The Morristown City Council has the Mayor's fifteenth appointment to the Morristown Utilities Commission on its agenda today. MUC has vetted and submitted the names of three qualified people to the Mayor: Jo Ervin, John Hodge, and George McGuffin.
Unfortunately, five members of council have created appointment gridlock for 8-9 months by serially rejecting every one of the Mayor's fourteen appointments to the MUC Board.
The LeBel Five are Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, and Chris Bivens.
In November 2011, the five ran to Sen. Steve Southerland and Rep. Don Miller to get the state to pass a change to the appointment process and send it back to the Council so the Five can pass the "McGuffin Law" and continue McGuffin's lifetime appointment- 5 years at a time.
Since MUC controls who can be considered for appointment to the MUC Board, it is pretty much a closed group that perpetuates itself and its members unless something unusual happens such as when Herbert Bacon left the Board when it was found that he was ineligible to serve.
MUC has been strangely quiet about the rejection of the FOURTEEN people that MUC has submitted to the Mayor.
There are several facts about the MUC appointment process that the "news"paper hasn't mentioned during the recent controversy.
1. MUC presented and pushed for the current appointment process in 2001 as part of a package of changes to the MUC Private Act.
2. Council debated the appointment process at length. An amendment was proposed but did not pass. Council finally voted unanimously on February 6, 2001, for a resolution sending the MUC changes, including the current appointment process, to the state legislature.
3. The state legislature passed the changes and sent them back for approval, as requested, as one question on the May 1, 2001, referendum.
4. Council's 2001 resolution stated that the result of that May 2001 election "shall prevail over any approval or disapproval by action of City Council."
5. MUC used ratepayer dollars (apparently illegally) for paid political ads and political signs in 2001 asking voters to vote FOR the changes to the MUC Private Act, including the current appointment process
6. MUC, in its paid political ads, called the proposed appointment process "an open process for selection of Board members." (Open? To whom? Not the 14 rejectees!)
7. The package of MUC changes, including the current appointment process, passed overwhelmingly (72% FOR) in the 2001 referendum
8. Two council members (Kay Senter and Claude Jinks) who voted FOR the resolution on all MUC changes in 2001 have now joined with Paul LeBel, Chris Bivens, andj Bob Garrett, to change the appointment process that was a part of the 2001 MUC Question that was approved by 72% of the voters.
Why does the council oppose a referendum in 2012?
Why did Sen. Southerland rewrite the appointment process--presumably to make it better--and then fail to vote for it?
Why is Rep. Miller adamantly opposed to letting the voters decide if they approve of the changes he and Sen. Southerland have made to the appointment process that was already voted on in 2001?
Why were the voters asked to vote on the appointment process in 2001 but are shut out in 2012?
Why hasn't the paper reported that a referendum on approval of the McGuffin Law could take place on August 2 at a cost of only $250?
That's some of the "rest of the story."
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
March 11, 2012 Sen. Steve Southerland and Rep. Don Miller Re-write the McGuffin Law But Still Shut the People Out--No REFERENDUM
The "news"paper reported that the McGuffin Law was introduced in the state legislature, but I haven't seen an article on the changes made by Sen. Steve Southerland and Rep. Don Miller.
Southerland and Miller had state attorneys re-write the "McGuffin Law" so it would provide that the Mayor gets three chances to please the LeBel Five by appointing the person the Five want and then, if the Mayor doesn't please the Five with any of his three appointments, the next MUC appointment comes directly to council and the LeBel Five can finally appoint McGuffin this year and any person they want in future years.
HB 3860 is here.
[Since the Mayor hasn't been able to please the LeBel Five with his past FOURTEEN nominations, the changes by Southerland and Miller will have little practical effect]
Southerland and Miller re-wrote the "McGuffin Law," but they are not willing to put their new and improved "McGuffin Law" to a vote of the people in a REFERENDUM--which is how the current appointment process was enacted in 2001.
The LeBel Five don't want a $250 CITY REFERENDUM on the "McGuffin Law" on August 2, 2012, in conjunction with the county election----or at any time---and Southerland and Miller are leaving it where the LeBel Five don't have to worry about a referendum. The LeBel Five get the final say on approval of the "McGuffin Law."
It's way too risky to let the people vote again, so the LeBel Five will use their FIVE votes to change what 3,202 people voted for in the 2001 REFERENDUM. No REFERENDUM in 2012 as in 2001. Just shut the people out this time.
The irony here is that there have been many votes at the state level to prevent voter fraud, such as the requirement that voters present a Picture ID before voting---and I absolutely agree with the Photo ID law.
But who protects the votes and the integrity of a referendum election after it has taken place?
It appears that the integrity of the 2001 REFERENDUM and the votes of 3,202 PEOPLE don't count when politicians and George McGuffin are scrambling to ensure that McGuffin continues on the Morristown Utilities Commission.
Why have local officials decided that having one particular person--and no one else--on the MUC Board is so important that:
(1) They have to go to the State to get the MUC Private Act changed;
(2) They are willing to overturn an appointment process that was approved by 72% of the voters (3,202 people) in a referendum; and
(3) They are acting like it would be the end of the world if the McGuffin Law didn't pass?
And why has George McGuffin decided that his power and position on the MUC Board are worth creating appointment gridlock for eight months, having his name submitted fourteen times, and going to the state to get local officials to overturn the current MUC appointment process that was overwhelmingly approved in the 2001 REFERENDUM?
