Xerox has a site that lets you select a "thank you" card and a message to send to an American serviceman in Iraq.
I picked a card that had been designed by a young Tennessee student. Then I picked a message, signed it, and sent it. I encourage others to do the same.
Just go to http://www.letssaythanks.com/ and follow the directions. Over 3.7 million messages have already gone out!
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
November 1, 2006 Reinhardt Asks for Clarification of Election Law
In several posts at the end of September (26th, 27th, and 29th), I reported on the "Election Contest" filed by former Commissioners Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt after the August 3 Election.
In official and unofficial Election Reports handed out on Election Night, there were numerous mathematical oddities and conincidences as described at the Election Contest trial in September.
Ultimately, a Special Master (former Criminal Court Judge Eddie Beckner) was appointed. Beckner examined the machines and also reviewed the absentee and paper ballots cast in the District 1 race (Osborne-Lebel) and the District 4 race (Reinhardt-Sexton).
Subsequently, the vote count and the winners in both races (Lebel and Sexton) were left as originally reported.
Now an appeal has been filed by Bobby Reinhardt with the Trial Court and with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
In addition, a direct appeal has been made to the Tennessee Supreme Court, seeking an immediate, quick, and final ruling on interpretation of state law regarding the conduct of early voting.
Reinhardt states that T.C.A. 2-6-104 is "plain and unambiguous."
2-6-104. Voting machines for early voting.
(a) A county election commission may use voting machines for early voting. The county election commission shall choose one (1) of the following options for its method of early voting.
(1) Place all races on a machine ballot;
(2) Place some of the races on a machine ballot and part of the races on a paper ballot; or
(3) Place all races on a paper ballot.
In early voting, votes in the District 4 race were cast partly by machine ballots and partly by paper ballots (with two paper ballots being cast).
Chancellor Corlew noted the problematic wording of the statute and said that he "recognized that the interpretation of T.C.A. 2-6-104 is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ...."
The Chancellor chose not to throw out the two paper ballots cast during early voting in the Reinhardt-Sexton race, saying that the voters who cast the paper ballots during early voting would have proceeded to vote by machine (had they not been given the paper ballots) and thus the results of the race would have been the same.
Reinhardt maintains that the statute is "plain and unambiguous" and that only one interpretation of the statute---as currently written--- can be reached. As a result, Reinhardt wants the two paper ballots cast in early voting in District 4 to be discarded as "having been illegally cast" and the District 4 election declared either void or a mathematical tie.
In official and unofficial Election Reports handed out on Election Night, there were numerous mathematical oddities and conincidences as described at the Election Contest trial in September.
Ultimately, a Special Master (former Criminal Court Judge Eddie Beckner) was appointed. Beckner examined the machines and also reviewed the absentee and paper ballots cast in the District 1 race (Osborne-Lebel) and the District 4 race (Reinhardt-Sexton).
Subsequently, the vote count and the winners in both races (Lebel and Sexton) were left as originally reported.
Now an appeal has been filed by Bobby Reinhardt with the Trial Court and with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
In addition, a direct appeal has been made to the Tennessee Supreme Court, seeking an immediate, quick, and final ruling on interpretation of state law regarding the conduct of early voting.
Reinhardt states that T.C.A. 2-6-104 is "plain and unambiguous."
2-6-104. Voting machines for early voting.
(a) A county election commission may use voting machines for early voting. The county election commission shall choose one (1) of the following options for its method of early voting.
(1) Place all races on a machine ballot;
(2) Place some of the races on a machine ballot and part of the races on a paper ballot; or
(3) Place all races on a paper ballot.
In early voting, votes in the District 4 race were cast partly by machine ballots and partly by paper ballots (with two paper ballots being cast).
Chancellor Corlew noted the problematic wording of the statute and said that he "recognized that the interpretation of T.C.A. 2-6-104 is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ...."
The Chancellor chose not to throw out the two paper ballots cast during early voting in the Reinhardt-Sexton race, saying that the voters who cast the paper ballots during early voting would have proceeded to vote by machine (had they not been given the paper ballots) and thus the results of the race would have been the same.
Reinhardt maintains that the statute is "plain and unambiguous" and that only one interpretation of the statute---as currently written--- can be reached. As a result, Reinhardt wants the two paper ballots cast in early voting in District 4 to be discarded as "having been illegally cast" and the District 4 election declared either void or a mathematical tie.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
.0.jpg)
October 29, 2006 Fall Back!
Fall is a beautiful time of year.Leaves on the trees are brilliant colors of red, orange, yellow, gold, brown, and every shade in-between.
East Tennessee is special. The beauty of Nature is all around.
While you enjoy the colorful fall leaves, remember to turn all your clocks back one hour ("fall back") as we change from Daylight Savings Time to Eastern Standard Time.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
October 28, 2006 County Building Projects and Accountability
Accountability is being able to say how much you spent, what you spent it on, and where the money came from.
I asked the county Finance Department in early August for accountability for taxpayer money---millions of dollars---spent on the jail annex, courthouse addition, children's library, dental clinic, justice center HVAC, justice center roof, justice center generator, etc.
Weeks passed with no response. So I asked then-Chairman of the Commission (Joe Spoone) to inquire about the requested information. Joe responded publicly at the August meeting of the Commission that he had been told by Finance Director Nicole Epps that a report would be provided to the commission by August 31, 2006.
Well, no report was provided on August 31, 2006.
And now-- over 10 weeks after the request for accountability was first made-- still no report has been provided.
Obviously, if the County Mayor and his Finance Department know what has been spent and where all the money came from, they need to provide that information.
If the County Mayor and his Finance Department don't know what was spent on each project and where the money came from, then they need to be upfront and admit that instead of saying they will provide a report and then stonewalling.
Hopefully, Commission Chair Stancil Ford and other commissioners (Baker, Bruce, Collins, Fullington, Harville, Parker, Phillips, Spoone) who were on the commission when the 5-year plans were adopted or when millions in capital expenditures were made will be able to get a report and accountability for these dollars.
Five of the new commissioners (Lebel, Massey, Sexton, Swann, and Wampler) did not vote for the original plans or subsequent expenditures, but these new commissioners are businessmen and one of them is an accountant (Swann).
Business people and accountants know how important it is to know how much has been spent on a building project and where the money came from.
With the last capital project coming up ---the painting of the courthouse--- there should be accountability for all capital spending to date.
I checked again with Joe Spoone on October 19 about accountability for these funds. He said he that he didn't know why a report on the capital spending hadn't already been provided.
It's now October 28 and there is still no accountability and no report for the total spent on each building project and where the total spent came from (bond money or other sources).
Before new requests for capital spending are voted on and before spending on the last of the "old" capital projects is approved (the courthouse painting), it sure would be nice to know that the County Mayor and his Finance Department are able to account for the millions spent on county buildings and improvements.
There are two posts today...scroll down to read the first October 28 post.
I asked the county Finance Department in early August for accountability for taxpayer money---millions of dollars---spent on the jail annex, courthouse addition, children's library, dental clinic, justice center HVAC, justice center roof, justice center generator, etc.
Weeks passed with no response. So I asked then-Chairman of the Commission (Joe Spoone) to inquire about the requested information. Joe responded publicly at the August meeting of the Commission that he had been told by Finance Director Nicole Epps that a report would be provided to the commission by August 31, 2006.
Well, no report was provided on August 31, 2006.
And now-- over 10 weeks after the request for accountability was first made-- still no report has been provided.
Obviously, if the County Mayor and his Finance Department know what has been spent and where all the money came from, they need to provide that information.
If the County Mayor and his Finance Department don't know what was spent on each project and where the money came from, then they need to be upfront and admit that instead of saying they will provide a report and then stonewalling.
Hopefully, Commission Chair Stancil Ford and other commissioners (Baker, Bruce, Collins, Fullington, Harville, Parker, Phillips, Spoone) who were on the commission when the 5-year plans were adopted or when millions in capital expenditures were made will be able to get a report and accountability for these dollars.
