May 17, 2006 Eminent Domain--Tennessean Editorial

In my post of May 10, I discussed loopholes in the current eminent domain legislation under consideration in Tennessee.

In a recent guest editorial in the Nashville Tennessean, there is more discussion about loopholes and the potential for government abuse in using the power of eminent domain to take one person's private property and transfer it to another person for private use instead of public use.

The loopholes in the current bill, rather than curbing potential abuse, could end up permitting abuse of the government's right to take private property under the guise of addressing "blight."

The current push for new legislation in TN was prompted by government action in New London, CT. In New London, the government declared what appeared to be an average neighborhood of houses as "blighted."

Using its power of eminent domain, the government took several houses from their owners and then transferred the property to a developer who would put the land to a "better" use that would generate more tax revenue.

As the guest editorial points out, "blight" is the key word. One definition of blight is "dilapidated, decaying, in a state of deterioration."

A blighted area, where houses or buildings are falling down or pose health hazards to the neighborhood, certainly deserves attention by the government if the owners fail to take necessary action.

In New London, however, the government "took" allegedly blighted property from its owners and then transferred the property to someone else (a private developer) .

As the editorial points out, there are ways to address blight through ordinances and laws that do not involve taking someone's property away.

May 16, 2006 Term Limits and Politics

George Korda recently had an interesting article in the Knox News-Sentinel about the term limits referendum that Knox County passed overwhelmingly in 1994.

The referendum term-limited all county officials except judges .

Some people at the time (incumbents?) thought that term limits might be unconstitutional.

Knox County State Sen. Bud Gilbert requested the state attorney general’s opinion on the matter.

The attorney general opined that term limits in the Knox County Charter conflicted with the state constitution.

Term limits in Knox were just forgotten. No one did anything after the attorney general's opinion came out.

Korda comments that "opinions" from the attorney general are interesting pieces of legal "literature." If you agree with them, they are like granite-- wonderful bits of sound, hard, legal reasoning.

If you disagree with them, then they are just another lawyer’s judgment.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, attorney general's opinion do not have the force of law.

Only if someone takes the issue to court, then and only then do you find out the "law."

Fast forward to the opposite end of the state.

Shelby County, like Knox, had also approved term limits many years ago. Recently, Shelby County officials decided that they wanted to get this term limits thing straightened out once and for all.

To get this ironed out, Shelby County didn't ask for an AG's opinion. They took the issue to court. The case went all the way to the Tennessee Supreme Court where term limits in Shelby County were upheld.

The effect of the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling then spilled over into Knox County since Knox voters had also approved term limits in 1994.

Poor Knox County, the May 2nd election ballots had already been prepared. The names of the term-limited commissioners could not be taken off. Oodles of write-in candidates showed up ready to take the place of term-limited commissioners.

Korda provides an interesting discussion about the opposition to term limits from many career politicians and from many of the powerful people who want contracts, rezonings, approval for pet projects, etc.

As he puts it, "the political arena is a little like the stock market." Investors in stocks value stability. "People in and around government like stability as well, but for different reasons."

With the right connection to the right people, says Korda, "much is done with a wink, nod, request or plea." People who want a special favor from the government want the right people in place.

With term limits in Knox County, there's a scramble on to form new friendships, find out who's related to whom, and get connected to the new commissioners who may take office in September.

Is it over? Maybe. Maybe not. Some of the long-time incumbents are still fighting to keep their offices by challenging the entire Knox County Charter. Other incumbents are saying that term limits only apply to county commissioners.

One thing is certain. The courts are going to be busy. With early voting starting in July, a full and quick determination of the names to include on the general election ballot is needed to avoid the primary mess.

May 10, 2006 Eminent Domain in TN General Assembly

Joe Powell has some information and comments about a proposal under consideration in the Tennessee Legislature to address eminent domain abuse. Click here for Joe's blog and look at the last of his May 9 posts.

Instead of eliminating the possible abuse of eminent domain and preventing a Kelo-like situation in Tennessee, Tennessee's state senators and representatives appear to be giving consideration to legalizing the abuse (as long as the price is right)!

Joe quotes from the bill where it states that land acquired by the government through eminent domain may be sold, leased, or transferred to another government or to a private individual as long as a fair price is received.

Can't you just imagine developers with clout ($$$)---who want a choice piece of real estate but who can't strike a deal with the pesky private owner of the property---calling up and lobbying government officials (at private parties and meetings, of course) in order to get the government to step in and take the property and then sell it to the developer?

It looks like the government may become a real estate acquisition middleman. If the rich and powerful can't work out a private sale, then let the government "take" the property and sell it to you!

The Tennessee legislature seems to be saying that abuse of the power of eminent domain (taking one person's private property and then transferring it to another private person) is not really abuse at all---as long as the government gets a good price in the process.

That's really thinking outside the box---way outside.

May 9, 2006 Open and fair selection

In April and May committee meetings, I suggested that Hamblen County use RFP's (Requests for Proposals) in securing the services of architects and engineers.

Using RFP's for these services is permitted by state law. Also permitted is the current process which has been to select someone and execute a contract with him or her without asking for information or reviewing the qualifications of other firms.

What is an RFP? A Request for Proposals means that the county would ask all interested architectural and engineering firms to submit information about their company when a county building is built or renovated.

In a basic RFP, each architect or engineer would list the firm's name, personnel and their qualifications/ experience, years in business, projects completed, insurance information, and, optionally, the proposed fee for services.

The county would then consider the various proposals, interview selected firms, and choose the best qualified.

It's all a rather straight-forward process that is used by many counties, school boards, and other government groups. Each government adapts the basic features of an RFP to its particular project requirements.

I brought two RFP's to yesterday's Construction Oversight Committee (one had been used by the City of Morristown), and we discussed them.

I asked for comments and changes that commissioners might think were needed to come up with a basic architectural/engineering RFP for Hamblen County.

Taking the input and comments from commissioners, I will prepare a general RFP format for consideration at the May Commission meeting.

The Commission, of course, will always have the option of requesting more detailed information from interested architects and engineers for large and/or very complex projects.

In the final analysis, the issue is not about the questions on an RFP. The questions can change and be adapted for each project.

The issue is whether the county will use an open RFP process that asks and allows qualified architects and engineers to submit their proposals and qualifications for full and fair consideration by the county.

May 5, 2006 Committee Meetings on Monday, May 8

Hamblen County Commission will have its Committee meetings on Monday, May 8.

3:00 pm Finance

3:30 pm Construction Oversight

4:00 pm Facilities Maintenance

4:30 pm Public Services

5:00 pm Strategic Planning

May 3 Hamblen County Has a New Sheriff

May 2 has come and gone.

The big race, the one that created the most interest in Hamblen County, was the race for Sheriff.

The incumbent, Sheriff Otto Purkey, faced challenger Esco Jarnagin in the Republican Primary.

