Out of Step for County-Wide Animal Control Program

For you folks that don't read The Courier on a regular basis, the following is a Readers Write Opinion letter this week.  Comments are encouraged.

Uncle Ted

Batter Up, Mr Mayor and County Commissioners, it’s time for another chat, I see.

The way the county animal control efforts are proceeding not only violate basic good business practices, it totally guts prior efforts that the full commission approved in 2008.

As noted in The Courier, after not meeting for months and months, the Mayor had two no notice secret meetings of the animal control committee, in early September.

I got wind that Mayor Davis was going to have another little no notice secret get together before the this months commission planning meeting and I made it a point to attend.

I had asked for a copy of their agenda at the mayor’s office, but was advised they had no published agenda. Go figure.

The fact is, I really don’t think they, the animal control committee, lead by Mayor Davis, of course, have any idea of what they are really doing and yet they want to draw up plans and specs and commit a half a million taxpayer dollars to do it, which in reality is only about 60% of the estimated average per square foot construction costs for their plan.

I wonder what they are not going to include!

But then again, as I have said in the past, if I really wanted to see organized confusion with very little organization at work in Hardin County, all I really had to do watch our Mayor and our Board of County Commissioner’s decision making process at work.

The latest public example of this organized confusion is, of course, their backward attempt to move forward with the long promised reasonable and effective county- wide Animal Control program.

Before we get into that, let’s take a little look back.

In 2008, after almost a year long public campaign to get the county involved in animal control, a silk stocking and text book designed task force was put together to develop a comprehensive plan for animal control in Hardin County that involved all of the stakeholders, including both the public and private sectors.

It took months of research, meetings, more research and more meetings, and finally the plan development.

I think I know why Mayor Davis doesn’t like to let the public know when he plans on getting together with one of his committees to officially rubber stamp his efforts.

Watching Mayor Davis try to organize or re-plan an Animal Control Program for Hardin County reminds me of a sea-story they tell in boot camp.

It goes something like this.

Proud momma and daddy were going all the way up to Great Lakes, Illinois to watch their son graduate from boot camp.

He had left Savannah almost 3 months earlier and Maw and Paw just couldn’t hardly wait to see him.

Young Kev had written them several times over the months and said that he really liked the marching with his friends part of the up coming ceremonies and that he had gotten real good at it.

Well, the time comes when young Kev and his 100 or so fellow recruits came by the reviewing stands and all could hear momma in a really loud prideful voice say, "Look Paw, there’s our Kev and wouldn’t you know it, he is the only one in step."

Strike One - Out of step, completely, with the comprehensive plans developed by the task force and approved by the county commission in 2008. Note: Approved by the full commission but vetoed by the budget committee. Yah, I know, that is a little backward, but this is Hardin County, you know?

Strike Two - Out of step with any experienced local, regional or national groups on the development process for a reasonable animal control program and facility. One of the golden rule lessons that has been learned by others is: Good business practice - Plan your work and work your plan and public animal control programs - Plan and define the animal control program BEFORE you design the facility.

Strike Three - Out of step with the budget for building costs of any national recognized average estimates.

Example - The total budgeted funds will only fund about 60% of the industry recognized estimated per square foot cost of developing or constructing a similar sized facility. What is going to be left out?

Strike Four (Just for good measure) - Out of step with the recognized need for a professional approach to facility planning and design by having the mayor and a local land surveyor develop the plans for this specialized building.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) strongly recommends that local architects hired to build a new shelter consult with an architect experienced in successful shelter design.

We don’t even have an architect, let alone an experienced architect, we have a land surveyor, as best I can tell.

Experiences across the country has taught that the pre-construction planning phase is absolutely crucial to building a good animal shelter. The HSUS advises animal care and control agencies to spend as much time as necessary to identify their needs and those of their communities before planning a new facility.

The experts say that doing so will help achieve the objective of providing a humane, secure environment for animals and avoid costly errors in the process. The 2008 task force did that for the county, but that business approach was rejected. Go figure.

It should be pointed out, I guess, that on the Best Friends Society’s list of "Biggest Mistakes Made by Groups Building New Shelters," so far Mayor Davis and his animal control committee’s program has got the top three or four mistakes nailed.

Makes one wonder what they have been doing for the last three years, don’t it.

I find the comments in last weeks’ Courier need another viewpoint.

Like Mayor Davis throwing in the towel as far as reaching an agreement with Savannah to operate a joint animal shelter, for example, coupled with the comment about Savannah officials rejecting the county’s "bona fide" offer to pay half the expenses of a combined operation.

Why should Savannah have to pay anything extra for county-wide services that are suppose to be for the benefit of all county citizens? The Savannah citizens have duel citizenship, so to speak, of Hardin County, first, and also the City of Savannah, by choice.

That would be like saying, about 70% of the county population live outside Savannah, so a bona fide offer would be for Savannah citizens to pay, first, 50% of the operating expenses with their city tax dollars while paying another 15% of the county’s 50% with their county tax dollars.

Mr. Mayor, records show that the county accounted for over 70% of the 2,500 to 3,000 animals that passed thru during the last year of combined operation of the shelter and in your mind, agreeing to pay for 50% of the operating expenses, and nothing else, is a bona fide offer? Give me a break.

All this after recognizing, in 2008, that the program had to be a county wide effort with Savannah making a voluntary contribution for an enhanced level of services with-in the city limits.

That offer was on the table in 2008. It is not there now because Savannah has moved on after being rejected by the county. What did you expect them to do? Wait on the county, again?

As to Commissioner Berry’s observation that it is impossible to persuade the county commission to help fund the city proposed sportsplex project as city officials wanted in exchange for a cooperative animal shelter agreement.

I don’t remember it ever coming before the commission for discussion or debate but he may be right.

The commissioners can not seem to get their arms around the concept of inter-local government projects and the fact that county citizens account for about 70% usage of the city’s parks and recreational facilities, at no cost to the county taxpayers.

Ted G. Cook
Hardin County, Tennessee

Adequate Public Notice - Draft Submission for Reader Write Opinion

WOOOOW NELLIE

After the dismal and pathetic voter turn-out in the last general election, I question any real benefit of taking the time to make the effort to try to keep my fellow citizen/voters abreast of issues that effect them and to encourage participation in the observation of our local government. The vast majority of the voters seem content to not participate, just criticize those that do. So be it. We'll call this one, for the public record.

There has been, in my humble opinion, such a blatant and conspicuous disregard for the Open Meeting Act, aka "Sunshine Law," by Mayor Davis and our Budget Committee with their semi-secret unscheduled meeting of the budget committee on Tuesday June 21st, that I just can not let it go unchallenged.

I have expressed my concerns to both the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Commissioner White and to Mayor Davis, only to have been kinda patted on the head and assured that they did everything right. Well, let’s see if they did everything, or anything, right.

If any of the elected officials, who control policy for Hardin County, would bother reading the state published County Government Handbook, which is kinda like an owner’s manual for our elected officials, they would find in Section 22 a general discussion of the requirements of the Sunshine Law. Even after years in office it is very obvious, and has been for some time, that Mayor Davis and Commissioner White and others wouldn’t recognize a violation of the Sunshine Law, if it was bitting them on the backside.

Mayor Davis and each and every one of the elected commissioners know or should know that in order to meet the requirement of the Sunshine Law, ‘adequate public notice’ MUST be given before all meetings to which the act applies. "No Adequate Notice - No Count Meeting".

The law of the land, (TCA 8-44-101(a)), is that it is the policy of this state that the formation of public policy and decisions is public business and shall not be conducted in secret. Specifically, MUST have adequate public notice, period.

Well, what is "adequate public notice," you might ask?

The owners manual, citing our Tennessee Supreme Court, defines it as ‘. . . such notice based on the totality of the circumstances as would fairly inform the public." The operative words in that statement is, "fairly inform."

The courts over time have established two seemingly different standards for the adequacy of the required notices. There is one standard for meetings that would NOT be expected to be of interest to the general public and a more stringent standard for non-scheduled special meetings or if the issue is one that is expected to be of great public concern, i.e. of pervasive importance. I think an unnecessary increase in property taxes would qualify as ‘of pervasive importance,' don’t you?

Having said that, our courts have determined that the Open Meeting Act does not distinguish between "technical" and "substantive" violations of either standard. Said another way, a violation is a violation. Either is was or it wasn't violated.