Five of the new commissioners (Lebel, Massey, Sexton, Swann, and Wampler) did not vote for the original plans or subsequent expenditures, but these new commissioners are businessmen and one of them is an accountant (Swann).
Business people and accountants know how important it is to know how much has been spent on a building project and where the money came from.
With the last capital project coming up ---the painting of the courthouse--- there should be accountability for all capital spending to date.
I checked again with Joe Spoone on October 19 about accountability for these funds. He said he that he didn't know why a report on the capital spending hadn't already been provided.
It's now October 28 and there is still no accountability and no report for the total spent on each building project and where the total spent came from (bond money or other sources).
Before new requests for capital spending are voted on and before spending on the last of the "old" capital projects is approved (the courthouse painting), it sure would be nice to know that the County Mayor and his Finance Department are able to account for the millions spent on county buildings and improvements.
There are two posts today...scroll down to read the first October 28 post.
October 28, 2006 Why haven't there been posts for a month?
The answer to the title of this post is simple.
I decided to sit back for a while and watch Hamblen County government and officials in action without any blog comments.
Now, after watching for a month, I will be posting and offering comments and information about what's going on.
It is obvious that multi-million dollar expenditures are being pushed rapidly to the forefront and, I suspect, are headed for quick public votes.
Quick decisions are intended to make it all a "done deal" as soon as possible with little (public) discussion and few (public) questions.
Of course, public questions about where public money is going don't get answered anyway (see my other October 28 post), so it is easy to understand why few questions are asked.
Still...this blog will provide information and let Hamblen Countians know why their local taxes (property, sales, wheel, etc.) and fees are headed for the roof.
Hang on! It's going to be an expensive ride over the next four years.
I decided to sit back for a while and watch Hamblen County government and officials in action without any blog comments.
Now, after watching for a month, I will be posting and offering comments and information about what's going on.
It is obvious that multi-million dollar expenditures are being pushed rapidly to the forefront and, I suspect, are headed for quick public votes.
Quick decisions are intended to make it all a "done deal" as soon as possible with little (public) discussion and few (public) questions.
Of course, public questions about where public money is going don't get answered anyway (see my other October 28 post), so it is easy to understand why few questions are asked.
Still...this blog will provide information and let Hamblen Countians know why their local taxes (property, sales, wheel, etc.) and fees are headed for the roof.
Hang on! It's going to be an expensive ride over the next four years.
Friday, September 29, 2006
September 29, 2006 Change in Date for Selection of Special Master
There has been a change in the date/deadline for Selection of a Special Master in the Election Contest filed by Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt.
Scroll down to see previous posts of September 26 and 27 for background on the Election Contest and trial testimony.
The Master will supervise the court-ordered recount in County Commission race District 1 (Osborne v. Lebel) and District 4 (Reinhardt v. Sexton).
The Master will also examine the Microvote voting machines (new and old) in Hamblen County.
The new date or deadline for selection of the Master is apparently October 4. [Originally, a Saturday, September 30, date was shown in the Memorandum Opinion. ]
Expect the recount of machine and paper ballots to proceed quickly once the Master is appointed by the Chancellor since the machines have to be ready to go for the November election.
Scroll down to see previous posts of September 26 and 27 for background on the Election Contest and trial testimony.
The Master will supervise the court-ordered recount in County Commission race District 1 (Osborne v. Lebel) and District 4 (Reinhardt v. Sexton).
The Master will also examine the Microvote voting machines (new and old) in Hamblen County.
The new date or deadline for selection of the Master is apparently October 4. [Originally, a Saturday, September 30, date was shown in the Memorandum Opinion. ]
Expect the recount of machine and paper ballots to proceed quickly once the Master is appointed by the Chancellor since the machines have to be ready to go for the November election.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
September 27, 2006 Hamblen County Election (III)
The previous posts (I) and (II) reported the chancellor's ruling in the Election Contest filed by Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt.
I attended the September 22 trial. It was an excellent pressentation of evidence and testimony about what happened on Aug. 3 during vote-counting.
County Commissioner Nancy Phillips was there in the morning, and County Mayor David Purkey was there at different times during the day.
Since I did not run for re-election, I was not at the Courthouse after the polls closed on Aug. 3.
At the trial, the atmosphere was referred to as a "zoo." Several people who were there agreed with that assessment. A witness testifying on behalf of the Election Commission stated that it was "controlled chaos."
If you are regular blog reader, you know that numbers are important to me---see the July 8, 2005, post where I spotted and got corrected the $1 million dollar mistake by the state in setting the county's certified tax rate in 2005.
Numbers were important in the Election Contest trials. Numbers, documents, and vote tallies that came out of the Election Commission Office on August 3 were put into evidence.
Two documents were unusual. One said that 95% of the precincts had reported and that total of 10,945 votes had been cast. Another document said that 100% of the precincts had reported and 10,620 votes had been cast. There is a problem here---a computer glitch, human error, or some other problem.
Exhibit 7 (which was retrieved for Commissioner Osborne from a recycling box by Election Administrator Wanda Neal) showed that 731 votes were cast in District 1 and 375 were cast in District 4.
Exhibit 5, however, showed that 466 votes were cast in District 1, and 319 were cast in District 4.
How do you go from a report of 731 votes cast to a report of only 466 votes cast? How do you go from 375 votes cast to only 319 votes cast?
The explanation, hopefully, will come from the Special Master who will conduct the recount, check the machines, and check the paper ballots.
Perhaps the contradictory documents and totals that were put out at various times may be explained by human error, plain old mistakes, transposition of numbers, stress and rushing.
Whatever the explanation of the differing information on the reports that were provided that night, events such as this should be resolved.
A recount and an examination of the machines should answer many of the questions about the "controlled chaos" of August 3.
With electronic data and computerization, there needs to be some understanding and an explanation of how one set of numbers came out of the machines at one point in time and another smaller set of numbers came out later.
It seems plausible to have smaller vote totals during the early steps of the counting process and then larger vote totals later on as all votes are counted.
It is difficult, however, to understand how you can have larger vote totals in the early part of the counting process and then smaller vote totals in the end.
I attended the September 22 trial. It was an excellent pressentation of evidence and testimony about what happened on Aug. 3 during vote-counting.
County Commissioner Nancy Phillips was there in the morning, and County Mayor David Purkey was there at different times during the day.
Since I did not run for re-election, I was not at the Courthouse after the polls closed on Aug. 3.
At the trial, the atmosphere was referred to as a "zoo." Several people who were there agreed with that assessment. A witness testifying on behalf of the Election Commission stated that it was "controlled chaos."
If you are regular blog reader, you know that numbers are important to me---see the July 8, 2005, post where I spotted and got corrected the $1 million dollar mistake by the state in setting the county's certified tax rate in 2005.
Numbers were important in the Election Contest trials. Numbers, documents, and vote tallies that came out of the Election Commission Office on August 3 were put into evidence.
Two documents were unusual. One said that 95% of the precincts had reported and that total of 10,945 votes had been cast. Another document said that 100% of the precincts had reported and 10,620 votes had been cast. There is a problem here---a computer glitch, human error, or some other problem.
Exhibit 7 (which was retrieved for Commissioner Osborne from a recycling box by Election Administrator Wanda Neal) showed that 731 votes were cast in District 1 and 375 were cast in District 4.
Exhibit 5, however, showed that 466 votes were cast in District 1, and 319 were cast in District 4.
How do you go from a report of 731 votes cast to a report of only 466 votes cast? How do you go from 375 votes cast to only 319 votes cast?
The explanation, hopefully, will come from the Special Master who will conduct the recount, check the machines, and check the paper ballots.
Perhaps the contradictory documents and totals that were put out at various times may be explained by human error, plain old mistakes, transposition of numbers, stress and rushing.
Whatever the explanation of the differing information on the reports that were provided that night, events such as this should be resolved.
A recount and an examination of the machines should answer many of the questions about the "controlled chaos" of August 3.
With electronic data and computerization, there needs to be some understanding and an explanation of how one set of numbers came out of the machines at one point in time and another smaller set of numbers came out later.