Esco Jarnagin won by nearly 400 votes.

Hamblen County will have a new Sheriff on September 1, 2006.

April 27, 2006 Public Records: The best and often only way to get the facts about government spending

As mentioned in the previous post, I have been put in situations where I have been denied access to public documents and I have been forced to file a lawsuit in order to get access to the records.

Filing such a lawsuit is never done lightly--it is both costly and time-consuming. Unfortunately, however, it is the only choice that a citizen has when denied access to public documents.

Of course, a lot of people decide to simply walk away from the situation when a government official says "no" to their public document request.

And government officials love that response.

On the other hand, government officials hate it when a citizen has the nerve to assert his/her rights and actually file a petition in court for access to public documents as provided by the law.

In my situation, I requested building program documents from the Hamblen County School Board (e.g. letters, contracts, bidding tabulations, and later the legal billings from the Board's attorney Scott Reams).

It was when I saw Reams' billings that I realized that there were a lot of building program documents that I didn't even know about. These documents were apparently being kept at his office and nowhere else.

I prepared a request for some of the building program documents kept only in his office, and that's when the Board and Reams drew a line in the sand.

Mr. Reams sent me a letter (with a copy to the Board) saying that I would have to pay him $100/hour to retrieve and review the building program documents that were being kept in his files and to redact (mark out) any confidential student or teacher information from his billings.

Well, I never wanted to see any student/teacher confidential information anyway, so redacting that information, which the law permits and which should be done, was fine with me.

What was not fine was Reams' demand for direct payment to him of $100/hour for this.

Frankly, charging a citizen $100/hour for a government document request of this nature is, in my opinion, exorbitant and outrageous.

With a charge of $100/hour, the Board and Reams might as well have said, "You just can't see it. And to make sure of that, the Board's attorney is going to charge you so much that it will make it impossible for you or anyone else to pursue requests for the building program documents that are stashed in the attorney's office."

By the way, Reams was charging the Board $80/hour at this time, but, as his letter states, he was requiring that citizens pay him $100/hour for retrieval and review of the school building documents that were in his exclusive possession as attorney for the Board.

More in future posts...

April 26, 2006 Open Records Laws and Newspaper Reports

The open records laws in Tennessee are critically important to newspapers, citizens, and others who wish to know what their government is doing.

I am a member of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government (TCOG). This group stands for openness and "sunshine" in government at all levels.

Several weeks ago, the local newspaper, the Citizen Tribune, ran article after article and editorial after editorial with words of praise and support for Tennessee's open records laws.

As a member of TCOG, I was certainly very pleased to see the Tribune exhibiting such passionate support of open records laws in Tennessee.

But where is the Tribune when the rubber hits the road?

The Sheriff of Hamblen County was recently sued over his refusal to provide public records to an individual. A citizen has only one option when denied access to public records-- that option is to file a lawsuit against the government official that denied access.

Apparently, the individual did file suit and the Sheriff responded quickly after the lawsuit was filed, saying it was all a mistake, and belatedly providing the record.

Maybe the Sheriff really thought that personnel records of public employees (with confidential information like SS# and bank information, etc. blacked out) were not public records. Maybe the Sheriff just didn't know the open records laws.

Maybe the Sheriff thought he could ignore the request and the person would go away (as often happens when people are confronted by the power and occasional arrogance of the government).

Maybe the Sheriff wasn't concerned at all because, right or wrong, he has a government-paid attorney to defend his actions.

But where is the Tribune article shedding sunshine on this situation?

Where is the reporting on what actually happened? What was the Sheriff's position? What was the citizen's position?

I, too, have been involved in situations where I had to file suit against government officials in order to gain access to public records.

More on public records in my next post...

April 15, 2006 I'm back!

For those of you who were concerned and asked why I wasn't blogging over the last 2+ weeks (and for those who weren't concerned but were just relieved that this blog was quiet)...

noe4accountability is at it again.

Problem--my (desktop) computer crashed. The poor thing was old, overloaded with years and years of computer junk, and just couldn't take it any longer.

I took it to a computer shop to get all my files off of the desktop and put them on an external drive. The owner of the shop got everything off of the old computer just fine.

But when she was getting ready to add new internet software to the laptop and show me how to load the old information onto the laptop, there was bad news.

The laptop was on the verge of kicking the bucket, too. It had "cookies" and old temporary internet files (going back 5 years) and all kinds of saved junk taking up computer storage space.

Computer-savvy people will know what cookies and temp internet files are. They also know (as I now know) that you have to get that junk out of your computer now and then just like you have to clean your closets now and then.

It took a while to get all these problems resolved. The laptop is cleaned up. I can use it now to get on the internet again. And, yes, I have a lots of unposted blogs ready to put out!

March 25, 2006 2004 audit Part II

As I have mentioned the 2004 audit indicates some improvement in the handling of county finances. It's really funny to look at the dramatic change in audit findings that occurred when the county started using the state auditors in 2003. The 2002 audit (1 solitary finding by the local private auditors) and then the 2003 audit (29 findings by the state auditors with numerous sub-findings) and then the 2004 audit (15 findings and again numerous sub-findings by the state auditors). Click here for 2004 audit findings.

Looking at the audit history, I find it very hard to believe that the county was operating just fine in 2002 with a glowing audit (1 finding) from the local private auditors and then suddenly in 2003 the county was violating state law, not budgeting money as required by law, spending more money than was approved, not controlling purchases, not maintaining a general ledger, totally unaware that the county had to go by the state comptroller's "chart of accounts," and boom there are 29 findings by the state auditors. It just seems more likely that all these violations and irregularities were occurring in 2002 but "somehow" went unreported.

Moving on to the 2004 audit, there were 15 findings. One finding reported problems in making debt payments--or actually making a debt payment for a debt that the county didn't even owe. The audit reported that the county made an interest payment of $45,326 in December 2003 for a debt that was actually owed by the City of Morristown, not Hamblen County. The city finally reimbursed the county for all but $408 in June 2004. The 2004 audit reports that the $408 was still owed to the county as of the audit report date.

There were major purchasing deficiencies. The Mayor's Finance Department apparently selected an employee to serve as a purchasing agent, but the agent didn't keep control over purchase orders. Blank purchase orders were just handed out to departments, so nobody knew what was being purchased (or how much had been spent) until after the bill arrived.

There were no employment work records for certain "exempt" county employees. County departments over the years had increasingly allowed more and more employees to be considered "exempt" employees. The "exempt" employees were salaried and didn't have to keep any time sheets. The state auditors said that all employees should be required to keep a record of time worked. They also pointed out that since vacation time was not tracked in some instances, "(exempt) employees [] obtain[ed] a higher benefit rate than the non-exempt (hourly) employees."

There were deficiencies in controls over travel. Apparently, nobody required an itemized receipt for meals paid with credit cards, so the county didn't know what it was paying for. It appears that the receipt total was submitted and paid without an itemized detail.

