Pigeon Forge and Liquor-by-the-Drink.
Two Liquor-by-the-Drink Referenda failed (2009 and 2011).
Normally, Pigeon Forge would have had to wait two years--May 2013--to hold another referendum. However, various lawmakers at the state level maneuvered legislation through so that a new referendum could be held in November 2012.
The November 6, 2012, LBTD Referendum took place. LBTD passed by 100 votes, but an election contest was filed in Sevier Chancery Court by Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge claiming that around 300 votes had been cast in the referendum by ineligible voters who did not reside and did not own property in Pigeon Forge.
On the eve of the election contest trial, the Defendant Sevier County Election Commission asked their attorney to stipulate or agree that the results of the election were "incurably uncertain."
The November referendum was then voided on January 10 by Chancellor Telford Forgety and a new referendum ordered to be held.
The new referendum is set for March 14, 2013.
The NS has the article here.
That this referendum will be closely watched is probably an understatement.
And left unresolved from the last referendum is the issue of "1% voters."
Just prior to the last referendum, several deeds conveying 1% of valuable commercial tracts to non-Pigeon Forge residents were executed.
As owners of property in Pigeon Forge, these "1 percenters" had the right to vote in the Pigeon Forge LBTD referendum. Interestingly, some of the "1% owners/voters" deeded their property back to the original owner right after the November referendum. A follow-up discussion of this aspect of the voided referendum is here.
Showing posts with label Referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Referendum. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
January 13, 2013 Chancellor Orders New LBTD Referendum
A new liquor-by-the-drink (LBTD) referendum will be held in Pigeon Forge.
On the first day of the election contest/trial in Sevier Chancery Court, a few preliminary motions were disposed of and then Chancellor Telford Forgety ordered a new referendum. Click here and here.
LBTD passed by a 100-vote margin in a November 6 referendum in Pigeon Forge. Shortly afterwards, however, it was alleged that the number of votes cast in the election exceeded the number of eligible voters by about 300 votes.
Concerned Citizens and Churches of Pigeon Forge filed suit against the Sevier County Election Commission to contest the referendum. CCCPF claimed that the approximately 300 "extra" votes cast in the referendum were "illegal" votes and made the results of the election "incurably uncertain."
Initially, the Election Commission referred to the 300 "extra" votes as "improper." Depositions were taken. Then on January 9th, the day before the trial, the Sevier County Election Commission held a meeting and unanimously instructed its lawyer to tell the Court that the Election Commission agrees that the results of the LBTD referendum are "incurably uncertain" which is the legal standard for overturning an election. Click here and here.
With the Defendant Election Commission admitting/stipulating to the Court on the day of trial that the results of the referendum were "incurably uncertain" as alleged by Plaintiff CCCPF, the Chancellor's ruling--barring some unanticipated or unforeseen development--was not in doubt.
The parties and the voters in Pigeon Forge will now gear up for another LBTD referendum.
Previous posts and links are here.
On the first day of the election contest/trial in Sevier Chancery Court, a few preliminary motions were disposed of and then Chancellor Telford Forgety ordered a new referendum. Click here and here.
LBTD passed by a 100-vote margin in a November 6 referendum in Pigeon Forge. Shortly afterwards, however, it was alleged that the number of votes cast in the election exceeded the number of eligible voters by about 300 votes.
Concerned Citizens and Churches of Pigeon Forge filed suit against the Sevier County Election Commission to contest the referendum. CCCPF claimed that the approximately 300 "extra" votes cast in the referendum were "illegal" votes and made the results of the election "incurably uncertain."
Initially, the Election Commission referred to the 300 "extra" votes as "improper." Depositions were taken. Then on January 9th, the day before the trial, the Sevier County Election Commission held a meeting and unanimously instructed its lawyer to tell the Court that the Election Commission agrees that the results of the LBTD referendum are "incurably uncertain" which is the legal standard for overturning an election. Click here and here.
With the Defendant Election Commission admitting/stipulating to the Court on the day of trial that the results of the referendum were "incurably uncertain" as alleged by Plaintiff CCCPF, the Chancellor's ruling--barring some unanticipated or unforeseen development--was not in doubt.
