In near record time, Paul LeBel, Bob Garrett, Kay Senter, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks rejected Mayor Thomas' nomination of businessman/pharmacist C.L. "Buddy" Jones, III, to the Morristown Utilities Commission.
Jones, son of C.L. "Bud" Jones, thus becomes the seventeenth rejectee.
Current MUC member George McGuffin refuses to bow out gracefully and become an advisor/chairman emeritus to the MUC Board.
Instead, McGuffin has spent nine months "letting" his name be put on seventeen MUC lists, resulting in LeBel and associates rejecting seventeen other good and qualified people.
While rejecting anyone and everyone else for the MUC seat, LeBel and company decided to push for a new law, the McGuffin Law, that would get rid of the current voter-approved appointment process that just isn't working for McGuffin.
Governor Haslam signed the McGuffin Law yesterday. Now the McGuffin Law comes back to City Council for final approval to officially let five council members cancel out the appointment process that was approved by 3,202 voters as part of the 2001 MUC referendum question.
We have serial rejections of many good people, actions to overturn the voter approved appointment process, and votes to change the local MUC Private Act just so George McGuffin, who has been on the MUC Board for over 34 years, can serve til ???
The message from the money/power group is clear. A referendum for the little folk is fine AS LONG AS THE RESULTS WORK FOR US (the-powers-that-be)!
But if we, the-powers-that-be, decide later that the referendum results are NOT working for US, we'll use 2 state legislators and 5 councilmembers to wipe out the votes of 3,202 people and change the law FOR US.
Coming soon...more on MUC and the McGuffin Law.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
April 16, 2012 MUC Selects Three Candidates for MUC Board as McGuffin Law Moves Forward Without Voter Input in a Referendum
Three of the five Morristown Utilities Commissioners (Harold Nichols, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery) met last week to select three candidates for the MUC seat currently held by George McGuffin. This is the SEVENTEENTH list MUC has prepared during the last nine months.
Two MUC commissioners (Gene Jolley and George McGuffin) did not attend.
The three nominees are Peter Cantwell, Buddy Jones III, and, of course, George McGuffin. McGuffin has held the current seat for 34 years. McGuffin could pull his name from contention now, but he won't. Keeping this MUC position has become much like a life-and-death power struggle for McGuffin.
Keeping McGuffin in place is also vitally important to the five councilmembers (LeBel, Senter, Garrett, Bivens, and Jinks) who voted in November 2011 to change state law for McGuffin.
The Five asked our two local state legislators (Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland) to push a bill through the state legislature to change the current appointment process that was put in place by 3,202 people (72%) in a 2001 MUC referendum.
BUT the five councilmembers would not agree to put their proposed MUC appointment changes on a referendum in August 2012 and LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE if a change should be made.
The two state legislators agreed to re-write the appointment process but they, too, would NOT agree to put their appointment changes to a vote OF THE PEOPLE in an August 2012 referendum.
In an incredible move, Sen. Southerland made changes to the local bill and sponsored the local bill but did NOT vote for it.
Rep. Miller took the bill to the House State and Local Government Committee and there publicly refused a request to consider an amendment to provide for a referendum to let the PEOPLE SPEAK and give direct approval or disapproval at the ballot box.
Meanwhile, McGuffin is keeping a low profile as he waits for the "McGuffin Law" to be signed by Governor Haslam and returned to city council so that the LeBel Five (Paul LeBel, Bob Garrett, Kay Senter, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) can give final approval to put the McGuffin Law into effect.
Then, a short time after the McGuffin Law is in place, the FIVE who have chosen to override the 2001 referendum and WHO HAVE REFUSED TO LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK in a referendum in 2012 can officially appoint McGuffin to MUC and keep the good old boy system in place.
After all, politicians just need the people briefly at election time. After that, the special interests and money people take over.
The McGuffin Law overturns the appointment process that MUC, headed by Chairman George McGuffin, asked the council and the voters to approve in 2001. But when the law doesn't work for you later---even if it's a law YOU previously supported and that the PEOPLE overwhelmingly voted for--you just change it to what works FOR YOU.
What about the referendum? What about the people?
There are very few instances when a referendum is permitted in Tennessee--approval of a local Private Act is one of those instances.
What does it tell you when seven elected officials (LeBel, Senter, Garrett, Bivens, Jinks, Miller, and Southerland) unite to refuse to let the people speak through a $250 referendum?
We have reached rock bottom in the City of Morristown when seven elected officials oppose LETTING THE PEOPLE SPEAK IN A REFERENDUM.
Of course, you have to remember that four of these (LeBel, Senter, Garrett, and Bivens) also wanted to put public comments from the people at the end of city council meetings and to reduce the time allowed for public comments from three minutes to two minutes.
Thankfully, there are two elected officials--Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks--who show respect for the 2001 REFERENDUM results and who are willing to abide by the results of that referendum until proposed changes to the appointment process are submitted TO THE PEOPLE in a new REFERENDUM on whether to change the 2001 voter-approved MUC appointment process.
Two MUC commissioners (Gene Jolley and George McGuffin) did not attend.
The three nominees are Peter Cantwell, Buddy Jones III, and, of course, George McGuffin. McGuffin has held the current seat for 34 years. McGuffin could pull his name from contention now, but he won't. Keeping this MUC position has become much like a life-and-death power struggle for McGuffin.
Keeping McGuffin in place is also vitally important to the five councilmembers (LeBel, Senter, Garrett, Bivens, and Jinks) who voted in November 2011 to change state law for McGuffin.
The Five asked our two local state legislators (Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland) to push a bill through the state legislature to change the current appointment process that was put in place by 3,202 people (72%) in a 2001 MUC referendum.
BUT the five councilmembers would not agree to put their proposed MUC appointment changes on a referendum in August 2012 and LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE if a change should be made.
The two state legislators agreed to re-write the appointment process but they, too, would NOT agree to put their appointment changes to a vote OF THE PEOPLE in an August 2012 referendum.
In an incredible move, Sen. Southerland made changes to the local bill and sponsored the local bill but did NOT vote for it.
Rep. Miller took the bill to the House State and Local Government Committee and there publicly refused a request to consider an amendment to provide for a referendum to let the PEOPLE SPEAK and give direct approval or disapproval at the ballot box.
Meanwhile, McGuffin is keeping a low profile as he waits for the "McGuffin Law" to be signed by Governor Haslam and returned to city council so that the LeBel Five (Paul LeBel, Bob Garrett, Kay Senter, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) can give final approval to put the McGuffin Law into effect.
Then, a short time after the McGuffin Law is in place, the FIVE who have chosen to override the 2001 referendum and WHO HAVE REFUSED TO LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK in a referendum in 2012 can officially appoint McGuffin to MUC and keep the good old boy system in place.
After all, politicians just need the people briefly at election time. After that, the special interests and money people take over.
The McGuffin Law overturns the appointment process that MUC, headed by Chairman George McGuffin, asked the council and the voters to approve in 2001. But when the law doesn't work for you later---even if it's a law YOU previously supported and that the PEOPLE overwhelmingly voted for--you just change it to what works FOR YOU.
What about the referendum? What about the people?
There are very few instances when a referendum is permitted in Tennessee--approval of a local Private Act is one of those instances.