There were severe deficiencies in budgeting. The budgeting deficiencies were very important and included five different items (A-E)---four of which are discussed here.

(A) Despite state law, the audit states that the County Mayor didn't even present a budget to commission (and so didn't get approval to spend money) for certain funds (such as the sheriff's special revenue fund). Some budgets were brought to commission, but others weren't.

(C) The Finance Department overspent the legally approved spending amounts in several funds: the General Fund, the Highway Fund, the Special Debt Fund, the General Debt Fund, and the Hospital Debt Fund. If spending limits for county funds are going to be ignored, what's the purpose in going through a long, drawn-out budget process? And this occurred in 2003 as well--for example, the 2003 audit says that spending exceeded appropriations in the General Fund in amounts ranging from $737 all the way up to $296,964.

(E) There were huge budgeting problems. The beginning fund balance estimates provided to commissioners during the budget process were way off. Estimates of fund balance are estimates, but the auditors apparently think (and so do I) that county financial officials should be able to get at least reasonably close to the real figure.

When the county was preparing its '04 budget in July 2003, county financial officers estimated and told commissioners that the beginning fund balance for the general fund was $697,526 when it was really only $208,870. The Commission was told that the fund balance for the solid waste (garbage) fund was $56,265 when the fund really had a deficit balance of ($205,578). In an understatement, the auditors added: "County officials should better estimate the beginning fund balance when adopting the budget."

I've mentioned this problem several times at meetings because this is critical financially. If county officials can't come up with at least a close estimate of what's in the bank (fund balance), then it's no wonder that there is overspending and no one really knows what the county has or exactly where it's going.

(D) Finally, the audit also reported a finding where the County Mayor instructed the Finance Department to transfer money ($89,986) from the General Fund to the General Capital Projects Fund and to transfer money ($274,730) from the General Debt Fund to the General Capital Projects Fund without the required approval of county commission.

County commission not only never approved the transfers, but county commission apparently wasn't even told that the transfers were being made or that payments totalling $360,000 had been made in error for years.

In response to this finding, the Mayor told the auditors that he talked with the trustee and finance director (but not county commission) and then instructed his Finance Department to make the transfers to "restore" the accounts to what county commission had actually approved "over the years." It turns out that these wrong payments totalling over $360,000 included spending errors going all the way back to June 15, 1999 and continuing up to June 9, 2004.

It looks like the Capital Projects Fund was being used for over five years to pay for things that should have been paid out of the County's General Fund or the County's Debt Fund. In 2004, the Mayor talks with two county officials (but not to county commissioners) and instructs them to switch everything back around.

Why such secrecy--to the point that county commissioners didn't even know that $360,000 had been moved around until they read about it in the audit? Why did no one explain to county commission what had happened and then ask for the required approval to make the transfers?

More on these spending errors next time...

March 24, 2006 The 2004 Audit: Moving from the 2003 break-out audit to the 2004 audit

The 2003 audit was the break-out audit. I fulfilled my campaign promise to bring in state auditors with their experience in governmental auditing to replace the local private auditors. As a result, Hamblen County was finally put on notice that its financial house was not in order and had not been in order for years.

A very few people probably knew of the problems, but no one would do anything until someone official came in and said "the emperor has no clothes." That someone official was the state audit group, and what they said, in essence, was that Hamblen County was in a financial mess. What kind of mess?

The state auditors reported that the garbage fund was broke at the end of 2003, ending the year with a deficit of $205,000. How did this happen? One reason was the old commission was given a wrong number for beginning fund balance during the 2003 budget process. They were told that the garbage fund had money that really wasn't there.

Just a few months after the old commission passed the 2003 garbage budget (based on the wrong beginning fund balance that the Mayor's Finance Dept. had provided), the Mayor came to the new commission and reported that the garbage fund was in trouble.

To take care of the garbage problem, the 2003 audit states that the Finance Department kept bringing county commission amendments that kept "appropriating" more money for the garbage fund and saying that the source of the additional appropriations was "beginning fund balance."

In reality, the beginning fund balance for the garbage fund was long gone, and the real source of the money was to be a huge tax increase in 2004 and money used from other funds. Like many financial problems, it goes back to proper accounting, proper budgeting, and at least getting close when you are estimating beginning fund balance (the amount of money you have to start the year with).

In addition, the general fund at the end of FY 2003 was unofficially broke. It would have ended the year with an official deficit of over $100,000 except that the auditors moved money from other funds into the general government fund to restate the fund balance. To erase the $100,000 projected general fund deficit, the county moved about $400,000 from other funds into the general fund, giving it a positive balance of just over $300,000---the lowest county fund balance in recent history. Click here for the 2003 audit findings.

When the 2004 audit came back, it was definitely an improvement from 2003 when Hamblen County had had more audit findings than any other county in the state of Tennessee. The improvement in the 2004 audit was a little like two steps forward and one step back. Some type of corrective action had been taken on most of the 29 findings from 2003 (two steps forward). However, nine of the 29 findings from 2003 had not yet been corrected (one step back).

The 2004 audit listed 15 separate findings, and many of those had "findings within a finding." Five findings contained multiple deficiencies. For example, one FINDING (04.05) has five budgeting deficiencies listed as A, B, C, D, and E. To see Hamblen County's 2004 findings at the State Comptroller's website, click here for 2004 findings.

Some of the "new" problems that the auditors reported in 2004 were actually deficiencies that had existed in 2003 as well as long before. So why were some of the problems that existed in 2003 not reported until 2004? As I've mentioned before, a yearly financial audit doesn't look at everything. It does a spot check in a few areas. Evidently, in 2003 some areas that had deficiencies were not looked at, so these deficiencies were not found and reported until later (2004 audit) when these areas happened to be checked during the next audit process.

More detail on the 2004 findings next time...

March 15, 2006 Spring is coming!

A lot of people are out raking leaves in Hamblen County, and some have started mowing their lawns. Not me. I figure that the leaves are nature's mulch for my yard. Yes, I know that's just a way to justify not raking leaves.

I can't justify not mowing though---I'll be out there soon with the trusty mower. Fortunately, I actually like to mow. I guess that goes back to my youth when getting to ride a lawnmower was the first "grown up driving" that I could do.

Speaking of mowing and raking, I still think of March and April as "clean-up, paint-up, and fix-up" months. This goes back to years ago when that was an official declaration in Morristown, and the community really took it to heart. People would get out and work hard to improve their part of Morristown and Hamblen County.

With litter being such a huge problem in Hamblen County and throughout the state, we really need to make a stronger effort to clean up our area. Travel any road in Hamblen County, and you'll see where people have thoughtlessly tossed out fast food papers, bottles, soft drink cans, and everything else imaginable.

Morristown and Hamblen County provide door-to-door garbage pick-up. It is difficult to understand why people toss trash onto the roadside instead of into their own trash can.

