In today's DT, Judge Young claims to set the record straight about Judge Meares' record as a judge, in response to Carol Gallagher's letter to the editor. Link...

He makes this statement:

This letter is not intended, in any way, to constitute or be construed as a public or private endorsement of either Judge Meares or Judge Duggan. Likewise, this letter is not intended, in any way, to constitute or be construed as public or private opposition to either Judge Meares or Judge Duggan.

However, his motives "to correct some terribly misleading statements" in Mrs. Gallagher's letter become completely clear - and somewhat sinister - when you realize that he has contributed AT LEAST $1,000 of his own money to Judge Duggan's campaign to unseat Judge Meares. Link... Funny that a letter full of disclaimers, and claiming to set the record straight, would omit such a crucial detail that should have been part of full disclosure. He is by definition a supporter of Duggan against Meares, and with his pocketbook has endorsed him to the maximum permitted by law.

Judge Young had no right to invoke any member of Mike Meares' family in a letter intended strictly to tarnish Mike's well-earned GOOD reputation. Particularly quoting Mike Meares' wife, an attorney, on a pleasantry she uttered to Young's staff in the course of business - her livelihood - to say that there is no delay in hearing cases in his courtroom. I have NEVER heard of anything tackier in a campaign in my life. I'm surprised that a man of Duggan's oft-reported integrity would approve such a message.

And this, I believe, is what we used to call a big bald-faced one in the olden days:

It is totally false that Judge Meares is now offering to assist in the civil area.

He isn't? Really, now, Judge Young.

Seems that the pages and news space aren't the only things disappearing from The Daily Times. Heard this morning that they let a number of their employees go yesterday (although unlike the Newel Rubbermaid layoff, it didn't make the front page). Among them, Business Editor Rick Laney, some people in their ad department, people that run their presses and others.

With the smaller pages, less news, very little advertising, idiotic editorial decisions (think retractions of articles that didn't need retracting and putting in ads from realtors that disputed previously reported facts to kiss up to those who would shoot the messenger), it shouldn't be long before we have The News Sentinel Blount or Blount Today Daily.

I'll bet the GOB are buying each other drinks all over town in celebration of the loss of the closest thing to an investigative reporter this community had in Rick Laney.

Wonder if we'll read about this in the DT, or will they bury it like they do everything that looks remotely negative toward The Machine?

Link...

The Tennessee Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers recognized Blount County Commissioner Wendy Pitts Reeves with its "Public Official of the Year Award" for 2008. The award was announced to the 700 attendees at the National Association of Social Workers legislative conference at the Nashville Convention Center.

I have to agree with the National Association of Social Workers. Mrs. Reeves is a very unusual specimen in politics, maintaining an openness and approachability through her blog that we had never seen in Blount County prior to her election.

"Commissioner Reeves brings all the skills and core values of professional social work to her public service," Taylor said. "She is a wonderful role model for others, especially women.

"Politics can be a challenging arena for anyone, but especially so for someone who seeks to uphold the dignity and worth of each citizen and to advocate for those who may not be able to advocate for themselves."

McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate: Link...

Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

Hello? I thought this was the year 2008.

Back in 2005, Joe McCord's dad, Keith McCord wanted to put a lot of condos in near a wetland at Crosscreek, there on Carpenters Grade Road and Sandy Springs.

The Maryville Board of Zoning Appeals turned it down.

Keith McCord sued them.

Meanwhile, Joe McCord puts in some legislation to de-list some 3,000 waterways and it seems a little obvious that this would benefit a development that would disturb a wetland, if a claim can be made that it is a wet-weather wetland.

But in today's paper, there's an article that Joe McCord's Legislation, which he had energetically defended before, has been "watered down" now to just cleaning up the Nolichucky River and another article that Chancellor Forgerty has "set aside" the BZA's decision in Keith McCord's favor for his condo complex. Strangely, this happened Feb. 1st and we are only now hearing about it.

If you want to go see how this series of coincidences play out, there's a meeting tonight:

The Board of Zoning Appeals will meet at 5 p.m. today for a briefing from attorneys about the ruling.

"Concerns raised by citizens relative to traffic is a matter that may be reviewed and considered by the Maryville Regional Planning Commission at the next requested approval phase of the property development ... if permitted by the applicable laws and regulations," the ruling states.

My favorite part of the newspaper is the Opinion page. No, not the editorial (that's for darn sure), but the Letters to the Editor. Sometimes these letters aren't about any particular issue, just something burning in the mind of the author. I always enjoy those letters too, because I think it is a privilege to live in a community where people can be so open.

But often, someone hits the nail right on the head with an issue, like this one today, calling for Supernanny's intervention in the affairs of the Blount County Commission: Link...

I particularly like her postscript:

P.S. I sure hope the “kids” don’t decide my letter is slanderous and involve me in a lawsuit. I have more important things to attend to at the moment - I need to finish removing the border in my kitchen.

