October 1, 2007
John Owings Speaks
1:40 Court reconvenes with John Owings giving his closing.He may have spoken at other times during the trial, but this is the first time I've heard him. Mr. Owings starts by listing all the folks whose appointments are being challenged. He's stressing that the jury has to evaluate appointment by appointment. He says that the meeting on Jan 22 and Jan 31 'cured' any private deliberations among members because the outcome was made public.What a crock. If a burglar robs your house while you are away, it isn't less of a burglary because you come home and find your stereo missing. He's arguing that this isn't an easy case; it is very complicated.
1:44 Mr. Owings starts by citing the Tennessee Constitution that vacant county offices will be filed by the county legislative body. This is why Hollow's close was weak; the law says the county commission was to appoint people to fill the vacancies.
1:48 Mr. Owings is pointing out that there were repeated references in public meetings to the idea that the term limited commissioners should be able to select their own replacements. He also points out that not all commissioners agreed with this idea.
1:56 Mr. Owings makes the point that nominations were made by both commissioners
1:57 Mr Owings says there is no requirement that commissioners discuss or deliberate prior to a vote, so the absence of discussion cannot be used to infer private discussions or deliberations.
1:59 Mr. Owings is arguing that the meeting on the 31 was public, and that the nominations were made during that public meeting, so county commission complied with the law. Owing's argument appears to be that the County Comission did not violate the Sunshine Law because they fulfilled all the requirements for holding a public meeting. He's neglecting to talk about the things the commissioners did outside of the meeting, and that's where the problem lies.
2:03 Mr.Moncier objects to the citation of cases during the closing argument. Overruled.
2:04 Mr. Owings calls what happened "raw politics."Raw sewage is more like it.
2:05 Mr. Owings revisits his opening argument that the actions of the commission, lobbying, discussing nominations, etc. are not deliberating.
2:06 Mr. Owings says that commissioners are allowed to have fixed opinions as long as they don't change them due to private discussions.What about Diane Jordan changing her vote on the 4th district seat?
2:08 Mr.Owings points out that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof.
2:10 Mr. Owings is arguing that the votes that changed after recesses didn't really matter. He points out that when Diane Jordan switched her vote,Guthe changed his and the issue remained unsettled. When Bolus was sworn in, Tramel won by more than one,so his vote didn't matter.So an unsuccessful robbery is not a crime?
2:13 Mr. Hollow closes. He explains the history of the Open Meetings Act. He stresses the 'spirit' clause of the act, and that it precludes private deliberation and decisions. He's arguing as a framer of the Act.He is effectively countering Mr. Owings's argument.
2:20 "Don't throw me in that brier-patch!" Mr. Hollow says he has been forced to read from the transcript of Jan 31 by Mr. Owings's close. In fact, he's dying to read these portions of the transcript that make the commission look bad.
2:22 Mr. Hollow's demeanor has changed from the scholarly lawyer of his opening to a firebrand worthy of Moncier himself.
2:28 I wonder how much of Hollow's close was planned and how much is in reaction to Owings's close? Hollow spoke for about 1:15 this morning, then Owings spoke for just over 30 minutes. Hollow has been speaking for 15 minutes and I'm not hearing any signs of him wrapping up.
2:33 Mr. Hollow once again claims that no person nominated from the floor received a single vote from the commissioners. Not true. Tom Salter was nominated from the floor for seat 5C and received one vote from Commissioner Mark Harmon.
2:34 Mr.Hollow points out that the commission rules are subordinate to state law, and the rule against public discussion violated the Open Meetings Act, and should have been waived.
2:35 Mr. Hollow is emphasizing the Jordan vote switch to Tramel did matter, because of how her vote was changed.
2:39 Mr. Hollow is examining the 'curative' meeting defense, and reads that a perfunctory re-enactment of the original decision does not count. He also points out that the public must be involved in the curative meeting.
2:44 Mr. Hollow points out that any action taken at a meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act is void.
2:47 Mr. Hollow revisits the admissions under the quorum arguments, and stresses that many commissioners admitted to deliberating, using the defense that they were less than a quorum, so the Open Meetings Act didn't apply. Mr. Hollow pointed out that this defense was struck down.This legal miscue can be laid directly at the feet of John Owings, who was caught trying to be too cute with the law. His quorum defense backfired in a big way.
2:55 Mr. Hollow concludes after a 30 minute close.
2:56 10 Minute Recess
3:12 Mr. Moncier begins his close, promising to keep it to 30 minutes.I'm not putting any money on it.
3:30 We're not hearing anything new, except that Mr. Moncier says that part of the jury instruction will be that if they fid that actions were taken to circumvent the Open Meetings Act, then those actions by definition are violations of the Act.
3:34 "...the most asinine decision ever made by a public official in East Tennessee" referring to the email sent by Larry Smith, documenting Scott Moore's statement that he was going to do the exact opposite of whatever the mayor wanted.
3:38 Mr. Moncier begins going through the questions for the jury.
3:43 Mr. Moncier goes over his time.
3:48 Chancellor Fansler swore in Chuck Bolus. Isn't that worthy of recusal? Not only is there a strong appearance of a conflict of interest, he might also be offended by having his name dragged into this mess. Either way you look at it, his objectivity could reasonably be suspect.
3:52 Mr. Moncier finishes.
3:53 Chancellor Fansler charges the jury.
3:57 Fansler reads sections of the Open Meetings Act to the jury.
3:58 Fansler reads the section of the Open Meetings Act that states that electronic meetings are covered by the Act, and shall not be used to conduct public business.
4:00 Fansler reads from the County Charter, including a decision that allows private conversation, but not deliberation.
4:06 Fansler lays out the conditions for weighing the fact that Commissioner Lambert failed to turn in his phone records. This is nowhere near the slam dunk Moncier portrayed it as. Among the conditions, the jurors must conclude that the defendant had the ability to turn in the records, and that the records were not equally available to the plaintiffs.
4:30 Fansler excuses the jury to begin deliberations.
4:37 Fansler is going over the final interrogatories with the attorneys.
4:45 We're done and it's up to the jury.
Posted by Rich at October 1, 2007 1:36 PM | TrackBack