What does it tell you when seven elected officials (LeBel, Senter, Garrett, Bivens, Jinks, Miller, and Southerland) unite to refuse to let the people speak through a $250 referendum?
We have reached rock bottom in the City of Morristown when seven elected officials oppose LETTING THE PEOPLE SPEAK IN A REFERENDUM.
Of course, you have to remember that four of these (LeBel, Senter, Garrett, and Bivens) also wanted to put public comments from the people at the end of city council meetings and to reduce the time allowed for public comments from three minutes to two minutes.
Thankfully, there are two elected officials--Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks--who show respect for the 2001 REFERENDUM results and who are willing to abide by the results of that referendum until proposed changes to the appointment process are submitted TO THE PEOPLE in a new REFERENDUM on whether to change the 2001 voter-approved MUC appointment process.
Friday, April 06, 2012
April 6, 2012 John Hodge is MUC's SIXTEENTH REJECTEE
Morristown City Council, same tune, SIXTEENTH verse: "Nobody else can sit in the McGuffin seat on the Morristown Utilities Commission."
In the video, above, council takes all of one minute at its April 3, 2012, meeting to reject John Hodge's appointment to the MUC Board. The vote was 5-2 in favor of rejecting Hodge.
Voting to reject Hodge were: Paul LeBel, Bob Garrett, Kay Senter, Claude Jinks, and Chris Bivens. Voting for Hodge were Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks.
Hodge's name was on the most recent list of three candidates sent to the Mayor BY MUC and deemed qualified BY MUC, but deemed unsuitable by five councilmembers. The other candidates on the sixteenth MUC list were Peter Cantwell and, of course, George McGuffin.
Hodge's name is not McGuffin, so he can't really sit in the McGuffin seat and, thus, his quick rejection.
Do you think that MUC Commissioners George McGuffin, Harold Nichols, Lynn Elkins, Gene Jolley, and Max Biery are concerned that SIXTEEN candidates selected by MUC have been rejected by the City Council?
There is no concern by MUC over this series of rejection because the commissioners are quite happy that another person (#16) took it on the chin so George McGuffin can continue to hold his MUC seat.
Now, MUC and the LeBel Five are waiting for Governor Bill Haslam to sign the McGuffin Law that was recently passed by the state legislature under the sponsorship of local Sen. Steve Southerland and local Rep. Don Miller. Then the LeBel Five get their turn to vote for the McGuffin Law, and it's done.
The McGuffin Law allows five councilmembers to override and change the current MUC appointment process that was approved by 3,202 people (72% of voters) as part of the 2001 MUC Referendum Question that MUC supported.
Ironically, it was MUC that came up with and recommended the current appointment process to the city council back in 2001, and MUC supported and encouraged people to vote FOR the MUC Referendum Question that included the current appointment process in 2001.
Now MUC and the LeBel Five and Rep. Miller and Sen Southerland have decided that five people should be allowed to change the appointment process that was approved by 3,202 people in 2001.
The McGuffin Law will eventually enable the five councilmembers who have caused appointment gridlock for the last 8-9 months--on behalf of George McGuffin---to "officially" put McGuff back on the MUC.
Watching state legislators and councilmembers sponsor legislation and vote to override a local referendum in order to change a local Private Act for one person is amazing.
And Sen.Southerland, who sponsored the McGuffin Law, didn't vote for it and wouldn't amend the law to call for a $250 referendum for approval!
And State Representative Don Miller, who sponsored the McGuffin Law, wouldn't allow an amendment to provide for a $250 referendum for approval!
A referendum where the people were allowed to speak through their votes wasn't scary in 2001.
What's so scary in 2012 about a $250 referendum where the people can have a voice, where there would be verification of voter status, and where there would be privacy in the voting booth?
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
April 4, 2012 Rep. Don Miller Refuses Rep. Parkinson's and Rep. L. Miller's Request To Allow a Referendum on MUC Appointment Process
Rep. Don Miller successfully ushered his changes to the local Morristown Utilities Commission appointment process through the Tennessee Legislature's State and Local Government Committee on March 27.
The voice vote was not unanimous, but Miller's fellow legislators were obviously prepared to stand with Miller regardless of their personal concerns about Miller's refusal to let the people vote on the change to the appointment process in a referendum in August 2012.
Having come out of committee, the MUC appointment process is ready for a final vote today during the House's 9 AM session. Unless Miller decides that HE wants to hear the voice of the people in a referendum, Miller's bill will let five people (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) override the votes of the 3,202 people who supported all MUC changes, including the current appointment process, in 2001.
The Committee was so lined up behind Miller that it wanted to refuse to allow comments by Morristown Mayor Danny Thomas. To his credit, Rep. Miller intervened to allow Mayor Thomas to speak briefly.
Mayor Thomas, unlike Miller, supports conducting a $250 referendum to see if the PEOPLE want to change the MUC appointment process that was part of a group of changes requested by MUC in 2001, approved by council in 2001, passed by the state legislature in 2001, and then approved by 72% of the people in a May 2001 referendum.
During the debate on HB 3860, Rep. Antonio Parkinson and Rep. Tommie Brown spoke passionately about respecting the votes of the people and the results of the 2001 referendum.
Rep. Tommie Brown then asked Rep. Miller if he would accept a friendly amendment to provide for a local referendum for approval of the MUC appointment changes. [See below for two updates]
[Update: On March 27, both Rep. Tommie Brown and Rep. Antonio Parkinson wanted to allow the Morristown voters to decide whether to change the appointment process. It was Rep. Antonio Parkinson who asked Rep. Miller if he would accept a friendly amendment to pass the bill with the provision that it return to Morristown voters as a referendum.]
Rep. Miller refused and stated that he considered an amendment for a referendum, letting the people
vote, as a "hostile" amendment.
[Update: In a previous committee hearing, Rep. Larry Miller had also asked Rep. Don Miller if he would permit a referendum. Rep. Don Miller at that time said "no."]
Miller opposes an August 2 referendum. Instead, Miller wants approval of the MUC appointment changes to come back to city council where FIVE votes are all that is needed to override and change the appointment process that 3,202 people put in place in the 2001 MUC Referendum. Miller knows that the five votes are currently in place (LeBel, Senter, Garrett, Bivens, Jinks). Miller is not sure what would happen if the people were allowed to speak in a referendum.
And that is the amazing situation we are in today.
Our local state representative is asked to allow a $250 referendum to let the people speak on proposed changes to the MUC appointment process and he says "no." Why?
Why does Miller oppose a referendum to let the people express their opinion but turns around and says he wants people to express their opinions directly to him by responding to a questionnaire?
If Rep. Miller REALLY wants the people's opinion on the appointment process and wants that opinion to be binding and expressed in the privacy of a voting booth, a referendum is the answer--just as it was in 2001.
Sen. Steve Southerland, who sponsored the same changes to the appointment process in the state senate, also opposed amending the bill to provide for a referendum. In perhaps the most bizarre action of all, Southerland refused to vote for his bill on March 8.
Why is our local senator sponsoring a bill but not voting for it? The statement that he doesn't want to appear "biased" is ridiculous. When you write a bill that affects your local government and you sponsor it, you own it. If you aren't willing to vote for a "local" act that you sponsored, you shouldn't carry the bill and ask other senators across the state---who aren't affected by it and whose constituents are not affected by it---to vote for it.