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
March 7, 2012 LeBel Five Reject FOURTEENTH MUC Nominee Banker Joel Hice
MUC sent its FOURTEENTH list of three names to Mayor Thomas as qualified candidates for the MUC Board of Commissioners: Jo Ervin, Joel Hice, George McGuffin.
Yesterday, Mayor Thomas submitted the name of Joel Hice from that list to council for approval or disapproval. Hice is a local banker.
Paul LeBel immediately moved to "reject" Hice's appointment. Bob Garrett, 42-year former employee of MUC, seconded the motion. The LeBel Five (LeBel, Garrett, Senter, Jinks, and Bivens) then voted to reject Hice.
Mayor Thomas and Gene Brooks supported Hice.
This is the FOURTEENTH person that has been on an MUC list and whose name has been submitted to council by the Mayor for appointment to the MUC Board who has been quickly rejected by council. The nominees include bankers, contractors, former councilmembers, plant managers, businessmen, CPAs, engineers, etc.
What do the LeBel Five think is wrong with these fourteen people who have all been vetted and selected BY MUC?
These fourteen are not George McGuffin, so they are automatically rejected. George McGuffin, who has been on the MUC Board for over 34 years, has made it clear that he wants to hang on to what has become the "McGuffin seat.".
Let's see if the "news"paper asks Joel Hice if he is disappointed in being rejected by five councilmembers? Was Joel asked to be cannon fodder for rejection by the LeBel Five or did Joel volunteer to take one "for the team"? What about the 13 other rejectees? What were they told by MUC Commissioners before their names were submitted to the Mayor?
And what about the MUC Board? Are they concerned or secretly happy about the rejection of the FOURTEENTH person whose name THEY submitted to the Mayor? The members, other than George McGuffin, are Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery.
Are the LeBel Five and the MUC Board just waiting for the McGuffin Law to be passed in the state legislature to let the LeBel Five override the votes of the 3,202 people (72% of voters) who approved and put the current appointment process in place in 2001 in a referendum?
Yesterday, Mayor Thomas submitted the name of Joel Hice from that list to council for approval or disapproval. Hice is a local banker.
Paul LeBel immediately moved to "reject" Hice's appointment. Bob Garrett, 42-year former employee of MUC, seconded the motion. The LeBel Five (LeBel, Garrett, Senter, Jinks, and Bivens) then voted to reject Hice.
Mayor Thomas and Gene Brooks supported Hice.
This is the FOURTEENTH person that has been on an MUC list and whose name has been submitted to council by the Mayor for appointment to the MUC Board who has been quickly rejected by council. The nominees include bankers, contractors, former councilmembers, plant managers, businessmen, CPAs, engineers, etc.
What do the LeBel Five think is wrong with these fourteen people who have all been vetted and selected BY MUC?
These fourteen are not George McGuffin, so they are automatically rejected. George McGuffin, who has been on the MUC Board for over 34 years, has made it clear that he wants to hang on to what has become the "McGuffin seat.".
Let's see if the "news"paper asks Joel Hice if he is disappointed in being rejected by five councilmembers? Was Joel asked to be cannon fodder for rejection by the LeBel Five or did Joel volunteer to take one "for the team"? What about the 13 other rejectees? What were they told by MUC Commissioners before their names were submitted to the Mayor?
And what about the MUC Board? Are they concerned or secretly happy about the rejection of the FOURTEENTH person whose name THEY submitted to the Mayor? The members, other than George McGuffin, are Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery.
Are the LeBel Five and the MUC Board just waiting for the McGuffin Law to be passed in the state legislature to let the LeBel Five override the votes of the 3,202 people (72% of voters) who approved and put the current appointment process in place in 2001 in a referendum?
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
March 6, 2012 The Bank Levy on the City of Morristown: What Next?
Yesterday, I posted the writ of execution that was issued by the U.S. District Court authorizing seizure of City of Morristown funds in the amount of $573,632.84.
Now that those funds have been seized by the U.S. Marshals, my guess is that Morristown has sobered up and is having some serious discussions with Plaintiffs' lawyers to settle the attorney fees, litigation costs, and/or civil penalties that were assessed against the City in the Stephens, et al. v. City of Morristown case. In this mix may be the dismissal of the City's appeal to U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a case that was brought only after Morristown refused to acknowledge problems with the Witt sewer line and refused to repair and rehabilitate that line, the City spent thousands in attorney fees for its lawyers, had to pay attorney fees and costs for the Plaintiffs' lawyers, and ended up under a court-order to fix the Witt line. [The Tennessee Municipal League (TML) paid initial attorney fees but that stopped at some point and then Morristown was directly on the hook for paying the City's defense team]
All this money was spent because the City ignored a serious problem with the Witt sewer line that was brought to its attention as soon as Koch Foods hooked up to the Witt line around 2005.
And the City would likely still be ignoring the problem today if several gutsy Witt residents hadn't hired a lawyer after deciding that they had taken enough of the City's stonewalling and odors and overflows.
During the lawsuit, Judge Greer blistered the City in discussing the City's "malfeasance" in handling its finances, making illegal money transfers, failing to provide critical documents, ignoring recommendations of its experts, etc.
With two consecutive years (2009 and 2010) of the sewer fund being "in the red," you have to wonder if the City's appeal of the attorney fees and other costs was just another in an ongoing series of delaying tactics to avoid acknowledging the financial morass that has been present for years and years.
