|
Open , Honest County Government |
|
PUBLIC SPIRITED CITIZENS of SEVIER COUNTY |
|
Sun Shine Lawsuit Update |
|
The Law ! |
|
Review of State Court & Appellate Court Filings, Activities & Status of Public Spirited Citizens of Sevier County's efforts to reform local government, Sevier County, Tennessee |
|
Date: May 28th, 2010 |
|
Contact us |
|
Public Spirited Citizens established their purposes in 2008 working as a non-profit organization, and, pursuant to their Mission – to seek remedy or redress for wrongs committed by employees or public officials by and through access to the courts - first filed a civil action in the Chancery Court on August 8, 2008, No. 08-8-295, seeking to have the court review the action taken by the Board of Commissioners in failing to recognize, schedule for consideration and review Commissioner Max Watson's Resolutions filed with the County Clerk, along with his request to have same placed on the June 2008 Agenda. Commissioner Max Watson followed the Rules, the exact and prescribed method in conformance to the Rules as they existed on the date of filing providing for a commissioner to proceed if desiring to have a Resolution considered by the Board of Commissioners. Rather than consider timely the proposed resolutions of Watson, the Rules were ultimately changed. Max Watson's request was not honored as provided by the Rules of the Commission - rather, to be specific - the County Mayor, Waters, took charge of the proposed resolutions and placed them into the hands of the Chairman of the Steering Committee which, ultimately resulted (by revised Rules proposed by Waters, prepared by the County Attorney, adopted by the Board of Commissioners June 23, 2008) - in Commissioner Watson's Resolutions being disallowed and never being considered as the proof in litigation supports. As the record reflects, the Steering Committee in their May 2008 meeting deferred same to the June 2008 meeting. The workshop as Minutes reflect was approved by the Board of Commissioners December 2007 but never scheduled. Watson's efforts moved toward scheduling that work shop relating to Open Meetings Act and questioning expenditures of the Mayor on behalf of the sheriff, Ronald Seals. With the proposed change of rules, a work shop and combined meeting of the Steering Committee was recommended by this committee and June 11, 2008 rules were considered and passed on to the Commission for vote on June 23, 2008, as shown by video taken of such meeting but which showed also (and which is a part of the record in this case) the Resolutions were not considered in June as proposed, and, when this issue was called up the citizen raising the issue was called out of order - not once but twice - and the meeting was immediately adjourned. The Resolutions were never considered. Citizens have strong beliefs based on the established record that the purpose of the change in Rules was to defeat Watson's efforts to act as a Commissioner as he had a right so to do, which is exactly what transpired. This case, No. 08-8-295 was dismissed by the trial court for lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed. On August 29, 2008, the second case No. 08-8-358 alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act and other issues was filed, and, by summary judgment entered by the trial court, all issues other than the alleged violations of Open meetings Act, inadequate Notice of Meetings to the public as required by law and improperly or insufficiently maintained Minutes of Committees and the Commission were dismissed for lack of standing. With these exceptions, plaintiffs were permitted to go forward on these specific issues. As to the dismissed issues plaintiffs will appeal when the case is finally concluded. On the remaining issues not dismissed, this case has evolved with the ruling of Judge David R. Duggan on April 28 and filed April 30, 2010. As to that ruling on May 17, 2010 plaintiffs asked for a review of the record (specifically all information before the court) as well as sought permission granted under specific Rules of Civil Procedure permitting clarifying those existing documents in the record and/or permission to support their arguments and supplement the file with additional information, alleging that existing documents should be further reviewed with sites of error, requesting the ruling be altered and modified for specific reasons. The court had directed in this ruling the county be enjoined from violation of Open Meetings Act as it related to failure to provide adequate Public Notice and maintenance of properly filed minutes of the proceedings of committees and the commission; however, the specifics of the Injunction were not set out, which plaintiff now seek to have accomplished by their additional pleadings, all a part of the record before the judge at this time. There will be modifications to this record by the expected subsequent ruling of the judge, all of which will be subject to appeal by either plaintiffs or defendants We will report the final outcome or status of this case when the record is complete. Costs related to this case, to this point, were assessed 3/4 to plaintiffs, 1/4 to the county. September 8, 2008 the third suit filed by plaintiffs, No. 08-9-368, sought to Oust the Mayor/Chairman of Commission alleging no separation of power between the legislative and executive branches of the local government, plaintiffs seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of state law permitting a Mayor