Shots Across The Bow

KSO Performing Ancient Chinese Song

Too Ning

Afternoon Session Notes

1:00 Mr. John Schmid takes the stand. He says he was sorry that more members of the commission did not join him in appealing the decision that struck down term limits. When Ms. Stackhouse reminded him that she and John Owings joined in on that appeal, he reminded her that they only did so for the commissioners,and not the fee offices and sheriff. He also reminded her that she and Mr. Owings tried to have him removed as a third party to the appeal.

Mr. Schmid then testified that he was met after the press conference where Mayor Ragsdale made his proposal by Chairman Moore and Commissioner Lambert, who were very angry with him for supporting public hearings. Ms.Stackhouse asks a very general question, then allows the witness to respond at length. Hollow and Moncier ask very pointed direct questions requiring a yes or no answer.

I heard well before the meeting of the 31st that Cate and Tramel were locked in for the district 4 seats.

I talked with Commissioners Moore, Lambert, Ballard, Smith, Norman, Hammond. I didn't offer to trade votes, just asked for their support for my choice for my seat, just as I would support their choice for their seats.

I tried to pitch Mr. Fischer as a compromise candidate, since there was a power struggle between the mayor's faction and the sheriff's faction.

Schmid testified that Commissioner Griess told him that RIchard Cate was being sworn in early to break the deadlock. He confronted Mr. Cate and convinced him not to swear in early, and then had some "heated words" with Commissioners Lambert and Pinkston.

Schmid admits that he spent a lot of time during the recesses trying to convince Mr.Guthe not to pass, and to vote for Scott Davis.

Mr. Hollow begins his cross.
"Were there certain power structures in place in Knox County Government?" "Yes."
"Do you believe there was a contemptuous attitude displayed towards the law and the citizens of Knox County on the part of certain commissioners in the appointment process?" "Yes"
(The above question and answer was objected to and removed from the record of the trial.)

Mr. Schmid testifies that the agenda for the special meeting on Jan 31st never went through the agenda committee.

Mr. Hollow went through the meeting of the 31st.

Mr. Schmid testifies that the Supreme Court did not place a time limit on the proceedings, and there was no reason to hurry.

Mr. Hollow makes the point that by Chairman Moore's rules, there was no chance for the commission to publicly discuss the candidates and their merits, and Commissioner Schmid agrees that that was the case.

Mr. Hollow points out that by the rules Chairman Moore set up, the only time the commissioners could deliberate with each other was during recesses.

Mr. Hollow points out that the agenda showed the swearing in would occur at 2:00PM but no vote was taken to modify the agenda to allow Mr. Cate and Mr. Bolus to be sworn in early.

Mr. Schmid says he knew early on that the four county offices were a "done deal," and that there were invitations circulating for a reception for the new sheriff well before the 31st.

Mr. Schmid says he believes there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Hollow almost seemed to be the one testifying during this entire cross. Mr. Schmid spent most of his time nodding his head and agreeing with Mr.Hollow. I asked Mr. Hollow about this during a break, and he told me that leading questions are allowed during a cross examination. I think he went beyond leading questions to tying a bridle to the witness. But Ms.Stackhouse never objected.

2:00 Mr. Moncier begins his cross: The only thing different from the normal operations is that the events of the 31st raised the curtain on the way the government works. Schmid agrees.

Mr. Moncier points out that term limits were passed in 1994, and Schmid testified that the State AG at the time ruled the term limits unconstitutional. Moncier leads Schmid through a history of the term limits legislative battle in Tennessee. Ms. Stackhouse objected repeatedly to the long drawn out nature of the questioning, as it moved far afield from the issues of the trial, namely, did the commissioners deliberate in private. Mr. Moncier points out the contrast between Commissioner Schmd, who retained a lawyer who filed an appeal to the Weaver decision which held term limits unconstitutional, with the behavior of Commission Chairman Moore and his frequent and lengthy conversations with lawyer/lobbyist "Prince" John Valliant before and during the Jan 31st meeting.

He asked if Mr. Schmid saw conversations and lobbying going on during the recesses of Jan 31st. He testified that he saw Diane Jordan in a conversation during a recess with Commissioners Pinkston, Lambert, and Moore & Hutchinson (maybe), after which she changed her vote from Davis to Tramel.

2:20 Ten minute break

2:35 Former Commissioner John Griess called to the stand:

Ms. Stackhouse asked how he prepared for the appointment process. He said he started off trying to find a mechanism other than appointment. Griess said that (paraphrase) when it became apparent that we would have to appoint rather than elect, it was my job to find a candidate that was capable and knowledgeable about the history of the government. IN this process, I floated names past Craig Leuthold and Mike Hammond to get their response, and that's how I came up with Frank Leuthold. (end paraphrase)

Griess said the only commissioner that really lobbied him was Lumpy Lambert. He then remembered about BIlly Tindell lobbied him for the clerk's position. Ms. Stackhouse asked why he didn't sign onto the call for a special meeting and he replied that at that time, he was still trying to get a special election.

2:49 Cross by Mr.Hollow: Griess testified that he wanted a special election so he didn't have to do it himself. An appointment is very difficult and costly politically and personally.

(Short break while Chancellor Fansler was apprised of the birth of his grandchild.) Mr. Hollow briefly went through the events of Jan 31st,paying attention to the early seating of Chucky Bolus.

2:58 Cross by Mr. Moncier: Nothing major. Just that there was a phone call from Scott Moore. Mr. Griess testified that Mr.Moore only wanted to know who he was going to nominate for his seat.

3:03 Craig Leuthold takes the stand: Ms. Stackhouse examined his reaction to his father being appointed to commission. Craig Leuthold says he was trying to get out from his father's shadow, so he wasn't thrilled to have him on the commission. She asked him how he prepared for the appointment process. Leuthold said he read the resumes, faxes, emails, and letters from constituents and applicants.We've heard several times about the huge volume of interest in joining the county commission. How is it that we ended up with relatives/friends/associates of current or former commissioners?

Ms. Stackhouse asks if he had any conversations regarding appointments with any other commissioners? "I didn't want to be a part of any possible deal making because my father serve with integrity, and I'm trying to do the same thing."

Ms. Stackhouse asks if he had interaction with Commissioner Pinkston during the meeting on the 31st? Commissioner Leuthold answered yes, that Commissioner Pinkston asked him if he wanted him to vote for his Daddy. Leuthold testified that he hadn't asked anyone to vote for his father to that point and he wasn't about to start.

Mr.Hollow begins his cross: Revisits the interaction with Commissioner Pinkston and introduces a photograph depicting that meeting. Asks him if he decided to support the nominee of the term limited commissioners. He answered that it was a factor, but not the only one. The Mr.Hollow ran down a list of Mr.Leuthold's votes and for the most part, they did go along with the recommendations of the term limited commissioners.

Mr. Hollow asks again about the agenda,and again,Mr.Leuthold, like the other commissioners before him doesn't know who or how the agenda was written,and that he never voted on it.

Hollow: "Were you surprised that Mr. Bolus was sworn in early?" "Yes"

Hollow asks if Mr. Leuthold makes more money now that you're on the commission,and he says yes,about $17k.

3:37 Mr. Moncier begins his cross: Mr. Leuthold got a promotion from Fred Sisk after the commission meeting leading to his increase in income. Mr. Moncier asks if Commissioner Leuthold was elected because of his father's name. Leuthold responds that he campaigned very hard for his position.Moncier is making a big deal about the raise given to him by Fred Sisk. As innuendo it's effective but it would be more convincing if we had his full pay history available. There may be a very good reason why he got that raise.

Moncier then moves on to the phone records. There are only a few calls on the record. Mr. Moncier tries to get Commissioner Leuthold to admit to there being two factions on the board but Mr. Leuthold wasn't going along.

Mr Leuthold says that he knew they had 30 days to make the appointments, but couldn't tell the court where he knew it from. He also testified that Mr. Owings told him that a special election was not allowed by the law.

Mr. Moncier asked about the encounter between Mr. Leuthold and Mr. Pinkston. Mr.Leuthold had nothing to add and refused to characterize the encounter as an exchange.

A very brief redirect from Ms.Stackhouse that points out that Mr.Leuthold did not vote for Tramel.

3:56 Commissioner Ivan Harmon takes the stand. Ms. Stackhouse asked him how he prepared for the appointment process. He replied that he was happy that the 3rd district had no term limited commissioners,so his primary concern was the continued funding of on-going projects in his district. He said he attended the group meeting at Whittle Springs School.

Ms. Stackhouse asked of he and Ed Shouse encountered Commissioner Paul Pinkston at a Shoneys. Mr.Harmon said yes, but there was no deal making going on.