The parties and the voters in Pigeon Forge will now gear up for another LBTD referendum.
Previous posts and links are here.
Monday, January 07, 2013
January 7, 2013 Chancellor Lets Pigeon Forge Pro-Liquor Group in on Election Contest
At a court hearing last week, Sevier Chancellor Telford Forgety ruled that the pro liquor-by-the-drink group "Forging Ahead" may intervene and participate in the election contest regarding the Pigeon Forge LBTD referendum held on November 6.
LBTD passed by 100 votes in the referendum, but it is alleged that around 300 "illegal" or "improper" votes were cast in the election. The anti-liquor group maintains that 300 "illegal" votes were cast and the pro-liquor group prefers to call the extra votes "improper."
Hopefully, both groups are concerned about that close to 300 illegal/improper votes were cast and counted in a referendum election that was decided by a mere 100 votes.
Election contests can be difficult for all parties. If Chancellor Forgety does not dismiss the case for lack of standing on the part of the Plaintiff Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge, this election contest will begin on Thursday, January 10, and will likely continue on January 11.
Click here and here.
LBTD passed by 100 votes in the referendum, but it is alleged that around 300 "illegal" or "improper" votes were cast in the election. The anti-liquor group maintains that 300 "illegal" votes were cast and the pro-liquor group prefers to call the extra votes "improper."
Hopefully, both groups are concerned about that close to 300 illegal/improper votes were cast and counted in a referendum election that was decided by a mere 100 votes.
Election contests can be difficult for all parties. If Chancellor Forgety does not dismiss the case for lack of standing on the part of the Plaintiff Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge, this election contest will begin on Thursday, January 10, and will likely continue on January 11.
Click here and here.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
December 27, 2012 Poll Workers' Deposition Testimony in Pigeon Forge LBTD Election Contest
The Pigeon Forge liquor-by-the-drink referendum is the subject of an election contest in Sevier County Chancery Court. The trial is scheduled for January 10-11 in front of Chancellor Telford Forgety.
One of the allegations in the election contest is that 300+ more votes were counted and certified by the Sevier County Election Commission than were cast by actual registered Pigeon Forge voters. Therefore, the true election results are "incurably uncertain."
In the LBTD referendum, there were 1232 votes FOR and 1132 AGAINST. Since the referendum only passed with a 100-vote margin and the validity of more than 300 votes is in question, the election contest may decide whether the referendum stands or whether a new referendum must be held.
Deposition testimony of two Pigeon Forge poll workers indicates that non-Pigeon Forge voters (e.g. Sevier County voters who live outside Pigeon Forge and who are not Pigeon Forge property owners) were allowed to vote in the Pigeon Forge LBTD referendum.
Greg Johnson of the News-Sentinel discusses some of the testimony here.
Previous blog posts with links to N-S articles are here, here, and here.
One of the allegations in the election contest is that 300+ more votes were counted and certified by the Sevier County Election Commission than were cast by actual registered Pigeon Forge voters. Therefore, the true election results are "incurably uncertain."
In the LBTD referendum, there were 1232 votes FOR and 1132 AGAINST. Since the referendum only passed with a 100-vote margin and the validity of more than 300 votes is in question, the election contest may decide whether the referendum stands or whether a new referendum must be held.
Deposition testimony of two Pigeon Forge poll workers indicates that non-Pigeon Forge voters (e.g. Sevier County voters who live outside Pigeon Forge and who are not Pigeon Forge property owners) were allowed to vote in the Pigeon Forge LBTD referendum.
Greg Johnson of the News-Sentinel discusses some of the testimony here.
Previous blog posts with links to N-S articles are here, here, and here.
Friday, December 21, 2012
December 21, 2012 More on the Pigeon Forge Liquor-by-the-Drink Referendum and Election Contest
Update on the Pigeon Forge Liquor-by-the-Drink (LBTD) Referendum. See December 12th post here.
A number of depositions have already been taken in preparation for the election contest that is scheduled to be heard before Chancellor Telford Forgety in Sevier County Chancery Court on Jan 10-11, 2013. Information on deposition testimony by poll workers is here.
The attorney for the Sevier County Election Commission which handles voting in Pigeon Forge has stated that he agrees with poll workers who stated that it (Election Day) was a "confusing and chaotic" day.