Some small steps in having a cleaner community are very simple. Don't toss trash along county roadsides. Teach your children to take pride in their community. When you can do so safely, pick up trash that others have thoughtlessly dropped and put it in a trash can.

A few simple acts by citizens can help clean up our community.

Recently, when walking up to the Courthouse with Commissioner Bobby Reinhardt to attend county commission committee meetings, I saw a cardboard box on the Courthouse lawn. I reached down, picked it up, and tossed it in the trash can as we went in.

It wasn't hard. It took only 5 seconds. It was a small thing to do. But it helped.

March 10, 2006 The county is "broke" and leads the state in audit problems

Before I move on to the 2004 audit, I want to make one additional post about the 2003 audit on items that I have touched on in previous posts but which bear repeating.

1. The 2003 audit of Hamblen County government showed 29 findings (irregularities, violations of state law, accounting and purchasing problems). Hamblen County had more audit findings than any other county in the entire state and that includes the big four of Hamilton, Davidson, Knox, and Shelby.

2. Hamblen County government's general fund (the county's checking account) was broke at the end of the 2003 audit year and only a shifting of funds from several other funds into the general fund gave Hamblen County enough money to pay its general government bills.

Mismanagement and budgeting and purchasing deficiencies had plagued the county for years. The only difference in 2003 was that there were new auditors who finally pointed out what had been going on.

2003 was the big KA-BOOM year. Some of the bitterness and red-faced rants that some officials still resort to when I ask financial questions can be traced to the fact that I was the one who made the initial proposal to have the state auditors come in.

The mismanagement of public money, conflicts of interest, ethical shortcomings, and insider deals that are rampant in local politics (and in state and national politics, too) have naturally, and unfortunately, led to the overall lack of trust in public officials.

Nowhere is the motto "trust, but verify" more necessary (and more resisted) than in government.

A lot of people who have watched government in action have said that if they managed their family finances like the government does, they'd be broke. The 2003 county budget process is a fine example of this. The 2003 budget, like so many before it, was a hurry-up and pass something budget. Let's throw something together before anyone comes in asking questions.

That hurry-up process with its last-minute tax increase and last-minute vote on a 2003 budget turned out to be a disaster for county taxpayers.

First, the old (2002) commission raised property taxes at the last-minute--- even though the chairman of the commission Maudie Briggs had told voters months earlier that if they would just vote to extend the wheel tax (in the famous "pick-your-poison" wheel tax referendum) then there wouldn't be a property tax increase.

Then the old commission voted for a budget or spending plan that left off lots of the spending--kind of like a family that "forgets" to include the car payment in preparing their family budget.

2003: Despite taking in more money due to the property tax increase and extension of the wheel tax, the county AGAIN spent more than it took in. In fact, it spent so much more than it took in during 2003 that the tiny savings that the county had from 2002 (fund balance) was wiped out and the county had to go take money from other funds to shore up the general fund that was broke.

Were any other funds "broke" in 2003? Yes. The hurry-up, pass it, don't ask questions process also ended up with the county garbage fund going broke in 2003, too.

How did the county pay its bills? The new state auditors had the county dumping money from several other funds--like the DUI control fund, the Rural Services Fund, the Volunteer Fire Department Fund, etc.-- into the county government fund to help keep Hamblen County government afloat.

Sadly, overspending in 2003 was nothing new for Hamblen County government. Overspending has been a serious problem in Hamblen County government for years and years. Looking back at the 12 fiscal years (1992-2003), the county spent more than it took in during 8 of those 12 years. Not a good track record.

Of course, the official reaction is always that there's a shortage of money. So was the county suffering from some kind of revenue (money) shortage during these years? No. Revenues were increasing but expenditures were increasing even more rapidly. There's your problem.

In 2002 the county spent $923,000 more than it took in, and in 2003 the county increased taxes and still spent more than it took in. With the June 30, 2003 audit report, the bubble burst. Hamblen County was broke and Hamblen County had more financial audit findings of irregularities than any other county in the state.

To paraphrase one commissioner, "we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul and now Peter has left town." Actually, we had robbed Peter so much through the years that Peter was broke, just like Paul.

Peter left town all right---penniless.

March 4, 2006 If anyone had looked and asked the obvious questions that I did...

My February 28th post discusses the 2003 Hamblen County Audit---the first audit performed by state auditors after years and years of local, private auditing.

All of a sudden with the 2003 audit, the county got a resounding wake-up call that emphasized the lack of accountability that has marked the handling of county finances for years.

The state auditors pointed out that record-keeping was lax (or non-existent) , money was missing, checks were written where there were inadequate funds, money was shifted around without county commission's knowledge or approval, accounts were overspent, and the Mayor and his Finance Department spent money that had never been brought to county commission for approval.

I was not surprised in the least at the 2003 findings. Why? Because as a citizen and as a new county commissioner, I had actually gone through the 2002 audit and previous audits. As a commissioner, I tried (unsuccessfully) to get other members of the audit committee to listen and to really look at the audits as well. Click here on 2003 audit findings to see Hamblen County audit findings section on the State Comptroller's website.

Would county commissioners look at the 2002 audit? No. Did they have any questions about the 2002 audit? No.

Audit Chairman Maudie Briggs told me that if I had any questions, I could try and get them answered on my own. I prepared questions, and I tried to get them answered. Had anyone asked the obvious questions about the 2002 audit like I did or had anyone asked to see the responses (and non-responses), then the 2003 audit might have had fewer findings because some changes could have been made before the fiscal year 2003 ended.

With questions and answers on our own, the county could have been further down the road to accountability instead of having to wait for the state auditors to tell us what the local auditors would not tell us--there are no checks and balances, certain individuals and officials have assumed that they can spend taxpayer money as they please rather than within the legal budgeting process, and there is little or no accountability in the handling of the county's finances.

Some of the questions I asked were just commonsense questions that seemed very obvious:

I asked about the fact that the 2002 audit showed that money was spent out of some funds (like the county drug fund and the special revenue fund) but those funds had no "budgeted spending" or appropriations that had been approved by county commission.

I was never told why expenditures had been made and who was spending money without approval by county commission. The 2003 audit, however, explained loudly and clearly why no one would answer that question. Spending that money without approval or appropriation by county commission was a violation of state law. All monies spent by the county must be budgeted and approved by county commission.

I asked whether all legal fees of $83,558 as shown in the 2002 audit were solely for the county's part-time attorney Rusty Cantwell. I was told, yes, that this amount was "only Rusty." When I then pulled financial records about legal charges, it appeared that the answer that I was given was not correct and that about $54,000 was paid to "Rusty" (Mr. Cantwell) in 2002 with large amounts going to other attorneys. Is there a different county financial record somewhere? Obviously, I don't know that. All I can do is go with what I am given as the spending record.

