Chattarati Recent Articles

North Shore Microbrewery Opens Thursday

2010-09-02T10:30:00-04:00

Chattanooga Brewing Company on Frazier Avenue. By Jamion Williams.

Written by Jamion Williams.

After months of planning, a new brewery on Frazier Avenue is opening its doors to local residents today. Owners Jonathan Clark and Mark Marcum, who recently began distributing the Chattanooga Brewing Company’s first beers to neighborhood restaurants and bars, will offer growler sales of two signature styles.

The brewery’s pilsner, a light and tasty lager with an accessible flavor, will be featured alongside its India Pale Ale, a hoppy beer with a complexity and taste sure to satisfy any ale aficionado.

With plans to expand their lineup to include both an Alt and an Oktoberfest, Clark and Marcum aim to create a product that is not only true to brewing traditions, but also a beer that local residents can call their own.

“This is what we like to have in the fridge,” said Marcum. “Standard styles, conventional styles, that people are used to.”

While they intend to one day have the ability for customers to enjoy a pint on site, Marcum said their current focus is on creating and distributing quality beer.

“Everybody likes a good beer,” said Marcum, sitting among the brewery’s fermenters. “A good beer made right here.”

Chattanooga Brewing Company is located at 109 Frazier Ave., and will be open for sales of take-home growlers on Thursday and Friday from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m., as well as Saturday from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. Patrons can fill growlers brought to the brewery for $9, or can purchase an empty growler for an additional $5.

For more information, visit chattabrew.com.

Like | Comments (2) | Email | Facebook | Twitter

City to Seek Judgment on Recall Provision

2010-09-01T10:30:00-04:00

On Tuesday, the City Council authorized Mike McMahan, attorney for the city of Chattanooga, to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the mayor against the Hamilton County Election Commission in order to get greater clarity on the city's recall provision and determine which points in state law override that of the city charter, if any.

Council members were quick to note that the move did not mean they were taking a position on the injunction portion of the lawsuit filed by Mayor Ron Littlefield in Hamilton County Circuit Court earlier that day.

Peter Murphy, who chairs the legal and legislative committee, said the City Council cannot guarantee that the lawyers representing other parties will resolve all of the salient issues surrounding the conflict between city and state law.

"It would be horrible if only half the questions got resolved," he said. "We owe it to the citizens, so that never again does someone go this far down the road and put it in all the work, as Mr. McMahan described, and still have no idea what they have."

Earlier this week, the Election Commission announced that recall organizers have submitted over 9,000 validated petitions.

State law and the city charter vary widely on the recall issue. Under Tennessee law, the number of signatures required for a recall would be over 15,000. Under the city charter, that number is around 9,000.

Littlefield's lawsuit raises other discrepancies between city and state law.

On Tuesday, the mayor filed an injunction to prevent the Election Commission from certifying the recall and putting a special election for mayor on the Nov. 2 ballot. The lawsuit also seeks a declaratory judgment on whether state or city law would dictate the recall process.

"The city would not be participating in the call for injunctive relief, but this lawsuit and the impending recall petition against Mayor Littlefield — and possible recall petitions against other members of this body — are very important legal issues for the city," McMahan said during the City Council meeting Tuesday evening.

"The city charter is being challenged by virtue of this recall situation," he said. "I don't know whether the city charter binds or whether the state law binds in this particular situation."

McMahan said the issue has been looked at by "some of the finest lawyers in town."

"And we've all come to the conclusion that we don't know for sure — that we need to ask some court to judicially interpret these two inconsistent provisions," he said.

Council member Deborah Scott, who abstained from the vote, expressed frustration that the city waited so long before seeking clarity on the issue.

"It's unfortunate that the whole process has to go as far as it does before you find out exactly what the rules of the road are, and I can understand why citizens would pick up the charter and read it and think, 'This is the road that I take,'" she said.

"That is a worrisome thing, and I think it's incumbent on the City Council and the city attorney's office to try and correct those issues that can have a significant impact," she said. "I hope we can do that as we go forward."