There was another meeting at another Shoneys with Greg Lambert and Mark Cawood. There was no discussion about nominations or appointments.

She asked about conversations during recesses from the Jan 31st meeting. He said there was one conversation with Mark Harmon on supporting his choice for fee office. Mr. Ivan Harmon declined to do so.

End of the day.

Third Verse, Same as the First

by Richard Hailey

Just last night, I was reminded of
Just how bad it had gotten and
Just how sick
I had become.

Violent Femmes

Testimony in the Open Meetings Act lawsuit brought by the Knoxville News Sentinel against the Knox County Commission has reached a kind of relentless sameness as commissioner after commissioner admit to deliberating over everything from how the appointment process will be handled to which candidates would be appointed, and all outside of the public eye. This morning it was former Commissioner Guthe on the stand. While he tried to take a more conciliatory tone on the stand than did Commissioner Smith on Monday, his testimony was no less damaging to the defense. Mr.Guthe testified that he abstained from voting for either Davis or Tramel both because he was angry that his choice for his replacement wasn't honored, as he had honoered other commissioners, and because "[I]t was understood that one candidate would get ten votes."
Mr. Hollow "And that candidate was Mr. Tramel."
Mr. Guthe "Yes."
Mr. Hollow "And that those people worked somehow, someway, somewhere other than at the meeting [Jan 31st] to make that come about?"
Mr. Guthe "I'm sure of it."

Mr Herb Moncier, representing the nine Knox County citizens who joined with Knoxville News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy's suit against County Commission has begun working a new angle into his questioning. While it has no bearing on the case at hand, Moncier is making sure the jury, and the people following this case at home, know that incumbents have a huge advantage during an election cycle,and that these 8 commissioners will be running as incumbents unless Chancellor Daryl Fansler removes them from their seats as a result of this lawsuit.

This afternoon's testimony is expected to be taken up with former Chancellor Schmid's testimony.

Wednesday AM Trial Notes

Here we go again. And again, italics means the comments are my reactions.

9:35 Tim Greene takes the stand, testifies that the only contact he had with commissioners was with Mr. Pinkston and Mr. Clark. He also said that he knew the sons of another commissioner, Mr Alshie(sp?). On cross, Mr. Hollow asked if he was running for election, and determined that his campaign chairman was the same Mr. Alshie(sp?). Mr. Moncier elicited testimony that Mr. Greene would not want to remain in the seat if the appointment process was found to be in violation of the law. There was a noticeable pause when he answered that question.

9:45 Commissioner Huddleston takes the stand. States he had conversations with Commissioner Smith and Ballard about his appointment but that he didn't go to any public meetings. On cross, Mr.Moncier asked if he was running for election, and if he was collecting money. Moncier also got the same statement from Huddleston about not serving if the appointment process was found to be in violation of the law. Mr. Moncier also asked if Commissioner Huddleston was aware that there was an Appellate court case asking for a special election in Knox County. Commissioner Huddleston said no.

9:50 Former Commissioner Guthe takes the stand. Asked what he did to prepare for the appointment process. He states that after the decision, he met with Commissioner Griess and together, they decided that a special election would be the best way to fill the term limited seats. They consulted with County Chief Law Director John Owings who told them that an election was not allowed by law,that the seats must be filled by appointment. Guthe said he investigated further, asking the State Senators if a special election were possible, and was told that if they got a super majority of commissioners to sign on, the senators could make an appeal to the legislature. Costs were discussed, as well as the oncoming Presidential primary. After discussion on the 26th, it was clear that there weren't even 10 commissioners in favor of a special election. He says he suggested to Chairman Moore the January 31st date.

Commissioner Guthe said that before, during and after meetings, there are conversations and "opportunities for commissioners to say 'Who do you want to nominate?' "
"I never disclosed who my choice is going to be."
"I will support whoever you [the term limited commissioner] nominate and I hope you'll do the same for me."
"Commissioner Schmid came by and he began laying out his scheme for filling our seats."

Commissioner Guthe stated that he did not go along with the plan,and he also said that he kept his silence on who he would nominate. He said he got a phone call from Greg Lambert to support George Stookesbury for County Clerk and informing him that Lambert was going to nominate Sharon Cawood. He got a call from Mike Hammond and Billy Tindell and told them both he would support their choices in their districts and hoped they would support his. Guthe heard from Schmid that Lee Tramel had the inside track to the seat Mr. Guthe was vacating. Mr. Guthe then said that he decided if the silent commissioners were working behind the scenes to place their candidate in his seat, he was going to make them work for it.

Mr. Guthe said that during the recesses, he just sat in his seat during two of them. During one, he left the building. "I needed to get some distance between me and what was going on inside."

He said Commissioner Schmid pointed out to him that Diane Jordan had changed her vote. He asked her why, and then said he didn't remember her answer.

Guthe was asked about the motion he made after he saw Chucky Bolus take his seat on the Commission. He said it was all about having another chance to get his candidate in. Again, he said he wanted to make whoever won the seat work for it.

10:28 On cross, Mr. Hollow emphasized Mr. Guthe's efforts for a special election, and then detailed the debate over an 'open' appointment process. Guthe said he was against a public hearing process, mainly because it provided commissioners political cover for their appointments, and it panders to special interests. "It would have been an exercise in futility, wouldn't it?" "Yes" Mr. Hollow then asked about the Jan 31st meeting, and whether the rules in place effectively removed all public input and oversight into the process. Mr. Guthe was a little evasive, but essentially agreed. When asked directly if the votes were lined up before the meeting, he was evasive, but then Mr. Hollow took him through each district seat up for appointment, and Mr. Guthe agreed that the choices of the outgoing commissioners were known ahead of time, and that he was going to respect the wishes of the outgoing commissioners.

Mr.Guthe testified that he abstained from voting because "[I]t was understood that one candidate would get ten votes."
Mr. Hollow "And that candidate was Mr. Tramel."
Mr. Guthe "Yes."
Mr. Hollow "And that those people worked somehow,someway, somewhere other than at the meeting to make that come about?"
Mr. Guthe "I'm sure of it."

10:50 Ten minute recess.

11:03 Mr. Moncier begins his cross. He begins by eliciting Mr. Guthe's knowledge of the good ole boys (my term) network in Knox County. Reviews an email between Guthe and Griess, in which Guthe wrote that "Scotty says that whatever Ragsdale's plan is, he wants to do the opposite."

Mr. Guthe said yes that he, Commissioner Griess, and Scott Moore were deliberating about how the process would take place. Moncier tries to get Guthe to admit that he was trading votes. Guthe would not make that admission, stating that his support for other commissioner's candidates was based on respect for the commissioner, not on an attempt to trade votes. Mr. Guthe seems to be trying very hard not to be as antagonistic towards the commissioners as Larry Smith was. He's working at not drawing conclusions about commissioners' actions. Is he trying to be fair, or to maintain his political connections?

Moncier then proceeds to question Mr. Guthe about the lawsuit to declare the Knox County Charter invalid. Mr. Guthe said he wasn't trying to maintain his seat, only to clarify the law regarding the charter. Previously in testimony, he called the day that the ruling on his suit came out as "Black Friday." Mr. Moncier is blasting away at Guthe for the lawsuit.

Redirect: Ms. Stackhouse revisits the idea of the special election, specifically a letter from the State Commissioner of Elections that stated that a special election was not authorized. Mr. Moncier asks if the State Commissioner of Elections is the same person who ruled that the term limited commissioners could remain on the ballot. Mr. Guthe says yes. Mr. Hollow points out that the letter doesn't say that a special isn't allowed, only that it can't be called by the County Election Commission.

11:47 Break for lunch till 1:00PM

Greg Lumpy Lambert Speaks

Prior to the County Commission meeting Monday, I had the chance to speak briefly with Commissioner Greg "Lumpy" Lambert. He talked a little bit about blogging, and said he had also blogged for awhile, but lost his taste for it when his favorite venue went off line. The conversation shifted to the Sunshine Act and the trial, and he said that if the KNS interpretation held up, it wouldn't be the end of the world, that the commission could still function, it just might be a little bit harder. He mentioned adding workshops where the commissioners could hammer out their differences out of sight of the public, but with the press present. He didn't want to discuss the trial too much since he hadn't taken the stand yet, but he did say that anything he said in private, he repeated in public. He said specifically that he supported his candidates publicly as well as privately with the other commissioners. I'm paraphrasing and expanding a bit on what he said, but his thought was that lobbying and debating is an integral part of the process, but a part that works best when the commissioners feel they could speak completely candidly, without excessive public scrutiny. However, he also said that when discussion becomes deal making, i.e. "I'll vote this way if you vote that way" was an abuse of that process.