I asked for clarification about several items. One item I asked about was shown in the 2002 audit as "other charges $97,305." When you see huge spending labeled as "other," it's common sense to ask what it's for. The answer I got was that "other" spending was "miscellaneous through county executive."

Yes, the answer to the question is that "other" really means "miscellaneous through county executive." And that answer was supposed to help explain and clarify where $97,305 went? Yeah, sure! Perhaps it's nothing. Maybe the "other" or "miscellaneous" spending of $97,305 was perfectly legitimate. Then why didn't the Mayor or the Mayor's Finance Department just explain or provide an itemized list of what "other" or "miscellaneous" spending of $97,305 was? That's the simple and accountable way to address a question about county spending.

I won't go on with details about the other audit questions. Most of the other answers were about like the ones I have discussed. As is often the case with financial questions, a lot of the questions were just ignored or the answer was one word: "error."

IF someone, anyone, had bothered to look at the 2001 audit that practically screams "misleading financial data" or if someone, anyone, had looked at the 2002 audit and taken the time to ask questions or to listen to the questions of those who did look at the 2002 audit, then we all could have worked together to straighten out the county's financial mess more quickly.

As it is, trying to go down the road to true openness and accountability has been difficult because there are some officials for whom accountability is a foreign word.

The officials who don't know the meaning of accountability are the same officials who consistently react with anger and resentment when financial questions are asked and who are upset that their financial playhouse (playpen) has been rearranged (at least a little bit) since the state auditors came in. The officials who resent the word accountability are the same ones who are having a tough time adjusting to the law that says that no one person--no, not even the County Mayor-- can spend money or switch money around without the approval of county commission.

Unfortunately, in 2004 the transfers of money by the County Mayor continued and even accelerated. Why didn't switching money around stop in 2004 since the 2003 audit had pointed out that that these actions were illegal? One reason is because audits are done after the accounting year is over and after all the money has already been switched or overspent. I guess you could say that auditors come in after the milk has already been spilt and they report that you spilled the milk and they tell you that you shouldn't do it again.

So what will the post on the 2004 audit show?

More shifting of money.

Why? The Mayor told the auditors that he was shifting money back to try and correct hundreds of thousands dollars worth of payments that the Mayor and his Finance Department paid out of the wrong accounts going all the way back to 1999.

How much was incorrectly paid due to 4-5 years of paying money out of the wrong funds and accounts? About $360,000.

Was county commission asked to approve the transfers as required? No. Was county commission even told that the transfers and corrections were taking place. No. How did county commissioners finally find out about the switching of money? They read about it in the audit--after the money switching had already taken place.

Why wasn't commission told what was going on and asked to approve the transfer? No official response.

Did anyone ask why the transfers occurred and what was being corrected? Yes, I submitted that very question through the Audit Committee.

What was the response from the County Mayor? The same tired old response he gives to just about every financial question. No response to the actual question, just lots of angry words and red-faced attacks upon the person who asked the question.

Click here to see my post of August 31, 2005 for the County Mayor's response to questions that were asked about the 2004 audit--questions that included my question asking what money was switched around and why. You can also access this post and other previous posts by looking at the right side of this blog page and then scrolling down to the archives section.

February 28, 2006 The 2003 county audit: what a difference an auditor makes

In previous posts, we have looked at the 2002 audit where the county spent $923,000 more than it took in and the 2001 audit that required two blog postings because it is a pretty outrageous financial "record" that provides large volumes of false or misleading financial data about county spending.

Somebody probably should have asked for a refund of the $28,000 that was paid for (wasted on?) the 2001 audit! (See 2001 audit posts of Jan. 4 and Jan. 21).

The 2003 audit that we discuss today is unique--primarily because it was the first audit in recent history performed by someone outside Hamblen County.

I am proud to have had the honor to be the driving force in leading the county commission to hire the state auditors instead of local, private auditors to perform the county audit in 2003, 2004, 2005, and beyond.

I wanted the state to perform the Hamblen County audit for three important reasons:

1. EXPERIENCE. State auditors are more experienced in performing county audits. They know what to look for, and that is a major reason that almost all counties use the state auditors.

2. INDEPENDENCE. I hoped that the actual audit personnel would be more independent since they were less likely to live in Hamblen County and have direct ties with Finance Personnel or local elected officials.

3. SAVINGS. The state charged about $13,000 for the same audit that the local auditors were charging $31,000 for, so I knew there would be a savings of $18,000 by having the state auditors come in.

The first audit by the state auditors proved that the county saved money ($18,000 in SAVINGS) plus the new auditors provided a better audit. The state auditors have tons of EXPERIENCE in performing county audits because they work on county audits throughout East Tennessee almost all year long instead of just performing one county audit each year. In addition, the state auditors, despite some local ties, are more INDEPENDENT than the local auditors were.

How much better was the state-performed audit? Well, the state auditors pointed out problems and violations of state law that had been overlooked, ignored, or missed year after year in previous audits. Most of the violations that the state auditors found were violations that had been occurring (unreported) for years.

Example: There was only one finding in the 2002 audit (the last one performed by the local, private auditors). There were 29 findings in the 2003 audit (the first one performed by state auditors). And, sad to say, some of those 29 separate findings had 4-5 sub-findings.

Almost half (13) of the 29 findings were connected to two offices--the Sheriff's Office (Otto Purkey) and the Office of the County Mayor (David Purkey, Otto's brother). Click here on 2003 audit findings to see the complete list from the audit document.

The Sheriff's Office (Otto Purkey) had 6 findings.
A cash shortage of $14,326.40. Deficiencies and poor record-keeping. Jail receipts unaccounted for. Serious accounting weaknesses for prisoner's funds and personal effects, and weaknesses in controls over cash collections.

The County Mayor's Office (David Purkey) had 7 findings with many sub-findings.
Purchasing deficiencies were noted because there was essentially no purchasing system with blank purchase orders just handed out to departments with no control.
The county's general ledger was not properly maintained or reconciled monthly. Receivables and payables were not accurately reflected.
The state chart of accounts (that is mentioned in the county's financial management contract) was not used as required by law.
There were deficiencies in controls over travel and credit card use.
There were deficiencies in budgeting procedures--where the Mayor did not present a budget to county commission for the drug control fund or the Special Revenue Fund (despite the fact that state law requires this) and where the Mayor expended money from those funds without appropriation or approval of county commission.
In other instances, transfers of appropriations/money were made without the required approval of county commission. This, too, was a violation of state law.
Expenditures and encumbrances (amounts owed at the end of the fiscal year) exceeded the amounts that had been approved by county commission in amounts ranging from $737 to $296,264 in several categories of the General Fund. This, too, was a violation of state law.
There was a fund deficit in the garbage fund of $205,578.
The Capital Improvement (Capital Projects Fund) had a cash overdraft of $34,737.

The Director of Schools had 2 findings:

The Trustee had 3 findings.