Whatever the reasons or motivations on the part of the City to ignore the Witt problems and to appeal the attorney fees, etc., the City's tactics cost sewer ratepayers dearly, highlighted the mismanagement of the City's funds, and caused a federal judge to note the City's financial "malfeasance."
Now that those funds have been seized by the U.S. Marshals, my guess is that Morristown has sobered up and is having some serious discussions with Plaintiffs' lawyers to settle the attorney fees, litigation costs, and/or civil penalties that were assessed against the City in the Stephens, et al. v. City of Morristown case. In this mix may be the dismissal of the City's appeal to U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a case that was brought only after Morristown refused to acknowledge problems with the Witt sewer line and refused to repair and rehabilitate that line, the City spent thousands in attorney fees for its lawyers, had to pay attorney fees and costs for the Plaintiffs' lawyers, and ended up under a court-order to fix the Witt line. [The Tennessee Municipal League (TML) paid initial attorney fees but that stopped at some point and then Morristown was directly on the hook for paying the City's defense team]
All this money was spent because the City ignored a serious problem with the Witt sewer line that was brought to its attention as soon as Koch Foods hooked up to the Witt line around 2005.
And the City would likely still be ignoring the problem today if several gutsy Witt residents hadn't hired a lawyer after deciding that they had taken enough of the City's stonewalling and odors and overflows.
During the lawsuit, Judge Greer blistered the City in discussing the City's "malfeasance" in handling its finances, making illegal money transfers, failing to provide critical documents, ignoring recommendations of its experts, etc.
With two consecutive years (2009 and 2010) of the sewer fund being "in the red," you have to wonder if the City's appeal of the attorney fees and other costs was just another in an ongoing series of delaying tactics to avoid acknowledging the financial morass that has been present for years and years.
Whatever the reasons or motivations on the part of the City to ignore the Witt problems and to appeal the attorney fees, etc., the City's tactics cost sewer ratepayers dearly, highlighted the mismanagement of the City's funds, and caused a federal judge to note the City's financial "malfeasance."
Monday, March 05, 2012
March 5, 2012 Bank Levy Takes Money From City's Bank Accounts at First Tennessee
A bank levy in the amount of $573,632.84 on the accounts of the City of Morristown in First Tennessee Bank was apparently carried out recently pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the United States District Court/Eastern District of Tennessee.
A copy of the writ is shown prior to its signature and return by the U.S. Marshal(s). Click on the image to enlarge. The money was removed from the City's checking accounts on February 28 and apparently placed with the District Court.
A bank levy on the City of Morristown. This may be a first. Unbelievable!
Thursday, March 01, 2012
March 1, 2012 MUC Nominates George McGuffin, Jo Ervin, Joel Hice as 14th Slate of Candidates for MUC Board
The Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) held its regular meeting on February 23 at 8 AM. Included on the agenda was selection of a 14th slate of candidates for the MUC Board seat currently held by George McGuffin who has served over 34 years on the Board.
McGuffin's term expired July 31, 2011, but he is serving as a "holdover" until someone is officially appointed to the seat. McGuffin himself wants to be that someone, and he has refused to step aside for a new appointee.
McGuffin is at the head of the table and sounds a little sarcastic as he introduces the "resolution that we all know by heart, the fourteenth time" that we have to submit three people for consideration as a Board member. McGuffin briefly has trouble remembering the name of the 13th and last rejectee (Chris Horne) but one of the Board members helps out.
Max Biery then nominates McGuffin, Isaacs, and Joel Hice. Biery forgot that the Isaacs (both Steve and Jerry) were booted by LeBel and Company months ago. Lynn Elkins says it's "Jo Ervin." After some discussion, Biery confirms that his motion is to nominate George McGuffin, Jo Ervin, and Joel Hice. McGuffin says the list will go to the Mayor for the next meeting.
It's an odd situation. The MUC Board selects qualified people and then says nothing when (City Councilman) LeBel and Company automatically reject every (non-McGuffin) MUC candidate including bankers, contractors, businessmen, physical therapists, CPAs, plant managers, former city councilmen, etc.
It's all a little game of MUC going through the motions of selecting "qualified" people and then abandoning that person and hoping that that person, if it's not George McGuffin, is rejected by the Council.
It's odd that "news"man Bob Moore has never put a quote from one of the many rejectees in the "news"paper. Not even one of those statements that "so-and-so was contacted but had no comment."
Was the rejectee concerned about the rejection? Did the rejectee approach a member of the MUC Board about serving on the Board? Did a Board member contact the rejectee and ask if his name could be put on the MUC-candidate list before the nomination was made? Did a Board member tell the rejectee that if he was nominated by the Mayor, he wouldn't be approved?
It's odd that "news"man Bob Moore has never put a quote from an MUC Board member in the "news"paper. Not even a mention that he tried to contact a Board member for comment.
Is the Board shocked and concerned at the continuous rejection of THEIR candidates, or is the Board a part of the game and content and pleased to see each non-McGuffin candidate rejected?
The 14th list of candidates--selected by MUC--is at the City Center. LeBel and Company are sticking by George, and George is sticking by LeBel and Company. No one else matters.
On the far left in the video are the five MUC Board members (from L-R): Lynn Elkins, Max Biery, Gene Jolley, Harold Nichols, and Chairman George McGuffin.