Knox County Commission in Action

I decided to attend the County Commission meeting since court ended early, in order to see the commissioners in action. One of the recurring themes of testimony in the trial has been that nothing unusual occurred at this meeting, that long recesses involving discussion of the issues were commonplace.

We'll see.

The first part of the meeting almost proceeded by rote. The agenda was amended to streamline the proceedings and multiple issues were dispensed with lightening efficiency. Then came the new insurance contract. It appears that the committee appointed by the commission to make a recommendation has recommended Cigna, but Cariten is protesting, saying the accounting process was flawed, and they should have been found cheaper. Knox County employees spoke, saying that they wanted to be part of the process.

Lee Tramel said that in the future, he would like for the whole thing to go to the Commission next year, not a committee.

Matt Myers, Knox County employee and head of the insurance committee, was called by Tony Norman to explain how the committee went about their business. Myers was ready with a prepared report, defending the decision of the committee, which he read to the commission.

Commissioner Richard Cate explains that his reluctance to approve the contract is based on reports that the deductible is at $1200, compared to the current $200.

Francis Fogerson, Knox County Human Resources Director, answers that the deductibles are based on maintaining premiums as close to current levels as possible. Commissioner Smith is blasting the insurance companies for "spreading rumors" to scare the employees. "That's the oldest sales trick in the insurance industry." "The subcommittee has taken their time and done their job. We don't need a workshop."

Sam Harb, Knox County Trustees office. "If we were given a place on the committee, we would have been there with bells on!"

Commissioner Lambert. We shouldn't cram this down the employees throats today. "I've gotten calls from employees saying 'We want Cariten.' I've gotten calls from employees saying 'We want Blue Cross.' I've yet to get a call from an employee saying 'We want Cigna.' "

Commissioner Pinkston challenges Commissioner Smith to explain the differences between the policies. Commissioner Smith responds "I'll sell you some life insurance." Commissioner Pinkston "You couldn't sell me anything."

Motion is passed to deny the recommendation of the insurance 16-3 Mark Harmon, Larry Smith, and Tony Norman(?) vote against.

Storm Water Management

Tony Norman says he considers the Ordinance is watered down and does not meet the agreement the County has with the City. He wants to ask Commissioner Lambert a few questions. He asks if Lambert actually wrote the amendments and Lambert says no, he had a lawyer draw them up. Nobody asked who drew them up.

Richard Cate is for the amendment and is angry about a postcard sent by Pete Delay

(Paul Pinkston conferred with John Valliant during the discussion on the postcards then came back and turned on his light.

Recess for sheriff's press conference. Come back and continue discussion.

Back after the press conference. It took the commission a few minutes to remember where we were. Voting on the amendment to change the minimum fine from $50 to $250. Passed unanimously.

Mark Harmon: There are basic flaws. "Spot checks are like audits; they don't catch everything." "Despite Commissioner Lambert's valiant efforts to be an attorney..."

Ivan Harmon calls Sam Parnell again: Reads a prepared statement saying that his years of experience as City Engineer have taught him that storm water drains in critical situations should be concrete pipe. Any other decision will result in more expense down the road, through failed roads and lawsuits from county residents.

Pinkston: On the attack over the metal pipe on Papermill. Wants Sam Parnell to admit that the city made a mistake. Ivan Harmon points out that the city made a mistake he wants to keep the county from making. Pinkston asks Parnell if he knows about HDPE, which is different from PVC. Pinkston calls Robert Campbell. Design engineer for 15 years. This debate is about engineering and not ordinances.

Craig Leuthold asks John Owings if the county has to use concrete piping to fulfill the agreement with the city. Owings answers that he would defend the case based on the recommendations of Knox County Engineering and Public Works Director Bruce Wuethrich even though the consultants said otherwise. Leuthold then moves to amend the ordinance to require concrete pipe in accordance with the consultant's recommendation.

Thomas Strickland notes that the city of Knoxville is serious about suing the county if they enact a weakened standard.

Time to vote. Voting on the amendment to match the city ordinance. No's: Pinkston, Green, Ballard, Moore, Smith, Lambert, Cawood, Hammond, Tramel, Cate, Bolus. The concrete pipe will not be used as the city does and the consultant recommended.

Voting on the Stormwater second reading. No's: Huddleston, Leuthold, Leuthold, Ivan Harmon, Norman, Harmon, Strickland. Stormwater passes on second reading.

It's 5:45 and I have another place to be. County Commission will have to get along without me for the remainder of the session.

Gus's Restaurant

French fries hand cut when you order them. Hamburgers made with fresh ground beef, cooked on a griddle and nestled between to butter grilled buns. Hand dipped milk shakes with real ice cream and milk. All served hot and quick at Gus's Restaurant and Affordable Catering on the Market Square.

Since I had an hour or so to kill between the trial and the Commission meeting, I decided to take the rare opportunity to eat on the Market Square. I chose Gus's because I was in the mood for a good burger, and that's exactly what I got. What I didn't expect was for Charlie to grab a potato and start cutting up my fries right then and there. No bags of frozen, batter dipped fries here; just good old potato fries that only need a hint of salt, and a splash of ketchup.

The burger was hot, and fried up just right. Now normally, I like my burgers grilled, but if you're going to fry it, it is essential to do it right. If your griddle isn't hot enough, you end up with a flaccid beef slug that just sits on the bun, oozing grease. A properly fried burger has a slightly crunchy outer layer that seals in the juices, and helps it stand up to the mayonnaise, lettuce and tomato. Gus's place gets it right.

I finished off the meal with a real chocolate milkshake that finished me off.

Now I need a nap, which is perfect timing, because the county commission meeting is about to start.

Gloomy Day for Defense in Sunshine Trial

by Richard Hailey

Stories with my name in italics above are ones written as a comparison to the KNS coverage. I write these as if I were a reporter for a paper, instead of a guy with an opinion and a laptop. They should be used to guage the accuracy of the KNS content, and with any luck, will be unbiased enough to show any bias in the KNS coverage.

The defense called Commissioner R. Larry Smith to testify today, and plaintiff's attorney Richard Hollow made the most of it. On direct examination by Knox County Chief Deputy Law Director Mary Ann Stackhouse, Smith detailed the extensive preparations he made for the appointments meeting held on the 31st of January, personally contacting over 70 interested applicants by phone. Hollow elicited even more detail on cross, getting into Smith's rating system, and his methods for evaluating applicants for all the seats. This made Smith's testimony that other commissioners "took the lazy way out" all the more devastating. Commissioner Smith went on to say that he nominated one candidate because he was "tired of family members being appointed to office."

Commissioner Smith was visibly angry at one point, when Herb Moncier, lawyer for the nine citizens who joined the KNS suit, informed him that a candidate selection committee selected their candidates without ever meeting with the public. "That was not how it (the selection committee) was represented to me. To me that’s not fair to the applicants."

While Smith had strong words for the behavior of the commissioners, his most damaging testimony came at the expense of Chairman Scott Moore, who testified earlier that he had no knowledge of Chucky Bolus's early swearing in. He testified that after the critical recess, as he returned to his seat, Moore told him, "We've got this taken care of now." He further testified that when he saw Bolus taking his seat, he knew exactly what the Chairman was talking about. Not only did this testimony directly conflict with Moore's, it also dovetailed with Commissioner Mark Harmon's testimony last week.

Commissioner Frank Leuthold and County Clerk Billy Tindell were also called to the stand, with their testimony mainly acting to confirm what was already presented. Court was adjourned early due to the regularly scheduled County Commission meeting this afternoon at 2:00pm. The defense case is expected to take the rest of the week, as Ms. Stackhouse has said she will call each commissioner to testify.

Live Blogging Monday

It's Monday, and that means more live blogging from the KNS v KCC trial. It's going to be a short day today since the Commission is meeting, but we'll see what happens. Italicized comments are my responses, thoughts, opinions, or questions.

9:38 Larry Smith begins testimony. Received 78 notes of interest in open positions on commission, and interviewed by phone about 70. Met a couple of candidates during a Commissioner's night out. Brief interruption while Smith deals with cell phone issues.
Ms. Stackhouse: Did you talk to any other commissioners? Yes, Hammond and Ballard and maybe one other. Discussed candidates in general.
With all the faxes and resumes you claim you received, how is it that a convicted drug dealer is chosen as the best possible representative? "It got to be kind of a joke…and that’s good." "I was going strictly on qualifications."
Cross exam Hollow: You had a rating system that divided applicants by seat, party and a series of check-marks, what are they? I evaluated people like it was a draft and the check marks showed my favorites. More checks means better. Hollow: You marked Scott Davis very favorably. Why? He impressed me by what he said. Hollow: When you were doing ratings, had you heard from Mr. Tramel? Nope. Hollow: Was there a gentleman’s agreement about letting commissioners decide their own districts? I’ve heard it before, and early on. As we got into the process, there’s a lot of viable candidates and if the commissioners are doing due diligence, then that’s ok. Hollow: Did you show your notes to other commissioners? Yes. Hollow: Were you aware that the fee offices were basically a "done deal." I read that in the paper. Did you feel that the second in command was the logical choice for those offices. Sure. It didn’t work for the clerk office,did it? Nope. Hollow: Who made up the agenda? “I assume our chairman.” Did you ever vote on the agenda? I don’t recall. The agenda said that everybody would be sworn in at 2PM, correct? Yes. Why did you move District 4 to the head of the line? Because there were two seats to be filled. Hollow Ed Shouse, an experienced city councilman, got zero votes. And no floor candidates received a vote,correct? Yes.