to serve as the Chairman of Board of Commissioners and whether or not the Mayor, sitting as Chairman, was a member of the commission. This suit, too, was dismissed by the trial court for lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed. On May 20, 2010, plaintiffs with their counsel appeared before the Eastern Division, Court of Appeals, State of Tennessee, as the Appellant seeking review of the dismissals of the first and third suits filed. At a minimum of sixty days, as is usually the trend in this court filing their opinion, we shall expect to learn the status of these two cases – No. 08-8-295 and No. 08-9-368 - consolidated in one case for purposes of appeal. March 23, 2010, three days prior to the latest hearing granted plaintiffs in the Open Meeting Act case March 26 2010 in Blount County before David R. Duggan, Judge sitting by Designation, citizens and taxpayers, as plaintiffs, filed a complaint, No. 10-3-059, under The Hatch Act alleging specific candidates qualified per the Election Commission for the ballot of the May 4 primary were disqualified under such Act whereby federal funds were utilized in the employment of some fifteen individuals who were either an employee of Sevier County or were a sitting commissioner but seeking office as incumbents, who, through the application of federal funds were individuals who were/are compensated either in part or whole for such services in their positions by the local government of Sevier County. Although no public official in their official capacity was sued as defendants in this case, the powers that be and through services or employment of a county-paid attorney exercising the defendants' right under existing law, permitting them so to do, moved this case from the state court to federal court on April 23, 2010, where it remains. Per The Mountain Press coverage, the reporter states emphatically that 'county officials' prefer the federal court take jurisdiction? Plaintiffs' counsel, Herbert S. Moncier (as is well known) is currently suspended from appearing on behalf of plaintiffs in the federal court - Moncier's status currently is on appeal, so. the action by removal consequently placed plaintiffs at a disadvantage by being required to employee other counsel or otherwise not proceed, as it is assumed was the design of 'the county officials'! The Hatch Act suit, as it stands now in federal court is, consequently, 'withering on the vine' and will likely be removed from the trial docket for 'lack of prosecution', a situation left to Rhonda L. Bradshaw, attorney for Sevier County with which to deal, as she apparently is representing private individuals appearing as candidates in the May primary and subsequently certified by the Election Commission as winners and are questionably appearing on the August ballot, whether they be employees of the county or incumbents seeking re-election as commissioner. Would it not be desirable in the name of fair play that the county furnish paid counsel to all citizens and taxpayers who are litigants in any court? Case No. 10-5-128, on May 14 ten days following the May 4, 2010 primary, was filed as a Contest of the May election in relation to The Hatch Act, in which defendants sued were all those formerly named (now under the jurisdiction of the federal court) and sued as candidates, omitting those named as being employed by the School Board of Sevier County and any others who were unsuccessful in the primary, May 4. The Election Commission for Sevier County was made a party defendant to the contest, as well as Mark Goins, Coordinator of Elections, State of Tennessee. As to the contest of the election by these plaintiffs, and the issue of disqualification of specific defendants, plaintiff citizens intend to pursue these issues despite the current position held relating to or opinion issued respective parties by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), as, the decision on these matters lies within the jurisdiction of the state court of Tennessee as opposed to the views of The Mountain Press or the court of public opinion as a result of the biased views quoted by the press and/or as expressed by public officials of Sevier County. Would it not be desirable in the name of fair play that the county furnish paid counsel to all citizens and taxpayers who are litigants in any court? Case No. 10-5-128, on May 14 ten days following the May 4, 2010 primary, was filed as a Contest of the May election in relation to The Hatch Act, in which defendants sued were all those formerly named (now under the jurisdiction of the federal court) and sued as candidates, omitting those named as being employed by the School Board of Sevier County and any others who were unsuccessful in the primary, May 4. The Election Commission for Sevier County was made a party defendant to the contest, as well as Mark Goins, Coordinator of Elections, State of Tennessee. As to the contest of the election by these plaintiffs, and the issue of disqualification of specific defendants, plaintiff citizens intend to pursue these issues despite the current position held relating to or opinion issued respective parties by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), as, the decision on these matters lies within the jurisdiction of the state court of Tennessee as opposed to the views of The Mountain Press or the court of public opinion as a result of the biased views quoted by the press and/or as expressed by public officials of Sevier County. Log on to www.