Attorney Dennis Francis also stated that most of the "extra" votes case in the referendum election will come from those who live in Sevier County but outside of the Pigeon Forge city limits. Francis claims that those "extra" votes, which are alleged to be around 303, may be lower than 303 but "not significantly lower."
In the LBTD referendum, there were 1232 votes FOR and 1132 AGAINST. Since the referendum only passed with a 100-vote margin and the validity of 303 votes is in question, the election contest will prove to be very interesting.
Because the election was certified, liquor licenses have been granted. Here.
As in many cities, individuals who do not live in Pigeon Forge but who own property there may vote in city elections. In addition to various irregularities at the polling places, today's News-Sentinel article includes information on property deeds made out to more than a dozen non-residents right before the referendum.
These deeds were drafted by Knoxville arrorney Elizabeth Martin and enabled these individuals, including the attorney, to vote in the LBTD referendum. The deeds transfer a 1% interest in commercial property to the Knoxville attorney and several others and show "$0" as the consideration or amount paid for the 1% interest. After the election, at least three of the "new" property owners, including the attorney who drafted the deeds, deeded the property back to LeConte Village, LLC
The News-Sentinel also reports that the FBI met recently with and obtained records from the group (Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge) that opposed the LBTD referendum and that filed the election contest.
A number of depositions have already been taken in preparation for the election contest that is scheduled to be heard before Chancellor Telford Forgety in Sevier County Chancery Court on Jan 10-11, 2013. Information on deposition testimony by poll workers is here.
The attorney for the Sevier County Election Commission which handles voting in Pigeon Forge has stated that he agrees with poll workers who stated that it (Election Day) was a "confusing and chaotic" day.
Attorney Dennis Francis also stated that most of the "extra" votes case in the referendum election will come from those who live in Sevier County but outside of the Pigeon Forge city limits. Francis claims that those "extra" votes, which are alleged to be around 303, may be lower than 303 but "not significantly lower."
In the LBTD referendum, there were 1232 votes FOR and 1132 AGAINST. Since the referendum only passed with a 100-vote margin and the validity of 303 votes is in question, the election contest will prove to be very interesting.
Because the election was certified, liquor licenses have been granted. Here.
As in many cities, individuals who do not live in Pigeon Forge but who own property there may vote in city elections. In addition to various irregularities at the polling places, today's News-Sentinel article includes information on property deeds made out to more than a dozen non-residents right before the referendum.
These deeds were drafted by Knoxville arrorney Elizabeth Martin and enabled these individuals, including the attorney, to vote in the LBTD referendum. The deeds transfer a 1% interest in commercial property to the Knoxville attorney and several others and show "$0" as the consideration or amount paid for the 1% interest. After the election, at least three of the "new" property owners, including the attorney who drafted the deeds, deeded the property back to LeConte Village, LLC
The News-Sentinel also reports that the FBI met recently with and obtained records from the group (Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge) that opposed the LBTD referendum and that filed the election contest.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
December 12, 2012 Election Contest Filed in Sevier Chancery Court in Pigeon Forge Liquor-by-the-Drink Referendum
A liquor-by-the-drink referendum was held in Pigeon Forge on November 6.
On November 19, the Sevier County Election Commission certified the results of the LBTD referendum, 1,232 FOR and 1,132 AGAINST, for a total of 2,364 votes cast on the LBTD question.
A lawsuit was then filed by a group opposed to LBTD alleging that irregularities in the conduct of the election and discrepancies in the final tally make the results of the vote "incurably uncertain."
Among the problems cited in the Complaint, it is stated that Election Commission records show that 2,061 registered voters cast votes in the LBTD referendum, but the Election Commission certified final results showing that 2,364 votes were cast in the LBTD referendum.
The suit asks that the current referendum be voided and a new referendum held.
The Sevier County Chancery lawsuit is here. The News-Sentinel article with a link to the lawsuit is here.
Articles are here, here, here, and here.
On November 19, the Sevier County Election Commission certified the results of the LBTD referendum, 1,232 FOR and 1,132 AGAINST, for a total of 2,364 votes cast on the LBTD question.