10:09 Issues with internet access. I keep losing my connection. Makes live blogging interesting.

10:11 Hollow continues a lengthy recap of the voting on Jan. 31. Points out that Diane Jordan switched votes on the 7th balloting for seat 4b and Guthe switched from passing, to Davis to maintain the tie.

10:16 "Mr. Jordan interviewed very well."

10:23 Commissioner Smith "I was tired of family members being put into office...I think it was wrong."

10:25 Were you aware of a nominating committee in the 9th district? Yes, but it didn't turn out like I thought it would. I thought they'd listen to the community and let the people select their candidate. Instead, they had a meeting in a grocery store, and between themselves, selected the candidate, Mr. Green. Mr. Hollow: Would you be surprised to find ot that no-one was invited to those meetings? Yes. Would that change your feeling about those meetings? It's not the right thing to do.

10:29 Commissioner Smith is visibly angry and says that this wasn't how the 9th district nominating committee was presented to him. It's interesting watching Commissioner Smith, who was called by the defense, become visibly irritated during cross, not at the plaintiff's lawyer, but at the actions of Jan 31, the very actions he's being called to defend.

10:31 Commissioner Smith reports that after the recess where Chucky Bolus got sworn in early, Chairman Moore told him, "We've got this taken care of now."

10:33 Were you surprised to see Commissioner Bolus seated early? Yes, but those guys think outside the box. They push it.

10:37 I felt like the commissioners disrespected the candidates. They didn't listen to them, they ignored them at the Whittle Springs meeting.

10:41 Moncier takes over and goes back to the earlier meeting. Commissioner Smith says he likes his independence. "I don't need somebody to tell me how to vote." This implies directly that Smith feels that other members of County Commission do in fact allow somebody else to tell them what to do. Moncier points out that Smith never got a phone call from Lambert, Moore, or the rest of the sheriff's faction. Moncier: The end result of Jan 31 was that the sheriff's block maintained control. Smith: Yes. Why on earth did Stackhouse call Smith? He sounds more like a witness for the plaintiff. All I can figure is that they've based their defense on "Sure, it stinks to high heaven, but you can't prove anything," so we don't care how bad it looks.

Smith: You could see them all line up and march to the sheriff's .office

Moncier: "[Knox County is] controlled by the people who can count to ten." Referring to the majority faction on the commission.

11:00 10 minute break

11:17 Moncier: How much does a commissioner make? Smith: About $24k.

Moncier: DId you know that recesses were called to allow commissioners to talk in a back room? Yes. Do you approve? In general yes. There are times when you need to talk about somebody and you don't want to embarrass them.

Moncier: I read the transcript, and you said "What's going on here?" and people laughed. You were serious, weren't you? Yes. You weren't part of the plan, were you? No. The people weren't either, were they? Nope.

Redirect: Stackhouse: Are the 12 positions filled at the meeting up for election in 2008? Yes.

11:22 New witness, Frank Leuthold.

Stackhouse: Did you talk to any commissioners about applying? Yes. Did you talk to your son, Craig Leuthold? Yes. Did you attend any community meetings? Yes, with other candidates for fee offices.

Cross examination.

Moncier: Mr. Leuthold, even I would vote for you. I would hope so.

Questioning of Mr. Leuthold was very brief, with no real new information. No redirect by Ms.Stackhouse.

New witness Billy Tindell

Ms. Stackhouse: How long were you in county commission? 37 years in seat 2b. Did you decide after the Jordan decision that you wanted to be County Clerk? Yes. How did you let other members of county commission about your support for Jonathan Wimmer. Between Jan 12 and 31, what did you do to get ready for voting? Nothing in particular. I received hundreds of faxes and I read them then threw them away.

Cross examination

Hollow: Were you aware as you went into the commission meeting that if you were appointed to the position as county clerk, that you would not be ale to vote on the rest of the appointments? Yes. Mr. Jonathan Wimmer was your choice. Yes.

Moncier: Need a second. Hollow provides stage direction lessons for Herb. Moncier questioned Tindell about the decisions on how to conduct the meeting, and when to hold the meeting. Then Moncier questioned him about a sheriff's faction. He also asked about Scott Moore's plans to run for county clerk in 2008.

Court's done for the day.

The Ripple Effect: What Happens When This is All Over?

This is not part of the live blogging, or the coverage of the KNS, but is my own take on the KNS V KCC flap.

Well, that's the big question, isn't it?

Assuming that Chancellor Fansler rules for the plaintiffs,and finds that the County Commissioners did in fact violate the State Open Meetings Act, what can he do about it? And more importantly, what will happen afterward?

According to the law, Fansler has a couple of options. He can issue an injunction to the Commission telling them to cut it out. The injunction will carry with it specific penalties for continued violations of the Sunshine Act, but will leave the commissioners in place. Or he can void any actions taken by the Commission that he feels derived from violations of the Sunshine Act. This could include the removal of some or all of the folks appointed on Jan 31, leading to a complete do-over.

My guess is that Chancellor Fansler would lean towards an injunctive remedy if he felt that while there were violations of the Act, they were primarily individual in nature, and not symptomatic of organized activities by members of the commission. On the other hand, if he finds that the abuse was organized and widespread, then he may very well invalidate the proceedings of Jan 31.

That's when things really get interesting, because then every ruling made by the commission from Jan 31 to the present will be called into question. We could be dealing with lawsuits for years, as people who came up on the short end of zoning decisions, or other county business will appeal based on the fact that the commission was invalid. It could get very interesting and that's not even mentioning the battle over how to fill the vacated seats. The folks who gamed the system show no signs that they will go away without a fight.

So, Let's Sum Up

If you believe Scott Moore's testimony, then you must believe the following:

• That Scott Moore spent 3 hours on the phone from Jan 12 through Jan 31 with Chucky Bolus, his former campaign manager, and the man he nominated for the 2nd district seat b, without ever discussing the nomination.
  
• That Scott Moore spent an hour and a half during the same time period talking to Lee Tramel, the man he backed for district 4 seat b, again, without ever discussing the nominating process.
  
• That Scott Moore spent an incredible 7 hours talking to Greg "Lumpy" Lambert during the same time period without ever discussing nominations.
  
• That Scott Moore's call to "Prince" John Valliant moments before he (Valliant) escorted Chucky Bolus to get sworn in early, was totally unrelated to the process.
  
• That Chucky Bolus decided all by himself to go find Chancellor Fansler and get sworn in early, even though a group swearing in ceremony was scheduled for later in the afternoon, and despite the fact that Richard Cate, appointed earlier to seat 4a, admitted that he had been pressured to swear in early in order to replace Schmid and get another Hutchison man on the Commission

You must also believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Great Pumpkin.

Sunshine Act Trial-Tuesday Morning

My impressions in italics.

9:32 Mr. Hollow, Lawyer for the Plaintiff begins by citing case law supporting the validity of their request for a summery judgment against Commissioner Lambert for the failure to produce his phone records. He says that Lambert intentionally failed to produce the phone records.

9:35 Deputy Law Director Stackhouse responds by pointing out that even though Lambert did not produce his records, because the plaitiffs can work around it by correlating other phone records, a summary judgment is unecessary.

9:37 Chancellor Fansler says Lambert responded in a "cavalier manner." He wants to look at the the law cited by Hollow and wait for Cricket to respond to plaintiff's request for the records. He will wait a couple of days before ruling.

9:41 Jury arrives.

9:42 Courtroom is full today.

9:43 Chairman Scott Moore called to the stand. Mr. Moncier returns to the issue of the rules for County Commission meetings, which Moore used to deny citizens the ability to speak regarding any candidate for appointment. When Mr. Hollow asked Commissioner Moore about the rules,Moore said he didn't know exactly where the rule was. Mr. Moncier asked if Moore had had enough time over the weekend to find the rule. Moore reads the voting procedure. "In my mind, it's like baking a cake...If we added an extra step to it, you'd screw it up."