When a local senator opposes letting the people speak in a referendum, rewrites a bill, "sponsors" it, and then refuses to vote for it, who is behind this?
When a local representative rewrites a bill, "sponsors" it, says he wants the people to express their opinion to him but he does NOT want the voters' opinion in a referendum, who is behind this?
When five city councilmembers want to change a local law that was put in place by the people in a referendum but oppose letting the people speak again in a referendum, who is behind this?
It's not rocket science. It's George McGuffin.
It's McGuffin keeping control of MUC for another five years. It's McGuffin refusing to let anyone else be appointed to the MUC Board. It's changing the law for one person.
It's raw power and politics. It's money and McGuffin.
The voice vote was not unanimous, but Miller's fellow legislators were obviously prepared to stand with Miller regardless of their personal concerns about Miller's refusal to let the people vote on the change to the appointment process in a referendum in August 2012.
Having come out of committee, the MUC appointment process is ready for a final vote today during the House's 9 AM session. Unless Miller decides that HE wants to hear the voice of the people in a referendum, Miller's bill will let five people (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) override the votes of the 3,202 people who supported all MUC changes, including the current appointment process, in 2001.
The Committee was so lined up behind Miller that it wanted to refuse to allow comments by Morristown Mayor Danny Thomas. To his credit, Rep. Miller intervened to allow Mayor Thomas to speak briefly.
Mayor Thomas, unlike Miller, supports conducting a $250 referendum to see if the PEOPLE want to change the MUC appointment process that was part of a group of changes requested by MUC in 2001, approved by council in 2001, passed by the state legislature in 2001, and then approved by 72% of the people in a May 2001 referendum.
During the debate on HB 3860, Rep. Antonio Parkinson and Rep. Tommie Brown spoke passionately about respecting the votes of the people and the results of the 2001 referendum.
Rep. Tommie Brown then asked Rep. Miller if he would accept a friendly amendment to provide for a local referendum for approval of the MUC appointment changes. [See below for two updates]
[Update: On March 27, both Rep. Tommie Brown and Rep. Antonio Parkinson wanted to allow the Morristown voters to decide whether to change the appointment process. It was Rep. Antonio Parkinson who asked Rep. Miller if he would accept a friendly amendment to pass the bill with the provision that it return to Morristown voters as a referendum.]
Rep. Miller refused and stated that he considered an amendment for a referendum, letting the people
vote, as a "hostile" amendment.
[Update: In a previous committee hearing, Rep. Larry Miller had also asked Rep. Don Miller if he would permit a referendum. Rep. Don Miller at that time said "no."]
Miller opposes an August 2 referendum. Instead, Miller wants approval of the MUC appointment changes to come back to city council where FIVE votes are all that is needed to override and change the appointment process that 3,202 people put in place in the 2001 MUC Referendum. Miller knows that the five votes are currently in place (LeBel, Senter, Garrett, Bivens, Jinks). Miller is not sure what would happen if the people were allowed to speak in a referendum.
And that is the amazing situation we are in today.
Our local state representative is asked to allow a $250 referendum to let the people speak on proposed changes to the MUC appointment process and he says "no." Why?
Why does Miller oppose a referendum to let the people express their opinion but turns around and says he wants people to express their opinions directly to him by responding to a questionnaire?
If Rep. Miller REALLY wants the people's opinion on the appointment process and wants that opinion to be binding and expressed in the privacy of a voting booth, a referendum is the answer--just as it was in 2001.
Sen. Steve Southerland, who sponsored the same changes to the appointment process in the state senate, also opposed amending the bill to provide for a referendum. In perhaps the most bizarre action of all, Southerland refused to vote for his bill on March 8.
Why is our local senator sponsoring a bill but not voting for it? The statement that he doesn't want to appear "biased" is ridiculous. When you write a bill that affects your local government and you sponsor it, you own it. If you aren't willing to vote for a "local" act that you sponsored, you shouldn't carry the bill and ask other senators across the state---who aren't affected by it and whose constituents are not affected by it---to vote for it.
When a local senator opposes letting the people speak in a referendum, rewrites a bill, "sponsors" it, and then refuses to vote for it, who is behind this?
When a local representative rewrites a bill, "sponsors" it, says he wants the people to express their opinion to him but he does NOT want the voters' opinion in a referendum, who is behind this?
When five city councilmembers want to change a local law that was put in place by the people in a referendum but oppose letting the people speak again in a referendum, who is behind this?
It's not rocket science. It's George McGuffin.
It's McGuffin keeping control of MUC for another five years. It's McGuffin refusing to let anyone else be appointed to the MUC Board. It's changing the law for one person.
It's raw power and politics. It's money and McGuffin.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
March 20, 2012 FIFTEENTH Morristown Utilities Commission Appointment on City Council Agenda
The Morristown City Council has the Mayor's fifteenth appointment to the Morristown Utilities Commission on its agenda today. MUC has vetted and submitted the names of three qualified people to the Mayor: Jo Ervin, John Hodge, and George McGuffin.
Unfortunately, five members of council have created appointment gridlock for 8-9 months by serially rejecting every one of the Mayor's fourteen appointments to the MUC Board.
The LeBel Five are Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, and Chris Bivens.
In November 2011, the five ran to Sen. Steve Southerland and Rep. Don Miller to get the state to pass a change to the appointment process and send it back to the Council so the Five can pass the "McGuffin Law" and continue McGuffin's lifetime appointment- 5 years at a time.
Since MUC controls who can be considered for appointment to the MUC Board, it is pretty much a closed group that perpetuates itself and its members unless something unusual happens such as when Herbert Bacon left the Board when it was found that he was ineligible to serve.
MUC has been strangely quiet about the rejection of the FOURTEEN people that MUC has submitted to the Mayor.
There are several facts about the MUC appointment process that the "news"paper hasn't mentioned during the recent controversy.
1. MUC presented and pushed for the current appointment process in 2001 as part of a package of changes to the MUC Private Act.
2. Council debated the appointment process at length. An amendment was proposed but did not pass. Council finally voted unanimously on February 6, 2001, for a resolution sending the MUC changes, including the current appointment process, to the state legislature.
3. The state legislature passed the changes and sent them back for approval, as requested, as one question on the May 1, 2001, referendum.
4. Council's 2001 resolution stated that the result of that May 2001 election "shall prevail over any approval or disapproval by action of City Council."
5. MUC used ratepayer dollars (apparently illegally) for paid political ads and political signs in 2001 asking voters to vote FOR the changes to the MUC Private Act, including the current appointment process
6. MUC, in its paid political ads, called the proposed appointment process "an open process for selection of Board members." (Open? To whom? Not the 14 rejectees!)
7. The package of MUC changes, including the current appointment process, passed overwhelmingly (72% FOR) in the 2001 referendum
8. Two council members (Kay Senter and Claude Jinks) who voted FOR the resolution on all MUC changes in 2001 have now joined with Paul LeBel, Chris Bivens, andj Bob Garrett, to change the appointment process that was a part of the 2001 MUC Question that was approved by 72% of the voters.
Why does the council oppose a referendum in 2012?
Why did Sen. Southerland rewrite the appointment process--presumably to make it better--and then fail to vote for it?
Why is Rep. Miller adamantly opposed to letting the voters decide if they approve of the changes he and Sen. Southerland have made to the appointment process that was already voted on in 2001?