And then there was this one: Link...

Will you look at who is calling the kettle black! Mr. Mayor we are concerned about the expenses and waste of this county. You can call us whoever you want to title us. I support the people that belong to these concerned citizens groups. They are working for the taxpayers, the seniors, the low income, the children, the widows, etc.

Who are you working for, Mr. Mayor sir?

Good point, Ms. Handley!

I believe you are the cave man if anyone is. In fact, I wonder if you have not been bitten by a bat.

That's as good an explanation as any.

I don't know exactly what time this document was updated, but there is some fairly interesting stuff here: Link...

Blount County School Board Districts 2, 4 and 6 are up for reelection. Only District 6 is contested. Patricia Bell and Brad Long are running for that non-partisan seat. Incumbents Chris Cantrell and John Davis are already in for their seats.

For State Senator Finney's seat, it is Finney, Overbey, Jim Bishop (Sevierville), and Ira Lapides (Gatlinburg).

For State Rep. 20th District: Tonawanda Monroe-Ball, Jimmy Melton, Robert Ramsey, Steve Hargis.

State Rep (8th): Joe McCord (Why the heck isn't anyone running against him?)

Townsend Commission: Charles Tippitt, Patrick Jenkins, David Wietlisbach.

Friendsville Commission: Gary Simerly, David L. Staley

Interesting folks that picked up petition but didn't return them (at least by the time this document was updated last): Steve Gray, former commissioner in Helton/Lail's district for Overbey's seat. Seemed a genuinely decent guy. I don't know the other people who picked up and didn't return.

Surprise, surprise! How about that Mayor of ours (and Commissioner Melton) promoting the wheel tax after it was soundly defeated in a referendum?

Link...

"It would be in the nature of an investment tax," County Mayor Jerry Cunningham said, adding a $10 per vehicle tax would generate about $1 million per year, which could be used as matching funds to bring in $4 million per year in federal grants.

You would think they would at least get through the same term the referendum took place in before breaching the public trust. Yes, Cunningham, those are some strong conservative beliefs relative to taxation (see League of Women Voters survey):

Again, however, due to my strong conservative beliefs relative to taxation, I would hope that by controlling spending and downsizing government, that these new taxes of whatever kind can be avoided.

Would you call this "patent mendacity," "testicular fortitude," or behavior only befitting "cave people?"

Newly appointed Knox County commissioner Victoria DeFreese is not going to hand over the names and contact info of citizens who have contacted her about the p-card audit, despite Mayor Ragsdale's request that she do so. Off the top of my head, I think she's doing the right thing.

Looking at this through the filter of Blount County politicians and their recent actions, I'm thinking that if fellow elected officials are treated so badly for asking questions, I would truly hate to see what the local machine would do to mere citizens.

Did I say "would do"? How about allegedly done to? Link...

RNeal's blog from Knoxviews: Link...

Volunteer TV News: Link...

WATE TV: Link...

WBIR coverage: Link...

Hang on to those papers, Ms. DeFreese. At minimum, you open your constituents up to "spam." At maximum, intimidation.

I never thought the Olympics should be held in China because of their tendency to gross human rights violations. Now, the crackdown in Tibet: Link....

Do you think we should boycott?

I would truly hate to disappoint our US athletes, most of whom would never have another chance at Olympic gold. Is it too late to MOVE the Olympics to somewhere reasonable?

The same Mayor who thought it was okay to dig into the files of a private citizen for apparently political purposes, thinks it is a crime for another elected official to bring forth legitimate questions from her constituents?

Link...

Perhaps we have become that which we feared: a subdivision of Russia where people can be arrested for asking questions about the powers-that-be.

This popped up on the DT website, not sure what time: Link...

The only surprise here is that the other people he spoke about at the Support Rally haven't filed suit also. Hopefully, the county mayor's attorney won't be billing the county for defense of Cunningham in his individual capacity. Wonder who he'll hire?

UPDATE:
Found the audiotape of the meeting, so you can hear the episode and judge for yourself - if you think you can handle hearing the phrase "testicular fortitude" all over again. Link...

What do you think of this tape? Does it make any difference that Cunningham said he was not speaking as Mayor? I'm guessing that if he were an average Joe, he wouldn't have been as likely to be asked to be the keynote speaker, nor would it have been as likely that any of the press would have covered the story if he had spoken. Is it possible that his office added to the weight of his words?

Do you think YOU could have found out in a *SNAP* the sorts of things that Cunningham "said" that he did? And how would you feel if the Mayor of a neighboring town accessed your divorce file (exactly where did he get it, anyway? If I went to the Justice Center, would they give it to me?) and gave a little speech on it in front of a room full of "office-holders," a state representative, several lawyers, another judge, etc.? Not to mention a Senator who was apparently there in spirit. And what would lead a former US Attorney to believe it was appropriate to comment on pending litigation in such a setting, anyway?

