NewsChannel5: Mt. Juliet Going To Court Over Dual Offices

On camera quotes from Commissioner Hagerty and City Attorney Holleman.

Commissioners could have relied on an opinion from city attorney Jason Holleman, but he said that’s not the best idea.

“I can render a legal opinion, but the commission is not obligated to follow my advice, so it may not resolve the issue even if I were to provide a written opinion to them,” Holleman said.

Haggerty said $10,000 is just a starting point. He believes it could be more. He said there’s an easy way out and it won’t cost taxpayers.

“I think they should take the high road and the right thing and step down,” Haggerty said.

Mt. Juliet has hired two attorneys to represent each side of the case. They are Frank Lannom and Kathryn Sasser.

The city hopes there will be a hearing and then a decision by the end of the year.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under City Charter, Local News, Mt. Juliet City Commission

5 responses to “NewsChannel5: Mt. Juliet Going To Court Over Dual Offices

  1. Paul Deyo

    I work in Nashville in higher education and some of my colleagues are already laughing at the city of Mt. Juliet on this one.

  2. Pop Korn

    I agree with Commissioner Hagerty’s comments about the candidates taking the high road, but Linda Elam couldn’t find the high road if she took a cab there.

  3. Charmed1

    I’ll give them my opinion at the bargin price of just $5,000! Resign already! Oops… gave it for free.

  4. Butch Huber

    The commission, Mr Holleman, is paid to make decisions. The proper thing for them to do is to act as though the people who voted for this amendment to the charter voted for it to take effect immediately just as voting for the elected official is to take effect immediately.

    If that isn’t the end of it then the person who is disenfranchised or harmed then has the responsibility to sue in court. At least then the city would only have to pay for one lawyer if it even made it to court.

    Think about it, about 6,000 people of Mt. Juliet voted either for or against that amendment in this election. Six thousand people has to represent perhaps half or at least two-fifths of the voting aged people who live in this city. That is an astounding percentage of voters in this city. I am not sure you could have more of a mandate than that. Forget polls, this sampling of six thousand people is about as scientific as you are going to get when it comes to determining the will of the voters. 5200+ of those six thousand people said, “NO, we do not want you to serve in two elected offices. We will give you the option of being a county representative or a city commissioner, you choose”. As for Linda, I wonder how many even voted for her who live in this city. I suspect that very few people who live in this city voted for her. I think she won that election just because she had an “R” behind her name and people who live outside this city have no idea who she is or what she is like. In her case, I think the people of this city who did vote for her said, “Great, we will let you have this position and we will close the door behind you by not letting you serve in two elected offices at the same time. Goooooood bye.”

    But then again, they can’t help themselves. They have to play their little games. They have to spin things and try to interpret the meaning of the vote that was taken now that it isn’t what they wanted. I think perhaps they were expecting a different result, and when they didn’t get it they connived and came up with the plan, “the voters didn’t mean this election”.

    When I voted, I don’t remember seeing an effective date on the ballot. All I remember from the ballot was the question are you for this amendment to the charter? I consider that to mean effective immediately unless it says otherwise. If someone is working for you and you say, “do this thing for me”. Don’t you mean, “now” unless otherwise stated? If you are working for someone and they say, “do this thing for me”, don’t you take it as “now” unless otherwise stated? How hard is this?

    I have been saying it for a long time now, the duty of all elected officials is to make decisions. The aim of all decisions is to fall as close to the middle of the law in the decision as possible. They run into trouble because they try to skirt and circumvent the law. They try to make laws so broad that they have plenty of wiggle room and boy do they wiggle, or should I say, “Slither”.

    This vote was a mandate, and overwhelming display of the desires of the populace of this city. I don’t think it could be misconstrued. I don’t think one could misinterpret it as meaning, “starting in the next election cycle”. I think it is clear as a bell that the voters meant “now”.

  5. Doc Cider

    Butch, many of my friends voted for the referendum and for Elam because they think she can do less damage as a state rep. And they like to vote republican, even if they had to briefly hold their nose to make one of the ‘republican’ votes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s