McGuffin's term expired July 31, 2011, but he is serving as a "holdover" until someone is officially appointed to the seat. McGuffin himself wants to be that someone, and he has refused to step aside for a new appointee.
McGuffin is at the head of the table and sounds a little sarcastic as he introduces the "resolution that we all know by heart, the fourteenth time" that we have to submit three people for consideration as a Board member. McGuffin briefly has trouble remembering the name of the 13th and last rejectee (Chris Horne) but one of the Board members helps out.
Max Biery then nominates McGuffin, Isaacs, and Joel Hice. Biery forgot that the Isaacs (both Steve and Jerry) were booted by LeBel and Company months ago. Lynn Elkins says it's "Jo Ervin." After some discussion, Biery confirms that his motion is to nominate George McGuffin, Jo Ervin, and Joel Hice. McGuffin says the list will go to the Mayor for the next meeting.
It's an odd situation. The MUC Board selects qualified people and then says nothing when (City Councilman) LeBel and Company automatically reject every (non-McGuffin) MUC candidate including bankers, contractors, businessmen, physical therapists, CPAs, plant managers, former city councilmen, etc.
It's all a little game of MUC going through the motions of selecting "qualified" people and then abandoning that person and hoping that that person, if it's not George McGuffin, is rejected by the Council.
It's odd that "news"man Bob Moore has never put a quote from one of the many rejectees in the "news"paper. Not even one of those statements that "so-and-so was contacted but had no comment."
Was the rejectee concerned about the rejection? Did the rejectee approach a member of the MUC Board about serving on the Board? Did a Board member contact the rejectee and ask if his name could be put on the MUC-candidate list before the nomination was made? Did a Board member tell the rejectee that if he was nominated by the Mayor, he wouldn't be approved?
It's odd that "news"man Bob Moore has never put a quote from an MUC Board member in the "news"paper. Not even a mention that he tried to contact a Board member for comment.
Is the Board shocked and concerned at the continuous rejection of THEIR candidates, or is the Board a part of the game and content and pleased to see each non-McGuffin candidate rejected?
The 14th list of candidates--selected by MUC--is at the City Center. LeBel and Company are sticking by George, and George is sticking by LeBel and Company. No one else matters.
On the far left in the video are the five MUC Board members (from L-R): Lynn Elkins, Max Biery, Gene Jolley, Harold Nichols, and Chairman George McGuffin.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
February 29, 2012 LeBel and Company Reject #13 Chris Horne (VIDEO)
LeBel is fast on the draw...At the February 21, 2012, meeting of City Council, LeBel moved to reject Chris Horne's nomination to the Morristown Utilities Commission Board. Bob Garrett, former longtime MUC employee, seconded and faster than you can push a voting button, Chris Horne became the THIRTEENTH person rejected by LeBel and Associates.
LeBel and Associates (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) evidently don't think much about the candidates being sent to the Mayor by MUC. Not one of 13 has been approved. See the complete list of rejectees by clicking on February 28 post.
While LeBel and Asoociates continually vote to "reject," Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks have supported the business people, physical therapists, bankers, plant managers, CPAs, contractors, and former councilmembers who have been nominated by MUC and submitted to Council for a full vote.
It's nice that MUC Board members (George McGuffin, Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery) have a wide array of well-connected friends who are willing to let their name be put up for certain rejection. The old "take one for the McGipper" syndrome.
LeBel and Associates (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) evidently don't think much about the candidates being sent to the Mayor by MUC. Not one of 13 has been approved. See the complete list of rejectees by clicking on February 28 post.
While LeBel and Asoociates continually vote to "reject," Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks have supported the business people, physical therapists, bankers, plant managers, CPAs, contractors, and former councilmembers who have been nominated by MUC and submitted to Council for a full vote.
It's nice that MUC Board members (George McGuffin, Harold Nichols, Gene Jolley, Lynn Elkins, and Max Biery) have a wide array of well-connected friends who are willing to let their name be put up for certain rejection. The old "take one for the McGipper" syndrome.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
February 28, 2012 Chris Horne Is THIRTEENTH Person Rejected for Appointment to MUC Board
Voting to reject Horne (because he's not George McGuffin) were Councilmembers Paul LeBel, Bob Garrett, Kay Senter, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks.
Voting for Horne were Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilmember Gene Brooks.
Chris Horne now goes down in the annals of Morristown history as the THIRTEENTH person nominated by the Mayor since July 2011 (from a list provided to him by MUC) who has failed to get the approval of council:
1. Mike Minnich
3. Carroll Fowler
4. Wally Long
5. John Allen
6. Mike Davidson
7. Bruce Sluder
8. Jerry Isaacs
9. Gene Lynch
10. Steve Henrikson
11. David Wild
12. Steve Isaacs
13. Chris Horne
And the beat goes on....
Thursday, February 23, 2012
February 23, 2012 The Mayor's Letter, Public Comments, and the Amended Public Comments Ordinance
There was a packed house at Tuesday's council meeting and lots of public comments about public comments.
It started with an Ordinance passed by Councilmembers LeBel/Senter/Bivens/Garrett on first reading on 2/7/12 to revise the city council's Agenda format and put public comments at the end of the meeting after all votes had been taken. LeBel was also proposing speaking guidelines that would reduce the time allowed for public comments from three minutes to two minutes. The Ordinance was opposed on 2/7/12 by Mayor Thomas and Councilmembers Gene Brooks and Claude Jinks.