9:50 Moncier asks if Moore was aware that the County Charter said that the Commission could make the rules for the appointment process as they saw fit. Moore answers he's not sure, but he'll take Moncier's word for it. Moncier asks if Moore remembers telling Commissioner Schmid "no" when Schmid moved to allow the public to speak. Moore says he doesn't recall.

9:57 Moncier asks Moore if there was ever a vote on the agenda and Moore says there wasn't.

9:59 Moore wants to argue rather than respond. Moore testifies that the agenda was published and there was no objection. Moncier asks if Moore remembers getting a 4 page letter from citizens detailing objections to the planned meeting. Moore asks if any of those citizens ever contacted him or any other commission member. Moncier asks him to answer the question, and Moore admits he got the letter.

10:08 Moncier asks how did Moore's proposed agenda get sent to the KNS as the official agenda? Moore responded that somebody had to lay out the framework.

10:11 Moncier points out that there was a proposal to seek legislation for a special election, and asked Moore if he planned the date of the meeting to be before the legislature could pass the special legislation. Moore said no.

10:13 Moncier: Your proposal was to allow the Commissioners to make the appointment rather than allow the people to have an election, wasn't it? Stackhouse objects. Fansler overrules.

10:15 Owings was appointed by the County Commission wasn't he? Yes.

10:20 Mr. Hollow begins his questioning. Hollow: Are there any specific rules in the Charter regarding special called meetings? Moore: I don't know.

10:21 Mr. Hollow reads rules that say that the agenda cannot be changed for a special called meeting. Moore responds that the rule says nothing can be added, but things can be moved around. Mr. Hollow reads County Commission rules that state that if any commission rule conflicts with state law, the commission rule is not in effect.

Moore worked hard to avoid answering some questions, and to redirect answers for others.

10:25 Scott Barker called to the stand.

10:26 Moncier explores Barker's article reporting a possible meeting of commissioners discussing possible appointments. Barker testified that he talked with Commissioner Ivan Harmon, and that Commissioner Harmon admitted to talking to Commissioner Lambert in general terms about the appointments. Barker also testified that of the 8 commissioners he spoke to, 6 acknowledged talking to other commissioners about the appointments. Moncier has Barker read a direct quote from Moore on Jan 30th stating that lobbying commissioners would be against the law.

10:33 Jury sent out on morning break while an objection to a deposition Mr. Hollow wants to read. Objection overruled. 10 minute break.

10:54 Mr. Hollow reads from Commissioner Schmid's deposition. Schmid says he submitted a plan including public hearings, public debate, then an appointment process. He says that the plan was similar to that proposed by County Mayor Mike Ragsdale, and at one point, Chairman Moore also supported public meetings, but he changed his mind. Schmid was asked about factions on the commission. Scott Moore and Greg Lambert were aligned with the sheriff. "We can do anything we want." Lumpy Lambert regarding the appointment process as quoted by Schmid in his deposition.

Schmid "pled his case" for his candidate. He wanted a compromise candidate that wasn't aligned with the sheriff or the mayor. He also mentioned that the county wide offices, sheriff and the three fee offices had candidates that "had the votes."

11:11 Reading from the deposition continues. It was a "done deal" for the folks being appointed to the county wide offices. Recesses were commonly used when impasses occurred at County Commission meetings. They would take a break to try and "work things out." Often recesses were used to try and change commissioners minds to a new position.

11:16 The first recess came from an impasse over Guthe's seat. There was major lobbying and Schmid admits to being part of the lobbying. Guthe was angry that his candidate, Jim Smelcher didn't make it when that was the "gentleman's agreement" in place. There was heavy pressure on Diane Jordan to change her vote from Davis to Tramel. There was an effort to swear in Commssioner Cate early, but he backed out. Lambert called Schmid a "peckerhead." Commissioners invloved in trying to get Cate sworn in early to break the deadlock: Pinkston, Lambert, and Moore.

11:29 Reading from Schmid's deposition completed.

11:33 Moncier calls Hayes Hickman(sp?) to analyze telephone records. Hickman is a reporter for the Sentinel, and was tasked with going through Scott Moore's phone logs to determine his contacts with other commissioners. Long list of phone calls added to the record detailing contacts between Scott Moore and commissioners, the county mayor, and eventual appointees.

11:51 Moncier is stressing call volume patterns based on external events,ie County Mayor Mike Ragsdale's announcement of his plan for replacing the term limited officeholders.

12:00 Break for lunch

Hallerin Hilton Hill Show

I got an email from producer Chris Marion asking me to call in to the show around 8 to discuss the trial from a blogger's perspective. Tune in and you'll discover that not only do I have a face made for radio (see the picture above) I have a voice made for newspapers.

Commissioner Lambert Takes Some Lumps

Richard Hailey

On Monday, the jury in the trial pitting Knoxville News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy and nine Knox County citizens against the Knox County Commission watched the public access tape of the January 31st Commission meeting that is at the center of the lawsuit. The record showed commissioners recessing several times when the appointment process didn't go smoothly,and spending a considerable amount of time discussing...something. The January 31st meeting moved quickly to it's conclusion, although on the recording, Commissioner Schmid referred to the process as "duplicitous and underhanded...insult to the people of the 4th district...selective swearing in...is stinking up the room."

However, the real fireworks of the day in court didn't take place until after the showing was finished and the jury dismissed.

At issue was a motion by the plaintiff for some kind of relief against Commissioner Greg Lambert for failing to turn over his phone records as subpoenaed earlier in the run up to trial. Lambert was not in the courtroom at the time,but his counsel, Deputy Law Director Mary Anne Stackhouse, said that he notified the plaintiff that he didn't have the phone records in question, and it was too late to get them now, since Cricket, his phone carrier,does not maintain phone records past 6 months. She also argued that if the plaintiff's wanted the phone records, they should have issued another subpoena to Cricket, instead of to Lambert. Richard Hollow, the lawyer for the plaintiffs countered her arguments, saying that Commissioner Lambert had a responsibility to provide those records,or to notify the plaintiffs if he was unable to do so.

Mr. Hollow went on to document to the judge just why the phone records were so important. According to him, Commissioner Lambert admitted in deposition to actions that violate the Sunshine Law, including conversations over the phone. Mr. Hollow wants the records to determine exactly who Lambert was talking to in order to find out who else violated the provisions of the act.

Chancellor Fansler was unsympathetic to Ms. Stackhouse's defense of Lambert. He pointed out that the other Commissioners had turned in their phone records, and questioned why Lambert was the only one who did not. He gave Lambert until 9AM today to present a written statement before ruling on Mr. Hollow's request for a summary judgment against Lambert, finding him guilty of violating the Sunshine Act.

The Trial Continues: The Afternoon Session

1:29 Court is called back into session.

1:30 Video replay resumes with election of district1a. Jordon nominates her son, Josh. Harmon nominates Helen Lewis. Smith nominates Nick DellaVolpe. Had to spell it;couldn't pronounce it. But he knows about him to nominate him for County Commission. James Golden nominated himself. Robin Brothers nominated herself. Norman initially passes, then votes for Jordan. Jordan wins 16-1-1 NO discussion at all.

1:36 District seat 2b Mark Harmon nominates Amy Broyles. Norman nominates Jonathen Wimmer. Smith nominates Deborah Porter. Moore nominates Charles Bolus. Charles Giles nominates Joseph WiIliams. Billy Tindell tries to stump for Jonathan Wimmer. Ballard passes, then votes for Broyles. Bolus 7 Wimmer 6 Broyles 3 Porter 2 Williams 0 and is dropped.

1:42 Second vote Bolus 7 Wimmer 6 Broyles 2 Porter 2. Ballard abstains

1:46 Third vote Bolus 6 Wimmer 6 Broyles 3 Porter 3 Ballard votes Broyles. Ivan Harmon switches to Porter.

1:49 Short recess.

2:01 Short recess becomes less short.

2:03 Fourth vote. After the short, non-deliberative 14 minute recess: Strickland, Ivan Harmon,and Smith all switch from Porter to Bolus, Mills switches from Wimmer to Bolus, and Ballard switches from Broyles to Bolus. Jordan is late to the vote. Bolus wins 11-5-2. NO public discussions at all.

2:07 Seat 5c and a short 5 minute break for the court. 5 real minutes, not commission minutes.

2:10 Norman nominates Theresa Shupp. Griess nominates Frank Leuthold with a speech about how wonderful he is and the pension plan. Hammond echoes Griess and says that Leuthold will not seek re-election. Lambert nominates Robin Butler. Bayard Donahoo nominates Tom Salter. Leuthold 15 Shupp 1 Butler 1 Salter 1. NO discussion at all.