It seems plausible to have smaller vote totals during the early steps of the counting process and then larger vote totals later on as all votes are counted.
It is difficult, however, to understand how you can have larger vote totals in the early part of the counting process and then smaller vote totals in the end.
September 26, 2006 Hamblen County Election Contest (II)
Readers should scroll down and read my previous post (Hamblen County Election Contest I) before reading the trial details provided in this post.
An Election Contest complaint was filed by attorney Paul Whetstone on behalf of County Commissioners Edwin Osborne (1st district) and Bobby Reinhardt (4th district) in connection with the Aug. 3 election. A Trial was held in Hamblen County on September 22. Most of the allegations of Osborne and Reinhardt are found in my previous post (I).
After hearing the testimony of the Petitioners (Osborne and Reinhardt) and petitioners' witnesses as well as the testimony of Respondents (Wanda Neal, Randall Johnson, and Dwaine Evans, Gayle Bruce) and respondents' witnesses, the Court delivered a Memorandum Opinion on September 26.
In his Opinion, Chancellor Corlew pointed out that Petitioners Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt testified in a firm and straightforward manner. He added that Respondent Wanda Neal testified in a matter of fact but "mildly confrontational manner" and that Election Commissioner Randall Johnson was "vigorous" in his own defense when questioned about his vocal support of a political candidate (Petitioner Osborne's opponent) while serving as a member of the election commission.
The Chancellor pointed out several reasons for the delay in tabulating the election results on August 3. One problem was the length of the Aug. 3 ballot. Other delays occurred because two types of Microvote machines were being used in Hamblen County for the first time.
In addition, delays resulted from Microvote software problems as well as issues connected with the two Microvote "contract employees" who had been provided to help in the tabulation of votes from the new Infinity machines.
Administrator of Elections Wanda Neal stated that these two workers were unfamiliar with the process for tabulating the vote. She also stated that it was her hope that Microvote would send other personnel to Morristown for the November election.
The Chancellor acknowledged the longer-than-normal delay in reporting the final results from the Aug. 3 election but stated that the delay, standing alone, is not significant.
What caused concern for the Chancellor were the clearly erroneous voting reports that were given out at various times during the night.
One of the first reports to be issued that night was a report of early voting totals.
Petitioner Osborne and 11th district commission candidate J. B. Elmore testified that they saw an early voting printout that had the candidates' names reversed and also had clearly erroneous early voting totals for their districts.
Osborne and Elmore pointed out to WCRK reporter Mike Rypel that the vote totals for each of their races were clearly wrong. As a result, Rypel did not report the first totals he had been given on air but, instead, took the report back in to the Election Commission office.
Election Commission Chair Dwaine Evans agreed that the early voting totals in commission races were wrong on this initial report but stated that the names were not reversed.
The Election Commission apparently no longer has a copy of the first erroneous early voting report that Osborne, Elmore, and Evans reviewed.
Later, another printout was provided to the press and to the candidates by the Election Commission. Osborne and Elmore testified that the names were listed in the correct order on the new printout but that the vote totals were still clearly erroneous.
The Chancellor stated that these factors and other coincidences that occurred that night cause the mind "not to rest easy as to the vote count. Thus, because of the combination of all these factors, we find that the Petitioners have carried the burden with respect to their demand for a recount."
In regard to Reinhardt's request that the election be voided due to the Election Commission allowing the use of machine ballots and paper ballots during early voting, the Chancellor stated that this could be interpreted as a violation of T.C.A. section 2-16-104 (which states that the county election commission shall choose one method of early voting, i.e.a race shall be on machine ballots, or a race shall be on paper ballots, or some races shall be on machine ballots and other races on paper ballots).
However, the Chancellor did not void the election because of this possible violation. There was no evidence of fraud in the casting of the two paper ballots, and the individuals would have likely voted by machine had they been required to do so.
The Chancellor did note that this was a very "sensitive" issue because Reinhardt lost by exactly two votes. If the two paper ballots had been for Reinhardt's opponent and if the Election Commission had chosen not to count them, then Reinhardt's race would have ended in a tie on August 3.
The Chancellor also refused to void the election on the basis of Election Commissioner Randall Johnson's vigorous support of Osborne's opponent Paul Lebel who is a business partner of Mr. Johnson's son (Morristown Mayor Gary Johnson).
The Chancellor discussed the importance of elected and appointed officials avoiding "even the appearance of impropriety" in carrying out their duties. While he noted Mr. Johnson's right of free speech, he also pointed out that the "better rule is that of maintaining neutrality and detachment in respect for the grave duties and responsibilities placed upon one as an election commissioner."
Several exhibits (mostly Election Commission documents) at the trial were contradictory.
For example, one document showed that 10,945 total votes had been cast with only 95% of precincts reporting.
You would expect, then, to see a higher number of votes when all precincts had reported.
Instead, another document showed that fewer votes----10,620 votes---- had been cast with 100% of precincts reporting.
CONCLUSION:
The Chancellor determined that the election should not be voided but that there should be a recount. The attorneys for the parties shall get together and agree upon a special Master. If they can't agree, then they will submit names to the Chancellor and a decision on appointment of a Master will be made by the end of the day on September 30.
The Master will conduct a machine and and paper ballot recount. The parties and their attorneys may be present.
The Master will also examine each of the machines used in District 1 (Osborne-Lebel) and District 4 (Reinhardt-Sexton) to make sure that when a voter pushes a button for Osborne that a vote is recorded for Osborne and likewise for Reinhardt.
An Election Contest complaint was filed by attorney Paul Whetstone on behalf of County Commissioners Edwin Osborne (1st district) and Bobby Reinhardt (4th district) in connection with the Aug. 3 election. A Trial was held in Hamblen County on September 22. Most of the allegations of Osborne and Reinhardt are found in my previous post (I).
After hearing the testimony of the Petitioners (Osborne and Reinhardt) and petitioners' witnesses as well as the testimony of Respondents (Wanda Neal, Randall Johnson, and Dwaine Evans, Gayle Bruce) and respondents' witnesses, the Court delivered a Memorandum Opinion on September 26.
In his Opinion, Chancellor Corlew pointed out that Petitioners Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt testified in a firm and straightforward manner. He added that Respondent Wanda Neal testified in a matter of fact but "mildly confrontational manner" and that Election Commissioner Randall Johnson was "vigorous" in his own defense when questioned about his vocal support of a political candidate (Petitioner Osborne's opponent) while serving as a member of the election commission.
The Chancellor pointed out several reasons for the delay in tabulating the election results on August 3. One problem was the length of the Aug. 3 ballot. Other delays occurred because two types of Microvote machines were being used in Hamblen County for the first time.
In addition, delays resulted from Microvote software problems as well as issues connected with the two Microvote "contract employees" who had been provided to help in the tabulation of votes from the new Infinity machines.
Administrator of Elections Wanda Neal stated that these two workers were unfamiliar with the process for tabulating the vote. She also stated that it was her hope that Microvote would send other personnel to Morristown for the November election.
The Chancellor acknowledged the longer-than-normal delay in reporting the final results from the Aug. 3 election but stated that the delay, standing alone, is not significant.
What caused concern for the Chancellor were the clearly erroneous voting reports that were given out at various times during the night.
One of the first reports to be issued that night was a report of early voting totals.
Petitioner Osborne and 11th district commission candidate J. B. Elmore testified that they saw an early voting printout that had the candidates' names reversed and also had clearly erroneous early voting totals for their districts.
Osborne and Elmore pointed out to WCRK reporter Mike Rypel that the vote totals for each of their races were clearly wrong. As a result, Rypel did not report the first totals he had been given on air but, instead, took the report back in to the Election Commission office.
Election Commission Chair Dwaine Evans agreed that the early voting totals in commission races were wrong on this initial report but stated that the names were not reversed.
The Election Commission apparently no longer has a copy of the first erroneous early voting report that Osborne, Elmore, and Evans reviewed.