To protect the public from the negative effect of the Ordinance passed by LeBel/Senter/Bivens/ Garrett, Mayor Thomas sent out a letter to the citizens just over a week later alerting them to the second reading on that ordinance on February 21, 2012, and encouraging them to come to the 2/21/12 meeting and speak on this issue. Click here to see the letter.
Mayor Thomas had tried on 2/7/12 to head off the LeBel Ordinance putting public comments at the end of meetings and the guidelines that would reduce the time allowed for speakers from three minutes to two minutes.
Thomas tried to get Councilmembers to slow up and consider formats with more public comment opportunities on agenda items before votes were taken. Thomas suggested that no vote be taken on the LeBel Ordinance so that a work session could take place. Thomas showed the Council the "recommended" MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service) agenda that provides for public comments prior to votes and at the end of the meetings. [Public hearings on 2nd readings of ordinances were unaffected by either the LeBel or Thomas proposals.]
Councilmembers LeBel/Senter/Garrett/Bivens wouldn't slow up and wouldn't change their ordinance to add public input on agenda items such as contracts, resolutions, and appointments before votes were taken.
With no "news"paper editorial standing up for the people of Morristown, Mayor Danny Thomas did what he could to make sure that the citizens knew that the LeBel, Senter, Garrett, and Bivens Ordinance on public comments was up for second and final reading on 2/21/12.
Mayor Thomas wrote a letter alerting citizens and went to the "news"paper on 2/14/12 to ask that his letter be published as a Letter to the Editor. The "news"paper apparently refused--but did offer to take the Mayor's money if the Mayor wanted to run the letter as a political ad and mentioned a possible news article. Mayor Thomas mailed his letter out directly to the voters.
At some point, LeBel, Senter, Bivens, and/or Garrett decided to amend the agenda format that they had voted for on 2/7/12 and apparently Kay Senter delivered an "amended" Agenda format to the City Administrator's Office on 2/16/12---after the Mayor had discussed his letter with the "news"paper and after the letter had been mailed out.
On Tuesday 2/21/12, Senter walked into the council meeting in front of a packed house and quickly moved to amend/replace the Agenda Ordinance that had passed on 2/7/12---and that put public comments at the end of the meeting--with the amended Agenda Ordinance that she had brought to the City Administrator on 2/16/12.
What Senter was officially proposing on 2/21/12--adding a time for public comments on agenda items BEFORE votes were taken and general public comments at the end of the meeting--was pretty much what Mayor Thomas had suggested on 2/7/12 but which was rejected at that time by LeBel/ Senter/ Bivens/Garrett in favor of THEIR Agenda putting general public comments at the end.
After Senter presented the amended (and very improved) agenda ordinance, Paul LeBel, Chris Bivens, and Kay proceeded to attack the Mayor for sending out his letter to citizens.
You would have thought they had ALWAYS planned to allow more public input rather than less. You would have thought that THEIR VOTE to put public comments at the end of meetings and THEIR GUIDELINES to reduce the time allowed for speakers had never taken place and caused the letter to be sent out.
The video above shows how citizens can make a difference. Rev. Richard Crayne gave a moving account of those who fought and died for our liberty and for freedom of speech.
Brenda Goodson thanked the Mayor for sending the letter and suggested that council get a larger meeting room because "we're coming back." Ricky Lowe wondered what would have happened if the Mayor had not sent out his letter. Brian Southerland told councilmembers that if you don't have the time to listen to the people, don't run for office.
The 2/21/12 Amended Agenda Ordinance was a great victory for the people. What started with a vote by four councilmembers on 2/7/12 to marginalize and reduce the time for public input ended up as an Ordinance that passed unanimously on 2/21/12 providing for more opportunities for public comment and preserving the three minute time limit.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
February 18, 2012 LeBel Reverses Course on Public Comments at City Council Meetings
Above (left or top) is the agenda format that Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, and Chris Bivens voted for on first reading at the City Council meeting on February 7, 2012. LeBel's Proposed Order of Business put all public comments near the end of the meeting---after all votes had been taken. It also reduced the speaking time from three minutes to two minutes.
Mayor Danny Thomas, Gene Brooks, and Claude Jinks voted against the Lebel plan with Mayor Thomas mounting a vigorous push for more rather than less public input. Mayor Thomas even sent out a letter to voters to let them know about the LeBel-Senter-Garrett-Bivens move to put public comments after all votes were taken and to reduce speaking time to two minutes.
Above (right or bottom) is an amended Order of Business that will apparently be the one put forth by LeBel and company for second reading and public hearing on February 21, 2012, at 5 PM at the City Center.
After passing the "public at the end" format, it looks like LeBel had a change of heart or felt some constituent heat and amended his Order of Business to let the public speak on agenda items before any votes are taken and to make general comments at the end of the meeting. Regardless of the reason for the change, it is a good move.
LeBel had gotten the public upset with his plan to put public comments at the end of council meetings. Kudos to LeBel for deciding to change his initial proposal before the final reading on February 21.
Even with the amended Order of Business, LeBel-Senter-Garrett-Bivens are apparently still pushing to reduce the time allowed for a speaker to address an issue down to two minutes. But maybe that will be amended, too.