2:16 Seat 6a Lambert nominates Sharon Cawood. Smith nominates Howard Phillips. Charles Giles nominates Jimmie Shelton. Cawood wins 15-2-0. NO public discussion at all.

2:20 Seat 8b Mark Harmon nominates Maurice Freed. Mills nominates Jack Huddleston. Rodney McCroskey nominates Kay Frazier with fervor. Bill Young nominates Tom Pressley. Huddleston wins 17-1. NO public discussion.

2:25 Seat 9a Mark Harmon nominates Martin Pleasant. Clark nominates Tim Greene. Matt Myers nominates Josh Lowe. Josh Lowe nominates Matt Myers. Nomination for the "Good Guest," who knows when it's time to leave. Rubye Wright nominates herself. Anthony McMahan nominates Ronald Lee Tucker, "This is a travesty." Greene 17 Pleasant 1. NO public discussion.

2:32 5 minute recess.

2:40 Seat 4b. Chuck Bolus sworn in earlier, Schmid "duplicitous and underhanded...insult to the people of the 4th district...selective swearing in is stinking up the room." Guthe notes that a new commissioner is seated so starting from scratch with 4b. Lambert asks that any other new appointees can take their oath and take their seat. Schmid makes the motion. No second. Chairman Moore says we don't have time to take a recess. Schmid withdraws the motion. Harmon nominates Elaine Davis. Norman nominates WIlliam Daniels. Ivan Harmon nominates Lee Tramel. Guthe nominates Jim Smelcher. Hammond nominates Scott Davis. Scott Davis withdraws his name, saying he hates seeing what is happening on the commission, and he wants it to move forward and get past the fighting. Oddly, there has been no fighting evident during the nomination and voting process. Tramel wins 12-4 Smelcher-1 Ms. Davis-1 Daniels. Hammond, Ballard, and Mills joined the Tramel group after Davis withdrew. NO public discussion whatsoever.

2:56 Video ends. Audio and private video for tomorrow.

Replay of Jan 31 County Commission Meeting Takes up all of Morning Session

Richard Hailey

The Sunshine Act trial started its second week the same way it ended the first, with jurors watching video tape of the Commission in action. Today's tapes, however came from the infamous Jan 31st meeting, where much was done and little was said.

Publicly, that is.

As the video played, two things were clear. First, there was no discussion or debate about the merits of the candidates for a particular job. It was as if the discussion and debate had already taken place. In fact, early in the proceedings, Chairman Moore remarked that he saw nothing in the agenda to indicate any close votes. An unidentified voice, presumably one of the commissioners,responded, "Do you know something we don't?" Second, the recesses went on far longer than Chairman Moore anticipated. The 5 minute recess lasted for roughly 24 minutes, while the 2 minute recess went for 14.

Also intriguing was the fact that after the first recess, Commissioner Jordan changed her vote, switching from supporting Davis for the previous 6 votes to supporting Trammel.

Without deliberating, according to the theory advanced by County Law Director Owings.

The trial will continue this afternoon, finishing up the video, and then reviewing audio from some of the commissioners during the recesses. Any updates will be available here.

The Trial; Here We Go!

9:40 Moncier makes his interim comments placing the video in context and describing the plan for today. Stackhouse objects that his comments are too long. Moncier promises to be briefer, and asks for the video counter. Told it won't stay. Mentions that the agenda/minutes doesn't match the actual events. Moncier also mentions a tape recording of open mikes during breaks that aren't part of the video.

9:42 Courtroom has participants, plaintiffs, three citizens, j student, 2 reporters, and me.

9:44 Tape of meeting starts, skipping 8 minutes of dead air.

9:46 More people filing in after court starts. I thought they threw you in jail for that. I could have slept in another 20 minutes! By the way, this live blogging will also be the notes by which I write my story. Talk about transparency! We're sitting through the 5 minute delay while the commissioner who was late to the meeting gets there. We can't fast forward because this is a trial. There are no commissioners here at this point.

9:50 Sheriff nominations. Smith asks what are we doing here? Nominates J. J.Jones. Passes on the vote. NO public discussions at all.

9:55 Somewhat surreal seeing channel take video of a video of the County Commission meeting.

10:00 Is it contempt of court to be playing Tetris while nothing is happening? Just asking...

10:06 Griess nominates Commissioner Tindell for County Clerk. Smith, Harmon, Lambert and Schmidt vote for Stooksbury. NO public discussion at all. Mr. Hammond asks whether Tindell has a vote. Owings says no. Tindell doesn't like it, but will abide by it. Leuthold asks if a newly appointed commissioner can vote, the answer was yes. Chairman assumes that all the votes will be clear, and no ties. Asked if he knew something nobody else did.

10:15 Schmid and Harmon both suggest that outgoing commissioners should not be able to vote once they've been replaced. Owings decides that term limited commissioners vote until their successor is sworn in. Gries challenges and calls for role call. Harmon and Schmid are the only two to stand against term limited commissioners voting.

10:18 Mark Harmon nominates Scott Emge for Register of Deeds. Ballard nominates Sherry Witt. Witt wins 17-1. NO public discussion at all.

10:20 Leuthold nominates Fred Sisk. No other nominations. Sisk wins 18-0. NO public discussion.

10:22 Guthe wants 4th district to go first. Starting with seat a, Schmid says his candidate withdrew because of sunshine law. Nominates Scott Davis. Griess says he would nominate Fischer, Schmid's candidate, and passes. Lambert nominates Lee Tramel. Withdraws Elaine Davis. Gries adds Richard Cate after he passed his turn earlier. Cate wins 10-4-4 after Commissioner Jordan changes her vote. NO public discussion, but nomination changes and vote changes. What's up with that?

10:30 Mark Harmon nominates Elaine Davis for 4th district seat b. Guthe nominates Jim Smelcher, after a speech about how independent he was, not aligned with sheriff, schools, mayor, etc. Hammond nominates Scott Davis. Lambert nominates Lee Tramel. Smith nominates WIlliam Daniels.
Laurens Tullock nominates Ed Shouse. Process described. Lowest vote gets kicked out. revote until one left standing. 7 Tramel, 4 Scott Davis; 4 Jim Smelcher; 2 Elaine Davis; 1 Daniels; 0 Ed Shouse.

10:40 stops the tape for a 10 minute break.

10:45 I'm somebody now. I've been schmoozed by Herb Moncier. During the break, I let Jigsha Desai (KNS online producer) know I was live blogging, and Herb was standing nearby and heard. He wanted to make sure I was writing good things about him. As for the replay of the meeting, I'm a little bit confused. So far, the commissioners have not discussed anything, and they've already filled 4 jobs and one commission seat.

10:53 We resume the tape with the second vote for 4th district seat b. Tramel gets 7 Davis gets 4 Smelcher gets 4 Ms Davis gets 2 Daniels gets 1 and is eliminated.

10:57 3rd vote. Tramel 7 Davis 6 Smelcher 4 Ms. Davis 1 and is eliminated.

10:59 4th vote. Tramel 8 Davis 6 Smelcher 4 and is eliminated.

11:01 5th vote. Davis 9 Tramel 8 Guthe abstains.

11:03 6th vote. Davis 9 Tramel 8 Guthe abstains.

11:05 Commission takes a 5 minute recess to...???

11:06 While we are watching the tape of commissioners milling about and not deliberating, it appears to me that the 4th district is the key to everything. If this was a railroad, and based on Chairman Moore's comments earlier in the meeting, it certainly appeared that he expected no significant issues to arise, this is where the wheels fell off.

11:17 We're still watching the commissioners stand around and very intently not deliberate. The 5 minute recess has gone on for 12 minutes now. The jurors are trying valiantly to concentrate on the screen but with no audio, and nothing but a bunch of suits walking around and talking to each other, that has to be difficult.

11:25 The 5 minute recess has now extended to 20minutes, and the commissioners are hard at work not deliberating. They must be discussing the upcoming Daytona 500.

11:27 In essense, I'm live blogging events that occurred back in January. OK, we should be about to get started agian. The commissioners are getting back into their seats. By the way, as far as I can tell, there are no county commissioners in the courtroom today.

11:29 We're off. Griess gets the floor, moves that they leave the 4th district seat b all the way to the end, after District 9 seat a. Rules say you go till you get a winner. Law Director says you're amending the agenda and need a 2/3 majority. Motion fails 9-9.

11:34 7th vote Davis 9 Smith announces that Davis will not run again. Tramel 9. Guthe votes for Davis but he stays at 9. Jordan jumped ship and voted for Tramel.

11:36 8th vote Davis 9 Tramel 9

11:38 9th vote Davis 9 Tramel 9

11:39 Take a 2 minute recess.