Meetings Act and questioning expenditures of the Mayor on behalf of the sheriff, Ronald Seals. With the proposed change of rules, a work shop and combined meeting of the Steering Committee was recommended by this committee and June 11, 2008 rules were considered and passed on to the Commission for vote on June 23, 2008, as shown by video taken of such meeting but which showed also (and which is a part of the record in this case) the Resolutions were not considered in June as proposed, and, when this issue was called up the citizen raising the issue was called out of order - not once but twice - and the meeting was immediately adjourned. The Resolutions were never considered. Citizens have strong beliefs based on the established record that the purpose of the change in Rules was to defeat Watson's efforts to act as a Commissioner as he had a right so to do, which is exactly what transpired. This case, No. 08-8-295 was dismissed by the trial court for lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed. On August 29, 2008, the second case No. 08-8-358 alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act and other issues was filed, and, by summary judgment entered by the trial court, all issues other than the alleged violations of Open meetings Act, inadequate Notice of Meetings to the public as required by law and improperly or insufficiently maintained Minutes of Committees and the Commission were dismissed for lack of standing. With these exceptions, plaintiffs were permitted to go forward on these specific issues. As to the dismissed issues plaintiffs will appeal when the case is finally concluded. On the remaining issues not dismissed, this case has evolved with the ruling of Judge David R. Duggan on April 28 and filed April 30, 2010. As to that ruling on May 17, 2010 plaintiffs asked for a review of the record (specifically all information before the court) as well as sought permission granted under specific Rules of Civil Procedure permitting clarifying those existing documents in the record and/or permission to support their arguments and supplement the file with additional information, alleging that existing documents should be further reviewed with sites of error, requesting the ruling be altered and modified for specific reasons. The court had directed in this ruling the county be enjoined from violation of Open Meetings Act as it related to failure to provide adequate Public Notice and maintenance of properly filed minutes of the proceedings of committees and the commission; however, the specifics of the Injunction were not set out, which plaintiff now seek to have accomplished by their additional pleadings, all a part of the record before the judge at this time. There will be modifications to this record by the the expected subsequent ruling of the judge, all of which will be subject to appeal by either plaintiffs or defendants We will report the final outcome or status of this case when the record is complete. Costs related to this case, to this point, were assessed 3/4 to plaintiffs, 1/4 to the county. September 8, 2008 the third suit filed by plaintiffs, No. 08-9-368, sought to Oust the Mayor/Chairman of Commission alleging no separation of power between the legislative and executive branches of the local government, plaintiffs seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of state law permitting a Mayor to serve as the Chairman of Board of Commissioners and whether or not the Mayor, sitting as Chairman, was a member of the commission. This suit, too, was dismissed by the trial court for lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed. On May 20, 2010, plaintiffs with their counsel appeared before the Eastern Division, Court of Appeals, State of Tennessee, as the Appellant seeking review of the dismissals of the first and third suits filed. At a minimum of sixty days, as is usually the trend in this court filing their opinion, we shall expect to learn the status of these two cases – No. 08-8-295 and No. 08-9-368 - consolidated in one case for purposes of appeal. March 23, 2010, three days prior to the latest hearing granted plaintiffs in the Open Meeting Act case March 26 2010 in Blount County before David R. Duggan, Judge sitting by Designation, citizens and taxpayers, as plaintiffs, filed a complaint, No. 10-3-059, under The Hatch Act alleging specific candidates qualified per the Election Commission for the ballot of the May 4 primary were disqualified under such Act whereby federal funds were utilized in the employment of some fifteen individuals who were either an employee of Sevier County or were a sitting commissioner but seeking office as incumbents, who, through the application of federal funds were individuals who were/are compensated either in part or whole for such services in their positions by the local government of Sevier County. Although no public official in their official capacity was sued as defendants in this case, the powers that be and through services or employment of a county-paid attorney exercising the defendants' right under existing law, permitting them so to do, moved this case from the state court to federal court on April 23, 2010, where it remains. Per The Mountain Press coverage, the reporter states emphatically that 'county officials' prefer the federal court take jurisdiction? Plaintiffs' counsel, Herbert S. Moncier (as is well known) is currently suspended from appearing on behalf of plaintiffs in the federal court - Moncier's status currently is on appeal, so. the action by removal consequently placed plaintiffs at a disadvantage by being required to employee other counsel or otherwise not proceed, as it is assumed was the design of 'the county officials'! The Hatch Act suit, as it stands now in federal court is, consequently, 'withering on the vine' and will likely be removed from the trial docket for 'lack of prosecution', a situation left to Rhonda L. Bradshaw, attorney for Sevier County with which to deal, as she apparently is representing private individuals appearing as candidates in the May primary and subsequently certified by the Election Commission as winners and are questionably appearing on the August ballot, whether they be employees of the county or incumbents seeking re-election as commissioner. Would it not be desirable in the name of fair play that the county furnish paid counsel to all citizens and taxpayers who are litigants in any court? Case No. 10-5-128, on May 14 ten days following the May 4, 2010 primary, was filed as a Contest of the May election in relation to The Hatch Act, in which defendants sued were all those formerly named (now under the jurisdiction of the federal court) and sued as candidates, omitting those named as being employed by the School Board of Sevier County and any others who were unsuccessful in the primary, May 4. The Election Commission for Sevier County was made a party defendant to the contest, as well as Mark Goins, Coordinator of Elections, State of Tennessee. As to the contest of the election by these plaintiffs, and the issue of disqualification of specific defendants, plaintiff citizens intend to pursue these issues despite the current position held relating to or opinion issued respective parties by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), as, the decision on these matters lies within the jurisdiction of the state court of Tennessee as opposed to the views of The Mountain Press or the court of public opinion as a result of the biased views quoted by the press and/or as expressed by public officials of Sevier County. Log on to www.publicspiritedcitizens.com for latest updated information of Sevier County litigation. |
|
True, up to the minute news regarding Law Suits filed by Public Spirited Citizens of Sevier County. |