Friday, February 17, 2012
February 17, 2012 Mayor Thomas' Letter To Morristown Taxpayers
In addition to voting to move public comments to the end of council meetings, Councilmembers Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, and Chris Bivens voted to reduce the time allowed for each speaker from three minutes down to two minutes.
Mayor Thomas and Councilmembers Gene Brooks and Claude Jinks stood up for the people.
Mayor Thomas tried to postpone any action on the agenda changes to allow more review of the situation. The four wouldn't wait.
Thomas explained that the proposal by Paul LeBel (supported by Bob Garrett, Kay Senter, and Chris Bivens) would result in the public being unable to speak about bids/contracts/ appointments/ resolutions/new business or any agenda item (other than required public hearings on the 2nd reading of ordinances) until after council had voted on that item.
The Mayor showed council that MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service) encourages more public input rather than less during council meetings. That didn't sway the four.
The Mayor pointed out that the Hamblen County Commission, on which Councilman LeBel sits, puts public comments at the beginning of its meetings and allows all speakers three minutes and allows five minutes to speakers if they pre-register to speak. That didn't sway the four.
Nothing that Mayor Thomas or Councilman Gene Brooks said had any effect on the four councilmembers who are now going after the people in an effort to stifle expressions of concern or dissent at meetings.
On February 7, Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, and Chris Bivens continued down their chosen path of putting the people last --figuratively and literally.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
February 14, 2012 "Lucky" Thirteenth List of MUC Nominees
The three nominees for a seat on the Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) are Jo Ervin, Chris Horne, and--surprise, surprise, surprise--George McGuffin.
These three were selected by MUC in a special called meeting at 10:15 AM yesterday morning.
According to the MUC Private Act that was approved by 72% of the voters in a 2001 referendum, MUC is the primary gatekeeper in the appointment process since MUC has total control over who is considered for the MUC Board.
The Mayor takes the MUC-provided list and submits the name of one nominee to council.
The Council then accepts or rejects.
So far, twelve MUC lists have been sent to the Mayor. Each time, the Mayor has submitted one name to the full council. And all twelve MUC nominees have been rejected.
These three were selected by MUC in a special called meeting at 10:15 AM yesterday morning.
According to the MUC Private Act that was approved by 72% of the voters in a 2001 referendum, MUC is the primary gatekeeper in the appointment process since MUC has total control over who is considered for the MUC Board.
The Mayor takes the MUC-provided list and submits the name of one nominee to council.
The Council then accepts or rejects.
So far, twelve MUC lists have been sent to the Mayor. Each time, the Mayor has submitted one name to the full council. And all twelve MUC nominees have been rejected.
February 14, 2012 Valentine's Day
Happy Valentine's Day
Salvatore Vuono: freedigitalphotos.net
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=659
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
February 8, 2012 No. 12 Steve Isaacs Shot Down by The Five
The Morristown Utilities Commission Board, headed by George McGuffin, recently recommended three names to Mayor Danny Thomas for appointment to the MUC Board. The slate of three candidates: Steve Isaacs, George McGuffin, and Chris Horne.
At yesterday's council meeting, Mayor Thomas submitted the name of Steve Isaacs to the council, and the council quickly rejected Isaacs 5-2. Voting to reject Isaacs were Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks. Supporting Isaacs were Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilmember Gene Brooks.
Steve Isaacs is the TWELFTH person to be nominated by Thomas, and the TWELFTH person to fail to win the approval of a majority of council.
Friday, February 03, 2012
February 3, 2012 CFA Site Has Channel 8 (WVLT) Report on Five Councilmembers Trying to Change the Voter-Approved MUC Appointment Process
Citizens for Accountability has posted the video of a Ch 8 segment that aired on WVLT-TV on Wednesday evening.
The newscast discusses the local controversy generated by five councilmembers (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) who have aligned to reject not one, not two, but ELEVEN different mayoral appointees to the Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) Board.
[Jinks, whose daughter-in-law works for MUC, cast a vote for the mayor's first appointment and then joined firmly with The Five in supporting current MUC Chair George McGuffin and rejecting everyone else]
Click here for the CFA post.
Click here for the original WVLT video and text of its report.
HISTORY:
The current appointment process for MUC Board members was submitted to the PEOPLE, along with other MUC changes, for approval or disapproval in a 2001 referendum. The MUC referendum, including the current appointment process, was approved overwhelmingly by 3,202 voters in 2001 (72% FOR 28% AGAINST).
As a result of the referendum, recommendation of candidates for MUC Board membership comes straight from the MUC Board which is chaired by 34-year member George McGuffin who wants to stay on the Board for another five years.
A list of MUC-candidates is sent to the Mayor, who then submits the name of one of the MUC-provided candidates to the full council for approval of disapproval. So far, ELEVEN MUC-provided candidates have been submitted to council by the Mayor, and all ELEVEN have failed to be approved.
So, MUC keeps sending lists of more MUC-approved candidates to the Mayor, and The Five keep rejecting every mayoral nominee.
MUC Chair McGuffin will not step aside and let someone else be appointed. McGuffin pretends to sit on the sidelines as a spectator while he actually backs and encourages The Five councilmembers to keep on shooting down the very people who have been recommended for an MUC Board seat by the MUC Board that McGuffin chairs.
