.

The Hamblen County Commission should be a vital part in promoting accountability and ensuring that our system of checks and balances works to protect our tax dollars.

I encourage the incoming commission to reject the title of “rubber stamp commission.”

Work with the Mayor but expect the Mayor to work with you as well.

Co-operation is a two-way street. Ask questions and expect and demand answers.

You can’t do your job if you don’t know what’s going on with county finances. Listen to the answers and let common sense be your guide.

If the answer doesn’t pass the smell test, don’t hold your nose and go on. Ask more questions and get rid of the smell.

It is your duty to be a part of the system of checks and balances, not an elected spectator or puppet for power mongers.

I am proud that with the support of other commissioners, many of my goals were achieved over the past four years such as:

Hiring state auditors to handle the county audit and saving the county $72,000.

Airing commission meetings on local cable TV.

Opening up the bidding process in many areas to save the county money.

Using an open and fair process for hiring architects and engineers.

During part of the time that I served on commission, I attended law school, graduated, and passed the bar exam. The law license has my name on it, but it was achieved with the support of a loving family.

I thank my husband Ron, my son Will and his wife Katie Kanipe-Noe, and my twin daughters Jenny and Katie for their patience and encouragement over the past years.

I thank my mother Helen Catron for her support as well, and I gratefully honor my late father Bill Catron for his encouragement through the years.

Now with the support of a loving family, it is time for me to use that degree.

I will always be proud of having served on the Hamblen County Legislative Body.

As a citizen and taxpayer, I will remain concerned and involved in the public’s business.

To the new commissioners: the people have elected you. You owe them your loyalty and faithful service.

I hope that above all else that you believe in and will support open government.

Support Tennessee’s Open Meetings and Open Records Laws.

Keep the TV camera running at your commission meetings.

Tape and show your committee meetings---you know that that is where the most discussion of issues and deliberation occurs.

There are some goals that weren’t fully achieved in the past four years. I hope you will consider making more use of the county website. Put commission agendas, minutes of committee and commission meetings, and financial records on the web.

Consider having meetings at times that are most convenient for the largest number of working people.

Open the government up to the people you were elected to serve.

Encourage other elected officials--the Morristown City Council and the Hamblen County School Board—to put their meetings on TV.

You have been given a great honor by being elected to the Hamblen County Commission.

Serve openly, listen carefully, avoid conflicts of interest, and control spending and taxes.

I wish you well.

Linda Noe

September 29, 2005 State Ethics Recommendations

I decided to delay my report on the Commission meeting of 9/22/05 in order to post a joint policy statement that was recently issued by Tennessee Tax Revolt and the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. The policy statement concerns an issue that, in my opinion, is very important to Tennesseans-- ethics. This ethics statement has a direct relation to my focus on accountability, open meetings, open records, and eliminating conflicts of interest.

September 27, 2005

Tennessee Tax Revolt, the State’s largest taxpayer advocacy group, and the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Tennessee’s free market public policy research institute, joined to co-author an open letter to Governor Bredesen and the Tennessee General Assembly encouraging simple ethics reforms to restore confidence in our State government.

Among the letter’s recommendations are:

1. Recording and posting all House and Senate floor, committee and subcommittee votes on final action for any bill on the General Assembly website within two hours of the vote.

2. Providing that every bill scheduled for a floor vote for final action be made available in fully amended form on the legislative website 72 hours before the vote.

3. Amending both the Open Records Act and Open Meetings Act so they apply to the proceedings of the General Assembly.

4. Offering video streaming and archiving of all Senate and House general sessions and committee sessions.

5. Requiring FULL disclosure on the legislative website of amounts spent by those that employ lobbyists or spend money to influence legislation and completely outlawing contingency lobbying fees.

6. Prohibiting lobbyists from serving on State boards and commissions

“While not every legislator is part of the problem, all legislators must be part of the solution,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research president Drew Johnson. “There is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that can only be resolved through common sense approaches that foster government transparency and encourage citizen involvement in the political process.”

According to Tennessee Tax Revolt spokesman Ben Cunningham, the recommendations promote leveling the playing field between lobbyists and interested citizens. "Easy and complete access to voting records is our birthright as citizens of Tennessee, it is not something reserved for highly paid lobbyists," said Cunningham.

My comment: "Well said."

I would add that conflicts of interest at the state and local level are a serious problem. Too many legislators at the state level as well as county commissioners and city councilmembers at the local level do not abstain from voting on legislation that has a particular economic effect, direct or indirect, on them or their immediate family.

I would also add that access to public records is absolutely vital in promoting accountability at the local and state level.

Knowledge is power. Government officials know that, and that is why some of them seek to keep all the power (documents & information) in their hands. These are the government officials that cause citizens and others to wonder why they are so secretive about the conduct of public business and why they are so difficult to deal with when citizens want public documents.

Thankfully, most elected officials are open and accessible and freely discuss and share information and documents. These are the ones we tend to trust.

The letter is available in its entirety at http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/files/pdf/2005TTR-TCPR%20Ethics%20Letter.pdf