McMahan and Murphy both said there had to be a matter in controversy before a court could rule on the issue.

Like | Comments | Email | Facebook | Twitter

School Board Benefit Revote Fails

2010-09-01T09:15:00-04:00

After nearly two weeks of controversy and confusion, the Hamilton County Board of Education voted to uphold a school board retirement payment that will guarantee thousands of dollars to outgoing school board members.

Earlier this month, the school board voted on an administration proposal that tied a one-time retirement payment of $750 per year of service to school board members’ health insurance benefits. The proposal was quietly voted on at the end of the Aug. 19 meeting without discussion or debate, and according to some school board members, the administration did not give them the proposal until only a few minutes before the meeting began — leaving them unaware of its details.

The proposal also heavily benefited outgoing school board member Janice Boydston, who lobbied fellow school board member Everett Fairchild to vote for the proposal at the beginning of the Aug. 19 meeting. Confused by Boydston's efforts, Fairchild maintains that he previously had not been made aware of the proposal’s details and thus abstained from the vote. Boydston will collect approximately $21,750 as a result of the new retirement payment.

With heated scrutiny from the public and the media, board members Chester Bankston, who voted for the proposal, and Rhonda Thurman, who passed on the proposal, motioned to rescind the vote Tuesday evening in the final hours before three new school board members take office. Tuesday evening’s debate centered around the cost of school board health and retirement benefits to the school system.

Bankston’s motion to rescind the vote on only the retirement payment portion of the proposal was immediately amended by board member Chip Baker, who wanted both the board retirement payment and health benefits to be bundled as originally voted on during the Aug. 19 meeting. According to Tommy Kranz, the school system’s chief financial officer, the school board health benefits were first passed by the school board as part of last year’s budget at the request of Thurman.

During WGOW’s Fred the Show Tuesday morning, Thurman argued that the board’s health benefits were attached to the Aug. 19 proposal in order to single out her vote. According to Thurman, she was the sole board member who pushed for health benefits to be extended to the school board. She explained that a pre-existing condition had made it difficult for her to obtain health insurance elsewhere.

Linda Mosley sought clarification from Kranz on how school board health benefits are funded. According to Kranz, one school board member costs the school system about $10,800 per year for family coverage.

“When an employee or board member participates in the health insurance plan through the Hamilton County Board of Education,” Mosley said, “and it costs around $10,800 a year ... that is money that is coming out of the same fund as everything else, which is taxpayer dollars.”

Scott Bennett, school board attorney, explained that while the state extends health insurance to school board members, the Hamilton County Department of Education elects to cover school board members at the same rate as classified employees. To rescind the vote would not disallow health benefits; rather it would require board members to pay 100 percent of the premiums.

Regardless of the health insurance portion of the administration’s proposal, numerous board members took issue with how the retirement payment was proposed. Fairchild explained that the administration did not give him an explanation of the retirement payment until only a few hours prior to the revote, nearly two weeks after the proposal was originally voted on. However, Ricks and Boydston maintained that they understood the proposal prior to the Aug. 19 vote. When and how the administration initiated the proposal with individual school board members remains unclear.

Furthermore, both Bankston and Baker raised the question of whether or not the vote for the retirement payment and health benefits posed an ethics issue.

“The ethics issue arises when the board votes and the public is not aware of some kind of personal benefit,” said Bennett. “As Ms. Thurman pointed out last week, the public was very well aware of the board’s decision to vote itself a pension. It’s been in the sunshine.”

Kranz quickly corrected Bennett’s use of the word pension, and explained that a pension is typically a defined benefit plan.

“This is not a defined benefit plan. So the use of the word pension does not adequately describe what you’re voting for,” he told the school board.

In the end, the motion to rescind the original vote failed with Ricks, Baker, Mosley and Boydston voting no, and Smith, Bankston Thurman and Fairchild voting yes. Board member Jefferey Wilson was absent from the vote. The motion to rescind needed 5 yes votes to pass through.

Mosley, who voted for the original proposal and voted against the motion to rescind, explained her vote.