Why were the voters asked to vote on the appointment process in 2001 but are shut out in 2012?
Why hasn't the paper reported that a referendum on approval of the McGuffin Law could take place on August 2 at a cost of only $250?
That's some of the "rest of the story."
Unfortunately, five members of council have created appointment gridlock for 8-9 months by serially rejecting every one of the Mayor's fourteen appointments to the MUC Board.
The LeBel Five are Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, and Chris Bivens.
In November 2011, the five ran to Sen. Steve Southerland and Rep. Don Miller to get the state to pass a change to the appointment process and send it back to the Council so the Five can pass the "McGuffin Law" and continue McGuffin's lifetime appointment- 5 years at a time.
Since MUC controls who can be considered for appointment to the MUC Board, it is pretty much a closed group that perpetuates itself and its members unless something unusual happens such as when Herbert Bacon left the Board when it was found that he was ineligible to serve.
MUC has been strangely quiet about the rejection of the FOURTEEN people that MUC has submitted to the Mayor.
There are several facts about the MUC appointment process that the "news"paper hasn't mentioned during the recent controversy.
1. MUC presented and pushed for the current appointment process in 2001 as part of a package of changes to the MUC Private Act.
2. Council debated the appointment process at length. An amendment was proposed but did not pass. Council finally voted unanimously on February 6, 2001, for a resolution sending the MUC changes, including the current appointment process, to the state legislature.
3. The state legislature passed the changes and sent them back for approval, as requested, as one question on the May 1, 2001, referendum.
4. Council's 2001 resolution stated that the result of that May 2001 election "shall prevail over any approval or disapproval by action of City Council."
5. MUC used ratepayer dollars (apparently illegally) for paid political ads and political signs in 2001 asking voters to vote FOR the changes to the MUC Private Act, including the current appointment process
6. MUC, in its paid political ads, called the proposed appointment process "an open process for selection of Board members." (Open? To whom? Not the 14 rejectees!)
7. The package of MUC changes, including the current appointment process, passed overwhelmingly (72% FOR) in the 2001 referendum
8. Two council members (Kay Senter and Claude Jinks) who voted FOR the resolution on all MUC changes in 2001 have now joined with Paul LeBel, Chris Bivens, andj Bob Garrett, to change the appointment process that was a part of the 2001 MUC Question that was approved by 72% of the voters.
Why does the council oppose a referendum in 2012?
Why did Sen. Southerland rewrite the appointment process--presumably to make it better--and then fail to vote for it?
Why is Rep. Miller adamantly opposed to letting the voters decide if they approve of the changes he and Sen. Southerland have made to the appointment process that was already voted on in 2001?
Why were the voters asked to vote on the appointment process in 2001 but are shut out in 2012?
Why hasn't the paper reported that a referendum on approval of the McGuffin Law could take place on August 2 at a cost of only $250?
That's some of the "rest of the story."
Sunday, March 11, 2012
March 11, 2012 Sen. Steve Southerland and Rep. Don Miller Re-write the McGuffin Law But Still Shut the People Out--No REFERENDUM
The "news"paper reported that the McGuffin Law was introduced in the state legislature, but I haven't seen an article on the changes made by Sen. Steve Southerland and Rep. Don Miller.
Southerland and Miller had state attorneys re-write the "McGuffin Law" so it would provide that the Mayor gets three chances to please the LeBel Five by appointing the person the Five want and then, if the Mayor doesn't please the Five with any of his three appointments, the next MUC appointment comes directly to council and the LeBel Five can finally appoint McGuffin this year and any person they want in future years.
HB 3860 is here.
[Since the Mayor hasn't been able to please the LeBel Five with his past FOURTEEN nominations, the changes by Southerland and Miller will have little practical effect]
Southerland and Miller re-wrote the "McGuffin Law," but they are not willing to put their new and improved "McGuffin Law" to a vote of the people in a REFERENDUM--which is how the current appointment process was enacted in 2001.
The LeBel Five don't want a $250 CITY REFERENDUM on the "McGuffin Law" on August 2, 2012, in conjunction with the county election----or at any time---and Southerland and Miller are leaving it where the LeBel Five don't have to worry about a referendum. The LeBel Five get the final say on approval of the "McGuffin Law."
It's way too risky to let the people vote again, so the LeBel Five will use their FIVE votes to change what 3,202 people voted for in the 2001 REFERENDUM. No REFERENDUM in 2012 as in 2001. Just shut the people out this time.
The irony here is that there have been many votes at the state level to prevent voter fraud, such as the requirement that voters present a Picture ID before voting---and I absolutely agree with the Photo ID law.
But who protects the votes and the integrity of a referendum election after it has taken place?
It appears that the integrity of the 2001 REFERENDUM and the votes of 3,202 PEOPLE don't count when politicians and George McGuffin are scrambling to ensure that McGuffin continues on the Morristown Utilities Commission.
Why have local officials decided that having one particular person--and no one else--on the MUC Board is so important that:
(1) They have to go to the State to get the MUC Private Act changed;
(2) They are willing to overturn an appointment process that was approved by 72% of the voters (3,202 people) in a referendum; and
(3) They are acting like it would be the end of the world if the McGuffin Law didn't pass?
And why has George McGuffin decided that his power and position on the MUC Board are worth creating appointment gridlock for eight months, having his name submitted fourteen times, and going to the state to get local officials to overturn the current MUC appointment process that was overwhelmingly approved in the 2001 REFERENDUM?
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
March 7, 2012 LeBel Five Reject FOURTEENTH MUC Nominee Banker Joel Hice
MUC sent its FOURTEENTH list of three names to Mayor Thomas as qualified candidates for the MUC Board of Commissioners: Jo Ervin, Joel Hice, George McGuffin.
Yesterday, Mayor Thomas submitted the name of Joel Hice from that list to council for approval or disapproval. Hice is a local banker.
Paul LeBel immediately moved to "reject" Hice's appointment. Bob Garrett, 42-year former employee of MUC, seconded the motion. The LeBel Five (LeBel, Garrett, Senter, Jinks, and Bivens) then voted to reject Hice.
Mayor Thomas and Gene Brooks supported Hice.
This is the FOURTEENTH person that has been on an MUC list and whose name has been submitted to council by the Mayor for appointment to the MUC Board who has been quickly rejected by council. The nominees include bankers, contractors, former councilmembers, plant managers, businessmen, CPAs, engineers, etc.
What do the LeBel Five think is wrong with these fourteen people who have all been vetted and selected BY MUC?
These fourteen are not George McGuffin, so they are automatically rejected. George McGuffin, who has been on the MUC Board for over 34 years, has made it clear that he wants to hang on to what has become the "McGuffin seat.".
Let's see if the "news"paper asks Joel Hice if he is disappointed in being rejected by five councilmembers? Was Joel asked to be cannon fodder for rejection by the LeBel Five or did Joel volunteer to take one "for the team"? What about the 13 other rejectees? What were they told by MUC Commissioners before their names were submitted to the Mayor?
And what about the MUC Board? Are they concerned or secretly happy about the rejection of the FOURTEENTH person whose name THEY submitted to the Mayor? The members, other than George McGuffin, are Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery.