For unscheduled special meetings and the more stringent standards, one of our States Attorney Generals (AG) has opined (Op.No. 00-095) that under the three-prong test for "adequate public notice" under this provision (the Act):

1. The notice must be posted in a location where a member of the community could become aware of such notice;

2. The contents of the notice must reasonably describe the purpose of the meeting or the action proposed to be taken; and

3. The notice must be posted at a time sufficiently in advance of the actual meeting in order to give citizens both an opportunity to become aware of and to attend the meeting.

The AG also noted that for the purposes of the first prong of the adequate notice inquiry, the [county] can provide adequate notice simply by choosing reasonable public locations and posting notice at those public locations on a consistent basis. The court concluded that the city hall, the post office, and a local bank satisfied the requirements, under the circumstances presented.

One must observe that when the courts speak of the "locations" they speak in the plural. Locations - more than one.

Here is Strike One, Mr. Mayor. The only place your Notice of the Budget Committee Meeting was exposed to members of the community was in an obscure corner of the lobby of the courthouse that is used for various miscellaneous flyers for fund raisers and missing things. Is this single obscure location an adequate location where one might expect members of the community to become aware of such notice? Of course it isn't.

Why didn't you send a note to the Courier for them to post on the internet or you could have posted it on the county’s web page, right? Oh, that’s right, the county doesn’t have a web page, do they. Why didn’t you have the radio stations do a public service announcement for the meeting? Why wasn’t the non-scheduled meeting announced at the County Commission meeting, the night before, when several members of the commuity who came to voice their opinion on the tax increase were present, but were not heard?

Did the Mayor want to keep the meeting a secret or does he not know any better, even after 5 years on the job? You decide. I already have.

Here is Strike Two, Mr. Mayor. The contents of the notice did not describe or state any purpose of the meeting or action proposed to be taken, whatsoever. Missed that second prong content thing.

And finally, Here is Strike Three. The notice was posted, per Mayor Davis, on Monday, June 20th, the day before the County Commissioner even took any action to send the budget back to the committee. That was rather presumptuous on the Mayor’s part, wasn’t it?

The committee meeting was to be held on June 21, one day after the notice was hid in the corner of the courthouse and less than 24 hours after the Mayor had the commissioners vote to send the complete budget back to the committee for reconsideration of their best efforts to produce a reasonable budget, without comment or specific instructions for the committee, as to why or say what.

Your Out, Mr. Mayor. The law of the land is "in order to meet the third prong of the adequate public notice inquiry, the notice must be posted at a time sufficiently in advance of the actual meeting in order to give citizens both an opportunity to become aware of and to attend the meeting. Notice which is not posted sufficiently in advance of the special meeting is nothing more that a mere gesture. Our Courts hold that "notice that is a mere gesture is no notice at all."

I submit that the June 21, 2011 budget committee special meeting was in violation of the Sunshine Act of this State and any action taken by the budget committee at that meeting was, and is, invalid. It's a fact, T.C.A. § 8-44-105 provides that "any action taken at a meeting in violation of this part shall be void and of no effect. . . ." In reality things stand the same way they were, as if the meeting had never been held and they will until this violation is cured. Tick-Tock, the budget clock is still ticking.

Moving on. Of course a body that may have violated the act may cure its violation by conducting a subsequent meeting at which it ratifies the prior action. However, be advised that a cure meeting will not be effective unless the ultimate decision is made in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, AND if it is a new and substantial reconsideration of the issues involved, in which the public is afforded ample opportunity to know the facts and to be heard with reference to the matters at issue.

Come on, Mr. Mayor, do you really think that your cavalier efforts to inform the citizens and your uninformed version of the notice required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-44-103 is sufficient to give interested citizens a reasonable opportunity to exercise their right to be present at the meeting or give citizens both an opportunity to become aware of and to attend the meeting? All I can say is, oh my goodness, if you do.

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 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 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. Our founding fathers came up with that idea.
　
Ted G. Cook
Savannah, TN

Conflict of Interest - 101

The following is the Readers Write article in The Courier in April 2011.

At last month’s planning meeting of the Hardin County Board of Commissioners, Commissioner Mike Jerrolds (Dist.7) made a motion, and got it seconded, to amend the agenda for the business meeting to allow a discussion and possible action on a motion to include several of the nonprofit community center-type corporations around the county for a county contributions to help with the development and necessary improvements at the various community centers.

Several of the communities were left with stripped–and I mean really stripped–former school buildings to use as community centers, after the school board seems to have retaliated for objections made to their closing plans.

County Budget Director Linda Franks advised she had received and reviewed eight requests for contributions and in her opinion they all complied with the new county charitable contributions ordinance and the state law.

Kevin Davis, our county mayor and chairman of the commission announced that a commissioner (it was later learned it was Commissioner Emery White (Dist.9), who has also been an outspoken opponent of almost anything that doesn’t directly benefit his own district), had asked, in private, I guess, if a commissioner could vote on the motion if he was also an officer of one of the these 501(c)(3) (non-profit) corporations seeking a contribution.

Mayor Davis seems to admit doesn’t know the answer and would have to defer to the county attorney, Curt Hopper.

Quick quiz. Have you ever gotten any bad or wrong advice, based on a shot from the hip, from your attorney?

Lawyer Hopper advised that in his opinion, it would be "a conflict of interest" for the two commissioners, both supporters of the motion, to vote because of their relationship with the community centers and therefore Commissioner Nickie Cagle (Dist. 6) and Commissioner Jonas Morris (Dist. 7) would have to abstain from voting.

Lawyer Hopper did not cite any legal authority for his opinion other than he remembered that he had read a statute at one time that would support his opinion.

That opinion of Lawyer Hopper, our county attorney for over five years, actually made my ole mind say, "Hey, wait a minute, there ain’t no way that’s right." But I didn’t say it out loud. I wondered what statute he could be talking about and I knew I would just have to try to find it in the current version of the code when I got home." I looked for a long time. I couldn’t find it.

Let us hope Lawyer Hopper just misunderstood the question he was being asked to express his "learned legal" opinion on. I think Mayor Davis may have bush-wacked Lawyer Hopper by not telling him about the question until just before the meeting. Accidentally, of course.

But then again, Lawyer Hopper does have a very lucrative and public criminal law practice. Maybe he didn’t have time to be county attorney and look it up himself. All speculation on my part, of course.

The right answer is that if there is no financial or like gain for the public officials, there is no conflict of interest and they can vote on the matter.

The Back Story: Since there didn’t appear to be enough votes to stop the community center funding proposal on a level playing field, Commissioner White approached the mayor to raise the question, although he should know what is a conflict of interest and what is not. After all, he has been a commissioner and vice chairman of the board as long as I have been watching the commissioners. That is a long time.

Of course, our mayor who obviously didn’t have a clue, as normal, would have to contact the County Technical Assistance Service, and ask them. And he did. But the big question is, what was asked and how was it asked?

One would assume Mayor Davis would have learned early on what is a conflict of interest and what is not.

CTAS has always preached that "Every county official should be familiar with the conflict of interest, ethics, and disclosure laws applicable to their offices."

Unable to determine what statute Lawyer Hopper could possibly be relying on for his opinion, contact was made with the mayor’s office to see if they could find out what Lawyer Hopper was using as his authority. It was learned, at that time, that the opinion came from CTAS in response to the mayor’s inquiry, not Lawyer Hopper.

At the planning meeting, neither Lawyer Hopper or the mayor let the commissioners know the county attorney’s opinion was actually a product of the mayor’s contact with CTAS.

What happens if the CTAS opinion was based on an incomplete understanding of the facts?

I learned from the mayor’s office that the now CTAS-Hopper opinion was relying on the part of the Code that deals with public contracts. However, the matter before the commission comes under the part of the Code that deals with charitable contributions.

Strike One: We’re not talking about a contract.

Even under public contracts, the public official has to be "directly interested," meaning any contract with the official personally.

Strike Two: We’re not talking about contracting with the commissioner "personally."

Then we have "controlling interest." Which, of course, includes the individual with the ownership or control of the largest number of outstanding shares owned by any single individual or corporation.

Strike Three: Neither commissioners have have controlling interest in the monprofit corporation making the request and derive no personal or corporate gain. They are doing what all the commissioners should be doing. They are participating in their community’s affairs.

