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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 19, 2012 Masengill Springs Rezoning Fails: Morristown's Charter Zoning Provision Applies

Opponents of the Masengill Springs development on West Andrew Johnson Highway won at least a temporary victory yesterday when the Masengill Springs rezoning failed with 3 YES votes (Danny Thomas, Chris Bivens, and Gene Brooks), 2 NO votes (Kay Senter and Bob Garrett), and 1 ABSTENTION (Paul LeBel).

Residents have repeatedly cited flooding, traffic, and quality of life issues in opposition to the rezoning. The bombshell, however, was their discovery in recent weeks that there is a provision in the Morristown City Charter that requires the City to provide three public notices of a proposed rezoning and allows certain nearby residents to sign a petition protesting the rezoning and thus require a 4/5 council vote for approval instead of a simply majority.

[The City admitted that it has ignored the Charter provision requiring three public notices and apparently citizens and council have previously been unaware of the petition process provided for residents.]

Initially, it appeared that the entire matter would be delayed two weeks at the request of the developer--a move which is normally accomplished by a simple motion and majority vote of council.

Kay Senter, however, made a move for postponement to October 2 as a "special order."  The "special order" terminology surprised many members of council and the city attorney. Kay had her Robert's Rules with her and pointed out that the "special order" term meant that her motion to postpone required a 2/3 vote of council for the postponement.

Amidst the confusion and discussion, the motion to postpone by "special order" failed to get the required 2/3 majority.

Kay then quickly made a motion to approve the rezoning.  At that point, City Attorney Dick Jessee stated that he had received an opinion on Monday (the day before yesterday's vote) from MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service) that upheld the City Charter zoning provision requiring a 4/5 vote to approve a rezoning when the required number of residents have protested the rezoning by petition.

More discussion and controversy. When the vote was taken on Kay's motion to approve the rezoning, a majority voted YES, but not the required 4/5.  Voting YES were Gene Brooks, Chris Bivens, and Danny Thomas. Voting NO were Kay Senter (who had made the motion to approve the rezoning) and Bob Garrett. Abstaining was Paul LeBel.

February 17, 2012 Mayor Thomas' Letter To Morristown Taxpayers

Morristown Mayor Danny Thomas recently wrote and mailed the above letter to Morristown taxpayers to warn the citizens that four Morristown City Councilmembers voted on February 7 to put public comments--other than required public hearings--at the end of council's agenda. The second and final vote is set for February 21.

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.

November 29, 2009 Mayor Barile and Councilman Frank McGuffin "Fast-Track" Contract with New City Administrator

The City Council Agenda is here. It lists the contract with the new city administrator as one of the items [IX (1)] for consideration at the council's 4:00 PM meeting at the City Center on Tuesday, December 1.

IX (1). Approval of an employment contract with Anthony Cox to serve as city administrator.

Mr. Cox was selected on November 24, 2009, at a special called meeting of the council at 11:30 AM. Mayor Barile was set to negotiate the contract with Cox. When a councilmember suggested that a councilperson be put on the negotiating team, Barile appointed Frank McGuffin to help her. 

Let's see. Public "meet-and-greet" of administrator candidates and council interviews on Thursday (11/19) and Friday (11/20).  Selection made on Tuesday (11/24), Thanksgiving on Thursday (11/26), and the employment contract is already on the council's agenda on the city website by Friday (11/27). 

Barile and McGuffin put this contract on the fast-track. Of course, Pat Hardy of MTAS, who thinks that Jim Crumley is an excellent administrator, has already given the council some money guidelines and other contract suggestions.

Hopefully, Barile and Frank McGuffin and City Attorney Dick Jessee (who is Frank's uncle) have crafted a contract that adequately protects the city from a repeat of the situation which arose with Crumley.

Hopefully, this contract will provide that in the event that it is discovered--shortly AFTER termination for cause or shortly AFTER voluntary resignation or retirement--that the city administrator violated state law, the city charter, or local ordinances in the conduct of his office, then he/she must pay back to the city all monies and the monetary value of all benefits paid to or for him/her as part of a contractual or negotiated severance package.

The council thought Crumley was absolutely wonderful when he was selected about eight years ago, and Crumley may have performed satisfactorily for a time.  Some of the councilmembers who selected Crumley are still on the council today. If a provision as noted above had been included in Crumley's contract or in the negotiated severance package, it might have allowed the city to get back some or all of the $145,000+ severance package that Crumley was given. Click here.

Cox is the council's pack for city administrator. He appears to have the financial qualifications for the position, and he very well may be the excellent administrator that the city really needs at this point. 