11:49 The 2 minute recess has now lasted 10 minutes, and the commissioners are still mostly out of the room. I will be very interested to hear the audio captured while they were off camera, not deliberating.

11:53 We're off. Mark Harmon wants to hear from the candidate. Must have 2/3 to amend the rules.6 of 9 Tramel supporters vote no. Motion fails 10-8.

11:55 10th vote Davis 9 Tramel 9

11:57 Gries moves to move the item to the end. Wins 15-3

11:58 Court adjourns until 1:30

11:59 Chancellor wants to fast forward through the recesses. Moncier says that's where the meat is. They agree to remove the swearing in ceremonies. Discussion of getting Commissioner Lambert's phone records. Stackhouse wants the records.So does Moncier. It looks like we won't get any testimony today, just the video and audio.

Now Hold On a Minute

While I'm waiting for things to get cranked up here, let's talk football for a minute. Everybody is screaming that we need to fire Fulmer now, after the debacle against Florida on Saturday. Yeah, the loss was ugly, and the Vols are 1-2, but based on last season's team, the losses to the lines, and the schedule, did you really expect anything different?

I had hopes of an upset or two, but I knew at the start of the season that this kind of start was probable.

I'm betting that by the end of the regular season, the Vols will be 9-3, and the talk will die down again.

How We Got Here; AKA Whose Fault Is It?

While driving in this morning, I was listening to Hallerin Hill, and a caller on his show opined that what we needed to do was throw all the bums out and start with a clean slate.

How soon they forget.

This whole mess started because the voters of Knoxville re-elected nine county commissioners that hey knew were term limited. The voters knew there was a good chance that the people they were voting for would be ruled ineligible to stand for their term, but they elected them anyway.

And now they want to throw the bums out.

My question: Who are the real bums in this scenario?

Monday Morning at the Courthouse

Here I sit just outside the courtromm just about 30 minutes before the games begin. I've talked to the bailiff, and he doesn't think I'll have any trouble bringing my laptop into the court, so I may even be able to do some live blogging. If not,I'll still be able to take some good notes.

The plan for today is to go through the video for the Commission meeting on the 31st of January. One of the things I want to do is pull up the minutes for that meeting and compare them to what really happened.

It could be revealing. Or very boring.

My plan for today is to watch the trial as it happens, post a short piece over the lunch break, then a longer, more comprehensive piece when it's al over. Basically, I'll be trying to do what Jaime Satterfield does everyday. Once that is done, I'll post my opinion on the proceedings.

Or sleep, depending.

One of the nice thing about this laptop is I can squeeze almost 4 hours of life from this battery. Not too shabby. It still won't last the day unless I find an outlet for an hour. If nothing else, I'll go sit in my truck over lunch and charge it off of my inverter.

Why yes, I was a Boy Scout. Why do you ask?

I'm mobile now

This post comes to you courtesy of windows mobile, the HTC Mogul, and Pocket SharpMT

Dissension in the Ranks?

The KNS is reporting that County Law Director John Owings is advising Lumpy Lambert to get his own lawyer.

Now TV has taught me that lawyers always know the answers to questions before they ask them, so now I have a question. Did Commissioner Lambert say something in court that he didn't tell his lawyer, or is Owings just trying to appease the public wrath by offering up a sacrificial goat?

And how will Lambert react to being hung out to dry?

Probably one of the most tawdry aspects to this whole business is that it reeks of amateur hour. Not only couldn't they fix the appointment process without making it blatantly obvious they were doing so, (Can anybody tell me how Josh Jordan is qualified to be a County Commissioner? Was it his community service or his entrepreneurial spirit?) but they couldn't even stick to the plan once they had one and had to slug it out during the Jan 31 meeting. And now,instead of sticking together with a simple story, they're already coming apart at the seams.

The saddest aspect to this whole thing is that there are probably some good people on the Commission, but after all the fuss is over, how will we be able to tell?

When You Have Questions, Go to the Source.

Yesterday was a very interesting day for me. I spent some time in the KNS newsroom, gathering reactions to our coverage of their coverage so far, and asking questions on a few subjects I was curious about. I wanted to know how folks at the paper felt about our coverage, and if we were giving them what they wanted, or what they thought the readers wanted. I also wanted to talk to Jamie Satterfield about what she thought about our commentaries, if she'd had the time to read any.

First, let's get a couple of specific issues out of the way.

1. In Russ McBee's second report, he focussed on the fact that the KNS reporter made a debate over the racial makeup of the jury the central fact of her story, while two TV crews who also made reports never mentioned the incident. From this, he inferred that the racial issue was fairlyminor and dispensed with quickly. While this is a logical assumption, it is an assumption, and in this case, an incorrect one. According to Jaime Satterfield, the discussion over the racial composition of the jury pool took place while the TV crews were covering the orientation sessions.

They weren't even in the room at the time.

2. In this post, I noted a change in the wording of a story that eliminated phrasing that Russ McBee had found objectionable, and I wondered if someone at the KNS was paying attention. The answer is no. The change was part of a routine rewrite, and had nothing to do with Russ or myself.

3. In this post, I wondered whether County Law Director John Owings actually used the phrase "back room stuff," or if that was Satterfield's own characterization. It was her own characterization, and she stands by it as an accurate description of the tactics of the County Commissioners that Owings is defending.

4. Don't attribute any of Jamie Satterfield's coverage decisions to editorial pressure from Jack McElroy, or Dave Keim. She made it very clear to me that she writes the story as she sees it

As I talked to folks in the newsroom, one thing became fairly clear; the whole idea of having somebody watch them work was a bit of a new sensation. I got the impression, mainly because I was told flat out, that there are some folks in the newsroom who don't think we as bloggers have an understanding of what it takes to really cover a story, and to be fair, they have a point. Bloggers are primarily commenter's on other people's stories;we don't often find ourselves in the position of going out and finding the story.One staffer told me that he would like to see at least one of us actually attend the trial and try and write up our own take on the day's events,just so we could get an idea of the challenges facing the reporter.

Since this was part of my plan all along, I agree wholeheartedly. Monday, I'll be in the courtroom for the day and then I'll post my take on the events prior to reading the KNS reports and commenting on them.

One of the other things we discussed is how to write a good story. Not only does the reporter have to condense the essentials of 8 hours of courtroom testimony into a few paragraphs, but she must do so in a way that captures the important facts while still engaging the reader. At times, the reporter must use non-neutral words,not to indicate a personal agenda, but to distill the tone of hours of conversation, interviews, or testimony into a single sentence.

And she has to do this after spending 8 hours in court and while meeting a deadline.

I'll let you know what it's like on Monday.

Tax Receipts up? Record Spending? Deficit Down?

How can this be?
For he is the Kwisatz Haderach!

Sorry for the overly messianic reference, but it's been a while since I've made a good Dune reference. In fact, I don't think I've ever made a good Dune reference.

I'd actually be more impressed with the falling deficit if war spending was included, instead of being kept off budget. Being a simple minded libertarian, I look at the yearly change in the national debt to determine the true annual deficit. This way I don't have to worry about fancy accounting tricks that make it look like we have a balanced budget when we really don't. My method is very simple: How much money did we spend compared to how much we brought in? If the cumulative debt is going up, then we aren't balanced.

I know, it lacks nuance, but it works for my household, so it should work for our nation as well.

Looking at historical data, I see that the National Debt went up every year during the Clinton administration. Clinton's first budget was for the fiscal year ending 9/30/1994 and it resulted in an increase in the national debt of $280 billion. The debt climbs every year, although for the fiscal year ending 9/30/2000, the debt rose by a relatively small $10 billion. In all, over 8 years, Clinton added $1.8 trillion to the national debt, an increase of 41%. In comparison, over 5 years, Bush has added $2.7 trillion, an increase of 46%.

And there are still three more budget years to go. To be fair, I haven't accounted for inflation, and there is a war going on, but pardon me if I don't get excited by a declining deficit that's created by cooking the books when the actual debt is still climbing by roughly a half a trillion dollars a year.

Top 5 Reasons I'm Not Offended by Kathy Griffin

5. She wants me to be offended.
4. If she was serious,then I feel sorry for her ignorance.
3. If she was just trying to draw attention to herself, I feel nothing but contempt for her arrogance.
2. Jesus doesn't need me to defend Him against Kathy Griffin.
1. Who's Kathy Griffin again?

Opening Arguments

Jamie Satterfield's latest article is online here. I'm not going to get into the merits of the opening statements because a) I'm not a lawyer, and b) that's not what I'm here to do. But let's look closely at the article itself and see if there's any hidden messages for us.

Sure, they talked about the looming appointments.

Some of them may have discussed their preferences for those posts.

There might even have been lobbying going on.