Sorry Mr. Emery, you can quit grinning. I think they told you wrong.

Mr. Mayor, would you please ask the county attorney, since it is not a contract, where is the conflict of interest? I would, but he won’t take my calls.
　
Ted G. Cook
Savannah, TN

Metalgate in Hardin County - UpLift's Half-Page ad response

For you folks that don't get the Courier, the following was the published response,

"State auditors dig for dirt in Hardin County’s garbage"
(Headline Courier, Dec. 9)

In last week’s front page story about the state digging for dirt in our garbage, didn’t the manager of Hardin County’s waste management department, Mr. Randy Etheridge, admit, in the press no less, at least enough to be considered as "knowledge based on available information that reasonably causes the public official to believe," that a theft and other acts of unlawful taking of public money, property, and/or services has occurred in the department, with at least a wink and a nod from management?

As one of those FYI things: The general allegations, as now confirmed by Mr. Etheridge, in addition to theft of government property, are also defined as "Offenses Against Administration of Government" with no less than three or four counts of official misconduct, each of which is a Class E Felony under T.C.A. §39-16-402.

To note the seriousness of these admissions, it should be pointed out that the authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for a Class E felony, is not less than one year nor more than six years. In addition, the jury may assess a fi ne not to exceed $3,000, unless otherwise provided by statute. Plus facing the reality of the branding of a convicted felon for the rest of your life.

First, was that not one of the lamest reason for the retaliatory fi ring of the whistle blowing employee that could be put forth? Of course, it probably would be insubordination if one of your long-time employees had betrayed your mafia a-like dome of silence and as protocol sometimes requires, reported the crimes and retaliation to the county commissioner that represented his district, hopefully for an investigation. Why, this six-year employee even had the audacity to get his story on the Internet, for everyone to see. Yep, that is certainly being insubordinate, if you’re the mafia a or a gang of thugs, but not if you represent the local government.

I guess if you look at that in a kind of a skewed way, that would be a personnel problem. When an employee blows the whistle on unlawful activity, at any level, that could be a real personnel problem, that does not need to be kicked to the side of the road by those responsible for ensuring lawful activities of all public official.

Locally, one of those responsible parties is the mayor, as chief executive officer. But, who does one turn to when the mayor is either in blind denial or up to his closed eyeballs in trying to cover it up or make it go away, now that it is being looked into by the state and is in the court of public opinion?

The article noted that "for his part, Davis is supporting Etheridge" and "Nobody had any blessing to take any kind of scrap metal." What about Mr. Etheridge and "when I started... everybody was taking it. That was the policy,"

Remember, it wasn’t that former President Nixon actually broke into the Watergate Hotel, it was his participation in the conspiracy to try to cover it up, that forced him to resign.

Prior research has established that Mayor Davis stopped the potential "investigation" by the district’s commissioner, who also just happens to work full-time for the county and at the pleasure of the county mayor. The mayor’s direction was under the guise that the allegations were just a "personnel problem" and therefore there was nothing for the commissioner-county employee to get involved in because the commissioner-county employee did not have any jurisdiction to investigate personnel problems in the solid waste department.

The Mayor was going to have to back his other department head, Mr. Etheridge. How is that going for you, Mr. Mayor?

The commissioner-county employee — If you say so, OK with me, Mr. Mayor, nothing for me to investigate, case closed, no investigation, thank you very much.

If that ain’t hindering an investigation, I just don’t know what would be. It is kinda hard to defi ne when the commissioner- county employee didn’t mind being hindered, and in fact, probably appreciated it.

Does Mayor Davis now challenge his department head, Mr. Etheridge’s admissions that "when I started (as director) 14 years ago, everybody was taking it. That was the policy," with "I say they’re allegations?"

The standard of proof for the allegations is, "knowledge based on available information that reasonably causes the public official to believe."

Mr. Mayor, wouldn’t it be too long of a stretch to still consider them as just allegations after one of the targets of the inquiry, the manager of that department, has admitted to some of what you keep calling "allegations."

The fact question is, "Has there been a theft or other acts of unlawful taking?"

Just for the fun of it, let’s look at Mr. Etheridge’s comments in the article. "Employees are not allowed to take metal," Etheridge said. "Has that been a problem? Yes, from day one." Said another way - "From day one, there has been a problem with employees taking metal, even though they were not allowed."

One should ask county commissioner Grisham, who mans the Morris Chapel convenience center, if that also applied to him.

How about, "a "zero tolerance" policy was being implemented for employees caught stealing metal from the recycling bins."

Does that mean that up until now there has been a tolerance policy for employees caught stealing metal from the recycling bins? It certainly appears so.

But wait, don’t we already have a "zero tolerance" policy for theft of county property in all of the departments?

Or even better, how about, "While acknowledging that there have been employees who improperly took material from the recycling bins, Etheridge says anyone who claims he gave permission to do so is being untruthful." Well, how about, "yet Etheridge also says ‘that despite complaints of metal theft, he has never fi red an employee for pilfering.’"

No, just for trying to reporting it.

Are Mayor Davis and Mr. Etheridge unaware of the phrase "tacit approval."

Just to be helpful, and you know how we like to be helpful, according to my dictionary, tacit approval is a benign form of approval that is not expressed clearly, in words. It is silent approval. It is approval that is implied by other statements, actions or by a failure to clearly express disapproval with the situation, performance, idea, plan or request.

Also, tacit approval may be expressed by body language such as smiling, a nod of the head, a pat on the back or a shrug of the shoulders. It can be a friendly form of encouragement and support.

On the other hand it is approval that can be easily and conveniently denied as or if a situation deteriorates.

Do we really think the pilfering could have possibly been going on for as long as Mr. Etheridge acknowledges (from day one), without at least tacit approval?

Come on, Mayor Davis, that’s not reality, but welcome to the table of consequences.

Should Mayor Davis give serious consideration to his oath of offi ce to enforce the laws of the State of Tennessee and whether or not he has met his obligations under that oath?

　
Ted G. Cook,

Executive Director
Uplift Hardin County

Duplicitious and Duping, David H. Davis Does Deceitful

Have you ever wondered what ever happened to the duplicitious David H. Davis, former County Commissioner who resigned in disgrace because the public found out that he enjoyed, or may still enjoy, giving minor boys alcohol and such?

Following is the front page article in the Courier this week

Accountant’s CPA license is expired

BY RON SCHAMING
The Courier - June 3, 2010 - Page 1

David H. Davis, a former Hardin County commissioner who resigned in 2002 following a criminal conviction, now stands accused of illegally doing business as a certified public accountant without a state license.

Barry Webb, owner of popular Crump nightspot Big Daddy’s, said revelations the man he says does his taxes has not held a valid CPA license in more than five years leave him feeling "duped."

He said Davis for years represented to him he was a certified public accountant. Webb noted that until fairly recently, the sign in front of Davis’s business at 1370 Pickwick St. in Savannah stated Davis was a CPA.

"I never question it when a man hangs it on his shingle," Webb said.

The matter came to light when during a routine records check, The Courier obtained a document dated two months ago.

It was allegedly submitted by Davis on Webb’s behalf to the city of Crump to comply with a city beer permit ordinance. The letterhead identifies Davis as a certified public accountant.

At the bottom, below a signature purported to be Davis’s, are the typed name and title, "David H. Davis, CPA."

However, according to the website of the Tennessee Department of Commerce & Insurance and confirmed by officials at the state Board of Accountancy, the license Davis held since 1984 expired on Dec. 31, 2004.

Just eighteen months earlier, in June of 2002, Davis had entered into a plea bargain in Hardin County General Sessions Court. Two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor were dismissed.

Those counts involved accusations Davis gave marijuana to two male teenage student athletes at his Savannah residence.

In exchange, Davis pleaded guilty to two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor via alcohol, and was required to resign his seat on the Hardin County Commission. He paid $1,300 in fines and court costs and was put on supervised probation for 11 months and 29 days.

While the state did not revoke Davis’s CPA license, the convictions could have put it in jeopardy.

Brad Floyd, executive director of the Tennessee Society of CPAs, said ethical requirements play an important role in getting and keeping a CPA license.

Depending on the severity, a criminal conviction is "good cause" for revocation, he said.

State law prohibits anyone without a valid license from using the title of CPA. Violators may even be subject to criminal prosecution for a Class C misdemeanor.