The County Court Clerk had 3 findings.

Circuit and General Sessions Court Clerk had 2 findings.

Clerk & Master had 3 findings.

Register's of Deed Office had 1 finding.

Other Findings: 2

More to come on the 2003 audit as the county starts to round the corner.

The county got a "wake-up call" to accountability with the 2003 audit. Most office holders quickly and gladly adjusted to the higher standards and are to be saluted for their work and efforts.

A few office holders who heard the accountability trumpet blaring reacted with silence or fits of uncontrolled rage punctuated by repeated, red-faced public outbursts.

February 26, 2006 State Conflicts of Interest: Money and Influence

Just read an interesting article by Brad Schrade in the Nashville Tennessean on conflicts of interest at the state level (Tennessee Highway Patrol and Deputy Governor Dave Cooley) and how money buys influence.

If you have read any of my past blogs, you know that conflicts of interest in our local government are a specific concern of mine. What happened/happens on the state level points out how conflicts of interest compromise the public trust and undermine the integrity of state and local departments.

The Tennessean reports that Deputy Gov. Dave Cooley has apparently tried to stay involved in politics and promotions at the Tennessee Highway Patrol even after Gov. Phil Bredesen told him to keep out.

Bredesen told Cooley to keep out of THP matters over a year ago following a scandal in which a THP lieutenant fixed a Cooley speeding ticket. Just recently, Bredesen condemned cronyism at THP and forced out its top three officials.

Cooley, however, apparently doesn't understand what "keep out" means. Cooley contacted Gerald Nicely, interim commissioner at the THP's parent agency, the Safety Department, commented about "the mess" the Safety Dept. was in, and then asked for Nicely's personal home e-mail address.

It appears that Cooley wanted to be able to contact Nicely at home (instead of using state e-mail) with the idea that such communications would not be subject to public-record laws.

The Tennessean reports that Cooley was "kept informed" about THP issues by his wife, Melanie Cooley, who was executive assistant to then-Safety Commissioner Fred Phillips. Melanie Cooley was appointed to the Safety Dept. by Bredesen shortly after his election.

While at the Safety Dept, it appears that Melanie Cooley had influence at the Highway Patrol. In e-mails to her husband, she mentions THP promotion rosters and requests for favors. Her e-mails also discuss hiring and promotion requests from citizens-- well-heeled citizens who donated large amounts to the Governor's 2002 campaign.

(According to the article, Nicely did provide his home e-mail address to Cooley, but Nicely has said that the deputy governor has not contacted him at his home e-mail account.)

Apparently, Cooley was the go-to man if you needed a THP favor. The article states that when a THP captain wanted to get his fiancee's niece hired as a trooper, the captain wrote a letter to Cooley.

The captain, Larry W. Rucker, asked for Cooley's help in a letter dated Sept. 23, 2003, telling him any "consideration you can give to her (his fiancee's niece) would be greatly appreciated." Rucker and his fianceé apparently contributed$6,300 to the Bredesen campaign, and Rucker himself has since been promoted twice by the Bredesen administration.

The Tennessean reports that the niece was hired in January 2004 and then fired from the patrol last fall after a random drug test came back positive for amphetamines. The niece is apparently appealing the firing, saying she was under treatment for narcolepsy at the time. Rucker, now the lieutenant colonel, is acting commander of the Highway Patrol.

Melanie Cooley no longer works at the Safety Dept. She has been transferred to another state agency.

Conflicts of interest and money and influence!

Just like the song lyrics, they go together like "a horse and carriage" or, in the case of Dave and Melanie Cooley, they go together like "love and marriage."

February 26, 2006 Proposals for Openness and Improvements in Hamblen County Government

A Strategic Planning Committee was named by the Chairman of the Commission several months ago. It recently held its very first meeting.

Committee Chairman Edwin Osborne asked each commissioner to submit five suggestions or priority areas for government improvement.

I submitted my ideas on Thursday, February 23.

I will just briefly sketch them here. In future posts, I will provide more detail.

1. Ethics--Formulate a thorough ethics policy and guidelines for Hamblen County government. Lots more to come on this. This will be a complicated, but very important process.

2. Policy Initiatives

A. Open up the solicitation process for professional services of engineers and architects in connection with work for the county by issuing requests for proposals when engineering and architectural services are needed and when the amount involved is significant. Seek input from a number of individuals/firms, examine their qualifications, charges, and experience, and then select the best-qualified individual/firm based upon a complete examination of all criteria. There are many good individuals and firms that should be asked and allowed to offer a proposal on county work.

B. Meetings policy: Provide that all meetings of county government are listed on the HC website and publicized in the newspaper at least 48 hours before they occur-- along with a list of major items to be considered. Eliminate the scheduling of meetings prior to 4:00 or 5:00 pm in order to provide the greatest opportunity for citizens to attend. We serve the citizens and their convenience should be uppermost in scheduling meetings.

C. Provide a county number that can be dialed (like 211 East Tennessee Information and Referral in Knox County) to serve as a one-stop referral service for people needing special assistance from government, health and community services, emergency food, substance abuse counseling, low-cost recreation for families or volunteer opportunities.

3. Financial planning:

A. Calculate the effect that OPEB's ("other post-employment benefits") will have on the upcoming 06-07 FY budget and beyond. Commissioners Osborne and Bruce have indicated that this is a huge cost area in the school system. Examples of OPEB's are where the school system makes a lump sum payment to teachers at the time of retirement and pays a part of their health insurance premium after retirement until they reach Medicare age of 65. Donald Gregg from the school system alone or along with Commissioners Bruce and Osborne could present a report before June 1, 2006, with current and projected costs of OPEB's.

B. Pay down the county's debt. Low interest rates are good but eliminating as much of the county debt as possible is even better and frees up money that would be paid out as interest for useful purposes such as equipment upgrades, employee raises, and the like. Don't borrow and spend or tax and spend and pass on the debt to our children and grandchildren unless it's absolutely necessary.

C. Consider creative solutions to education in Hamblen County.

Discipline: To really address school issues, one needs to address the problems created by children who don't want to be at school, are constantly disruptive, don't care if they or anyone else get an education, and are only there because they cannot drop out yet.

If teachers were allowed more time to teach, students would have a better chance of receiving quality education across the board regardless of funding levels.

The problems of the disruptive students should be addressed through a community-wide effort to provide student mentors, information about sources of help, and adult volunteers.

Curriculum: Requiring more math credits--particularly an additional course or at least a refresher course in the senior year before going to college, trade school, or work.

Block scheduling: Is it effective? Or does it just allow students to earn lots of credits outside of the core areas of math, science, English, and social studies? One weakness (trying to cram certain math courses into a semester) has been addressed by making certain math courses year-round. Should we stay with block scheduling? Should we modify block scheduling even further?