Are the LeBel Five and the MUC Board just waiting for the McGuffin Law to be passed in the state legislature to let the LeBel Five override the votes of the 3,202 people (72% of voters) who approved and put the current appointment process in place in 2001 in a referendum?
Yesterday, Mayor Thomas submitted the name of Joel Hice from that list to council for approval or disapproval. Hice is a local banker.
Paul LeBel immediately moved to "reject" Hice's appointment. Bob Garrett, 42-year former employee of MUC, seconded the motion. The LeBel Five (LeBel, Garrett, Senter, Jinks, and Bivens) then voted to reject Hice.
Mayor Thomas and Gene Brooks supported Hice.
This is the FOURTEENTH person that has been on an MUC list and whose name has been submitted to council by the Mayor for appointment to the MUC Board who has been quickly rejected by council. The nominees include bankers, contractors, former councilmembers, plant managers, businessmen, CPAs, engineers, etc.
What do the LeBel Five think is wrong with these fourteen people who have all been vetted and selected BY MUC?
These fourteen are not George McGuffin, so they are automatically rejected. George McGuffin, who has been on the MUC Board for over 34 years, has made it clear that he wants to hang on to what has become the "McGuffin seat.".
Let's see if the "news"paper asks Joel Hice if he is disappointed in being rejected by five councilmembers? Was Joel asked to be cannon fodder for rejection by the LeBel Five or did Joel volunteer to take one "for the team"? What about the 13 other rejectees? What were they told by MUC Commissioners before their names were submitted to the Mayor?
And what about the MUC Board? Are they concerned or secretly happy about the rejection of the FOURTEENTH person whose name THEY submitted to the Mayor? The members, other than George McGuffin, are Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery.
Are the LeBel Five and the MUC Board just waiting for the McGuffin Law to be passed in the state legislature to let the LeBel Five override the votes of the 3,202 people (72% of voters) who approved and put the current appointment process in place in 2001 in a referendum?
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
March 6, 2012 The Bank Levy on the City of Morristown: What Next?
Yesterday, I posted the writ of execution that was issued by the U.S. District Court authorizing seizure of City of Morristown funds in the amount of $573,632.84.
Now that those funds have been seized by the U.S. Marshals, my guess is that Morristown has sobered up and is having some serious discussions with Plaintiffs' lawyers to settle the attorney fees, litigation costs, and/or civil penalties that were assessed against the City in the Stephens, et al. v. City of Morristown case. In this mix may be the dismissal of the City's appeal to U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a case that was brought only after Morristown refused to acknowledge problems with the Witt sewer line and refused to repair and rehabilitate that line, the City spent thousands in attorney fees for its lawyers, had to pay attorney fees and costs for the Plaintiffs' lawyers, and ended up under a court-order to fix the Witt line. [The Tennessee Municipal League (TML) paid initial attorney fees but that stopped at some point and then Morristown was directly on the hook for paying the City's defense team]
All this money was spent because the City ignored a serious problem with the Witt sewer line that was brought to its attention as soon as Koch Foods hooked up to the Witt line around 2005.
And the City would likely still be ignoring the problem today if several gutsy Witt residents hadn't hired a lawyer after deciding that they had taken enough of the City's stonewalling and odors and overflows.
During the lawsuit, Judge Greer blistered the City in discussing the City's "malfeasance" in handling its finances, making illegal money transfers, failing to provide critical documents, ignoring recommendations of its experts, etc.
With two consecutive years (2009 and 2010) of the sewer fund being "in the red," you have to wonder if the City's appeal of the attorney fees and other costs was just another in an ongoing series of delaying tactics to avoid acknowledging the financial morass that has been present for years and years.
Whatever the reasons or motivations on the part of the City to ignore the Witt problems and to appeal the attorney fees, etc., the City's tactics cost sewer ratepayers dearly, highlighted the mismanagement of the City's funds, and caused a federal judge to note the City's financial "malfeasance."
Now that those funds have been seized by the U.S. Marshals, my guess is that Morristown has sobered up and is having some serious discussions with Plaintiffs' lawyers to settle the attorney fees, litigation costs, and/or civil penalties that were assessed against the City in the Stephens, et al. v. City of Morristown case. In this mix may be the dismissal of the City's appeal to U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a case that was brought only after Morristown refused to acknowledge problems with the Witt sewer line and refused to repair and rehabilitate that line, the City spent thousands in attorney fees for its lawyers, had to pay attorney fees and costs for the Plaintiffs' lawyers, and ended up under a court-order to fix the Witt line. [The Tennessee Municipal League (TML) paid initial attorney fees but that stopped at some point and then Morristown was directly on the hook for paying the City's defense team]
All this money was spent because the City ignored a serious problem with the Witt sewer line that was brought to its attention as soon as Koch Foods hooked up to the Witt line around 2005.
And the City would likely still be ignoring the problem today if several gutsy Witt residents hadn't hired a lawyer after deciding that they had taken enough of the City's stonewalling and odors and overflows.
During the lawsuit, Judge Greer blistered the City in discussing the City's "malfeasance" in handling its finances, making illegal money transfers, failing to provide critical documents, ignoring recommendations of its experts, etc.
With two consecutive years (2009 and 2010) of the sewer fund being "in the red," you have to wonder if the City's appeal of the attorney fees and other costs was just another in an ongoing series of delaying tactics to avoid acknowledging the financial morass that has been present for years and years.
Whatever the reasons or motivations on the part of the City to ignore the Witt problems and to appeal the attorney fees, etc., the City's tactics cost sewer ratepayers dearly, highlighted the mismanagement of the City's funds, and caused a federal judge to note the City's financial "malfeasance."
Monday, March 05, 2012
March 5, 2012 Bank Levy Takes Money From City's Bank Accounts at First Tennessee
A bank levy in the amount of $573,632.84 on the accounts of the City of Morristown in First Tennessee Bank was apparently carried out recently pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the United States District Court/Eastern District of Tennessee.
A copy of the writ is shown prior to its signature and return by the U.S. Marshal(s). Click on the image to enlarge. The money was removed from the City's checking accounts on February 28 and apparently placed with the District Court.
A bank levy on the City of Morristown. This may be a first. Unbelievable!
Thursday, March 01, 2012
March 1, 2012 MUC Nominates George McGuffin, Jo Ervin, Joel Hice as 14th Slate of Candidates for MUC Board
The Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) held its regular meeting on February 23 at 8 AM. Included on the agenda was selection of a 14th slate of candidates for the MUC Board seat currently held by George McGuffin who has served over 34 years on the Board.
McGuffin's term expired July 31, 2011, but he is serving as a "holdover" until someone is officially appointed to the seat. McGuffin himself wants to be that someone, and he has refused to step aside for a new appointee.
McGuffin is at the head of the table and sounds a little sarcastic as he introduces the "resolution that we all know by heart, the fourteenth time" that we have to submit three people for consideration as a Board member. McGuffin briefly has trouble remembering the name of the 13th and last rejectee (Chris Horne) but one of the Board members helps out.
Max Biery then nominates McGuffin, Isaacs, and Joel Hice. Biery forgot that the Isaacs (both Steve and Jerry) were booted by LeBel and Company months ago. Lynn Elkins says it's "Jo Ervin." After some discussion, Biery confirms that his motion is to nominate George McGuffin, Jo Ervin, and Joel Hice. McGuffin says the list will go to the Mayor for the next meeting.