How do The Five propose to get McGuffin back on? Change the law. The integrity of the 2001 Referendum means nothing to the Five, so they have asked our local state representatives (Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland) to get the state legislature to help change the local law/MUC Private Act to alter the voter-approved appointment process without holding a referendum to see if the PEOPLE want to change what the PEOPLE voted for.
Why are McGuffin and The Five and their associates willing to go so far as to attack and overturn a referendum in order to keep McGuffin in place? Well, it appears to be either a raw power grab by McGuffin and Company and/or part of a political vendetta against Mayor Thomas.
From here on, you can only laugh when these officials publicly encourage people to vote and talk about the integrity of elections and preventing voter-fraud. Those nice little public statements are nothing but garbage when these officials are making a mockery of a local referendum as they try to overturn the MUC-appointment process that was approved by 3,202 voters---72% of all votes cast---as part of a series of 2001 changes to MUC.
If The Five want to make changes to the MUC appointment process and protect the integrity of the 2001 MUC Referendum, it's really quite simple to do. Put the proposed changes on the ballot for a vote of the people.
Maybe the people want to change the MUC appointment process that they voted for in 2001. Maybe the people do not want to change the MUC appointment process that they voted for in 2001.
The council included the current appointment process as part of the MUC ballot question in a 2001 referendum, and 72% of the voters said YES. Why are Five Councilmembers so afraid of putting their proposed changes on the ballot again to see if the VOTERS want to change what the voters approved in 2001?
The newscast discusses the local controversy generated by five councilmembers (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) who have aligned to reject not one, not two, but ELEVEN different mayoral appointees to the Morristown Utilities Commission (MUC) Board.
[Jinks, whose daughter-in-law works for MUC, cast a vote for the mayor's first appointment and then joined firmly with The Five in supporting current MUC Chair George McGuffin and rejecting everyone else]
Click here for the CFA post.
Click here for the original WVLT video and text of its report.
HISTORY:
The current appointment process for MUC Board members was submitted to the PEOPLE, along with other MUC changes, for approval or disapproval in a 2001 referendum. The MUC referendum, including the current appointment process, was approved overwhelmingly by 3,202 voters in 2001 (72% FOR 28% AGAINST).
As a result of the referendum, recommendation of candidates for MUC Board membership comes straight from the MUC Board which is chaired by 34-year member George McGuffin who wants to stay on the Board for another five years.
A list of MUC-candidates is sent to the Mayor, who then submits the name of one of the MUC-provided candidates to the full council for approval of disapproval. So far, ELEVEN MUC-provided candidates have been submitted to council by the Mayor, and all ELEVEN have failed to be approved.
So, MUC keeps sending lists of more MUC-approved candidates to the Mayor, and The Five keep rejecting every mayoral nominee.
MUC Chair McGuffin will not step aside and let someone else be appointed. McGuffin pretends to sit on the sidelines as a spectator while he actually backs and encourages The Five councilmembers to keep on shooting down the very people who have been recommended for an MUC Board seat by the MUC Board that McGuffin chairs.
How do The Five propose to get McGuffin back on? Change the law. The integrity of the 2001 Referendum means nothing to the Five, so they have asked our local state representatives (Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland) to get the state legislature to help change the local law/MUC Private Act to alter the voter-approved appointment process without holding a referendum to see if the PEOPLE want to change what the PEOPLE voted for.
Why are McGuffin and The Five and their associates willing to go so far as to attack and overturn a referendum in order to keep McGuffin in place? Well, it appears to be either a raw power grab by McGuffin and Company and/or part of a political vendetta against Mayor Thomas.
From here on, you can only laugh when these officials publicly encourage people to vote and talk about the integrity of elections and preventing voter-fraud. Those nice little public statements are nothing but garbage when these officials are making a mockery of a local referendum as they try to overturn the MUC-appointment process that was approved by 3,202 voters---72% of all votes cast---as part of a series of 2001 changes to MUC.
If The Five want to make changes to the MUC appointment process and protect the integrity of the 2001 MUC Referendum, it's really quite simple to do. Put the proposed changes on the ballot for a vote of the people.
Maybe the people want to change the MUC appointment process that they voted for in 2001. Maybe the people do not want to change the MUC appointment process that they voted for in 2001.
The council included the current appointment process as part of the MUC ballot question in a 2001 referendum, and 72% of the voters said YES. Why are Five Councilmembers so afraid of putting their proposed changes on the ballot again to see if the VOTERS want to change what the voters approved in 2001?
Thursday, February 02, 2012
February 2, 2012 Happy Groundhog Day
Click here for Groundhog Day lore. At 7:25 AM this morning, we will know what Phil thinks about weather for the next six weeks.
Breaking news: Phil saw his shadow and crawled back in his burrow for six more weeks of winter!
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.
Monday, January 23, 2012
January 23, 2012 Bluff City Traffic Cameras Bring in More Money Than Property Taxes
Very interesting article here about money and traffic/speed cameras in Bluff City, TN.
No mention of safety. No mention of a reduction in property taxes as a result of the huge windfall of new money from the traffic cameras.
No mention of safety. No mention of a reduction in property taxes as a result of the huge windfall of new money from the traffic cameras.
Friday, January 20, 2012
January 20, 2012 DEA Agent Accidentally Shoots Himself in the Leg: Video Goes Viral
A DEA agent lecturing community youth accidentally shot himself in the leg (above).
With self-control and presence of mind, he hung in there and attempted to turn the accident into a teachable moment about gun safety.
