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

Letter to Editor - The Courier - Condone Theft of County Property

Local Officials Condone Theft of County Propery

For you folks that don't feel the need to look into public affairs in Hardin County for yourself, what follows is the results of a lot of homework and research.

Respectfully submitted for your consideratoion,

Uncle Ted

The COURIER
Letters to the Editor
Pg 2A

Despite a state audit and finding that illegal activity and cover-up of theft of county property was condoned by “management of the solid waste department” (Hardin County Mayor Kevin Davis and Randy Etheridge), a documented fabrication to the media, and falsification of public records to cover up the fabrication (i.e. lie) by Davis concerning animal control moving forward, neither has been held accountable.

Left to their own devices, they likely won’t, because our Board of Sanitation, the Board of County Commissioners, the county attorney, the district attorney and the sheriff all have ratified and condoned this illegal activity by their wink-and-nod and inactivity for at least the last two years.

The Board of Commissioners, despite the current state of affairs, re-elected Mayor Davis chairman of the board at their September meeting. They did this because not the first one of them was willing to step up and take the job. None of them seems to have the time and it might actually prevent them from hiding, like cowards, behind Mayor Davis, as if he is the only one responsible for allowing the corruption in his office to continue.

The best excuse of the whole sordid affair was by Mayor Davis, at the commissioners’ February meeting, when he responded to the question by Commissioner Jenkins, “Has anyone been disciplined or punished?”

Mayor Davis retorted that the audit and investigation results did not identify anyone specifically, by name, so no one has been disciplined or fired for the actual theft of county property or for management ratifying or condoning the thefts.

The really sad thing about the whole mess is that the commissioners seem to say, “O.K., sounds good to us, nothing for us to do, the mayor is going to deal with it as soon as someone ferrets out the names of the managers of the Hardin County Solid Waste Department.” That’s lame.

Since I was the one who in July 2010 filed the complaint with the comptroller, DA, assistant district attorney and Sheriff Sammy Davidson that led to the comptroller’s investigation, I’m here to tell you that I named Mayor Davis, Randy Etheridge and the county commission as the officials who were aware of the theft of the county’s scrap metal and the cover-up that was taking place.

The comptroller’s investigation files are considered work product and are not public records, at this time; they will not release those files. Be that as it may, my files are not public records, either, but I have no problem with releasing the complaint. The long and the short of it is, the investigation results confirm the allegations in my complaint.

Some of the employees had taken scrap metal, sold it and kept the money. Management of the department was aware of, and in fact encouraged, the theft and refused to take any corrective action. Their problem with corrective action against those responsible is that the county commissioners are apparently waiting for Mayor Davis to discipline himself since they refuse to honor their oath of office for fidelity to the Constitution and the law.

I for one am not going to stand by and just wait for our “leaders” to end the corruption in the mayor’s office and the Board of County Commissioners. Now that my physical issues have stabilized and seem to be under control and the corrupt affair in Hardeman County has been kicked down the road until after the first of the year, there will be time to deal with these folks, and the state, which has also been sitting on its hands.

Question: What happens when our mayor all 20 commissioners, the DA, assistant DA and county attorney violate their oath of office? They are about to find out.

Ted G Cook
Savannah

Should The State and County Be Subject to the Law

Should The State AND County Be Subject to the Law?

Without law no state and/or county could exist. No nation. No county government . No international force. No state and/or county of any kind can exist without laws, for it is by laws that states and/or counties are created.

This maxim teaches us that, just as the state and county are created by laws, so the state and county must be subject to law.

And, of course, every state and county should be subject to these principles of law … for only by the principles of law can we judge the state as just or unjust, wise or foolish, strong or weak.

The old saying, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” comes to mind. Only the government willing to submit to law is justified to require others to submit to its power … for its power derives solely from law.

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 this maxim of law. Such governments are unjust, and their leadership should be changed immediately for the sake of the people whom they are charged by these maxims of law to protect.

How can the exercise of power be justified in the hands of a government that is, itself, lawless? It cannot. The exercise of state power is only legitimate to the extent that the state itself submits to legal principles, of which the maxims of law are supreme. No state has a lawful right to act outside its own laws – nor does any state have the right to create laws that violate the maxims of law. This should be obvious.

The legal maxims are self-evident to everyone but those who for selfish reasons refuse to submit their private interests to the good of all.

It is self-evident that states should be subject to the law, yet news reports today are too frequently peppered with stories about government action that is contrary to the most fundamental laws of the land … and clearly contrary to these maxims!