"This is unbelievable," said Webb. ‘It’s like going to an attorney who’s not licensed or a doctor who’s not licensed.

"I’m just so taken back by this I just don’t know what to say."

Crump Police Chief John Youngson said he intends to submit a recommendation that the city board of mayor and aldermen file a formal complaint with the state accountancy board.

Friday, Davis told his side of the story in an interview with The Courier. See sidebar, page 1.

Davis explains, admits mistakes

A staffer’s clerical error resulted in the wrong letterhead being used on a document submitted to the city of Crump on behalf of a local business, according to David H. Davis.

The letterhead falsely identifies Davis as a certified public accountant. Davis has not been a CPA since 2004.
"It’s just a mistake," he said.

Davis admitted the signature on the document prepared for Big Daddy’s in Crump and with the typed signature line, "David H. Davis, CPA," is his.

"She just tells me to sign stuff," he said of the two-month-old document. "Again, my fault."

Davis operates The Davis Firm in Savannah, which he says provides tax services that do not require the preparer to be a certified public accountant.

He said he allowed his CPA license to lapse in 2004.

"Anybody can do taxes," he noted.

Citing the time, cost and family medical expenses, Davis said he decided last year to forgo obtaining the state-required continuing professional education hours needed to reinstate the license.

But until 2009, despite the lack of a CPA license, the large sign in front of his Pickwick Street office continued to announce the location was the place of business of a certified public accountant.

Describing himself as an "eternal optimist," Davis said he left the sign up for years because he was still working on meeting the CPA license requirements.

He denied representing himself as a certified public accountant to any clients during that period.

But what about the big, red-lettered CPA sign viewed by thousands of motorists on busy Pickwick Street daily?
"If they saw the sign–maybe," Davis said.

End of Courier Articles - - -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE PAST

--- In May 2002 TheNewSavannahJournal@yahoogroups.com, "themaverickentrepreneur" (i.e. Ted) wrote:

Hardin County Commissioner - BUSTED

The County Commissioner who lead the drive to eliminate the State Office of Constable in Hardin County was arrested Monday, May 20, 2002 on two counts of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor and is released on bond.

County Commissioner David H. Davis, CPA is to appear in General Sessions Court on Friday, May 24, 2002 to answer these charges.

The arrest is the results of an ongoing investigation by Constable Ted Cook that resulted from two families filing complaints with the Savannah Police Department. The Complains generally allege that Davis provided alcohol and marijuana to their sons, one of whom was a minor.

Could it be that Commissioner Davis had his own reasons for not wanting Constables in Hardin County?


Submitted for your consideration

Ted G. Cook
The Maverick Entrepreneur

Jerry Hunt's SIDC Loan - Research

Readers Write - The Courier - Hunt/SIDC - 3-11-10

I find very interesting the reaction to the story in last week’s Courier about the financial problems of Jerry Hunt, the former head of Savannah Industrial Development Corporation (SIDC) and former CEO of Team Hardin County.

Some have commented that this is a personal matter, hinges toward gossip and criticize The Courier for even printing it, let alone on the front page.

Well, excuse me. When a public figure uses public dollars for a personal project and then that project goes belly up in six months, for whatever reason, I think The Courier has an obligation, as a newspaper, to give a heads-up to the public. The public is entitled to know if it was a good loan, that was really a bad loan to start with, or to know why it went bad.

These are tax dollars, folks.

Hunt made himself a public figure in Hardin County a long ago and has now used his current employment with the state along with his knowledge and experience on how to get a loan of public funds from the SIDC, a component of the city of Savannah government and a member entity of Team Hardin County, which is a component of Hardin County government. So far, there is nothing improper about that, at all.

But it turns out all Hunt had to do was tell the SIDC the loan package had already been approved in Jackson, it just needs to be funded by the SIDC, because Hunt worked for those folks that approved it in Jackson. One of those conflict of interest things, you know.

One has to wonder what happens if "the loan package" that was approved in Jackson, was not the same "loan package" presented to SIDC "for funding." What happens when the current CEO of SIDC doesn’t bother to check the details or verify and document the information in accordance with the SIDC and statutory requirements? You end up where they are today.

At the request of the chairman of the SIDC board, over a two or three month period last year, I worked with a team of volunteers to complete a little audit or records research project on this loan. What we found is not a very pretty picture.

There were so many administrative mistakes made by SIDC, SWTDD and the USDA in Jackson that one must conclude that they could not have all been just mistakes. Some of them had to be "just didn’t do their jobs" kind of mistakes and Hunt was less than truthful as to his financial conditions and/or his intent to actually operate a bed-and-breakfast and to create jobs.

To make a long and convoluted story short, the day the SIDC board approved the funding of the loan, a few of the members were heard to comment, after the meeting, that, "We should have never approved that loan. It’s going to come back to bite us."

History has proved those folks right.

The details of how the loan was processed, or not processed as the case may be, is beyond the scope of what can be covered here in this forum, but the big picture should be clear enough—had the current CEO of SIDC, Steve Bunnell, verified the information in the IRP application for completeness and accuracy, the loan would have been a borderline project, at best, for an IRP loan.

Oh, that’s right, the final version of the IRP loan application didn’t get signed by the Hunts until almost 90 days after the IRP loan closed and only a week or two before the Hunts requested SIDC release their second mortgage on nine acres and a reclassification of the loan from an IRP equipment and working capital loan to a real estate loan. SIDC and those folks in Jackson says, OK with us.

SIDC released over $112,000 in real property collateral and tried to release the SIDC lien against all of the furnishing belonging to the Hunts and the B&B. Hunt’s estimated value of these furnishing was $160,000, including an estimated $26,000 in new furnishing in B & B project.

SIDC received no consideration for releasing their collateral or reclassification, but the Hunts picked up about $19,000 in cash and got a $10,000 car loan paid off. The rest of the proceeds of the sale went to principal and interest on Hunt’s past due first mortgage on the real estate.

One might challenge that when one lays this "small or minority business IRP loan" over the statutory template, this loan should have never been made. But, SIDC went completely out of bounds when they agreed to reclassify the loan from an IRP equipment and working capital loan to basically a second mortgage real estate loan and still use the IRP revolving loan funds.

These funds were provided to SIDC by the federal government, with restrictions and requirements, for relending for the benefit of economic and community development Even if the funds were initially loaned for the benefit of economic and community development, within three to four months the Hunts asked for, and everybody else agreed, to reclassify the IRP loan from an equipment and working capital loan, which, if properly structured, could be a qualified IRP project, to a second mortgage real estate loan, which could not be a qualified IRP project.

Where are the checks and balances? Who is minding the store? The total project cost was suppose to be $150,000. A $75,000 IRP loan and $75,000 equity. Where is the equity?

The questions are voluminous, the direct answers from the current CEO, Bunnell, have been avoided or answered as "I don’t know."

As a side note, if one thinks that Hunt and Bunnell have kind of messed up things with this loan, just wait until the research is published locally that shines a bright light on what kind of a mess Hunt, along with some of these same players, managed to leave for Team Hardin County.

Of course, the current group at Team Hardin County, which includes Mayor Kevin Davis among others, doesn’t seem to mind, as long as they don’t have to admit they just went along with Hunt and Bunnell. There is a real mess to be straightened out.

Remember folks, this all involves tax dollars and oversight.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration

Ted
Ted G. Cook

The Misapplication of Tax Dollars by Team Hardin County, et. al.

As a follow-up to discussions at the City Commission meeting early May, 2009 the following summary and time-table was provided to the stakeholdders as an update on the researched fact knowledge base as it relates to the interlocal relations of the City of Savannah and Hardin County through Team Hardin County, Inc. (THC), Hardin County Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and Savannah Industrial Development Corporation, Inc., (SIDC).

Summary of Scope of Loan Research-

The Open Records Act request that was delivered to the CEO of everything Team Hardin County and their member entities, on April 13th and again on the 19th of April, was about 75% complete last week and the required factual record should be completed documented shortly.

The records request and other research efforts has produced over 2,500 pages of data that includes financials, charters, by-laws, board minutes and other relevant records, dating back to fiscal year 2000 for THC, SIDC, CVB, and THC-NAIA

After completing a preliminary review of this data, while at the same time noting more importantly, the records that were not or could not be produced, although required by State statutes and/or their own by-laws, I believe there are certain conclusions that can be drawn, at this time.