With YouTube, this portion of the 2004 lecture has been seen by thousands.
[A federal court recently rejected the agent's claims that his privacy had been invaded by the release of the video.]
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
January 18, 2012 David Wild and MUC Manager Jody Wigington Show Up To See City Council Reject Wild's Appointment to MUC Board
The LeBel Five will not compromise. David Wild, Mayor Thomas' eleventh nomination to the Morristown Utilities Commission Board of Commissioners, went down in flames yesterday. [Click on video]
Without discussion, the LeBel Five (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) set the fire and voted to reject Wild's appointment to MUC.
Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks supported Wild.
Wild came to the council meeting with MUC manager Jody Wigington to see his rejection. Pictured above are Jody Wigington in the suit and tie and David Wild in the blue sweater. "News"paper reporter Bob Moore is pictured in the background.
Wild knew his nomination would be rejected and really didn't care. Wigington knew and wanted Wild to be rejected because Wigington supports the "overall game plan" of the LeBel Five.
What is the game plan? An end-run around the votes of the 3,202 people who set up the current appointment process as part of the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM.
Goerge McGuffin, who considers it vitally important that he keep the MUC seat that he has had for 34 years already, is the coach. LeBel is the quarterback. Senter, Garrett, Bivens, and Jinks are the offensive line. The coach and quarterback have called for an end-run around the voice of the people.
The goal is to keep Coach McGuff in charge of MUC and that will be done by overturning the votes of the 3,202 people who set up the current appointment process as part of changes approved in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. The votes of 3,202 people are viewed as a necessary casualty in this struggle to hold on to power.
This diagram of the end-run:
1. The LeBel Five ask the Tennessee General Assembly to let the LeBel Five change the MUC Private Act and overturn the current appointment process that was set up by the people in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. (DONE)
2. The LeBel Five get Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland to sponsor the changes to the MUC Private Act in the General Assembly, allowing the LeBel Five to change and overturn the appointment process that was set up by the people in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. (DONE)
3. The LeBel Five get the Tennessee General Assembly to go along, thus helping and allowing the LeBel Five to change and overturn the votes of the 3,202 voters who supported changes to MUC, including the current appointment process, in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. (IN PROGRESS)
If they can get the General Assembly to go along and allow the FIVE to overturn the REFERENDUM, the LeBel Five can then quickly appoint their one and only acceptable person--Coach George McGuffin--to MUC for another 5-year term.
While the goal is to keep McGuffin on MUC, the bigger issue is the raw power grab that is exhibited by overturning a REFERENDUM. What's next? What other Referenda are they willing to overturn when they suddenly decide that they don't agree with what the people voted FOR?
If personalities and politics and raw power are set aside, how can anyone stand up and say that it is moral and right and just for five people to overturn the results of a REFERENDUM just because THESE FIVE suddenly decide in 2011/2012 that they (and their Coach) don't like the MUC appointment process that was approved by 72% of the voters in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM?
More to come...
Without discussion, the LeBel Five (Paul LeBel, Kay Senter, Bob Garrett, Chris Bivens, and Claude Jinks) set the fire and voted to reject Wild's appointment to MUC.
Mayor Danny Thomas and Councilman Gene Brooks supported Wild.
Wild knew his nomination would be rejected and really didn't care. Wigington knew and wanted Wild to be rejected because Wigington supports the "overall game plan" of the LeBel Five.
What is the game plan? An end-run around the votes of the 3,202 people who set up the current appointment process as part of the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM.
Goerge McGuffin, who considers it vitally important that he keep the MUC seat that he has had for 34 years already, is the coach. LeBel is the quarterback. Senter, Garrett, Bivens, and Jinks are the offensive line. The coach and quarterback have called for an end-run around the voice of the people.
The goal is to keep Coach McGuff in charge of MUC and that will be done by overturning the votes of the 3,202 people who set up the current appointment process as part of changes approved in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. The votes of 3,202 people are viewed as a necessary casualty in this struggle to hold on to power.
This diagram of the end-run:
1. The LeBel Five ask the Tennessee General Assembly to let the LeBel Five change the MUC Private Act and overturn the current appointment process that was set up by the people in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. (DONE)
2. The LeBel Five get Rep. Don Miller and Sen. Steve Southerland to sponsor the changes to the MUC Private Act in the General Assembly, allowing the LeBel Five to change and overturn the appointment process that was set up by the people in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. (DONE)
3. The LeBel Five get the Tennessee General Assembly to go along, thus helping and allowing the LeBel Five to change and overturn the votes of the 3,202 voters who supported changes to MUC, including the current appointment process, in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM. (IN PROGRESS)
If they can get the General Assembly to go along and allow the FIVE to overturn the REFERENDUM, the LeBel Five can then quickly appoint their one and only acceptable person--Coach George McGuffin--to MUC for another 5-year term.
While the goal is to keep McGuffin on MUC, the bigger issue is the raw power grab that is exhibited by overturning a REFERENDUM. What's next? What other Referenda are they willing to overturn when they suddenly decide that they don't agree with what the people voted FOR?
If personalities and politics and raw power are set aside, how can anyone stand up and say that it is moral and right and just for five people to overturn the results of a REFERENDUM just because THESE FIVE suddenly decide in 2011/2012 that they (and their Coach) don't like the MUC appointment process that was approved by 72% of the voters in the 2001 MUC REFERENDUM?
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