But does any of that prove the Knox County Commission violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act in handling the process to replace term-limited officeholders?

The answer to that, Knox County Law Director John Owings told jurors Wednesday in Knox County Chancery Court, may well turn on a single word — deliberation.

“Conversations, discussions and lobbying among commissioners may not be deliberations,” Owings said during opening statements in a lawsuit alleging that commission violated the act, more commonly known as the sunshine law.

These opening paragraphs are very interesting for two reasons. First, they are constructed to irritate the reader,especially if the reader already feels like the KCC broke the law. Second, even though they are designed to irritate, they are not indicative of slanted coverage by the KNS.

Let me explain the seeming contradiction.

The first three paragraphs are taken directly from the heart of Knox County Law Director John Owings's defense of the KCC.

“Conversations, discussions and lobbying among commissioners may not be deliberations,” Owings said during opening statements in a lawsuit alleging that commission violated the act, more commonly known as the sunshine law.

By separating the three elements and giving them their own paragraphs, Satterfield plays up the fact that John Owings is arguing that the very actions that have most of the people up in arms don't actually constitute a violation of the law because they might not constitute "deliberations."

The answer to that, Knox County Law Director John Owings told jurors Wednesday in Knox County Chancery Court, may well turn on a single word — deliberation.

Anyone else reminded of Bill Clinton's evasions over the definition of "is?" Would that be an accidental reference?

So why don't I think this is bias?

Because it is an entirely appropriate response to the defense laid out by Owings in his opening statement. He is arguing over the definition of a single word, and basing the defense of his clients on that argument. As it says later in the article:

That back-hall stuff — if it went on at all — was politics, Owings said.

“There may be a lot of politics in this case,” Owings said. “Sometimes politics are unpleasant, but this case is not about politics. At the close of this trial, you’ll be asked to decide if the plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence whether Knox County Commission deliberated — key word — in private.”

Satterfield's opening is factually accurate, and a fair representation of Owings's argument.

Now, having said that, let's look closely at the section quoted just above.

That back-hall stuff — if it went on at all — was politics, Owings said.

She's paraphrasing Owings, not quoting. Did he actually use the emotionally loaded phrase "back-hall stuff?" If so, the county is paying him way too much money. If he didn't, then we have Satterfield interjecting her own personal opinions into the article.

By the way, I just want to point out that I don't think any reporter could stand up to the level of scrutiny we're putting Jamie Satterfield through without showing a few cracks in their game. Between us, Russ and I are putting every word she writes under a microscope, and quite probably reading way more into them than she meant to put there. That doesn't mean that we're making stuff up; It just means that every writer is passionate about what they write, and injects a little bit of themselves into every word. Otherwise they wouldn't put themselves through the pain of facing the blank page every day.

KNS Reacting to Blog Coverage?

This is interesting. Compare this story, to this one filed a few hours later.

Large portions of the text are the same, but some of the language Russ McBee reacted to negatively was removed, most notably the characterization of Law Director John Owings as "beleagered."

It appears that someone at the KNS is listening.

Attention to Detail, and Hasty Conclusions

Russ McBee analyzes another KNS article on the early stages of the trial, and notes some interesting wording.

Owings and Stackhouse are representing County Commission in the suit. The News Sentinel article includes three sentences which paraphrase (but never directly quote) their remarks. Those three sentences use the verbs "complained" (twice) and "fretted" to characterize arguments made by Owings and Stackhouse. However, when quoting the paper's attorney, Richard Hollow, the article uses the neutral verb "said" (twice). Chancellor Daryl Fansler, who's hearing the case, is quoted using the word "said" (twice) and "noted" (twice).

These may seem like minor quibbles, but how we say something is at least as important as what we say, and a good wordsmith will take advantage of that, choosing words that create reactions deeper than what a surface reading would reveal. However, the act of writing is as much art as it is science, and many of the word choices we make are made at that same deeper level. To note these choices and immediately infer a conscious intent is unwarranted without additional information.

You could argue that it is clear that the KNS has a stake in the outcome of the trial, and that lends credence to the idea that the coloration of the story is intentional. However, you also have to take into account that the publisher of the paper went out of his way to invite additional scrutiny,an act which argues against an intentional attempt to "shape the story."

Given the facts of the story, that County Commissioners have already said they discussed the appointment process in private, it is not too hard to imagine that the reporter has already formed an opinion on the case, and allowing that opinion to color her coverage. But it's too much of a stretch to get from there to inferring that the KNS is intentionally altering their coverage.

Russ's observations are spot-on; I'm not as sure about his conclusions.

Pre Trial Motions and Jury Selection

My blogging cohort Russ McBee has fired the first salvo over the KNS's coverage of the trial.

First of all, the opening paragraph makes it sound like these motions are some kind of shady maneuver, when in fact, they're entirely legal and appropriate. Prejudicial and irrelevant material has to be kept out of the trial if the jury is expected to measure only the facts relevant to the case. These motions aren't about "keeping the jury in the dark" at all; that phrase implies there is some sort of attempt to deceive the jury. Rather, they're about filtering out the noise.

That's not entirely accurate. To be sure, that's the criteria the judge should be using when evaluating the motions, but a good lawyer will try to get as much damaging information excluded as possible, relevance be damned. While McBee offers examples of things that should be (and were) excluded, the lawyers for the commissioners had a lot of things they moved for exclusion that were clearly relevant to the trial. As an example, commissioners wanted to have their own public statements about the process kept from the jurors.

Yes it is entirely legal to try and get relevant material excluded if it damages your case. It's also sound strategy. But it is also about "keeping the jury in the dark." It is the lawyer's job to create a story for the jury, one that is most beneficial for his client. It is the judge's job to ensure that the lawyer builds that story following the requirements of the law. If the lawyer finds a legal way to suppress a damning fact, he will do so, regardless of how relevant to the case it may be. In fact, the higher the relevance, the harder he will work to suppress it.

Therefore it is entirely appropriate for the KNS to point out that the lawyers for the commissioners were trying to keep relevant information from the jury.

I'm much less comfortable with the rape analogy chosen by Jamie Satterfield. It evokes an emotional subtext that runs counter to its context. While on the surface the analogy supports the process of suppressing information, the idea of hiding information from jurors deliberating over a repeat rapist sparks revulsion on a gut level, and that emotional response will certainly prejudice the reader against the practice.

Now, for your edification and delight, here's a link to the actual Sunshine Act.

See you in court!

And Now a Word About Integrity

I spend a lot of time working in youth athletic programs. In years past, I've run the PA system for games, taken pictures,written up post game commentaries, run a website, manned a concession stand, built stadium seating, done pre-game set up and post game cleanup. I've helped install a below ground sprinkler system, stood in a metal shelter during an electrical storm, wired a concession stand, and supplied a dinner for 30 hungry football players.

I'm not the only one out there busting my tail. Putting on a football game, even at the little league level takes the concerted effort of dozens of people, who work week in and week out to make sure our kids have a nice field and good equipment to play in.

And it doesn't end in the off season. The field requires maintenance; uniforms require repair and replacement; lighting needs to be repaired; the concession stand must be cleaned and restocked; facilities must be upgraded; and fund raising is always a priority.

The amazing thing is that all of this work is performed by unpaid volunteers. Everyone involved in little league football is an unpaid volunteer. The coaches, the paramedics, the security people, the concession stand workers, the gate keepers, the folks in the press box, the set up and clean up crew; all of them donate their time and effort to make sure the kids can have a game. In fact, there's only one group of people who demand to be paid for their services.

The refs.

That's right, the boys in black and white are the only ones who make money off of a kids' game. Refs in our league make $45 a game, so on a 3 game night, they each clear $135 for 4-5 hours of work. And that's fine; we want professionals who can control the game, and keep it fun, safe, and fair. But we also expect that since they are professionals, they should act like professionals. All too often, that is not the case.

In fact, I'll say that in most cases, if it's not a Friday night game, the refs are phoning it in. I've heard refs at Middle School games talking about not calling penalties so they could catch a TV show, and calling players crybabies and other, less printable names when they complain. I've watched refs deliberately run the clock improperly to rush a game. I've seen refs at little league football games fail to give proper signals to the clock keeper, then complain when the clock is run improperly. I've seen them arrive late to a game, and then hurry it up to try and get back on schedule.

In short, the refs make it very clear that they are out there for the money, not for the kids.

While most folks are wary of criticizing game officials for fear of reprisals, I'm happy to go on the record and say this to every referee out there:

If the thought crosses your mind that "It's only a [Little League/MiddleSchool/Freshman/JV] game," then keep your lazy butt off of my field. Go home, kick back in the recliner, and don't disrespect the kids and parents who have spent hours of time working and preparing