What is the answer?  It’s simple. You can do it yourself. You Can Make a Difference.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Uncle Ted

Pretend Suspension of John Thomas

The Board of Education Is Blowing Smoke

If you look in the Courier this week on page 8A in the upper left hand corner you will see a picture. It is about the Parris South DARE graduation. Found it yet?

What really tickes me off about the picture is that our Board of Education  is allowing John Thomas to represent them in public, standing their in his slender, with our Chief County Law Enforcement Officer and his Chief Deputy, no less, celebrating a crime prevention training progrem graduation for out kids. 

I thought the dude was “suspended” with pending criminal charges. I even looked up the word suspended in my dictionary, so I know what the word means. I couldn’t find anything about pretend suspend. Either one is or one isn’t. There is no in between.

Yet the Board of Education still allows him to represent the BOE, our School System and all those that are affiliated with the school system and himself as “Director” of Schools.  I just can not get my head around that.

This in name only suspension is smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors to the tenth degree. The man has not been suspended, it is just a pretend suspension. Our Board of Education, those with the oversight responsibility, are just giving us citizens lip service, feeding us a bunch of hot air and trying to keep us in the dark.

Let's see, that must come under policy setting and enforcement 101 in Hardin County Board of Education operating manual. Along with the tried and true “Well, that is just the way we do it in Hardin County.

The days of that kind of attitude must be numbered and counted down, starting now. Mr Fowler has been and is doing the heavy lifting on this one. I have been tied up with  business and the county commission and their pretend animal control effots, but it is time to relieve the concerns of the citizens, so to Mr. Fowler, help is on the way.  Let's get-er-done.

Note my friends at the Courier - First, at this time, I would refrain from calling him any kind of community leader, that insults the real community leaders. Second-the next time you publish a picture of him associated with the Hardin County School System, would you please identify him correctly as John Thomas, Suspended with Pending Criminal Charges Director Schools congratulates anyone, especially when they are associated with our young and impressionable DARE graduates. I’m sure young Ben Brown will be real proud to have that one in has scrapbook.

 
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
 
Uncle Ted
 

Metalgate in Hardin County - Courier Readers Write fm Dec 2010

Comptroller says, they took it and management know about it.  Stay tuned.

        * * * * * * * *

12/11/10
Readers Write Article

In last weeks front page story about the State digging for dirt in our garbage, didn’t the Manager of the County’s Waste Management Department, Mr. Randy Etheridge admitted, 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 Waste Management Department in Hardin County, TN, 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 also be of note that the authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for a Class E felony, is not less than one (1) year nor more than six (6) years. In addition, the jury may assess a fine not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000), unless otherwise provided by statute. Plus facing the reality of the branding of a convicted felon for the rest of your life.

Was that not one of the lamest reason for the retaliatory firing 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 like dome of silence and as protocol sometimes requires, reported the crime and retaliation to the County Commissioner that represented his district, for hopefully 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, but not if you are 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 eye balls in trying to cover it up or make it go away?

The article noted that “[f]or his part, Davis is supporting Etheridge” and “Nobody had any blessing to take any kind of scrap metal. Getting a little ahead of yourself there, Mr. Mayor, unless you somehow recognize that there has been the taking.

As a note, 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 Mayors 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, o.k. with me, Mr. Mayor, nothing for me to investigate, case closed, no investigation, thank you.

If that ain’t hindering an investigation, I just don’t know what would be. It is kinda hard to define when the Commissioner/County Employee didn’t mind being hindered, and if fact, probably appreciated it.

Mayor Davis now challenges 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.” So sorry, Mr. Mayor, but it would 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. (Criminal Justice - 101)

Remembering that 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 are taking metal even though they were not allowed.” One could as County Commissioner Grisham if that 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, “[w]hile acknowledging that there have been employees who improperly took metal from the recycling bins, Etheridge says anyone who claims he gave permission to do so is being untruthful.” And,”Yet Etheridge also says “that despite complaints of metal theft, he has never fired an employee for pilfering.”

I guess Mayor Davis and Mr. Etheridge are unaware of the phrase “tacit approval.”

Just to be helpful, and you know how I 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/if a situation deteriorates.

I just really don’t think the pilfering could have possibly been going on for as long 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.

Mayor Davis should give serious consideration to his oath of office to enforce the laws of the State of Tennessee and whether or not he has met his obligations under that oath.

Ted G. Cook

Savannah, TN

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