It's an odd situation. The MUC Board selects qualified people and then says nothing when (City Councilman) LeBel and Company automatically reject every (non-McGuffin) MUC candidate including bankers, contractors, businessmen, physical therapists, CPAs, plant managers, former city councilmen, etc.
It's all a little game of MUC going through the motions of selecting "qualified" people and then abandoning that person and hoping that that person, if it's not George McGuffin, is rejected by the Council.
It's odd that "news"man Bob Moore has never put a quote from one of the many rejectees in the "news"paper. Not even one of those statements that "so-and-so was contacted but had no comment."
Was the rejectee concerned about the rejection? Did the rejectee approach a member of the MUC Board about serving on the Board? Did a Board member contact the rejectee and ask if his name could be put on the MUC-candidate list before the nomination was made? Did a Board member tell the rejectee that if he was nominated by the Mayor, he wouldn't be approved?
It's odd that "news"man Bob Moore has never put a quote from an MUC Board member in the "news"paper. Not even a mention that he tried to contact a Board member for comment.
Is the Board shocked and concerned at the continuous rejection of THEIR candidates, or is the Board a part of the game and content and pleased to see each non-McGuffin candidate rejected?
The 14th list of candidates--selected by MUC--is at the City Center. LeBel and Company are sticking by George, and George is sticking by LeBel and Company. No one else matters.
On the far left in the video are the five MUC Board members (from L-R): Lynn Elkins, Max Biery, Gene Jolley, Harold Nichols, and Chairman George McGuffin.
McGuffin's term expired July 31, 2011, but he is serving as a "holdover" until someone is officially appointed to the seat. McGuffin himself wants to be that someone, and he has refused to step aside for a new appointee.
McGuffin is at the head of the table and sounds a little sarcastic as he introduces the "resolution that we all know by heart, the fourteenth time" that we have to submit three people for consideration as a Board member. McGuffin briefly has trouble remembering the name of the 13th and last rejectee (Chris Horne) but one of the Board members helps out.
Max Biery then nominates McGuffin, Isaacs, and Joel Hice. Biery forgot that the Isaacs (both Steve and Jerry) were booted by LeBel and Company months ago. Lynn Elkins says it's "Jo Ervin." After some discussion, Biery confirms that his motion is to nominate George McGuffin, Jo Ervin, and Joel Hice. McGuffin says the list will go to the Mayor for the next meeting.
It's an odd situation. The MUC Board selects qualified people and then says nothing when (City Councilman) LeBel and Company automatically reject every (non-McGuffin) MUC candidate including bankers, contractors, businessmen, physical therapists, CPAs, plant managers, former city councilmen, etc.
It's all a little game of MUC going through the motions of selecting "qualified" people and then abandoning that person and hoping that that person, if it's not George McGuffin, is rejected by the Council.
It's odd that "news"man Bob Moore has never put a quote from one of the many rejectees in the "news"paper. Not even one of those statements that "so-and-so was contacted but had no comment."
Was the rejectee concerned about the rejection? Did the rejectee approach a member of the MUC Board about serving on the Board? Did a Board member contact the rejectee and ask if his name could be put on the MUC-candidate list before the nomination was made? Did a Board member tell the rejectee that if he was nominated by the Mayor, he wouldn't be approved?
It's odd that "news"man Bob Moore has never put a quote from an MUC Board member in the "news"paper. Not even a mention that he tried to contact a Board member for comment.
Is the Board shocked and concerned at the continuous rejection of THEIR candidates, or is the Board a part of the game and content and pleased to see each non-McGuffin candidate rejected?
The 14th list of candidates--selected by MUC--is at the City Center. LeBel and Company are sticking by George, and George is sticking by LeBel and Company. No one else matters.
On the far left in the video are the five MUC Board members (from L-R): Lynn Elkins, Max Biery, Gene Jolley, Harold Nichols, and Chairman George McGuffin.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
February 29, 2012 LeBel and Company Reject #13 Chris Horne (VIDEO)
LeBel is fast on the draw...At the February 21, 2012, meeting of City Council, LeBel moved to reject Chris Horne's nomination to the Morristown Utilities Commission Board. Bob Garrett, former longtime MUC employee, seconded and faster than you can push a voting button, Chris Horne became the THIRTEENTH person rejected by LeBel and Associates.
LeBel and Associates (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) evidently don't think much about the candidates being sent to the Mayor by MUC. Not one of 13 has been approved. See the complete list of rejectees by clicking on February 28 post.
While LeBel and Asoociates continually vote to "reject," Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks have supported the business people, physical therapists, bankers, plant managers, CPAs, contractors, and former councilmembers who have been nominated by MUC and submitted to Council for a full vote.
It's nice that MUC Board members (George McGuffin, Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery) have a wide array of well-connected friends who are willing to let their name be put up for certain rejection. The old "take one for the McGipper" syndrome.
LeBel and Associates (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) evidently don't think much about the candidates being sent to the Mayor by MUC. Not one of 13 has been approved. See the complete list of rejectees by clicking on February 28 post.
While LeBel and Asoociates continually vote to "reject," Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks have supported the business people, physical therapists, bankers, plant managers, CPAs, contractors, and former councilmembers who have been nominated by MUC and submitted to Council for a full vote.
It's nice that MUC Board members (George McGuffin, Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery) have a wide array of well-connected friends who are willing to let their name be put up for certain rejection. The old "take one for the McGipper" syndrome.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
February 28, 2012 Chris Horne Is THIRTEENTH Person Rejected for Appointment to MUC Board
Voting to reject Horne (because he's not George McGuffin) were Councilmembers Paul LeBel, Bob Garrett, Kay Senter, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks.
Voting for Horne were Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilmember Gene Brooks.
Chris Horne now goes down in the annals of Morristown history as the THIRTEENTH person nominated by the Mayor since July 2011 (from a list provided to him by MUC) who has failed to get the approval of council:
1. Mike Minnich
3. Carroll Fowler
4. Wally Long
5. John Allen
6. Mike Davidson
7. Bruce Sluder
8. Jerry Isaacs
9. Gene Lynch
10. Steve Henrikson
11. David Wild
12. Steve Isaacs
13. Chris Horne
And the beat goes on....
Thursday, February 23, 2012
February 23, 2012 The Mayor's Letter, Public Comments, and the Amended Public Comments Ordinance
There was a packed house at Tuesday's council meeting and lots of public comments about public comments.
It started with an Ordinance passed by Councilmembers LeBel/Senter/Bivens/Garrett on first reading on 2/7/12 to revise the city council's Agenda format and put public comments at the end of the meeting after all votes had been taken. LeBel was also proposing speaking guidelines that would reduce the time allowed for public comments from three minutes to two minutes. The Ordinance was opposed on 2/7/12 by Mayor Thomas and Councilmembers Gene Brooks and Claude Jinks.
To protect the public from the negative effect of the Ordinance passed by LeBel/Senter/Bivens/ Garrett, Mayor Thomas sent out a letter to the citizens just over a week later alerting them to the second reading on that ordinance on February 21, 2012, and encouraging them to come to the 2/21/12 meeting and speak on this issue. Click here to see the letter.
Mayor Thomas had tried on 2/7/12 to head off the LeBel Ordinance putting public comments at the end of meetings and the guidelines that would reduce the time allowed for speakers from three minutes to two minutes.