After the Crumley fiasco, however, the employment contract with the city administrator (no matter who it is) should provide protection to the city as well as to the administrator in the event that something goes wrong down the road--and in the event that illegal conduct in office is discovered shortly after termination/ resignation.

With Crumley, it came out shortly AFTER he left office that he apparently violated the law in the conduct of his office. The severance money, however, had apparently already been paid by then, and neither the original employment contract nor the negotiated severance contract provided a way to get such payments back or terminate benefits in the event that illegal actions were discovered shortly AFTER any termination or resignation/retirement.

The Mayor and McGuffin---and the entire council---are charged with looking out for the city in a business-like manner in drawing city contracts. Once burned, twice shy. This is a contract that should be carefully prepared, read by all councilmembers, and thoughtfully questioned and considered before a vote is cast.

November 25, 2009 Anthony Cox Selected as New City Administrator

Not surprisingly, Anthony Cox of Radford, Virginia was named the new Morristown "city administrator-select" at yesterday's 11:30 AM special called meeting of council. Wonder how many working taxpayers were able to leave work and make it to that meeting?

Pat Hardy of MTAS and Interim City Administrator Lynn Wampler had presented the council with a slate of four finalists from which to select a new city administrator to replace the "retired" Jim Crumley.

Two of the four finalists (Angie Carrier of White House, TN and Jody Baltz of Tullahoma, TN) were placed among the final four at the last-minute because of their "close acquaintance" with MTAS' Pat Hardy and Interim City Administrator Lynn Wampler. Although Baltz met the advertised qualifications for the job, selection of Carrier or Baltz would have raised eyebrows since apparently both got an automatic pass to the final four--with no telephone interview--based on MTAS connections.

Of the two who went through the entire process and who actually interviewed with Wampler prior to their inclusion as finalists (Anthony Cox and James Payne), Cox emerged the winner. 

Cox has many tasks before him--chief of which is cleaning up the financial mess left by Crumley and company.  Hopefully, the Mayor and Councilmembers are now ready to pay attention and  be active  participants in the operation of city government instead of being a rubberstamp.

Regardless of who is City Administrator, the buck always starts and stops with the Mayor and City Council.

The Mayor and Council appoint an administrator, but they can't just walk away at that point and give free rein to that person, no matter who it is.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The absolute power given to Crumley led to the current financial debacle at the City Center with a huge assist by a Mayor and Council who fiddled while Morristown burned.

Government at all levels should be a system of checks-and-balances. The Administrator is "selected" to be the day-to-day point man at the City Center, but the "elected" Mayor and Council are the people's   representatives in setting policy and acting as a check-and-balance on the power given to the administrator.

Morristown needs an honest administrator who will operate city government like an open book and in a financially responsible manner. Morristown needs honest budgeting without the inflated revenue projections, bloated spending, and excessive borrowing/debt of the past.  
 
Anthony Cox has a huge task before him. 

He can't go wrong by relying on the two most basic tried-and-true financial principles:  Don't spend more than you take in and realize that excessive debt will cripple and enslave you.

At an ever-increasing pace over the past few years, City officials spent more than they took in, created wish lists, and then spent and borrowed more. 

Of course, when you get to spend OPM (other people's money), it is easy to come up with $100 million dollar wish lists and all kinds of nifty spending ideas (e.g., brick-paving machines). It's also easy to go deeper and deeper into debt when you get to use OPM to pay that debt back. It's easy to set up perks for friends and associates when OPM pays it all. It's easy to sign no-bid contracts and work out sweetheart deals when OPM picks up the tab.  It's easy to buy the latest, fanciest, and chromiest vehicles when OPM pays for them and the gas, too.  Two-million dollar cost overrun (Veterans Parkway)? Not a problem when OPM pays it.
.   
The citizens are watching their government and their government officials more closely than ever before--not just in Morristown and Hamblen County but in cities and counties all across the nation. 

OPM belongs to the citizens and taxpayers. It is not free money. It is not for frivolous, pet projects.  It is not to be wasted.  It is not for excessive spending or excessive borrowing.

November 24, 2009 No Public Forum at Today's "Special Called" Meeting of City Council

As mentioned in an earlier post, the City Council is having a special called meeting at 11:30 AM.

The announcement of the meeting in Sunday's paper said that there were only two items on today's agenda:

1) Hiring a City Administrator;and
2) A Bond Anticipation Note in the amount of $950,000 for the purchase of the property on North Liberty Hill Road for the new Public Works Complex.

If you check the city's website, the agenda (click here) shows a third agenda item (Installation of fire hydrants in Witt area) that was not mentioned in the newspaper.