Year-round school: This has been kicked around forever. A study was done once. Nine-week sessions with 2-3 weeks off between and 8-10 weeks off in the summer. Is it effective? Is it desirable? Is it still being considered? What do parents think?

Early intervention: When a child K-3 is experiencing learning problems and is not up to grade level, there needs to be immediate detection and then help (not a label). Sending students on to the next grade when they can't read or perform math at their current grade level is a recipe for continuing academic failure and the growth of discipline problems. The problems don't go away. They just increase. Again, community involvement with help from teacher-ed students at WSCC or Carson-Newman, community volunteers (young and old), and student mentors could be a source of critical help for these students.

4. Openness and accountability: Provide complete detail reports of revenues and expenditures from all funds (not just gen, hwy, and garbage) as a standard practice at least quarterly. Placement and updating of this and certain other county financial data on the Hamblen County (HC) website would allow easy access for commissioners and the public. Place the most recent HC audits on the HC website (or provide a link on the HC website that takes one to the audits for certain years as they appear on the Comptroller's website).

5. Completion and indexing of a Hamblen County Code. I spoke to County Attorney Rusty Cantwell about this many months ago and mentioned this again to Commissioner Phillips in January. Numbering, grouping, and indexing resolutions is the key to an efficient record. Having to look back through an index of county commission minutes over a period of 10 years or more to find out whether there is a county resolution about billboards, or any other topic, is inefficient and should never happen. When we have an organized "code" such as other counties have and such as the state has (Tennessee Code Annotated), then it should be made accessible online as well as in hard copy form.

I have not tried to number these in order of importance. They are all important.

There are plenty of other ideas that should be considered such as a (1) local tipline for reporting fraud, waste, or abuse, and (2) a reward and incentive system for employees who come up with ways to save the county money or to improve services.

One other suggestion--let's invite the public to submit suggestions, too.

February 16, 2006 A New Political and Personal Direction

I am not running for re-election to county commission in 2006. I went back and forth on whether or not to run for the past several weeks. The decision was finally made last night.

Although many people encouraged another run and family and supporters were ready to hit the campaign trail, I made the decision not to run so that I can devote more time to my family and start using my law license to help people. I will continue to work on local accountability issues. However, I will simply do so in ways other than serving on county commission.

I will continue to use this blog as one way of getting the continuing message of accountability out.

In looking back and in looking forward to the remaining seven months of my term, I can say that I did what I said I would do and that I will continue to do so. I have never wavered, and I achieved my campaign goals. Among the many achievements were the following:

1. The state, instead of a local private auditor, now performs the yearly county audit. The savings to the county have been huge--$18,000/year. During the past 3 years, that has meant a total saving to the county of over $54,000 plus a better overall audit.

2. County Commission meetings are now taped and televised on Charter and Adelphia cable television. This was a big push on my part because of my belief in open government and knowing that sunshine acts as a "purifier" in the conduct of the public's business. Charter Cable Company donated video equipment, and Commissioner Phillips and I secured and donated audio equipment and microphones. My husband Ron provided materials free of charge and donated his own time to build a platform where the camera operator could sit. If you can't get to the commission meeting, you can watch it at home.

3. I made a proposal in November 2002 to have the county provide the financing for HVAC units (heating, venting, and air conditioning units for Lincoln and Meadowview Schools) so the schools could accept the low equipment bid and save $60,000. Although the schools chose not to let the county provide financing on the HVAC units at that time and thus gave up a possible savings of $60,000, the school system later accepted the idea of county financing on purchases such as buses and has saved money.

4. One of the most dramatic savings--to the tune of $1.1 million dollars for the county taxpayers-- occurred when I did not just blindly accept the state calculation of the Hamblen County certified (post-appraisal) tax rate in July 2005. All commissioners were sent packets from the County Mayor with the new state-certified tax rate along with local budgets that had been prepared by the Mayor's Finance Department using the proposed state tax rate.

I looked at the rate and the related budgets that had been prepared by the County Mayor and knew that something was wrong with both. The rate that the state had sent to Hamblen County, the rate that the Mayor's Finance Department had used to prepare a revised county budget in July 2005, was too high.

I called the Assessor and told him what I had found--that the state certified tax rate was incorrect and that the new tax rate should be about 11 cents less. After a phone call, the state provided a corrected, lower tax rate, and the resulting savings benefited the taxpayers of Hamblen County to the tune of about $1.1 million dollars.

Trust but verify has been my motto in connection with pushing for accountability for tax dollars. The importance of checking everything was proven big-time with my review of those state tax calculations. For me, doing that check was nothing special. I try to check as much county financial information as I possibly can because public service means working to save the taxpayers every dollar and being accountable in seeing that every dollar that is spent, is spent wisely.

I have served my constituents and tried to address their concerns--from having a tree removed that obstructed the view at a dangerous intersection, to saving the taxpayers $18,000/year on the county audit, to saving Hamblen County taxpayers over $1.1 million dollars by checking the state's certified tax rate.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the voters of the 14th district who supported and elected me to the Hamblen County Commission in 2002. Serving the people of my district during the past four years has been a great honor, and I can never adequately express my appreciation for the trust that was placed in me.

At this time, however, I need to devote more time to helping my family, and I need to use my law degree to help others. I will stay involved, and I will continue to be a guardian for taxpayers. I will continue to attend meetings, and I will speak out about controlling taxes and controlling spending just as I did before I was elected.

I do not rule out the possibility of a future run for office or some other sort of involvement in government.

The taxpayers and everyday citizens of Hamblen County deserve an open and accountable government. That requires constant vigilance and a careful watch over county spending.

On a very personal note, I want to thank my family for their love and support. My husband Ron, my son Will, and my daughters Jenny and Katie have supported me through three years of law school, helped in my campaign for office in 2002, and have listened and provided input as I have come up with proposals to save the county money and to balance county budgets.

I have been blessed with very special parents, Bill and Helen Catron, who have been a source of strength and support in whatever I have attempted. My father passed away in May 2005, but his legacy of hard work, integrity, and honesty remain. I strive to live up to the example that he set. I also want to thank my sisters--Laura Catron and Lisa Catron Bible. I can not say enough about their encouragement and support and the many memories and experiences we have shared.

In future posts, I will explain the events that led up to entering law school and that resulted in my run for county commission in 2002.

In the meantime, I will continue to be the voice of fiscal conservatism and a watchdog for the citizens of Hamblen County.

February 14, 2006 Investigative Audit: Tn School Boards Assn.

Audits come in many sizes and varieties.

The type of audit that I have been discussing in recent posts is a simple "financial" audit involving a limited examination of a very small number or sampling of financial transactions (such as occurs
with the required audits of all Tennessee counties).

Another type of audit is an "investigative audit" and one such audit just made big news in Tennessee. As a result of a tipster's report to the state, an investigative audit of the Tennessee School Boards Association (TSBA) was performed.