Later, another printout was provided to the press and to the candidates by the Election Commission. Osborne and Elmore testified that the names were listed in the correct order on the new printout but that the vote totals were still clearly erroneous.
The Chancellor stated that these factors and other coincidences that occurred that night cause the mind "not to rest easy as to the vote count. Thus, because of the combination of all these factors, we find that the Petitioners have carried the burden with respect to their demand for a recount."
In regard to Reinhardt's request that the election be voided due to the Election Commission allowing the use of machine ballots and paper ballots during early voting, the Chancellor stated that this could be interpreted as a violation of T.C.A. section 2-16-104 (which states that the county election commission shall choose one method of early voting, i.e.a race shall be on machine ballots, or a race shall be on paper ballots, or some races shall be on machine ballots and other races on paper ballots).
However, the Chancellor did not void the election because of this possible violation. There was no evidence of fraud in the casting of the two paper ballots, and the individuals would have likely voted by machine had they been required to do so.
The Chancellor did note that this was a very "sensitive" issue because Reinhardt lost by exactly two votes. If the two paper ballots had been for Reinhardt's opponent and if the Election Commission had chosen not to count them, then Reinhardt's race would have ended in a tie on August 3.
The Chancellor also refused to void the election on the basis of Election Commissioner Randall Johnson's vigorous support of Osborne's opponent Paul Lebel who is a business partner of Mr. Johnson's son (Morristown Mayor Gary Johnson).
The Chancellor discussed the importance of elected and appointed officials avoiding "even the appearance of impropriety" in carrying out their duties. While he noted Mr. Johnson's right of free speech, he also pointed out that the "better rule is that of maintaining neutrality and detachment in respect for the grave duties and responsibilities placed upon one as an election commissioner."
Several exhibits (mostly Election Commission documents) at the trial were contradictory.
For example, one document showed that 10,945 total votes had been cast with only 95% of precincts reporting.
You would expect, then, to see a higher number of votes when all precincts had reported.
Instead, another document showed that fewer votes----10,620 votes---- had been cast with 100% of precincts reporting.
CONCLUSION:
The Chancellor determined that the election should not be voided but that there should be a recount. The attorneys for the parties shall get together and agree upon a special Master. If they can't agree, then they will submit names to the Chancellor and a decision on appointment of a Master will be made by the end of the day on September 30.
The Master will conduct a machine and and paper ballot recount. The parties and their attorneys may be present.
The Master will also examine each of the machines used in District 1 (Osborne-Lebel) and District 4 (Reinhardt-Sexton) to make sure that when a voter pushes a button for Osborne that a vote is recorded for Osborne and likewise for Reinhardt.
September 26, 2006 Hamblen County Election Contest Ruling (I)
Just got it! The Memorandum Opinion of Chancellor Robert Corlew.
Chancellor Corlew ruled in connection with the September 22 Trial regarding the Complaint for Election Contest filed by former county commissioners Edwin P. Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt against Wanda Neal (Hamblen County Administrator of Elections) and the Hamblen County Election Commission (Dwaine Evans, Randall Johnson, Gayle Bruce, Lyle Doty, and Judy Blackburn).
In the complaint former county commissioners Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt alleged various problems on Election Night, August 3.
Among their concerns were *two power outages in the Election Commission offices during the vote counting process, *allegedly unqualified individuals provided by Microvote to handle and/or assist with the vote-counting, *the open support by Election Commissioner Randall Johnson of County Commissioner Edwin Osborne's opponent Paul Lebel (who is a business partner of Mayor Gary Johnson, Randall Johnson's son), *problems with the Microvote vote-counting software, and, perhaps most troublesome of all, *the presentation of numerous conflicting, incomplete, and contradictory voting tallies throughout the night from the time that the first early voting totals were given out (about 9:30 pm on August 3) up until a final total was provided at nearly 2:00 am on the morning of August 4.
Here is the quick summary of the chancellor's Memorandum Opinion:
The Court found that numerous circumstances surrounding the election gave cause for concern, but there was not sufficient cause demonstrated to void the election.
Although the Court did not find fraud, the Court found that "due to a combination of misfortunes which occurred after the polls closed on election night, a recount of the votes is in order. Therefore, a Master will be appointed who will conduct the recount and will make findings of fact and conclusions of law which will be reported to the Court."
Check my post Hamblen County Election Contest (II) for additional information on the evidence that was presented and the ruling.
Chancellor Corlew ruled in connection with the September 22 Trial regarding the Complaint for Election Contest filed by former county commissioners Edwin P. Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt against Wanda Neal (Hamblen County Administrator of Elections) and the Hamblen County Election Commission (Dwaine Evans, Randall Johnson, Gayle Bruce, Lyle Doty, and Judy Blackburn).
In the complaint former county commissioners Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt alleged various problems on Election Night, August 3.
Among their concerns were *two power outages in the Election Commission offices during the vote counting process, *allegedly unqualified individuals provided by Microvote to handle and/or assist with the vote-counting, *the open support by Election Commissioner Randall Johnson of County Commissioner Edwin Osborne's opponent Paul Lebel (who is a business partner of Mayor Gary Johnson, Randall Johnson's son), *problems with the Microvote vote-counting software, and, perhaps most troublesome of all, *the presentation of numerous conflicting, incomplete, and contradictory voting tallies throughout the night from the time that the first early voting totals were given out (about 9:30 pm on August 3) up until a final total was provided at nearly 2:00 am on the morning of August 4.
Here is the quick summary of the chancellor's Memorandum Opinion:
The Court found that numerous circumstances surrounding the election gave cause for concern, but there was not sufficient cause demonstrated to void the election.
Although the Court did not find fraud, the Court found that "due to a combination of misfortunes which occurred after the polls closed on election night, a recount of the votes is in order. Therefore, a Master will be appointed who will conduct the recount and will make findings of fact and conclusions of law which will be reported to the Court."
Check my post Hamblen County Election Contest (II) for additional information on the evidence that was presented and the ruling.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
September 18, 2006 Tennessee Trivia Answers
And the answers to Friday's Tennessee Trivia Quiz are:
The smallest county in area in Tennessee is Trousdale (114 square miles).
The largest county in area in Tennessee is Shelby (755 square miles).
Shelby County is in west Tennessee, and Memphis is its county seat.
Trousdale is in middle Tennessee (just northeast of Davidson County/Nashville), and Hartsville is its county seat.
The smallest county in area in Tennessee is Trousdale (114 square miles).
The largest county in area in Tennessee is Shelby (755 square miles).
Shelby County is in west Tennessee, and Memphis is its county seat.
Trousdale is in middle Tennessee (just northeast of Davidson County/Nashville), and Hartsville is its county seat.
Friday, September 15, 2006
September 15, 2006 Tennessee Trivia Question
I haven't blogged for a while, but as soon as the Florida game is over, it will be blogging catch-up time.
Right now, though, it's Trivia Time in Tennessee!
Hamblen County is the 3rd smallest county in Tennessee.
Question (two-parter):
What is the smallest county in area?
What is the largest county in area?
Send your answers to noe4accountability@yahoo.com
The deadline for answers is Monday, September 18th--when the answers will be posted right here!
Right now, though, it's Trivia Time in Tennessee!
Hamblen County is the 3rd smallest county in Tennessee.
Question (two-parter):
What is the smallest county in area?
What is the largest county in area?
Send your answers to noe4accountability@yahoo.com
The deadline for answers is Monday, September 18th--when the answers will be posted right here!
Friday, August 25, 2006
August 25, 2006 Thank You to the Voters of the 14th District
At yesterday's August meeting of the Hamblen County Commission, I shared my thoughts and feelings about my decision not to run for re-election and my hopes for the future.
I want to share with my blog readers the statement that I read aloud and that I asked to be included in the official minutes:
Linda Noe Statement of August 24, 2006
I would like to express my gratitude to the voters of the 14th district for their support in electing me in 2002.
I have remained true to every campaign promise I made.
While I chose not to run again for personal reasons, I am still concerned about the handling of public money.