Significantly, today's agenda does not list a public forum where the public is given the opportunity to speak to council. The agendas for Council's regular meetings provide the public with an opportunity to speak near the beginning of the meeting. Today's special called meeting, however, does not include a public forum.

It looks like the council and interim administrator not only called this special meeting for 11:30 AM to keep the working taxpayer from being able to attend but also to keep anyone who might be able to attend (retired or off work today) from speaking about items on the agenda.

The process of naming an administrator has had its own problems--see the post here on the last-minute addition of two "acquaintances" of MTAS' Pat Hardy and Interim Administrator Wampler as automatic finalists.

Now the special called meeting is set for 11:30 AM to make sure that the public can't attend and, if the public should somehow be able to attend, the special called meeting prevents them from speaking 

Not exactly a showcase for openness and transparency.

[At its regular meetings, the Mayor and Council at least go through the motions of allowing the public to speak and act like they are listening.  At today's meeting, they don't want to hear the public!]

November 22, 2009 City Council Special Meeting on November 24 at 11:30 AM (For the Convenience of all Citizens? Not!)

The City Council is having a special meeting on November 24, 2009, at 11:30 AM at the City Center to:

1) Name a new city administrator; and
2) Consider a bond anticipation note in the amount of $950,000 for the purchase of the Roy Widener property on N. Liberty Hill Road.

A very important decision--selecting a new city administrator--is on the agenda. Setting this meeting for 11:30 AM shows that the Mayor and many councilmembers are happy to exclude the working and taxpaying public from being able to participate or observe the handling of public business.

[Of course, the Mayor and most councilmembers have already shown that they are not interested in having any meetings at a time that is convenient for the public.  See a prior post on council meeting times here.]

One reason for the inconvenient 11:30 AM meeting time could be questions that have arisen surrounding how the last two finalists (Angie Carrier and Jody Baltz) for the city administrator position were selected.

The newpaper hinted at these questions in the last two paragraphs of a November 19 article when Bob Moore reported:  "Interim Morristown City Administrator Lynn Wampler and Pat Hardy, a Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) consultant, narrowed the (city administrator) field from more than 80 applicants to the final four. Baltz and Carrier, acquaintances of Wampler and Hardy, were added as last-minute entries into the city administrator selection process." 

The normal process of application followed by interview of potential finalists was apparently circumvented with the addition of Baltz and Carrier as finalists despite not being interviewed by phone as were other finalists.

Carrier's situation is particularly troubling. It must be very important to be "an acquaintance" of certain people when you can waltz into the final four with submission of a last-minute resume, no phone interview, and an admission that you are not directly involved in formulating budgets and that you have no experience in industrial recruitment because your city (White House, TN) is primarily a bedroom community for people who work in Nashville. [Bob Moore's November 20 article in the Tribune.]

Strangely, I didn't see any quote in Bob Moore's article from Mayor Barile, other councilmembers, Wampler, or Hardy about the passes given to Baltz and Carrier. Surely, Bob asked for comment about failure to follow procedures in connection with Carrier and Baltz.  Carrier, as I understand, is a very personable individual. Baltz has the financial expertise required for the job, but he, unfortunately, appears to have received an automatic pass to the final four just on the basis of being an "acquaintance" of Wampler and Hardy. 

Contrast the automatic selection of Carrier and Baltz as finalists with the Mayor's comments a few weeks ago rejecting any further consideration of city department head Jay Moore's application and refusing to give Moore an interview because he did not meet the advertised budgeting and financial "requirements" for the job.  

If Mr. Moore had just been an "acquaintance" of Wampler and Hardy, perhaps he, too, could have waltzed into the final four without meeting the financial requirements and without having an interview.

On the other hand, one has to wonder about the Mayor's definition of financial requirements. She seemed to think that the departed Jim Crumley was the financial bomb and that the city would be lost without his presence.

Now that Crumley's behind-the-scenes maneuvers are coming out, what does she think of Crumley's illegal transfer of $2.5 Million from the sewer fund to the general fund? 

What does she think of the contract Crumley signed to lease the Roy Widener property on N. Liberty Hill Road--a contract that Mr. Wampler looked at and saw for what it was--a bad lease for the city. Now the City is having to issue $950,000 in bonds--more debt--to purchase the property and get out of additional lease payments with the minimum of financial damage.  Did she see and approve that contract?

What do she and councilmembers think of Crumley and Janish's 09-10 budget--a budget that the Mayor voted for about 4 or 5 months ago and that is now falling apart around her and around the city employees.  Department heads were required to make cuts. Did the Mayor and council take a 4% cut? Probably not, but it is possible and even likely that these officials have protection from any increase or decrease in their pay during their time in office.