The conclusions as to the alleged debt of SIDC to THC for reimbursement of paid operating expenses, and accumulated between fiscal year 2002 thru 2008, can be separated between SIDC and the City of Savannah as they relate to Hardin County and/or Team Hardin County, Inc., and can be summarized as follows:

The first conclusion that can be made is that there is no documentation, of any kind, in the records provided by Team Hardin County (THC) that demonstrates that there was ever any consideration or approval, by anyone, of any transfer to SIDC, or to anyone else, of any funds that THC held in a restricted trust for the benefit the Hardin County Tourism and Convention Bureau (CVB).

There is no record of the Board of Directors of SIDC or CVB authorizing THC to expend any funds, to anybody, over and above the approved and funded budget. In the case of SIDC the necessary approval of the source of funds for SIDC would be the City of Savannah, who owns and is responsible for SIDC. In the case of the use of the CVB surplus funds, it would be Hardin County government, specifically, the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Directors of CVB.

The custodian of all of the funds of all of the member entities of Team Hardin County, at all times, was, and is, the CEO of THC, on behalf of the Board of Directors of Team Hardin County, Inc. and managed in accordance with the adopted by-laws of THC and it’s Corporate Non-Profit Charter from the State of Tennessee along with it’s federal 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.

The Records Reflect: The first unauthorized transfer of CVB funds by THC during this period was made by the then CEO, Mr. Jerry Hunt in fiscal year 2002. But, it required at least one of the designated board members for signatures on the general fund checking account.

The CVB ended fiscal year 2002 with surplus revenue (hotel/motel tax collections) of approximately $4,500 over and above what THC was obligated to pay for the budgeted operating expenses of CVB. These unauthorized transfers have continued each year through December 2008, when $11,206 surplus funding was received by CVB. This was down from the high of $30,602 in surplus funds in 2007.

As of March 2009, SIDC was $71,293 behind in reimbursement of operating expenditures to THC. CVB was $73,445 ahead of reimbursements to THC, allegedly for future expenses. Neither SIDC nor CVB have checking accounts and THC holds and/or disburses all co-mingled funds from a centralized general fund account.

Team Hardin County, Inc., has no budget or income, no expenses, and yet serves as THE Joint Economic Community and Development Board of Hardin County, (JECDB), or a state approved "similar" organization. This ‘Board’ is state mandated, if Hardin County and/or any of the municipalities in Hardin County want to be qualified and/or eligible for ANY state grant. The statutes also mandates that the County Mayor and City Manager of Savannah each play a major role in the formation and operation of the JECDB.

The research results also revealed what should be considered a major problem area, over and above who owes who what, how much and why. There seems to be a major flaw in the way THC and Hardin County function as a Joint Economic Community and Development Board (JECDB), or a "Sufficiently Similar" organization, as intended by the Tennessee General Assembly or even the by-laws of Team Hardin County, which the Chairmen of the Board admits are, "generaly ignored."

Submitted for your consideration,

Ted

Research Summary of SIDC loan to Hunt Consulting Company, Inc., et.al.

What follows is a partial summary of an open research projected, requested by the Chairman of the Board of SIDC, in order to document the properness of the loan of the federal funds on behalf of SIDC and the Board. Since the research involved only documents available to the public it meets the criteria for informing the public of public infomation.

Records Summary - Loan to Jerry Hunt , et.al., by SIDC of the City of Savannah, TN

(Note: Hunt was the incorporator and former CEO of Team Hardin County, Inc. and CEO of all of their member entities, including SIDC).

On February 19, 2009, a committee of Southwest Tennessee Development District in Jackson, TN, with Jerry Hunt, (also an employee of SWTDD) in attendance, approved a loan to Hunt Consulting Company two ways. First as a SMOB program loan and in the event the SMOB program did not have the funds available, the loan was also approved as an IRP loan. (The IRP program is funded through USDA Rural Development using federal funding.)

It is alleged that Hunt’s employment with SWTDD might have a potential conflict of interest problem and recommended the loan be funded through SIDC in Hardin County where the project is located.

On March 16, 2009, the Board of Directors of Savannah Industrial Development Corporation (SIDC) considered and approved the USDA-IRP loan application of Hunt Consulting Company, Inc., (HCCI) dba Fulton Hunt B & B for $75,000 for the renovation of a residence at 1430 Clifton Rd. Savannah, TN, operating capital and purchase of furnishing.

(Loan app.) - Company formed in early 2004 - contracted consulting engagements with 6 organizations. (Note: The borrower, HCCI, was chartered and formed as a domestic for-profit Tennessee corporation on March 3, 2009). The proceeds of the loan - the purchase of assets and working capital for borrower’s consulting business.

(Business plan) - Project is located on 17 acres.

(SIDC Minutes of March 16, 2009) - This application for loan funds at $75,000 at 3.0 percent interest for five (5) years is for the renovation of the residence and purchase of furnishings. . .

Special Note: The total cost of the project was projected to exceed $150,000 ($75,000 IRP loan and $75,000 equity, i.e. "Furnishings") and the loan would create seven (7) new jobs over a 24 month period. The one year time frame for hiring four new persons began April 1, 2009 and the remaining three new persons hired during the next twelve months.

The amortization schedule was $1,347.65 p/month for 60 months with 1st payment - May1,2009.

To approve the project, the Board of Directors, by statute, had to determined the loan request fit the criteria for eligible loan projects and meets the SIDC requirements of not more than 75 percent of the project cost or $15,000 per new job created over 24 months.

The loan was to be collateralized by the land and residence, the furnishings therein and the personal guarantees of the owners, Jane Fulton Hunt and Jerry D. Hunt. The loan committee of SIDC had met and approved to move forward with the loan pending additional collateral of four (4) lots located at Points of Pickwick in Hardin County. The loan was approved on March 16, 2009.

On March 17, 2009, SIDC executed the statutorily required assignment of collateral to USDA Rural Development.

Some 90 days after funding the loan, on June 20, 2009, Jane F. Hunt and Jerry Hunt on behalf of Hunt Consulting Company, Inc., executed the final version of the IRP Loan Fund Application. The house and property were listed with a local Realtor for sale as residence or business.

The Do Over

About two weeks later, on July 10, 2009, at the request of the Hunts and with the concurrence of the USDA in the Jackson TN office (Mr. Billy Lane), the SIDC Board of Directors held a special called meeting (via internet and/or telephone) and approved "A motion to approve the release the 9 acres and approved the reclassification of the loan from an IRP equipment and working capital loan to a real estate loan."

On July 20, 2009, SIDC, amended the note and trust deed to released their second mortgage on 9 acres of land, reclassified the loan as "a real estate loan" and approved a revised 15 year amortization schedule. There was no monetary consideration to SIDC. The new amortization schedule was for $517.94 p/month for 15 years with 1st payment - retroactive to April 1, 2009.

The 9 acres were immediately transferred to Jane Hunt’s ex-husband, Mike Martin, for $112,500. The proceeds of this sale were distributed as follows: Central Bank - $61,000 principal payment on $341,000 first mortgage loan that had matured and was up for renewal; Central Bank - $22,772 accrued interest; Central Bank - $10,000 to pay off a vehicle loan; and Jerry &Jane Hunt - $18,728 for reimbursement of over budget expenses on B&B project.

The stated rational for reclassifying the loan type was - "since over $60,000 of the SIDC’s loan was actually used to improve the real property, the Hunts are requesting the SIDC loan be reclassified as a real estate loan rather than equipment and working capital. This will change the amortization period from 7 (actually 5) years to 15 years."

(Pending fact verification - there is a real question if USDA Rural Development IRP funds can be used for this type of ‘real estate’ loan, because the property was not being purchased as part of the project, i.e. the B&B, and would no longer fit the criteria for eligible loan projects . Did Jerry Hunt have knowledge of the IRP restrictions?)

Shortly thereafter, a UCC was filed with the state, by an SIDC employee, to release SIDC’s security interest on "the furnishings therein." SIDC received no consideration for this release and the release of the collateral was not addressed or approved by the Board of Directors of SIDC. It was made at the direction of the Hunts attorney who had also prepared all of the incorporation and loan documents, including the March funding of the IRP loan.

There is no record of USDA Rural Development ever releasing their assigned security interest in the 9 acres or "the furnishings therein." That could be a problem.

