Outrage about Lack of Public Notice -- Not Nitpicking

Reader's Write Article for 10-12-12 -- The Courier, Savannah, TN

Outrage about Lack of Public Notice -- Not Nitpicking

You just can't confuse these folks with facts.

Do you remember back just a couple months ago when Hardin County Mayor Kevin Davis got caught "fibbing" to WBBJ about moving forward with the city of Savannah for animal control in Hardin County, his pretend meeting of the Animal Control Committee, and his fake proposal to the city on behalf of a committee that hadn't even met?

Also, if you will remember the pretend meeting had "improper notice," no quorum to transact business and ended up falsifying public records to help cover-up Mayor Davis's "fibbing."

In that it was pointed out at the–again without "proper" notice–Animal Services Committee's meeting last week, the problems/issues with the minutes of the pretend meeting, the Committee, all of those that were present, voted to approve the minutes of the pretend meeting and thereby ratify or condone the conduct surrounding the pretend meeting, even though they had to see that there had not been a quorum present. That just ain't right.

Even the University of Tennessee's County Technical Advisory Service affirms that "any action taken at a meeting in violation of the Sunshine Law is void." [TCA 8-44-105] and the in order to remedy a violation of the Sunshine Law, however, the ultimate decision must be made at a meeting that satisfies the Sunshine Law and there must be new and substantial reconsideration of the issues involved.

Also, even if a subsequent meeting is held in compliance with the Sunshine Law, the ratification and confirmation of an action will not remedy a prior violation of the Sunshine Law, if it is merely a "perfunctory rubber stamp."

A government that proclaims itself entitled to do completely as it pleases, while requiring its people to rigidly obey every precept of its legislation, violates the maxim or saying of law that says, "just as the state and county are created by laws, so the state and county must be subject to law … for only by the principles of law can we judge the state and/or county as just or unjust, wise or foolish, strong or weak."

Such governments that proclaim itself entitled to do completely as it pleases are unjust, and their leadership should be changed immediately for the sake of the people whom they are charged by law to protect. Our founding fathers came up with that idea.

These folks have proven to me, again, by their behavior that they are not above less-than-honorable, open and straightforward conduct required for responsible service of a public official.

Other than affirming to the citizens of Hardin County that the basic instinct of our county government "leadership" is to be sneaky and less than straight forward, this fiasco reaffirms that our "leadership" will treat their bosses, us citizens, like mushrooms by trying to keep us in the dark and feeding us a bunch of c---, if you know what I mean!

As far as proper (legal) notice – The question is: Is the issue of moving forward with animal services and expending somewhere just short of a million dollars of taxpayer dollars, at this time, a.) Not to be expected to be of interest to the general public; or b.) Is the issue one that is expected to be of great public concern. The law of the land, even in Hardin County is – Notice was inadequate where it failed to indicate the meeting was to be held for the purpose of discussing an issue of pervasive importance to public. Point: The mayor never put the purpose of the meeting in their otherwise hidden notices.

This group of folks act as if they are entitled to do completely as they please. As noted, governments that proclaims itself entitled to do completely as it pleases are unjust, and their leadership should be changed immediately for the sake of the people whom they are charged by law to protect. I'll vote for that.

A couple of the commissioners will probably yell that this is just more "nit-picking" but with a little more "real" public service under their belts, they will understand it is part of their responsibility and oath to deal with us nit-pickers and those pesky laws that define their boundaries and limitations.

I contend a citizen expressing concern over ill-conceived plans and obvious unlawful behavior, for at least the third time this year, is not nit-picking. If it is I could use a couple of more nit-pickers down on the field.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,


Ted G. Cook

Savannah