A lawsuit was then filed by a group opposed to LBTD alleging that irregularities in the conduct of the election and discrepancies in the final tally make the results of the vote "incurably uncertain."
Among the problems cited in the Complaint, it is stated that Election Commission records show that 2,061 registered voters cast votes in the LBTD referendum, but the Election Commission certified final results showing that 2,364 votes were cast in the LBTD referendum.
The suit asks that the current referendum be voided and a new referendum held.
The Sevier County Chancery lawsuit is here. The News-Sentinel article with a link to the lawsuit is here.
Articles are here, here, here, and here.
Monday, August 27, 2012
August 27, 2012 Carl Murphy Speaks To City Council on the Tilman GOINS-Don MILLER race
Murphy went to Nashville this past spring with Councilman Gene Brooks to ask local Rep. Don Miller to allow a local referendum on proposed changes to the MUC Private Act involving the appointment process for MUC Commissioners.
I went to Nashville a couple of times as well. I also called several times to ask both Don and Sen. Steve Southerland and other legislators to let the people vote on the proposed changes to the MUC appointment process.
That's all we asked---let the people vote! I explained to Steve, Don, and other legislators that the MUC appointment process then in place had been adopted BY THE PEOPLE in a 2001 referendum election along with a set of MUC changes and, therefore, any change to the appointment process should be placed on the ballot for a vote BY THE PEOPLE in 2012.
As Carl notes, Don refused to let the people vote. Several other legislators privately (and some publicly) encouraged Don to let the people vote. Don refused every request to let the people vote.
Shortly after Don and Steve pushed their new MUC appointment process through the state legislature, Tilman Goins came forward to challenge Don. And on August 2, 2012, Don lost his seat in the State House of Representatives after one term. Click here.
Don had the money and the political machine behind him.
Goins joined the race to stand up for the people and the principle that a local law passed by the people should not be overturned by one, two, or 132 legislators in Nashville or by five Morristown City Councilmembers.
Goins brought out several other issues and endured vicious attacks by Don and his followers.
Don ran ads about Goins' two "government checks" without ever explaining that one of those "government checks" was a small Veterans Administration (VA) check for a service-connected disability related to Goins years of military service in the Marine Corps and the US Army.
[The other government check is, of course, Goins' salary as an elected county commissioner which is just like Don's "government check" as a state representative--only much smaller]
The attack on Goins' VA disability pension was gutter campaigning at its worst. Miller's implcation that a VA service-connected disability pension is like a free-loading "government check"
was an affront to all who have served in the US Armed Forces.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Friday, August 03, 2012
August 3, 2012 Tilman GOINS Defeats Don MILLER
March 13, 2012: Rep. Don Miller sponsored a bill in the state legislature to change the Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) appointment procedure that had been approved and put in place in 2001 by a vote of the people.
During discussion of his bill, Don was asked if he would let the people of Morristown vote on his change to what the people had already approved. Don said "No."
August 2, 2012: The PEOPLE finally had their referendum.
Tilman GOINS defeated Don Miller.
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.
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?
Saturday, January 28, 2012
January 28, 2012 CFA (Citizens for Accountability) Pushes To Protect Voters and the Integrity of the 2001 City Referendum on MUC
Morristown-Hamblen Citizens for Accountability recently sent letters to Morristown voters with history, background, and current information on the effort by five Morristown City Councilmembers (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) to overturn the votes of the 3,202 people (72%) who voted for a series of changes to the Morristown Utilities Commission in a 2001 referendum.
The Five have set in motion their plan to do an end-run around the MUC appointment process that 3,202 voters put in place with their votes FOR the 2001 MUC referendum question!
These Five have decided that they don't like the MUC appointment process that was among the MUC changes put in place by 3,202 VOTERS in 2001. So...the Five have decided that THEY will overturn the voter-approved MUC appointment process all by themselves---without going back to the people in a referendum to see if the PEOPLE want to leave the current appointment process in place or want to make a change.
The Five apparently don't care about the integrity of the referendum as the voice of the people. The Five think that they are justified in overturning the votes of the PEOPLE and changing the MUC selection process to what they want because...well...just because they can and they want to...
And because George McGuffin is sitting on the sidelines and oh-so-quietly cheering them on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