Accountability was my focus then and accountability is my focus today.
We have made some positive strides, but there is a long way to go.
Our system of government provides for a system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by any of the three branches of government—executive, judicial, legislative.
The Hamblen County Commission should be a vital part in promoting accountability and ensuring that our system of checks and balances works to protect our tax dollars.
I encourage the incoming commission to reject the title of “rubber stamp commission.”
Work with the Mayor but expect the Mayor to work with you as well.
Co-operation is a two-way street. Ask questions and expect and demand answers.
You can’t do your job if you don’t know what’s going on with county finances. Listen to the answers and let common sense be your guide.
If the answer doesn’t pass the smell test, don’t hold your nose and go on. Ask more questions and get rid of the smell.
It is your duty to be a part of the system of checks and balances, not an elected spectator or puppet for power mongers.
I am proud that with the support of other commissioners, many of my goals were achieved over the past four years such as:
Hiring state auditors to handle the county audit and saving the county $72,000.
Airing commission meetings on local cable TV.
Opening up the bidding process in many areas to save the county money.
Using an open and fair process for hiring architects and engineers.
During part of the time that I served on commission, I attended law school, graduated, and passed the bar exam. The law license has my name on it, but it was achieved with the support of a loving family.
I thank my husband Ron, my son Will and his wife Katie Kanipe-Noe, and my twin daughters Jenny and Katie for their patience and encouragement over the past years.
I thank my mother Helen Catron for her support as well, and I gratefully honor my late father Bill Catron for his encouragement through the years.
Now with the support of a loving family, it is time for me to use that degree.
I will always be proud of having served on the Hamblen County Legislative Body.
As a citizen and taxpayer, I will remain concerned and involved in the public’s business.
To the new commissioners: the people have elected you. You owe them your loyalty and faithful service.
I hope that above all else that you believe in and will support open government.
Support Tennessee’s Open Meetings and Open Records Laws.
Keep the TV camera running at your commission meetings.
Tape and show your committee meetings---you know that that is where the most discussion of issues and deliberation occurs.
There are some goals that weren’t fully achieved in the past four years. I hope you will consider making more use of the county website. Put commission agendas, minutes of committee and commission meetings, and financial records on the web.
Consider having meetings at times that are most convenient for the largest number of working people.
Open the government up to the people you were elected to serve.
Encourage other elected officials--the Morristown City Council and the Hamblen County School Board—to put their meetings on TV.
You have been given a great honor by being elected to the Hamblen County Commission.
Serve openly, listen carefully, avoid conflicts of interest, and control spending and taxes.
I wish you well.
Linda Noe
I want to share with my blog readers the statement that I read aloud and that I asked to be included in the official minutes:
Linda Noe Statement of August 24, 2006
I would like to express my gratitude to the voters of the 14th district for their support in electing me in 2002.
I have remained true to every campaign promise I made.
While I chose not to run again for personal reasons, I am still concerned about the handling of public money.
Accountability was my focus then and accountability is my focus today.
We have made some positive strides, but there is a long way to go.
Our system of government provides for a system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by any of the three branches of government—executive, judicial, legislative.
The Hamblen County Commission should be a vital part in promoting accountability and ensuring that our system of checks and balances works to protect our tax dollars.
I encourage the incoming commission to reject the title of “rubber stamp commission.”
Work with the Mayor but expect the Mayor to work with you as well.
Co-operation is a two-way street. Ask questions and expect and demand answers.
You can’t do your job if you don’t know what’s going on with county finances. Listen to the answers and let common sense be your guide.
If the answer doesn’t pass the smell test, don’t hold your nose and go on. Ask more questions and get rid of the smell.
It is your duty to be a part of the system of checks and balances, not an elected spectator or puppet for power mongers.
I am proud that with the support of other commissioners, many of my goals were achieved over the past four years such as:
Hiring state auditors to handle the county audit and saving the county $72,000.
Airing commission meetings on local cable TV.
Opening up the bidding process in many areas to save the county money.
Using an open and fair process for hiring architects and engineers.
During part of the time that I served on commission, I attended law school, graduated, and passed the bar exam. The law license has my name on it, but it was achieved with the support of a loving family.
I thank my husband Ron, my son Will and his wife Katie Kanipe-Noe, and my twin daughters Jenny and Katie for their patience and encouragement over the past years.
I thank my mother Helen Catron for her support as well, and I gratefully honor my late father Bill Catron for his encouragement through the years.
Now with the support of a loving family, it is time for me to use that degree.
I will always be proud of having served on the Hamblen County Legislative Body.
As a citizen and taxpayer, I will remain concerned and involved in the public’s business.
To the new commissioners: the people have elected you. You owe them your loyalty and faithful service.
I hope that above all else that you believe in and will support open government.
Support Tennessee’s Open Meetings and Open Records Laws.
Keep the TV camera running at your commission meetings.
Tape and show your committee meetings---you know that that is where the most discussion of issues and deliberation occurs.
There are some goals that weren’t fully achieved in the past four years. I hope you will consider making more use of the county website. Put commission agendas, minutes of committee and commission meetings, and financial records on the web.
Consider having meetings at times that are most convenient for the largest number of working people.
Open the government up to the people you were elected to serve.
Encourage other elected officials--the Morristown City Council and the Hamblen County School Board—to put their meetings on TV.
You have been given a great honor by being elected to the Hamblen County Commission.
Serve openly, listen carefully, avoid conflicts of interest, and control spending and taxes.
I wish you well.
Linda Noe
August 25, 2006 Last Commission Meeting Yesterday? Almost.
The Hamblen County Commission held its August meeting yesterday, August 24. It was supposed to be the last meeting of the current commissioners as the newly-elected commission takes office on September 1.
And it was the last meeting---almost!
There was one small snag at the meeting.
Most, maybe all, Sheriffs across the state have a Chief Deputy. Sheriff Otto Purkey, however, eliminated that position in Hamblen County several years ago.
Newly-elected Sheriff Esco Jarnagin wants to restore the position of Chief Deputy.
Most Commissioners (except for Commissioner Doyle Fullington) didn't seem to have a problem with the re-organization of the Sheriff's Office to include a Chief Deputy again.
A lot of commissioners did seem uncomfortable--as they should be-- with making this decision without complete financial information about costs and where the money will come from.
A salary estimate of $45,000 -$47,000 was mentioned in a letter to commissioners by Sheriff Jarnagin, but there could be additional costs related to insurance, social security, and other benefits.
Solution: Another meeting of the full commission on August 28.
Finance Director Nicole Epps will present an analysis of all costs for the Chief Deputy position.
Sheriff-elect Esco Jarnagin will be invited to discuss the way to fund this position and whether this position can be handled through a budget amendment that requires no new money.
More on the 28th.
And it was the last meeting---almost!
There was one small snag at the meeting.
Most, maybe all, Sheriffs across the state have a Chief Deputy. Sheriff Otto Purkey, however, eliminated that position in Hamblen County several years ago.
Newly-elected Sheriff Esco Jarnagin wants to restore the position of Chief Deputy.
Most Commissioners (except for Commissioner Doyle Fullington) didn't seem to have a problem with the re-organization of the Sheriff's Office to include a Chief Deputy again.
A lot of commissioners did seem uncomfortable--as they should be-- with making this decision without complete financial information about costs and where the money will come from.
A salary estimate of $45,000 -$47,000 was mentioned in a letter to commissioners by Sheriff Jarnagin, but there could be additional costs related to insurance, social security, and other benefits.
Solution: Another meeting of the full commission on August 28.
Finance Director Nicole Epps will present an analysis of all costs for the Chief Deputy position.
Sheriff-elect Esco Jarnagin will be invited to discuss the way to fund this position and whether this position can be handled through a budget amendment that requires no new money.
More on the 28th.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
August 15, 2006 Committee Actions
The Finance Committee met yesterday. How to handle the purchase of uniforms for Sheriff's deputies was on the agenda.
I had an opportunity to more fully present my proposal to save the county and deputies around $6,000 on the purchase of uniforms.