An investigative audit is special. It is far more extensive than a financial audit. The investigative auditor actually searches out information and looks for fraud and illegalities (unlike the routine random examination of a small sampling of transactions that occurs in a financial audit).

In a very simplistic way, the two audits can be compared as follows: A financial audit just looks at a few checks to see if everything adds up. An investigative audit goes deeper and attempts to find out if the checks and financial data are correct and whether the checks were ever legally authorized.

Obviously, there's a lot of difference in having an auditor come in, look at a few checks, and say everything "adds up" (financial audit) and having an auditor come in, look at several checks in depth, and find that there are checks that shouldn't have been written at all and that illegal payments were made (investigative audit).

So what did the in-depth investigative audit of the TSBA (Tennessee School Boards Assn.) find? Well, for starters, the audit reported that John Evans, program manager of the TSBA Risk Management Insurance Trust, had received over $500,000 in unauthorized commissions and interest.

It also stated that Dan Tollett, former executive director of TSBA, had received more than $400,000 in improper payments from the taxpayer-funded organization. Tollett resigned as a director of the Risk
Management Trust on Jan. 31.

Evans was recently questioned about his actions by the House-Senate Education Committee of the Tennessee Legislature.

Auditors found that payment of $492,694 in special commissions to Evans had not been authorized. Although auditors reported that board members could not recall any authorization and records reflect no such approval, Evans said that all fees and commissions were authorized and that three board members now recall the authorization. The records, he said, are "being reconstructed."

Evans admitted that he was involved, until 1999, in the establishment and operation of an insurance trust fund that subsequently went bankrupt and cost the governments involved more than $4 million. Evans also admitted that he had at least 52 insurance licensing violations levied against him in Kentucky.

Tollett, who declined to appear before the Committee, "retired" from TSBA in 1994 and drew state retirement benefits totalling $276,856 from 1994-2000.

During his "retirement," however, he was still employed by TSBA through a separate TSBA entity that he had created just prior to "retiring."

The audit says that Tollett misled TCRS (Tennessee consolidated Retirement System). Instead of making Tollett repay the "retirement" benefits, Tennessee School Boards (through TSBA) refunded the benefits owed back to the state retirement system.

TSBA members face a huge credibility challenge. Corporate scandals in recent years reveal numerous cases of board members who didn't know squat about the organization's financial arrangements and didn't try to find out. Blind ignorance is no longer a good defense.

The individual members of the TSBA — and in particular TSBA board members — are responsible for the efficient operation of schools in 136 districts across Tennessee.

Tax money used to fund TSBA appears to have been abused as TSBA leaders drew retirement benefits while continuing to draw a TSBA salary through a "sham" organization.

Taxpayers across the state can only hope that local School Boards are more careful with the tax money used to run their local schools than these same local School Boards have been in monitoring the tax money they provided to fund their Tennessee School Boards Association (TSBA).

February 11, 2006 Ethics Legislation at the State

A brief post on the state ethics legislation that passed this past Monday.

It is unfortunate that it takes a political crisis, such as the Tennessee Waltz indictments, to lead to legislation and efforts to restrain lawmakers from using their offices for personal gain.

That, however, appears to be the nature of politics at the present time. Get as much as you can for you and for your family before someone blows the whistle.

Having looked at summaries of the new ethics legislation, my feeling is that the new legislation is an improvement. And, let's face it, just about anything would have been an improvement. However, the laws regulating lobbying and conflicts of interest are still not strong enough.

My personal feeling is that special interest groups wield too much influence in Nashville. Too much influence is exerted by dollars, political contributions, and wining and dining instead of through open and public discussion and consideration in committee and legislative meetings.

The more that is disclosed about legislators, lobbyists, committee and legislative votes, the more open and responsive all legislators will be--both to groups and to individual constituents.

One of my primary concerns in government at all levels (local, state, national) is conflicts of interest. When someone takes office and then puts 3 or 4 or more family members on the government payroll, that official is starting down a slippery slope. Eventually, the situation gives the appearance of using one's office and the public trust for the financial benefit of one's family.

Of course, there is also a problem of conflicts of interest where family members serve in numerous elected or appointed positions.

This is a problem at the local level, and I have discussed conflicts on the county commission previously such as when School Board member Carolyn Spoone Holt comes to County Commission and requests that her brother Commissioner Joe Spoone provide funds for an International School for non-English speaking students.

Or when Paula Bruce Combs, an asst. principal and school system employee, sits in the audience at a County Commission meeting or watches the tape at home as her brother Commissioner Ricky Bruce votes on funding issues that will affect the amount of pay and benefits that Paula receives.

Or when Charlene Spoone, who works as a computer technician for the school system, sits at home with her county commission husband Joe Spoone, and school funding comes up.

Or when Witt principal Stan Harville sits in the audience at a commission meeting as his father Commissioner Herbert Harville votes on school funding that will affect both Stan's and his wife's pay and benefits.

Before anyone gets too upset at the mention of these names, let's remember that these are simply facts and the most well-known relationships. Having pointed out the facts and the relationships, this is not to say that Carolyn Spoone Holt shouldn't serve on the school board or that Joe Spoone shouldn't serve on county commission or that Charlene Spoone shouldn't be a school board employee.

Perhaps, however, Joe should abstain from the vote when school funding issues are presented.

Conflicts are found at the state level as well. There has been a lot of reporting recently about the Tennessee Highway Patrol. One report was about the "fixing" of a speeding ticket that had been given to Deputy Governor Dave Cooley. As the story began to unfold, it was reported that Melanie Cooley (Dave Cooley's wife) had recently served as executive assistant to the safety commissioner who is over the THP, but she was transferred to another government job after her husband's ticket scandal was reported.

Other reports have questioned whether conflicts of interest exist where Speaker of the House Jimmy Naifeh's wife works as a highly paid lobbyist trying to sway votes in the Tennessee legislature. She represents a lot of different companies and groups. Is there a legal conflict of interest in lobbying her own husband and trying to sway votes in the Legislature? Perhaps not. Is there a moral and ethical conflict of interest? In my opinion, there is.

An elected official occupies a position of public trust. Many officials find it extremely difficult to resist the temptation to use their office for financial gain for themselves and their family. And likewise family members of elected officials find it difficult to resist using the political connections of their relative to seek financial gain for themselves and their family.

We've all heard the statement that you can't legislate ethics and morality. However, you can enact laws that prohibit conflicts of interest and you can provide punishment for those who abuse the public trust and who use their offices for financial gain.

There are already a number of laws on the books in this regard. Additional prohibitions on conflicts of interest and abuse of offices of public trust would strengthen the standards that we set for elected and appointed officials.

Instead of trying to stay just within the bounds of the law, officials should strive to meet the highest ethical standards and should avoid even the appearance of ethical or moral impropriety.

At times, that might necessitate that one recuse himself or herself from voting where there is a potential conflict or the appearance of impropriety.