What do she and councilmembers think of the huge city debt? What do she and councilmembers think of the astronomical sewer increases--past and future? 

Have she and councilmembers ever really looked at and examined the 2008 audit and current financial  information to try and figure out what has gone on and what is going on? Have she and councilmembers looked at how much more money the city has taken in over the past five years?  Have she and councilmembers ever asked where the money went?

Are she and other councilmembers ready to ask financial questions now without fear of, gasp, micromanaging?  Or is the Mayor's real concern still light pollution and those pretty brick-paving machines?

June 4, 2009 The "news"paper, the City, and Sewer Rates

I have held off on this blog post for nearly six months. Now that belated testing of the city sewer and multimillion dollars repairs are again before the Mayor and City Council, it is time to review the city's arbitrary policy of charging double sewer rates to outside customers.

When sewer rates were discussed by City Council on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, Bob Moore of the Citizen Tribune was present.  The next day, Moore wrote a front-page article on council's delay in making a sewer rate decision.  [Bob missed several budget meetings during the weeks leading up to the June 16 meeting. He did not attend the previous meeting on June 9 when sewer rates were discussed.]

Bob's June 17th report had some truth in it and several half-truths.

Bob's truths: 1) There was significant discontent from many individuals regarding sewer rate increases. 2) Outside customers pay twice as much for sewer service as inside customers.

Crumley's half-truth as reported by Bob: State law provides that municipalities can charge up to double the rate to sewer customers who live outside the city limits in situations where no rate study has been conducted.

TRUTH: State law provides that a municipality must submit its cost study to the state when it charges more than twice as much to outside customers.  The new law is solely about providing the city's cost study to the state when the proposed rate is more than double the inside rate.  The new law does not say that no rate study has to be performed if the city is charging is double or less. Whether a city provides its cost study to the state or not, a municipality can not just pull an outside rate "out of the air" even when that rate is double or less. 

Crumley's comment, quoted without any fact-checking by Moore, was a half-truth that implied that state law says the city does not have to have a cost study or cost justification if it wants to charge double rates to outside customers. Crumley's comment conveniently ignored case law and CTAS/MTAS opinions that say a cost study is a "practical necessity" in order to provide a cost justification for charging more to different classes of customers (e.g. inside v. outside customers).

CTAS/MTAS opinions on the "practical necessity" of a cost study apply in all situations.  MTAS is Municipal Technical Advisory Services, which is connected to U-T and provides advice, support, and legal research to cities across the state. CTAS is County Technical Advisory Services, which is connected to U-T and provides advice, support, and legal research to counties across the state.

Bob's truth: Moore notes that Lamar Dunn performed a rate/cost study for the City. Yes, he did and his rate study was an average of all customers--both inside and outside. What Moore left out: Dunn did not do a separate study for setting inside costs/rates and one for setting outside costs/rates. State law says you have to relate your water or sewer rates to your costs.   That means that if you are going to charge higher rates to one set of customers (outside customers), then you have to be able to justify those higher rates through a cost study. That's where the City conveniently drops the ball and just arbitrarily charges outside customers twice as much (by "policy") instead of doing a cost study to see if the cost of providing sewer service to outside customers is really twice the cost of providing sewer service to inside customers.

While one might expect that costs of outside sewer service would be higher than inside, that is not necessarily the case. The costs of outside sewer service are not "automatically" twice that of inside sewer service.  Why? According to documents I received from the city, there are approximately 140+ or - outside sewer customers. 1) There was no cost to the city for extending sewer lines to 50 or so of these "outside" customers because the sewer extension to these customers was paid for by the county with county money and CDBG grant money ("Russellville Sewer Project"). 2) Other outside customers were allowed to tap onto existing city lines with no additional cost to the city for new lines. 3) There are numerous "inside" sewer customers who are much farther from the treatment plant than many "outside" customers, so distance from the treatment plant is not a factor for all outside customers.

It's time for an honest, independent cost study--not one that is designed to come up with a pre-determined result to justify the existing double rates.  An independent cost study would determine if there are any additional costs to the city in providing sewer service to outside customers as a group (additional costs would be unusual or extraordinary costs beyond those standard costs that all customers must bear); if there are additional costs, the amount of those costs; and, finally, determine the proper and fair rate for outside customers.

Bob's half-truth: "Linda Noe...renewed her call for city government to charge a uniform rate to sewer customers living inside and outside the city limits."  Moore conveniently left off the last part of my request. The TRUTH: I asked the city to charge the same rate for inside and outside customers until and unless they conduct a cost study showing what, if any, additional costs are incurred to provide sewer service to outside customers.  When there is an independent cost study, then one can examine it and see if higher sewer rates for outside customers are justified and, if so, what the outside rates should be.