Thomas tried to get Councilmembers to slow up and consider formats with more public comment opportunities on agenda items before votes were taken. Thomas suggested that no vote be taken on the LeBel Ordinance so that a work session could take place. Thomas showed the Council the "recommended" MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service) agenda that provides for public comments prior to votes and at the end of the meetings. [Public hearings on 2nd readings of ordinances were unaffected by either the LeBel or Thomas proposals.]
Councilmembers LeBel/Senter/Garrett/Bivens wouldn't slow up and wouldn't change their ordinance to add public input on agenda items such as contracts, resolutions, and appointments before votes were taken.
With no "news"paper editorial standing up for the people of Morristown, Mayor Danny Thomas did what he could to make sure that the citizens knew that the LeBel, Senter, Garrett, and Bivens Ordinance on public comments was up for second and final reading on 2/21/12.
Mayor Thomas wrote a letter alerting citizens and went to the "news"paper on 2/14/12 to ask that his letter be published as a Letter to the Editor. The "news"paper apparently refused--but did offer to take the Mayor's money if the Mayor wanted to run the letter as a political ad and mentioned a possible news article. Mayor Thomas mailed his letter out directly to the voters.
At some point, LeBel, Senter, Bivens, and/or Garrett decided to amend the agenda format that they had voted for on 2/7/12 and apparently Kay Senter delivered an "amended" Agenda format to the City Administrator's Office on 2/16/12---after the Mayor had discussed his letter with the "news"paper and after the letter had been mailed out.
On Tuesday 2/21/12, Senter walked into the council meeting in front of a packed house and quickly moved to amend/replace the Agenda Ordinance that had passed on 2/7/12---and that put public comments at the end of the meeting--with the amended Agenda Ordinance that she had brought to the City Administrator on 2/16/12.
What Senter was officially proposing on 2/21/12--adding a time for public comments on agenda items BEFORE votes were taken and general public comments at the end of the meeting--was pretty much what Mayor Thomas had suggested on 2/7/12 but which was rejected at that time by LeBel/ Senter/ Bivens/Garrett in favor of THEIR Agenda putting general public comments at the end.
After Senter presented the amended (and very improved) agenda ordinance, Paul LeBel, Chris Bivens, and Kay proceeded to attack the Mayor for sending out his letter to citizens.
You would have thought they had ALWAYS planned to allow more public input rather than less. You would have thought that THEIR VOTE to put public comments at the end of meetings and THEIR GUIDELINES to reduce the time allowed for speakers had never taken place and caused the letter to be sent out.
The video above shows how citizens can make a difference. Rev. Richard Crayne gave a moving account of those who fought and died for our liberty and for freedom of speech.
Brenda Goodson thanked the Mayor for sending the letter and suggested that council get a larger meeting room because "we're coming back." Ricky Lowe wondered what would have happened if the Mayor had not sent out his letter. Brian Southerland told councilmembers that if you don't have the time to listen to the people, don't run for office.
The 2/21/12 Amended Agenda Ordinance was a great victory for the people. What started with a vote by four councilmembers on 2/7/12 to marginalize and reduce the time for public input ended up as an Ordinance that passed unanimously on 2/21/12 providing for more opportunities for public comment and preserving the three minute time limit.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
February 18, 2012 LeBel Reverses Course on Public Comments at City Council Meetings
Above (left or top) is the agenda format that Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, and Chris Bivens voted for on first reading at the City Council meeting on February 7, 2012. LeBel's Proposed Order of Business put all public comments near the end of the meeting---after all votes had been taken. It also reduced the speaking time from three minutes to two minutes.
Mayor Danny Thomas, Gene Brooks, and Claude Jinks voted against the Lebel plan with Mayor Thomas mounting a vigorous push for more rather than less public input. Mayor Thomas even sent out a letter to voters to let them know about the LeBel-Senter-Garrett-Bivens move to put public comments after all votes were taken and to reduce speaking time to two minutes.
Above (right or bottom) is an amended Order of Business that will apparently be the one put forth by LeBel and company for second reading and public hearing on February 21, 2012, at 5 PM at the City Center.
After passing the "public at the end" format, it looks like LeBel had a change of heart or felt some constituent heat and amended his Order of Business to let the public speak on agenda items before any votes are taken and to make general comments at the end of the meeting. Regardless of the reason for the change, it is a good move.
LeBel had gotten the public upset with his plan to put public comments at the end of council meetings. Kudos to LeBel for deciding to change his initial proposal before the final reading on February 21.
Even with the amended Order of Business, LeBel-Senter-Garrett-Bivens are apparently still pushing to reduce the time allowed for a speaker to address an issue down to two minutes. But maybe that will be amended, too.
Friday, February 17, 2012
February 17, 2012 Mayor Thomas' Letter To Morristown Taxpayers
In addition to voting to move public comments to the end of council meetings, Councilmembers Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, and Chris Bivens voted to reduce the time allowed for each speaker from three minutes down to two minutes.
Mayor Thomas and Councilmembers Gene Brooks and Claude Jinks stood up for the people.
Mayor Thomas tried to postpone any action on the agenda changes to allow more review of the situation. The four wouldn't wait.
Thomas explained that the proposal by Paul LeBel (supported by Bob Garrett, Kay Senter, and Chris Bivens) would result in the public being unable to speak about bids/contracts/ appointments/ resolutions/new business or any agenda item (other than required public hearings on the 2nd reading of ordinances) until after council had voted on that item.
The Mayor showed council that MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service) encourages more public input rather than less during council meetings. That didn't sway the four.
The Mayor pointed out that the Hamblen County Commission, on which Councilman LeBel sits, puts public comments at the beginning of its meetings and allows all speakers three minutes and allows five minutes to speakers if they pre-register to speak. That didn't sway the four.
Nothing that Mayor Thomas or Councilman Gene Brooks said had any effect on the four councilmembers who are now going after the people in an effort to stifle expressions of concern or dissent at meetings.
On February 7, Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, and Chris Bivens continued down their chosen path of putting the people last --figuratively and literally.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
February 14, 2012 "Lucky" Thirteenth List of MUC Nominees
The three nominees for a seat on the Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) are Jo Ervin, Chris Horne, and--surprise, surprise, surprise--George McGuffin.
These three were selected by MUC in a special called meeting at 10:15 AM yesterday morning.
According to the MUC Private Act that was approved by 72% of the voters in a 2001 referendum, MUC is the primary gatekeeper in the appointment process since MUC has total control over who is considered for the MUC Board.
The Mayor takes the MUC-provided list and submits the name of one nominee to council.
The Council then accepts or rejects.
So far, twelve MUC lists have been sent to the Mayor. Each time, the Mayor has submitted one name to the full council. And all twelve MUC nominees have been rejected.
These three were selected by MUC in a special called meeting at 10:15 AM yesterday morning.
According to the MUC Private Act that was approved by 72% of the voters in a 2001 referendum, MUC is the primary gatekeeper in the appointment process since MUC has total control over who is considered for the MUC Board.
The Mayor takes the MUC-provided list and submits the name of one nominee to council.
The Council then accepts or rejects.
So far, twelve MUC lists have been sent to the Mayor. Each time, the Mayor has submitted one name to the full council. And all twelve MUC nominees have been rejected.