As I explained, the savings come from the simple act of writing a non-taxable check to the uniform company instead of writing a taxable payroll check to each deputy.
With the current payroll check method, taxes and retirement costs have to be paid by the deputy and by the county.
These costs---in the thousands of dollars---can be eliminated by bidding out the uniforms and then writing a check to the uniform company.
The uniform company is not an employee so there are no taxes and no retirement costs.
Choosing the best way to handle the purchase of uniforms will be taken up again in October with a new commission and a new Sheriff (Esco Jarnagin).
I was assured that no payroll checks had been written or would be written for uniforms until the best method for handling the purchase is decided.
My main concern at yesterday's committee meeting was to make sure that members of the committee and others understand that you can save thousands of dollars just by changing to whom you write the "uniform" checks.
You can save money by writing a non-taxable check to a uniform company or you can lose money by writing a taxable payroll check to each deputy.
Having decided not to run for re-election, I won't be on the commission in October when the decision is made, but I will still be watching closely because it's our tax dollars that are at stake!
I know what I would do if it were my money.
I'd save myself and the deputies $6,000 and provide real accountability by being able to show that every dollar intended for uniforms was actually spent on uniforms.
I had an opportunity to more fully present my proposal to save the county and deputies around $6,000 on the purchase of uniforms.
As I explained, the savings come from the simple act of writing a non-taxable check to the uniform company instead of writing a taxable payroll check to each deputy.
With the current payroll check method, taxes and retirement costs have to be paid by the deputy and by the county.
These costs---in the thousands of dollars---can be eliminated by bidding out the uniforms and then writing a check to the uniform company.
The uniform company is not an employee so there are no taxes and no retirement costs.
Choosing the best way to handle the purchase of uniforms will be taken up again in October with a new commission and a new Sheriff (Esco Jarnagin).
I was assured that no payroll checks had been written or would be written for uniforms until the best method for handling the purchase is decided.
My main concern at yesterday's committee meeting was to make sure that members of the committee and others understand that you can save thousands of dollars just by changing to whom you write the "uniform" checks.
You can save money by writing a non-taxable check to a uniform company or you can lose money by writing a taxable payroll check to each deputy.
Having decided not to run for re-election, I won't be on the commission in October when the decision is made, but I will still be watching closely because it's our tax dollars that are at stake!
I know what I would do if it were my money.
I'd save myself and the deputies $6,000 and provide real accountability by being able to show that every dollar intended for uniforms was actually spent on uniforms.
Monday, July 31, 2006
July 30, 2006 The Mayor Remains Silent
I made a public statement at the June 22 county commission meeting concerning the County Mayor's handling of county finances. Evidently a lot of people saw the tape of the June 22 county commission meeting or read about it in the paper or on this blog (June 25- 4 posts).
People have been coming up to me, calling, e-mailing, and asking me what in the world has been going on at the Courthouse with the county's finances.
Some were surprised by the Mayor's refusal to respond to the allegations and his use instead of disparaging personal remarks at the conclusion of my statement.
I wasn't shocked. I have become used to the Mayor's "shoot the messenger" garbage, and I know why he does it. He can't deny the facts.
What everybody wants to know first is whether County Mayor David Purkey has ever publicly reponded to the actual charges.
The answer is "no." Not at the meeting and not in the six weeks since. I have seen no press statement, no public response, nothing from the Mayor denying any of the charges.
I have talked to a few commissioners. Not one of them has told me that the Mayor has denied the charges to them. Just as soon as they get through telling me that the Mayor hasn't denied anything, they always add, "But we've been audited."
I know where that sound bite comes from--the County Mayor's Office. It is supposed to provide cover for the Mayor.
Commissioners don't ask and won't talk about whether the allegations are true. They have been given their talking points and have been told to keep repeating "we've been audited."
While it's pathetic to hear "we've been audited" instead of hearing a reply as to whether the allegations are true or not, I just laugh and mention one word "Enron."
Enron's auditors said everything was fine---right up until hundreds of employees and investors lost all their retirement money and life savings in the fraud that led to the collapse of this company that had been "audited."
Commissioners who say "we've been audited" like to think (or have been told by the Mayor) that an audit means that everything is OK.
No, an audit doesn't mean that everything is OK. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and on and on!
Here is the truth about the county's audit.
The auditors look at what the county presents, they spot check a few items, and they format the county's general ledger into a working trial balance.
The auditors are not responsible for preventing or detecting fraud, waste, or abuse.
One auditor told me that if auditors looked at everything, they would be the county's bookkeepers and they would have to be here every day looking at every transaction and we would have to pay them full-time year round.
Auditors do not look for fraud, waste, and abuse, and the State Comptroller has confirmed this in a statement quoted in my Nov. 2 post, "After all, auditors cannot prevent fraud. It is the duty of the people in positions of trust and responsibility, who are given... power by their positions, to protect their organization and the assets provided by the taxpayers from fraud, waste, and abuse."
"We've been audited." Nice sound bite, but the auditors provide no protection against fraud, waste, and abuse.
"We've been audited." Nice sound bite, but that doesn't answer whether the June 22 charges are true or false: charges that include falsifying documents, showing favoritism to one non-profit in allowing it to use county insurance (and county rates), manipulating audit numbers, and spending and shifting money around without commission's approval.
The public and commissioners who run around repeating "we've been audited" need to accept that the county audit is very limited in scope and that auditors don't look for fraud, waste, or abuse.
Instead of giving commissioners some meaningless sound bite to repeat to avoid the actual charges, why doesn't the County Mayor step forward and personally address each charge with an admission or a denial?
Is there a problem in standing up and saying "yes, it's true" or "no, it's not"?
People have been coming up to me, calling, e-mailing, and asking me what in the world has been going on at the Courthouse with the county's finances.
Some were surprised by the Mayor's refusal to respond to the allegations and his use instead of disparaging personal remarks at the conclusion of my statement.
I wasn't shocked. I have become used to the Mayor's "shoot the messenger" garbage, and I know why he does it. He can't deny the facts.
What everybody wants to know first is whether County Mayor David Purkey has ever publicly reponded to the actual charges.
The answer is "no." Not at the meeting and not in the six weeks since. I have seen no press statement, no public response, nothing from the Mayor denying any of the charges.
I have talked to a few commissioners. Not one of them has told me that the Mayor has denied the charges to them. Just as soon as they get through telling me that the Mayor hasn't denied anything, they always add, "But we've been audited."
I know where that sound bite comes from--the County Mayor's Office. It is supposed to provide cover for the Mayor.
Commissioners don't ask and won't talk about whether the allegations are true. They have been given their talking points and have been told to keep repeating "we've been audited."
While it's pathetic to hear "we've been audited" instead of hearing a reply as to whether the allegations are true or not, I just laugh and mention one word "Enron."
Enron's auditors said everything was fine---right up until hundreds of employees and investors lost all their retirement money and life savings in the fraud that led to the collapse of this company that had been "audited."
Commissioners who say "we've been audited" like to think (or have been told by the Mayor) that an audit means that everything is OK.
No, an audit doesn't mean that everything is OK. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and on and on!
Here is the truth about the county's audit.
The auditors look at what the county presents, they spot check a few items, and they format the county's general ledger into a working trial balance.
The auditors are not responsible for preventing or detecting fraud, waste, or abuse.
One auditor told me that if auditors looked at everything, they would be the county's bookkeepers and they would have to be here every day looking at every transaction and we would have to pay them full-time year round.
Auditors do not look for fraud, waste, and abuse, and the State Comptroller has confirmed this in a statement quoted in my Nov. 2 post, "After all, auditors cannot prevent fraud. It is the duty of the people in positions of trust and responsibility, who are given... power by their positions, to protect their organization and the assets provided by the taxpayers from fraud, waste, and abuse."
"We've been audited." Nice sound bite, but the auditors provide no protection against fraud, waste, and abuse.