The Bankruptcy

On October 27, 2009, Jerry D. and Jane Fulton Hunt file Chapter-13 Bankruptcy in Jackson, TN with the nature of the debts as primarily consumer debts, defined in 11U.S.C. 1101(8) as ‘incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose."

The filings reflect assets of $327,749.28 and liabilities of $713,845.64. Included in the liabilities are credit cards (AmEx and Visa) $105,223; Various casinos around the country - $26,000; and $10,405 in unpaid construction and furnishing creditors for the B & B project.

Current Status

On November 24, 2009, the SIDC Board met in a called meeting to consider an offer from Mike Martin, who also holds a 3rd mortgage on the property of about $67,000, to purchase the house and property for $300,000 which would pay off the first mortgage and apply approximately $18,000 toward the SIDC loan. This would leave the SIDC with approximately $55,000 against the four lots at Pickwick.

The board voted to reject the Martin offer and elected to proceed, subject to the approval of the U. S. Bankruptcy Court, to foreclosure on their 2nd mortgage on the house, land and furnishings and their 1st mortgage on the lots at Pickwick. Central Bank agreed to loan SIDC the necessary funds to clear the first mortgage and help protect the SIDC position.

The Blind Leading The Blind In Hardin County

Amended Readers Write Submission to The Courier for October 21, 2009

The article on the front page of The Courier a couple of weeks ago about the County Commissions’ refusal to pass a simple housekeeping resolution calling for an election as the result of a successfully filed and certified petition, concerned me because I didn’t get to attend the ‘special called meeting’ due to a prior commitment and didn't get to observe these folks in action.

I have since listened to the audio recording of that meeting several times and intend to have it transcribed and certified as part of the "that’s just the way we do it in Hardin County" history. It’s a classic, no kidding.

The Notice of the special meeting was called by Mayor Davis to direct the election commission to conduct an election. The statutes clearly mandate that "no other business but that embraced in the call shall be transacted during the sitting of the special term."

I have said for year that if you want to see the simplest of tasks really messed-up, just let Mayor Davis exercise his leadership skill set as Chairmen of the Hardin County Board of County Commissioners and then watch some of the Commissioners follow him right out of bounds.

The recent "special meeting" of the County Commission, aka our Local Legislative Body, is just the latest example the Mayor’s leadership skill set and his general lack of knowledge of the statutes resulting in several violations of state statutes and local ordinances, again.

Thank goodness the general assembly seems to have anticipated this obstructionist type of action on the part of the local legislative body and wrote into the law that if the local legislative body doesn’t act on the request for the election within 30 days of certification, the petition becomes the required resolution for the election commission to hold the election within a given time frame.

Remember that "no other business" thing, mandated by the Tennessee statutes.

Instead - The Mayor had a better idea:

Mayor Davis: "Commissioners, I would inform you , tonight we are here to talk about the debt, the funding, how are we going to fund the debt, is really what the issue is at hand. Other issues as far as regards to schools are behind us but the debt the county has incurred 30 million dollars is before us and that’s what we are here to talk about. How do we fund it, if we rescind the 1cent sales tax or use other revenues."

Commissioner Jerrolds: I disagree with you. You said we were here to discuss how we are going to fund this, we’re here because a petition signed by enough registered voter of this county to caused an election to rescind this tax. That’s why were here.

[Commissioner Jerrolds was right on, but the County Attorney still cleared a motion to not rescind the one-cent sales tax and twelve of the Commissioners present followed the attorney and mayor right out of bounds.]

What we appear to have is an ill informed County Mayor, enabled by an uninformed County Attorney, who mis-informed the mostly unprepared and confused Board of County Commissioners.

Man-Up - Readers Writes - The Courier - July 23, 2009

As my teenage grandsons might say, it is time for the Hardin County Commission to "Man-Up" and fund the school building program and quit trying to put a guilt trip on the taxpayers of the city of Savannah, our county seat. You’ve used them for a crutch long enough.

Even the State of Tennessee has observed and reported that Hardin County, based on its fiscal capacity, has been under-funding education for the children of Hardin County for decades.

After reading the front page of last week’s Courier and in particular Hardin County Director of Schools John Thomas’ comments, there can be no question that there has been a major "failure to communicate" between the county mayor, board of education and the city of Savannah.

You know, one of the side benefits of attending all of the meetings that I attend is that you get to observe how these folks discuss and decide the issues they face, first hand.

First, lets talk about Thomas’ politically naive opinions and comments as expressed in the paper last week. It is obvious that he is relying not on research but on the rhetoric being put forth by the county mayor and a lot of the folks on the county commission.

Thomas and the board of education did their job when they developed the best plan they could and presented that plan to the county commission for funding.

As my preacher father used to say, however, Thomas has quit preaching and gone to meddling when he starts opining on how the building program should, or should not, be paid for and his views on the 1997 local option sales tax increase.

One should remember that the newspaper ads promoting the sales tax referendum were put out by the school board, not the county commission or the city of Savannah. If the citizens were mislead by anyone, it would be at the hand of the board of education.

Thomas has been preaching that the plan developed by the board of education at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars is the plan Hardin County needs to ensure that every child has an equal opportunity for a first class education.

Now he opines that he would not ask the county commission to raise property taxes, but instead may cut the building program to keep it within the money allocated by the county if the city of Savannah elects not to agree to relinquish their one-half share of the 1997 sales tax increase or the city is not allowed to change it’s River Resort District status.

If we have to cut about 20 percent of the cost of the building program you reduce that equal access and opportunity factor or the plans were over-developed.

Thomas, obviously speaking for Hardin County government, further opines that Savannah declining to help with the latest building program "would go against all precedent and previous administrations" and "against the expressed wishes and desired of the city commissioners that signed the contract that enabled us to renovate Hardin County High School."

Well now, one could also speculate that the precedents, expressed wishes and desires of previous administrations has not always represented the best interest of the citizens of Savannah but has consistently allowed the other county citizens, who live outside Savannah, to enjoy one of the lowest property tax rates in the state while at the same time requiring both deferred maintenance of Savannah’s infrastructure and increases in the property tax rate for the citizens of Savannah, just to provide minimal services.

If one does just a little research into the public records, one would determine that for the last several decades, at least as long as we have had a local option sales taxes for school constructions, the county commission, as stated in their own resolutions, wouldn’t have to increase the property taxes on all the citizens of Hardin County to construct county schools, if Savannah just relinquishes their share of the sales taxes.

Mr. Thomas then says Savannah itself "represents less than 30 percent of the total population of Hardin County, yet collects almost 70 percent of all sales taxes collected in the entire county" and continues that "obviously, those funds are coming from more that just the residents of Savannah."

One would have to ask, so what? Savannah taxpayers also pays for 100 percent of the cost of services to the folks that generate the sales taxes. Hardin County makes no contribution for police and fire protection, street maintenance, animal services, water or sewer or anything else.

I wonder if Thomas knows that for every $7 contributed by the city of Savannah taxpayers to pay for the high school upgrade Hardin County taxpayers contributed only $2.78.

When last examined, the tax assessor’s records reflect that 36 percent of the property tax bills, representing about 25 percent of all the property taxes collected in Hardin County, are mailed to folks outside the county.

Here is another interesting figure. For city taxpayers to replace the $425,000 Thomas and the county commission want relinquished, Savannah would have to increase its property tax rate by 37-1/2 cents. For all of the property taxpayers in the county, which includes the citizens of Savannah, the county property tax rate would have to be increased just 7-1/2 cents.

But then again that might elevate the county all the way up to the third lowest property tax rate in the State of Tennessee.

If the county wants to keep dipping into Savannah’s resources to fund the county’s obligations, they should give some serious consideration to changing the form of government in Hardin County to metro government.

Come on county commission, "man-up" and take care of your obligations to provide the children of Hardin County decent and safe facilities for the best chance at an equal opportunity for a first class education in Hardin County. Our economic and community development future depend on it.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Ted G. Cook
Hard Rock Road

Hardin County Animal Services Update

Suprise, Surprise -- There Are No Surprises for Hardin County Animal Services

In last weeks' politically correct Courier article about the City of Savannah moving forward with major improvements to their bare-bones Animal Control Department operations, they note that ‘The issue [animal control service] appears to have been dropped in recent month or at least put on the back burner by the county commission.’