February 14, 2012 Valentine's Day
Happy Valentine's Day
Salvatore Vuono: freedigitalphotos.net
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=659
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
February 8, 2012 No. 12 Steve Isaacs Shot Down by The Five
The Morristown Utilities Commission Board, headed by George McGuffin, recently recommended three names to Mayor Danny Thomas for appointment to the MUC Board. The slate of three candidates: Steve Isaacs, George McGuffin, and Chris Horne.
At yesterday's council meeting, Mayor Thomas submitted the name of Steve Isaacs to the council, and the council quickly rejected Isaacs 5-2. Voting to reject Isaacs were Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks. Supporting Isaacs were Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilmember Gene Brooks.
Steve Isaacs is the TWELFTH person to be nominated by Thomas, and the TWELFTH person to fail to win the approval of a majority of council.
Friday, February 03, 2012
February 3, 2012 CFA Site Has Channel 8 (WVLT) Report on Five Councilmembers Trying to Change the Voter-Approved MUC Appointment Process
Citizens for Accountability has posted the video of a Ch 8 segment that aired on WVLT-TV on Wednesday evening.
The newscast discusses the local controversy generated by five councilmembers (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) who have aligned to reject not one, not two, but ELEVEN different mayoral appointees to the Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) Board.
[Jinks, whose daughter-in-law works for MUC, cast a vote for the mayor's first appointment and then joined firmly with The Five in supporting current MUC Chair George McGuffin and rejecting everyone else]
Click here for the CFA post.
Click here for the original WVLT video and text of its report.
HISTORY:
The current appointment process for MUC Board members was submitted to the PEOPLE, along with other MUC changes, for approval or disapproval in a 2001 referendum. The MUC referendum, including the current appointment process, was approved overwhelmingly by 3,202 voters in 2001 (72% FOR 28% AGAINST).
As a result of the referendum, recommendation of candidates for MUC Board membership comes straight from the MUC Board which is chaired by 34-year member George McGuffin who wants to stay on the Board for another five years.
A list of MUC-candidates is sent to the Mayor, who then submits the name of one of the MUC-provided candidates to the full council for approval of disapproval. So far, ELEVEN MUC-provided candidates have been submitted to council by the Mayor, and all ELEVEN have failed to be approved.
So, MUC keeps sending lists of more MUC-approved candidates to the Mayor, and The Five keep rejecting every mayoral nominee.
MUC Chair McGuffin will not step aside and let someone else be appointed. McGuffin pretends to sit on the sidelines as a spectator while he actually backs and encourages The Five councilmembers to keep on shooting down the very people who have been recommended for an MUC Board seat by the MUC Board that McGuffin chairs.
How do The Five propose to get McGuffin back on? Change the law. The integrity of the 2001 Referendum means nothing to the Five, so they have asked our local state representatives (Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland) to get the state legislature to help change the local law/MUC Private Act to alter the voter-approved appointment process without holding a referendum to see if the PEOPLE want to change what the PEOPLE voted for.
Why are McGuffin and The Five and their associates willing to go so far as to attack and overturn a referendum in order to keep McGuffin in place? Well, it appears to be either a raw power grab by McGuffin and Company and/or part of a political vendetta against Mayor Thomas.
From here on, you can only laugh when these officials publicly encourage people to vote and talk about the integrity of elections and preventing voter-fraud. Those nice little public statements are nothing but garbage when these officials are making a mockery of a local referendum as they try to overturn the MUC-appointment process that was approved by 3,202 voters---72% of all votes cast---as part of a series of 2001 changes to MUC.
If The Five want to make changes to the MUC appointment process and protect the integrity of the 2001 MUC Referendum, it's really quite simple to do. Put the proposed changes on the ballot for a vote of the people.
Maybe the people want to change the MUC appointment process that they voted for in 2001. Maybe the people do not want to change the MUC appointment process that they voted for in 2001.
The council included the current appointment process as part of the MUC ballot question in a 2001 referendum, and 72% of the voters said YES. Why are Five Councilmembers so afraid of putting their proposed changes on the ballot again to see if the VOTERS want to change what the voters approved in 2001?
The newscast discusses the local controversy generated by five councilmembers (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) who have aligned to reject not one, not two, but ELEVEN different mayoral appointees to the Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) Board.
[Jinks, whose daughter-in-law works for MUC, cast a vote for the mayor's first appointment and then joined firmly with The Five in supporting current MUC Chair George McGuffin and rejecting everyone else]
Click here for the CFA post.
Click here for the original WVLT video and text of its report.
HISTORY:
The current appointment process for MUC Board members was submitted to the PEOPLE, along with other MUC changes, for approval or disapproval in a 2001 referendum. The MUC referendum, including the current appointment process, was approved overwhelmingly by 3,202 voters in 2001 (72% FOR 28% AGAINST).
As a result of the referendum, recommendation of candidates for MUC Board membership comes straight from the MUC Board which is chaired by 34-year member George McGuffin who wants to stay on the Board for another five years.
A list of MUC-candidates is sent to the Mayor, who then submits the name of one of the MUC-provided candidates to the full council for approval of disapproval. So far, ELEVEN MUC-provided candidates have been submitted to council by the Mayor, and all ELEVEN have failed to be approved.
So, MUC keeps sending lists of more MUC-approved candidates to the Mayor, and The Five keep rejecting every mayoral nominee.
MUC Chair McGuffin will not step aside and let someone else be appointed. McGuffin pretends to sit on the sidelines as a spectator while he actually backs and encourages The Five councilmembers to keep on shooting down the very people who have been recommended for an MUC Board seat by the MUC Board that McGuffin chairs.
How do The Five propose to get McGuffin back on? Change the law. The integrity of the 2001 Referendum means nothing to the Five, so they have asked our local state representatives (Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland) to get the state legislature to help change the local law/MUC Private Act to alter the voter-approved appointment process without holding a referendum to see if the PEOPLE want to change what the PEOPLE voted for.
Why are McGuffin and The Five and their associates willing to go so far as to attack and overturn a referendum in order to keep McGuffin in place? Well, it appears to be either a raw power grab by McGuffin and Company and/or part of a political vendetta against Mayor Thomas.
From here on, you can only laugh when these officials publicly encourage people to vote and talk about the integrity of elections and preventing voter-fraud. Those nice little public statements are nothing but garbage when these officials are making a mockery of a local referendum as they try to overturn the MUC-appointment process that was approved by 3,202 voters---72% of all votes cast---as part of a series of 2001 changes to MUC.
If The Five want to make changes to the MUC appointment process and protect the integrity of the 2001 MUC Referendum, it's really quite simple to do. Put the proposed changes on the ballot for a vote of the people.
Maybe the people want to change the MUC appointment process that they voted for in 2001. Maybe the people do not want to change the MUC appointment process that they voted for in 2001.
The council included the current appointment process as part of the MUC ballot question in a 2001 referendum, and 72% of the voters said YES. Why are Five Councilmembers so afraid of putting their proposed changes on the ballot again to see if the VOTERS want to change what the voters approved in 2001?
Thursday, February 02, 2012
February 2, 2012 Happy Groundhog Day
Click here for Groundhog Day lore. At 7:25 AM this morning, we will know what Phil thinks about weather for the next six weeks.
Breaking news: Phil saw his shadow and crawled back in his burrow for six more weeks of winter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)