"We've been audited." Nice sound bite, but that doesn't answer whether the June 22 charges are true or false: charges that include falsifying documents, showing favoritism to one non-profit in allowing it to use county insurance (and county rates), manipulating audit numbers, and spending and shifting money around without commission's approval.
The public and commissioners who run around repeating "we've been audited" need to accept that the county audit is very limited in scope and that auditors don't look for fraud, waste, or abuse.
Instead of giving commissioners some meaningless sound bite to repeat to avoid the actual charges, why doesn't the County Mayor step forward and personally address each charge with an admission or a denial?
Is there a problem in standing up and saying "yes, it's true" or "no, it's not"?
Sunday, July 23, 2006
July 23, 2006 Televising Commission Meetings in Full
How much government/education time should Hamblen County government be allowed to use on the Charter/Walters State government/education channel?
Televising commission meetings began in December 2002 and has greatly increased public awareness of what the commission does.
Initially, several commissioners said no one would watch commission meetings. Now those same commissioners say that people are watching, that they want to see the entire business portion of the meeting, and that some people don't want to see any public comments.
The Hamblen County Commission continues to be the only local governmental body that tapes and televises its meetings on the local government/ educational channels on Charter and Comcast.
Comcast provides full use of its government/ education channel to the residents it serves in east Hamblen County. Comcast apparently broadcasts commission meetings from start to finish regardless of how long or how short they may be.
Charter, however, does not really control its government/ education channel. Commission in 2002 found out that the county's franchise contract with Charter, for some reason, gave control of the government/ education channel to the City of Morristown.
The City never used the Charter government/ education channel to broadcast city council meetings. When the Hamblen County Commission asked in 2002 to use the Charter government/ education channel to televise commission meetings, the City handed over control of the government/ education channel to Walters State.
Walters State decided to allot only four hours/week to Hamblen County government for the airing of county commission meetings (Tuesday 9-11 pm and Saturday 9-11 pm).
A few commission meetings have run longer than 2 hours. When that happens, Walters State apparently cuts the broadcast off when the 2-hout time limit is up. That creates a problem for viewers.
Recently, Commission Chairman Joe Spoone with vocal support from Commissioners Nancy Phillips and Doyle Fullington proposed a solution that involves the editing of the tape of each meeting to try and keep it within the 2-hour limit imposed by Walters State.
Spoone proposed that public comments continue to be heard at the beginning of the actual meeting, but he asked that the tape of the meeting be edited with public comments placed at the end of the tape.
The Spoone proposal was approved at the July 20 commission meeting. I voted "no."
I have firmly stood for the right of the people---whether I liked or agreed with their comments or not--- to address the commission.
Public comments are part of the meeting, and the entire commission meeting should be televised regardless of whether public comments are at the beginning or at the end of the tape.
There is a very simple solution to this problem. There are 168 hours in a week. County government is currently "allowed" to use only four hours/week.
Let's think about this. Wouldn't a better solution be to ask for more government/education time to be given to Hamblen County government so that the entire meeting is always shown along with public comments (either at the beginning or end)?
Commissioner Phillips agreed to talk with Walters State about airing commission meetings in full---from start to finish---regardless of the time factor. If Walters State agrees, this might mean that occasionally county government would need an extra government/ education hour or two some weeks.
I hope that Walters State will agree that Hamblen County government should be allowed to use 5-6 hours per week out of the 168 government/ education hours that are available in order to air commission meetings in their entirety.
I even hope that the commission will eventually ask for 10 hours/week so that committee meetings can be televised, too. That's where the extensive discussion of issues takes place.
Let's see. With just ten hours/week, Hamblen County Government could show its commission meetings in their entirety twice a week and its committee meetings in their entirety once a week.
Ten hours out of 168 hours in a week. That's 6% of the week to Hamblen County Government. 94% of the week to other programming.
It sure seems fair to me to ask that a government/ education channel be used at least 6% of the time for the airing of county government commission and committee meetings!
Televising commission meetings began in December 2002 and has greatly increased public awareness of what the commission does.
Initially, several commissioners said no one would watch commission meetings. Now those same commissioners say that people are watching, that they want to see the entire business portion of the meeting, and that some people don't want to see any public comments.
The Hamblen County Commission continues to be the only local governmental body that tapes and televises its meetings on the local government/ educational channels on Charter and Comcast.
Comcast provides full use of its government/ education channel to the residents it serves in east Hamblen County. Comcast apparently broadcasts commission meetings from start to finish regardless of how long or how short they may be.
Charter, however, does not really control its government/ education channel. Commission in 2002 found out that the county's franchise contract with Charter, for some reason, gave control of the government/ education channel to the City of Morristown.
The City never used the Charter government/ education channel to broadcast city council meetings. When the Hamblen County Commission asked in 2002 to use the Charter government/ education channel to televise commission meetings, the City handed over control of the government/ education channel to Walters State.
Walters State decided to allot only four hours/week to Hamblen County government for the airing of county commission meetings (Tuesday 9-11 pm and Saturday 9-11 pm).
A few commission meetings have run longer than 2 hours. When that happens, Walters State apparently cuts the broadcast off when the 2-hout time limit is up. That creates a problem for viewers.
Recently, Commission Chairman Joe Spoone with vocal support from Commissioners Nancy Phillips and Doyle Fullington proposed a solution that involves the editing of the tape of each meeting to try and keep it within the 2-hour limit imposed by Walters State.
Spoone proposed that public comments continue to be heard at the beginning of the actual meeting, but he asked that the tape of the meeting be edited with public comments placed at the end of the tape.
The Spoone proposal was approved at the July 20 commission meeting. I voted "no."
I have firmly stood for the right of the people---whether I liked or agreed with their comments or not--- to address the commission.
Public comments are part of the meeting, and the entire commission meeting should be televised regardless of whether public comments are at the beginning or at the end of the tape.
There is a very simple solution to this problem. There are 168 hours in a week. County government is currently "allowed" to use only four hours/week.
Let's think about this. Wouldn't a better solution be to ask for more government/education time to be given to Hamblen County government so that the entire meeting is always shown along with public comments (either at the beginning or end)?
Commissioner Phillips agreed to talk with Walters State about airing commission meetings in full---from start to finish---regardless of the time factor. If Walters State agrees, this might mean that occasionally county government would need an extra government/ education hour or two some weeks.
I hope that Walters State will agree that Hamblen County government should be allowed to use 5-6 hours per week out of the 168 government/ education hours that are available in order to air commission meetings in their entirety.
I even hope that the commission will eventually ask for 10 hours/week so that committee meetings can be televised, too. That's where the extensive discussion of issues takes place.
Let's see. With just ten hours/week, Hamblen County Government could show its commission meetings in their entirety twice a week and its committee meetings in their entirety once a week.
Ten hours out of 168 hours in a week. That's 6% of the week to Hamblen County Government. 94% of the week to other programming.
It sure seems fair to me to ask that a government/ education channel be used at least 6% of the time for the airing of county government commission and committee meetings!
Friday, July 21, 2006
July 20, 2006 New posts are coming!
After taking a week off from blogging, I'm ready to post!
Multiple posts are coming over the next several days.
Some of the topics:
The county budget that passed on July 20.
How the county can save money and be accountable in handling the purchase of uniforms for sheriff's deputies.
Audits---what they do and don't tell you.
Public documents---when you can't get an answer about where your tax dollars are going, look at the financial records.
Looking is free! Copies involve some cost. The information....priceless!
And lots more...
Multiple posts are coming over the next several days.
Some of the topics:
The county budget that passed on July 20.
How the county can save money and be accountable in handling the purchase of uniforms for sheriff's deputies.
Audits---what they do and don't tell you.
Public documents---when you can't get an answer about where your tax dollars are going, look at the financial records.
Looking is free! Copies involve some cost. The information....priceless!
And lots more...
Thursday, July 13, 2006
July 13, 2006 Commissioners Postpone Decision on Saving Money on Sheriff's Uniforms
Well, Monday was another interesting day for the "Finance" Committee.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone really cares about listening to ways to save money and provide complete accountability at the same time.