According to CTAS attorneys (see above) a cost study such as the one that I asked the city to perform is a "practical necessity to properly and fairly determine and support the rate structure."  All I have ever asked is that the city "properly and fairly" determine the outside sewer rate without resorting to an arbitrary policy of automatically charging outside customers twice what is charged to the inside customer. That is not only  reasonable and logical, but, according to MTAS/CTAS, Councilman Garrett, and my own research, it is the proper way to set a fair and equitable rate for outside customers. The CTAS attorney's letter was given to Bob Moore and I cited it in my comments to council, but Moore apparently forgot to mention this part of the CTAS opinion in his article.

The City by its own admission and by its consultant's admission has no cost study "to properly and fairly determine and support the outside rate structure." [Moore wasn't at the meeting with the consultant but IF he wants the information, I have it. I also have the city's admission that it has no cost study relative to any additional costs for providing outside sewer service IF Bob wants that.

Bob's truth: Noe characterized the city's two-tier rate structure as "arbitrary." Why? Because it is. Because there is NO cost-basis or justification for charging twice as much to outside customers. That's about as arbitrary as you can get. You live outside...you get charged twice as much. If you ask "why?" the response from the City is "no particular reason but we have this special 'policy' that says we are going to charge you twice as much." That's arbitrary!

Bob's slightly irrelevant half-truth: Noe provided information to council indicating that the burden is on the property owner challenging the (sewer) rate. MTAS says that this burden is a "difficult" burden because courts start with the presumption that the rate is valid. It is true that a sewer customer who challenges the fairness and setting of sewer rates in court bears the burden of proof in the matter, and I presented the various court cases to the Council---along with all the information that says you have to have some kind of cost justification for setting a double rate (or any rate). Bob again ignored the fact that the court cases and CTAS/MTAS opinions say you have to have a cost justification for setting a double rate (or any rate).  Bob jumped the gun in talking about the burden of proof in court. This should never end up in court. There should be a cost-study. The City should be fair to ALL its ratepayers. The Mayor and City Council should not say to outside customers "sue me" over the city's arbitrary sewer rates.  But, sadly, that is the typical political reaction when facts are put before the council.

Bob missed the meeting with the sewer consultant, but he knows that the City commissioned and paid for a sewer rate study. If Bob had been at the meeting with the consultant, he would have known that the consultant was specifically asked if he separated costs into inside and outside costs to set inside and outside rates. The consultant said that there was no separation of costs. He just lumped all residential customers together and came up with an average.

Why no separation of costs so rates could be fairly and properly set? My guess is that the City either does not have or chose NOT to provide the consultant with inside and outside costs so he could determine inside and outside rates. Bob also forgot to add that the sewer lines for a large number of outside customers were donated to the city by the county as a result of the Russellville sewer grant. Other outside customers tapped onto an existing line with little or no additional cost to the city.

It's easy to "report" what you are spoon-fed. It's much harder to think about the situation and ask the "why?" and follow-up questions. But that is what a reporter is supposed to do.

Sewer rates--both inside and outside--affect a huge number of people. I would love to see Bob do a probing "series" of articles on sewer rates. Compare the detail of the last (1998?) cost study to the current cost study. Detail the $40M of improvements that Bryan Fowler says is planned. Look in-depth into the legality of rate-setting. Don't just take everything you are spoon-fed as gospel.

The series doesn't need to serve as a press release for quoting half-truths from elected and appointed officials and the editing of comments by others. Bob is savvy when he wants to be. He could (if allowed to) search for and report the truth himself or at least discuss the situation more fully with those who have expressed concerns about the legality of the situation. It wouldn't kill Bob to talk to me. I'll tell him what I know and he is more than welcome to verify it. He can talk to Crumley and then he needs to verify that as well.

I have been concerned about the City's arbitrary sewer rates since I first became aware of them during the time I served on county commission. During the Russellville low-income sewer grant process, several individuals came to county commission and informed us that outside sewer customers were charged twice as much as inside sewer customers. That meant that the Russellville sewer grant recipients would get a "free" sewer hook-up but they would then be stuck with "arbitrary" DOUBLE monthly sewer rates from the City of Morristown. Sort of like being given a free Hummer and then being told that you have to provide the gas every month. But at least with the Hummer, you could sell it.

And there are other outside customers--though not all that many--scattered throughout the county. The extra that these outside customers pay in DOUBLE charges to the city is a drop in the bucket in relation to the millions spent through the sewer fund. But sewer increases and DOUBLE charges have a huge impact on each individual or family budget.