Well, with their slash and burn actions earlier this year, the county commission has done all the damage they can on the issue. The Animal Services Department, as designed by the County Commission, has been in the hands of Mayor Davis, at least since the first of July this year.

Surprise, surprise –– there are no surprises when it comes to Hardin County Animal Services. As it has been over the last 4 years, it has been and is a sham and window-dressing.

For at least the last four years, the county commission has only approved token funds in the budget for 'animal control' in order for the commissioners to be able to tell the citizens that "we have animal control in Hardin County." But, the fact is, not the first penny has been spent over the last 4 years, by the county, to remove a stray or dangerous animals from the community or to operate even a minimal animal control program, let alone a modern one .

While it is true that the county commissioners approved a budget, in June of this year, that doubled last years funding for an animal services department and have purchased a pick-up to haul it around in, the Mayor, under whose office the department is suppose to operate, has taken no action to actually stand up or operate any department or programs.

In fact, Mayor Davis has only given lip service to any progress. The mayor has been quoted in past articles in the Courier as saying that there is progress ‘going on behind the scenes.’ Say what?

First I would point out that ‘behind the scenes’ and an open government, also know as ‘the Sunshine Laws’ can never be balanced in a representative democracy.

But then again the concerned commissioners that I have talked to don’t seem to know what, if any, progress is being made. This ‘progress’ must be way ‘behind the scene’ if even the commissioners themselves don’t know what it is.

Even after the under-handed rejection of the work of the joint task force they called The Hardin County Animal Control Committee, the mayor and some of the commissioners, in their dreams, are still holding out hope that the some concerned citizens and/or the City of Savannah will come to the rescue of the county, again, and maybe even do their job for them and pay for it.

Been there, done that and got slapped down –– I don’t think the folks who put almost a years worth of work in developing an outline for a minimal service program for the county, want any more of that. It’s past time for Mayor Davis and the County Commission to wake up and do their own jobs.

What ever happened to our founding fathers concept of ‘The Lord Helps Them That Helps Themselves?’

The Mayor has not even ran an ad for anyone to work in the department, let alone hired anyone and the county commissioners have not seen fit to addressed the issue at any of their meetings. I suspect that is because when they try to budget the approved funds into an operating budget, the budgeted funds won’t even cover their ‘dog catcher’ version of animal control.

At least one of the commissioners has recently been quoted as saying that, ‘maybe if we don’t do anything’, (as they have done in the past) ‘the problem will go away or the citizens will get tired of fussing about it.’ Dream on commissioner!!

To be fair and balanced, the only real improvement, if you went to call it that, has been in the Sheriff’s Department. Despite having no support from the mayor’s office, in the form an animal control officer, program or facility, the Sheriff has been more receptive to enforcing the at-large statutes, when property damage has occurred, and has actually had his deputies present aggravated animal cruelty cases to the district attorney’s office for prosecution.

Whether the district attorney can actually succeed in prosecuting the cases may well be another story, but the Sheriff’s Department seems to have taken more of the complaints of the citizens seriously and acted upon more of them. Maybe Sheriff Davidson recognizes, as the county’s Chief Law Enforcement Officer, that these are laws on the books and they must be enforced, even if our County Government doesn’t have any rabies/animal control programs.

After four months of this current sham and lip service, let us take the ball back in the court of the citizens, only this time we should not stop demanding that our county government do something positive about a rabies/animal control program until they actually prove to us that they are serious about resolving the problems associated with not having this vital safety and welfare service in place for the benefit of the citizens.

We all know, and so should they, that unless sufficient resources are put into the problem, which must of course must include some kind of shelter, the problem will continue to exist. This sham and window-dressing on the part of the county commission and continued lip service by Mayor Davis must stop and positive progress must be made, sooner rather than later.

It is time for the responsible citizens to get back to work and make it happen this time, for real, with the realization that, based on their past history, our local government is not going to do it themselves in any meaningful way, unless the citizens take some action to put it back on the front burner and turn up the heat to high, again.

Let the phones calls, letters and personal contacts begin, again.

If the mayor and commissioners don’t think that the stray animals problems are a real problem, they should know that a large number of discontented concerned responsible citizens are. In fact, if they like their jobs, these type of folks can become a major problem for their future employment.

To paraphrase our Declaration of Independence - If something is wrong in our government, those that can do something about it, have a duty and responsibility to do it.

The citizens of Hardin County, which include the citizens of Savannah and the other municipalities, can and therefore have a duty and responsibility to do something about the lack of real concern by the mayor and county commission about the animal welfare problems in the county.

Let’s roll! Bring your lunch and plan on staying until the job is done right this time around.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Uncle Ted

Responsible Citizens

Let's set the stage for 2010

Now that the, as some have said was one of our most important, elections are finally over and the national and state stages are set for the next two to four years, it is now time to start thinking about setting the stage for, what I would say, is going to be one of the most important elections for Tennessee, in general, and for Hardin County, in particular, in August 2010.

In just 21 months the citizens are going to be voting on whether to maintain our status quo of plantation mentality or to move the county in a more positive direction toward a true representative democracy . We will decide who is going to be setting and executing policy in Hardin County, thru 2014, with the county general elections.

The mayor, the Board of County Commissioners and most of the other elected officials, if they want to be re-elected, will have to stand before the citizens and account for their stewardship of our county government, which includes the citizens safety and welfare.

The question will be asked, have our public servants, our mayor and commissioners in particular, served with a servant’s heart or a master’s heart. We’ll have more on that subject in future articles at the appropriate time.

But first, there are a few points that need to made about the citizens stewardship of their duties and responsibilities in a representative democracy. Remember that we were taught in Sunday School that the Lord helps them that helps themselves.

The questions you can ask yourself about yourself – and be honest – is "Am I a responsible member of the community and a responsible citizens?" "When I do cast a vote, am I well informed about the issues and/or candidates?"

Some will say that with their busy lives they don’t have the time to participate. Some will say that it doesn’t matter, because they will do what they want to and "I don’t have the time to get involved." Some will say, let someone else keep up with that, I don’t have the time.
There is a saying in free societies: "You get the government you deserve."

In our grade 6-8 citizenship classes our children are taught that the most important right citizens have is the right to vote and that by voting, the people have a voice in the government because the people decide who will represent them in ‘their’ government.

They are also taught that the right to vote is a duty or responsibility as well as a privilege and that persons who do not vote lose their voice in government. Most important, these 6-8 graders are taught that before voting in an election, each citizen should be well informed about the issues and candidates.

Assuming you graduated from the 8th grade, in these citizenship classes you were also taught that, between election, to be responsible members of your communities, you can volunteer your services to help obtain needed improvements. The citizens can offer their knowledge, time and talents to different local organization or committees and that participating in town meetings, public hearing and community projects, like Hardin Metro SPCA among others, is important for community improvement and for finding out the problems that need to be solved.

To help in this area we are rolling out a new project that is designed to help inform the citizens about some of the key issues facing Hardin County. We have named Phase 1 of the project – Uplift Hardin County – with the goal to provide the citizens of Hardin County with an insight into key issues that impact our County and thus our families.

While we are developing and prioritizing the key issues, we will be using the various media outlets and other vehicles, including a web presence and discussion groups, to get the citizens input on the key issues and advise them how they can help determine the outcome.

Our mission is to be fair and balanced by providing all sides on key issues and becoming a reliable source for useful information for the citizens to make informed decisions about the current and future direction of our community and their role in it.

"Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much." Helen Keller

Respectfully submitted for your consideration


Ted G. Cook

To Be or Not To Be - Readers Write 3/27 - The Courier

In last week’s Courier, I was quoted as saying that I was "sorely disappointed" in the outcome of the recent Board of Commissioners monthly meeting. Well, duh!

"Sorely Disappointed" may have been the politically correct way of expressing it , but, it does not even come close to expressing my frustration with some of our county commissioners.

What really ticks me off is their naivete in the political bushwhacking of a year or so’s worth of sincere effort by some dedicated folks to address the long neglected animal welfare problems of Hardin County, in a meaningful and progressive way.

You want to talk about taking three steps forward and then getting knocked back, you should be trying to keep up with the proposed development of animal welfare in Hardin County, especially after the March meeting of the Hardin County Board of Commissioners.

It is said that "a thousand words will not leave so deep an impression as one deed." That has never been so true as it has with the way about half of our county commissioners have handled the development of even a minimal animal control program for Hardin County. A lot of rhetorical words and no action.