The issue of the best and most economical way to purchase uniforms for sheriff's deputies came up. Be sure to scroll down and read my post of July 10 on this.
Currently, the county writes a payroll check to each deputy and deducts taxes and retirement from the check. The annual line item cost of uniforms is about $25,000.
When you write a payroll check, you have to deduct taxes and retirement from it---that means that a check that starts out as $400 (gross) ends up being written to the deputy for about $350 (net).
Obviously, the deputy can't go out and purchase $400 worth of uniforms if he only gets $350. So the deputy loses, say $50, right at the start.
On top of that, the county taxpayers lose money because they have to pay out matching money for each employee's retirement and tax deductions.
This is a lose-lose situation. The deputy loses and the county loses.
Monday, Finance Director Nicole Epps threw out a figure of $3,300 as the amount she estimated is lost to taxes and unavailable for uniforms.
$3,300 is a lot of money to a lot of people. It doesn't have to be wasted on taxes and retirement costs. I've been pointing out an easy way to save this money for the past several months.
The solution...
1. Take bids on uniforms from several companies.
2. Specify the quality and design features that are required (material, color, care requirements, etc.).
3. Award the bid for uniforms to the company that will provide the specified uniforms at the lowest price to the county.
4. Then handle the purchase and sizing of uniforms in the most convenient way.
For example, issue "Uniform Allowance Cards" (like a store merchandise card) to each deputy. Whenever it is convenient for the deputy, he or she goes to the uniform store, gets measured, and makes his or her purchase using the Uniform Allowance Card.
Using the example above, the Uniform Allowance Card would be for the full $400. That means that the deputy who gets a $400 uniform allowance is actually able to get $400 worth of pants, shirts, etc. instead of only getting $350 worth as is done now.
or
The uniform company can come to the sheriff's department, measure all deputies, and take orders from each deputy on the spot. Again, the deputy who gets a $400 uniform allowance is actually able to get $400 worth of pants, shirts, etc. instead of only getting $350 worth as is done now.
No payroll check, no tax deductions, no retirement deductions.
Uniform dollars aren't paid out for taxes and retirement by the deputies or by the county.
The uniforms are all of the same quality and are being obtained at the lowest price available.
You know that every uniform dollar is going toward the purchase of uniforms.
It Saves Money and Provides Full Accountability.
With all this information, what did the Finance Committee do?
Commissioner Osborne moved to table the issue (put it off to another time) and the committee agreed (I voted "no"). Tabling also ended any further discussion on this issue.
If it were your money, what would you do?
Issuing a uniform allowance card (or giving the uniform store the name and amount of the uniform allowance for each deputy) takes care of the tax issue for the deputies and for the county and is designed to ensure accountability in the spending of this money!
No one could explain what's wrong with saving the deputies money, saving the county money, and knowing that every uniform dollar goes toward the purchase of uniforms at the lowest possible price.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone really cares about listening to ways to save money and provide complete accountability at the same time.
The issue of the best and most economical way to purchase uniforms for sheriff's deputies came up. Be sure to scroll down and read my post of July 10 on this.
Currently, the county writes a payroll check to each deputy and deducts taxes and retirement from the check. The annual line item cost of uniforms is about $25,000.
When you write a payroll check, you have to deduct taxes and retirement from it---that means that a check that starts out as $400 (gross) ends up being written to the deputy for about $350 (net).
Obviously, the deputy can't go out and purchase $400 worth of uniforms if he only gets $350. So the deputy loses, say $50, right at the start.
On top of that, the county taxpayers lose money because they have to pay out matching money for each employee's retirement and tax deductions.
This is a lose-lose situation. The deputy loses and the county loses.
Monday, Finance Director Nicole Epps threw out a figure of $3,300 as the amount she estimated is lost to taxes and unavailable for uniforms.
$3,300 is a lot of money to a lot of people. It doesn't have to be wasted on taxes and retirement costs. I've been pointing out an easy way to save this money for the past several months.
The solution...
1. Take bids on uniforms from several companies.
2. Specify the quality and design features that are required (material, color, care requirements, etc.).
3. Award the bid for uniforms to the company that will provide the specified uniforms at the lowest price to the county.
4. Then handle the purchase and sizing of uniforms in the most convenient way.
For example, issue "Uniform Allowance Cards" (like a store merchandise card) to each deputy. Whenever it is convenient for the deputy, he or she goes to the uniform store, gets measured, and makes his or her purchase using the Uniform Allowance Card.
Using the example above, the Uniform Allowance Card would be for the full $400. That means that the deputy who gets a $400 uniform allowance is actually able to get $400 worth of pants, shirts, etc. instead of only getting $350 worth as is done now.
or
The uniform company can come to the sheriff's department, measure all deputies, and take orders from each deputy on the spot. Again, the deputy who gets a $400 uniform allowance is actually able to get $400 worth of pants, shirts, etc. instead of only getting $350 worth as is done now.
No payroll check, no tax deductions, no retirement deductions.
Uniform dollars aren't paid out for taxes and retirement by the deputies or by the county.
The uniforms are all of the same quality and are being obtained at the lowest price available.
You know that every uniform dollar is going toward the purchase of uniforms.
It Saves Money and Provides Full Accountability.
With all this information, what did the Finance Committee do?
Commissioner Osborne moved to table the issue (put it off to another time) and the committee agreed (I voted "no"). Tabling also ended any further discussion on this issue.
If it were your money, what would you do?
Issuing a uniform allowance card (or giving the uniform store the name and amount of the uniform allowance for each deputy) takes care of the tax issue for the deputies and for the county and is designed to ensure accountability in the spending of this money!
No one could explain what's wrong with saving the deputies money, saving the county money, and knowing that every uniform dollar goes toward the purchase of uniforms at the lowest possible price.
Monday, July 10, 2006
July 10, 2006 Sheriff's uniforms---how to save money
Several committees meet today---all have a short agenda.
Today, the Finance Committee will be looking at how Sheriff's uniforms are purchased.
As I understand it, the county currently writes a payroll check to each deputy, and the deputy is supposed to go out and buy his/her uniform(s).
The county has to deduct taxes from the gross amount of the check and the deputy gets what is left to buy his/her uniform.
Writing a check means that the full amount of the check (gross) doesn't get spent on uniforms.
A check that starts out as $400 (gross) may end up being $350 or less after all the deductions are made.
The money that is lost to taxes this way doesn't buy a single uniform.
And on top of what is lost by the employee to taxes, the county also loses by having to match the employee's social security and other deductions.
I have mentioned this loss of money and have proposed a solution several times in the past, but no one has listened. We are losing precious uniform dollars by not handling this in a non-taxable way.
After I brought it up again during the budget process this year, it was finally referred to Finance for further consideration.
I hope the committee will give consideration to my oft-repeated proposal today. The money that is currently paid out by the deputies and by the county in taxes doesn't buy a single uniform.
And there is a very simple way to avoid this waste with no hassle for anyone.
I'll keep you posted...
Today, the Finance Committee will be looking at how Sheriff's uniforms are purchased.
As I understand it, the county currently writes a payroll check to each deputy, and the deputy is supposed to go out and buy his/her uniform(s).
The county has to deduct taxes from the gross amount of the check and the deputy gets what is left to buy his/her uniform.
Writing a check means that the full amount of the check (gross) doesn't get spent on uniforms.
A check that starts out as $400 (gross) may end up being $350 or less after all the deductions are made.
The money that is lost to taxes this way doesn't buy a single uniform.
And on top of what is lost by the employee to taxes, the county also loses by having to match the employee's social security and other deductions.
I have mentioned this loss of money and have proposed a solution several times in the past, but no one has listened. We are losing precious uniform dollars by not handling this in a non-taxable way.
After I brought it up again during the budget process this year, it was finally referred to Finance for further consideration.
I hope the committee will give consideration to my oft-repeated proposal today. The money that is currently paid out by the deputies and by the county in taxes doesn't buy a single uniform.
And there is a very simple way to avoid this waste with no hassle for anyone.
I'll keep you posted...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