Not to mention coming right out and saying Ana Calixto "ain't legal."

Could this be construed as a discussion of county business without public notice?

I first received this via alert from the Sierra Club. Now, from the Daily Times: Link...

According to the General Assembly's Fiscal Review Committee, however, removing these waters from regulation by the WQCA places the state in conflict with the federal Clean Water Act and will place approximately $2.1 million in federal funds in jeopardy.

But don't worry, he isn't really trying to do this:

"We're not really trying to make the definitions lax. We're just trying to get a definition. The uncertainty of what is or is not a wet weather conveyance has caused this problem to be inconsistently enforced. We're just looking for consistency. We're not trying to get away from it."

This comes before the House Environment and Conservation Committee on March 12th.

Here's some breaking news from the DT - Link...

“If you want to talk to somebody, sure, you don’t have to run that through me,” Cunningham said. “I don’t have time to fool with every citizen’s requests and reporters should have access, but if you want a lot of data that is going to take a lot of persons to find, that should flow through me..."

Alrighty then. Wonder if some of the other candidates for County Mayor might have had more time to "fool" with that pesky public? Most of the article is reporting on Mayor Cunningham's placement of the Sheriff's vehicle info on-line, and a little about a brand new procedure to funnel all requests for information from departments under his authority through his office. Even those questions from commissioners, who might be requesting it on behalf of their pesky constituents.

But back to the cars:

Members of some local citizens groups have claimed that about 25 vehicles were missing from the Sheriff’s Office inventory, compared to the number listed in previous audits. Auditors from the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury’s Office found deficiencies in the paperwork tracking the disposition of about eight Blount County Sheriff’s Office vehicles, according to the 2007 audit report released Dec. 28, but made no mention of actual missing vehicles in the report.

Here's a link to the Sheriff's vehicle info: Link...

Cunningham has declared the issue a “closed matter.”

'Nuff said.

My primary question about this measure is whether it will make it harder or easier for concerned citizens to successfully request things be added to the agenda of the official monthly commission meeting. Certainly, more votes will be needed to advance something forward, but perhaps there's some other benefit to a "Work Session" structure.

Commissioner Walker, could you offer any insight on how this might benefit the citizens, or what specific concerns you had motivated you to make this motion?

From the minutes of the Intergovernmental Committee:

Mike Walker made a motion to dissolve the Intergovernmental Committee, the Public Service Committee, and the Beer Board and to have one committee meeting comprised of the whole commission per month and the commission meeting only. Monika Murrell seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken with Chairman Farmer declaring the motion to have passed.

Last night, WVLT reported the controversy stirred up when the Children's Home board didn't immediately acquiesce to the Mayor's desire for them to share their property with other organizations: Link...

It will be discussed and the problem hopefully corrected in tonight's commission meeting. There's a ton of info in the commission packet about this starting on page 75/Item L4 of Link.... While the change to the charter, the primary intent of which was to add more board members, wasn't brought before the county commission, it looks to me like each of the additional new board members was actually approved by the county commission.

And it sure sounds like the Mayor is questioning his predecessor's authority to sign over the deed for the land without resolution of the county commission. But you'll see in the packet that there was a motion, a second, and a vote of the commission to do so. It wasn't like she signed over something that they didn't intend for her to. And Roy Crawford's signature is right along beside hers. He's as trustworthy as they come.

I would hate to see the county commission exploit the Children's Home on a technicality, when really, they could just bring it up to snuff instead. I've been on a number of boards and I understand the need, sometimes, to infuse them with more energy in the form of more warm bodies. I realize that this property has increased in value exponentially, given its location relative to Hamilton and Hunter Crossing Shopping areas, but this is just not reason enough to back out on a deal that the Children's Home participated in in good faith. Let's do the right thing.

If I had any faith in county government, it would definitely have been shaken by this article:

A life left in ashes: Woman loses home, faith in government after fire

The county burned this woman's house and business down (an approximately $230K value)and will only reimburse her $100K. How is this protective of her constitutional right to seek full remedy? Can the government really come in, burn you out, and then reimburse you only a small percentage of your loss?

In January, Ridings was notified that due to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, which caps property damage claims at $100,000, she would only receive $100,000 from the county for her home.

Nevermind that she had received two earlier offers of more than $100K. But:

Stallions (who heads up the county Risk Management Dept.) also said he was advised by attorneys not to discuss the two prior offers made to Ridings that exceeded the $100,000 cap.

Alrighty, then. Just so long as we don't talk about it.

Until recently, Ridings did not have an attorney, but she has now retained Costner & Greene of Maryville.

You go, girl. A brief Google session revealed that a number of other states have ruled that these caps are unconstitutional.

I think the county's plan to choose my paint colors and window treatments for me is a violation of my private property rights: Link...

But just so long as they let me bulldoze the top of the mountaintop flat and take off all the trees so my view in all directions is not obstructed, as well as install security lights that burn all night, I'll go along with it.