Talk about a dysfunctional and confusing organization. There have been several times over the last few years when the chairman of the county commission (Mayor Davis) has felt it was necessary to advise me that the Thursday night planning meeting was the time to discuss the pros or cons of the business on the agenda, and the Monday night regular meeting was the time to vote or take whatever action they were going to take. He usually backs it up with a two minute egg timer.

I must have gone through a time warp. The matter before the commission this month was for discussion and possible action on the unanimous recommendation of the Animal Control Committee that a full-time director of animal services be hired to work with the committee to create a working, affordable program.

On Thursday night there was not the first comment from any of the commissioners, except Commissioner Bryant’s inquiry as to whether or not they were going to vote on it tonight. I’m not sure of the reasoning behind the question, but you would have thought that after all this time Commissioner Bryant would know that the voting takes place on Monday, not at the planning meeting on Thursday.

A little history might be in order. If you will remember, after several of negative ads and Readers Writes articles in The Courier last year, animal control was finally put on the commission’s agenda in July with the budgeting of $50,000 and appointment of a Hardin County Animal Control Committee, with representation from both the public and private sectors.

The whole purpose of having representation from both the public and private sector was to remove politics from the equation and come up with the best people and affordable programs possible to establish a meaningful and functional animal welfare operation in Hardin County.

Guess what? It didn’t work.

This committee is composed of the county mayor and three members of the Hardin County Commission, three members representing the City of Savannah, and one member from the Hardin County Health Department, Horse Creek Wildlife and Animal Sanctuary and the Hardin Metro SPCA.

Without going into a lot of details of their recommendations here, suffice it to say, the end result was a lengthy comprehensive report, including executive reviews of extensive reference material that presented the obvious results.

That obvious goal was to change the behaviors of our residents by encouraging the community, including our local governments, to abide by or obey state law, to care properly for its animals and spay and neutering is the answer to animal control .

Little did they know, or didn’t want to say, that changing the behavior of some of our county commissioners by separating politics from progress was also going to be critical. The commissioners all took an oath of office to uphold the laws of the state of Tennessee, but some of them have their own personal agenda instead of the citizens’ agenda.

It is sad to say, but, several of the commissioners admitted at, or after, the December meeting that they had not even read the report and voted against it because they didn’t understand it.

Commissioner Stacey Stricklin and Commissioner Wally Hamilton, who supported the committee’s recommendation to put a director of animal services in place to develop a program at the commission meeting in December, seem to have come out of a coma to become a pot-hole obstacle in getting an effective animal services department started in Hardin County, sooner rather than later.

Commissioner Stricklin, along with Commissioner Jerrolds and others, now contend it is inappropriate to hire a director without already having a fully designated animal control plan in place. That’s a complete 180 on the chicken or the egg question.

When asked by one of the other commissioners, just who on the county commission is supposed to put the animal control plan together, Commissioner Stricklin, who voted to establish the Animal Control Committee, replied, "the Budget Committee, I guess." Now that is a scary thought. This is the same committee that bushwhacked the last animal control efforts by the county. Their solution would probably be, "Here is $10 dollars, go make it work or get the private citizens to pay for it."

Commissioner "Get-A-Shotgun Animal Control" Cagle, who opposes the use of any county funds for any animal control program, seems to think that animal control should be funded by the community "holding fund-raisers and be operated by volunteers, like the Hardin County Fire Department does." He must have forgotten that the Hardin County Fire Department has a full time fire chief (director) and support staff. I think that is what one would call forced reasoning.

Then you have Commissioners "Jam-Up" Bryant and Jerrolds who still seem to have an issue with consolidating the schools in their district and have assumed the roles of obstructionists, even though they both profess their concern for stray animals and animal welfare.

Commissioner Jimmy G. Grisham professes that there are no animal problems in District 5, which is the Morris Chapel area. This could be because some of his family members are in the animal breeding business and he fears the suggested registration and licencing of breeders of dogs—or that he wouldn’t recognize an animal problem if a rabid stray was chewing on his leg.

After all was said and done, although nine of the commissioners present voted against the recommendation of the Animal Control Committee nominee, five of the same commissioners voted against Commissioner Howard’s nominee, too.

If you would like to see the complete recap of the commissioners’ vote, you can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheNewSavannahJournal/. I think you will find it, as Mr. Pickard noted, "at best a fiasco."

Speaking of Mr. Pickard—a private citizen with a deep seated passion for animal welfare in Hardin County, who puts his money where his mouth is—has paid for 6,573 animals, as of the end of February, to be spayed or neutered for the citizens of Hardin County.

Can you imagine the animal population of Hardin County if Mr. and Mrs Pickard, through Horse Creek Wildlife and Animal Sanctuary, had not volunteered this help to the citizens of Hardin County? Especially since low cost spay and neutering is one of the recognized essential programs in any effective public animal control program by our local government.

In closing, I would challenge all those citizens who have taken advantage of Mr. and Mrs. Pickard’s generosity, or have an appreciation of their effort, to step out of the shadows and contact your county commissioner to demand that an Animal Services Department be established and fully funded by Hardin County government, sooner rather than later.

Respectfully Submitted for Your Consideration.

Uncle Ted

The County Commissioners Do It Again.

From Page 1 of the Courier - March 20, 2008 - RON SCHAMING--News Editor -

Headline - Animal control proposal falls apart - Privately funded spay-neuter program canceled in frustration

A plan to establish an animal control department self-destructed Monday as members of the Hardin County Commission balked at the hiring of a director.

Commissioners had earlier agreed to advertise the job, with an expectation from an appointed study committee that once the post was filled, the director would work with the committee to create a working, affordable program. That proposed program would then be presented to the full commission for consideration and funding in the coming fiscal year.

It all fell apart, however, when insufficient votes materialized to hire either the study committee’s handpicked recommendation, former Florida police sergeant Kevin Skoffic, or Commissioner Charles Howard’s nominee with local roots, Debby Blackwelder.

With two of the 20 members absent and 10 votes needed, Blackwelder received four and Skoffic nine.

The failure prompted Hardin County’s most notable animal protection philanthropist, Ron Pickard of Horse Creek Wildlife Sanctuary and Animal Shelter, to suspend its free county-wide spay and neuter program, "Control Animal Population," or CAP, effective April 1.

"The whole thing, from my perspective, was that it was at best a fiasco," Pickard said Tuesday afternoon in a telephone interview from Florida. "Last night, a number of commissioners tried to play politics with it."

Pickard, who serves on the animal control study committee, said Horse Creek has spent $375,000 on CAP since its inception six years ago, and credits the program with slowly reducing the number of unwanted cats and dogs in Hardin County.

"I just can’t sit there every month and write a check knowing how these (commissioners) think," he said.

Commissioner and animal control committee member Adam Coleman’s nomination of Skoffic, who now lives in Hardin County and works in retail, ran into rough water when Commissioner Stacey Stricklin attempted to table the matter but withdrew his motion after discussion.

Stricklin, along with Commissioner Mike Jerrolds, contended it was inappropriate to hire a director without already having a fully designed animal control plan in place.

"The purpose of hiring a director is to set that direction," Coleman answered.

Months ago, commissioners were given a thick, detailed notebook compiled by the animal control committee addressing issues involved in implementing an animal control program. The estimated first-year price tag was $175,000.

Pickard contends that handbook was the general animal control plan.

"They either can’t read or didn’t read it," he bristled.

Ted Cook, interim director for the Hardin-Metro Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he was "sorely disappointed" in the outcome of Monday’s meeting.

"Whoever is going to be running the department is the best person to develop it" with the county animal control committee, he said.

But, "we’re not going to give up. We’ve still got to have animal welfare," he said.

Tuesday, Mayor Kevin Davis said there is no doubt in his mind that county residents require animal control services. He predicts the setback does not spell the death of discussion on the issue.

In accordance with the objections of the dissenting commissioners, he said the new immediate goal is to work to develop a concrete, fully detailed animal program for consideration, including written authorization to use the Savannah Animal Control Department’s facilities. Only after that is accomplished will hiring a director be on the agenda.

The mayor said he now hopes to have the issues resolved in time to be included in the 2008-09 budget, which starts July 1. Last week, he hoped to have an operational animal control program in place by mid-April.

End of Article

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Uncle Ted