“Rhonda Thurman admitted on talk radio this morning that she is accepting health insurance which I think is wonderful,” Mosley said. “If she needs it, I’m glad she gets it. That costs taxpayers $10,800 a year. The retirement benefit for the entire board is only $6,700 a year. So if we are going to make it possible for a board member or all board members to get health insurance, then I think we need to complete the package and let them have the opportunity for the board to be paid in retirement. They do not have to participate. You can opt to not receive the retirement benefit, but I felt that if there’s a board member that wants to receive it, they should have that opportunity just like Ms. Thurman has the opportunity to get insurance.”

Read the play-by-play coverage.

Like | Comments (2) | Email | Facebook | Twitter

Littlefield Files Lawsuit to Block Recall

2010-09-01T08:30:00-04:00

A Hamilton County Circuit Court judge will determine the fate of a recall against Mayor Ron Littlefield, who filed a lawsuit to block the effort on Tuesday.

In Ron Littlefield v. Hamilton County Election Commission, Littlefield seeks to prevent election officials from certifying the results of a recall effort against him and placing a special election for mayor on the Nov. 2 ballot.

On Monday, election officials announced that recall petitioners had submitted over 9,000 validated petitions, which would exceed the number needed for a successful recall if the city charter's provision is found to prevail over state law — a question which has plagued election officials for at least a year, records show.

Amongst other points, the lawsuit alleges that the signed petitions submitted to the Election Commission fail to meet the requirements of state law, specifically:

That the minimum number of signatures required for a recall would be determined by state law, not the city charter;

That the petition does not ask a question as to whether the mayor should be recalled;

That the Election Commission may not certify petition signatures that are unaccompanied by a date, which is required by state law.

The lawsuit also argues that a recall election can only be held during a regularly scheduled municipal or county general election.

On Tuesday, Littlefield fired back at the recall's primary backers in a strongly worded statement in which he alluded to many of the lawsuit's salient points.

"As my attorneys have explained in the lawsuit filed today, this recall effort is a classic example of a dead-end path followed by a narrow minded fringe group fueled by misinformation and blinded by anger," he said.

State law allows municipalities to change the number of signatures needed for a successful recall petition, but the change had to have been enacted after July 1, 1997, when the state's recall law was codified.

The city charter's recall provision was first enacted in 1939, according to one memo included in the lawsuit.

But it has been re-enacted several times since then — most recently in 2002, said Chris Clem, Election Commission attorney.

Last month, Clem advised the Election Commission to base the number of required signatures on the city charter, but he noted at the meeting that "it could go either way," the minutes show.

Additionally, a July 2010 letter from the city attorney's office to Clem suggests further ambiguity over this question.

"There could be compelling legal arguments made both ways," Phil Noblett wrote. "Because of this ambiguity in the charter and general state law, this question may not be resolved until some court provides us with guiding legal precedent ... "

State law also requires each signature to be accompanied by a date, because there is a 75-day window in which signatures can be gathered for a specific recall petition.

Littlefield's lawsuit includes several copies of petitions that have already been validated by the Election Commission. Many of those petitions are either undated or do not include a space for a date to be filled in by the signatories.

"The Election Commission and its staff have acted erroneously and in violation of state law" by validating undated petition signatures, the lawsuit states.

Election officials mistakenly told recall organizers that each page of the petition did not need to be dated, Clem told Chattanoogan.com Tuesday. However, he said all of the submitted signatures fell within the petition's 75-day window.

On two instances, the applicable state law refers to a question in a recall petition's text. The current petition does not contain a question, and the mayor's lawsuit argues that that point invalidates the petition itself.

"I believe that the court will find that this petition drive is fatally flawed and that no recall election will be held before my current and final term of office expires," Littlefield said Tuesday. "However, if there is another election, be assured that I will run."

Unless the circuit court rules otherwise, the Election Commission plans to certify the recall at its next regularly scheduled meeting on Sept. 8.

Like | Comments (1) | Email | Facebook | Twitter

Live: Hamilton County School Board Meeting

2010-08-31T17:55:00-04:00

John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 5:52 p.m.

We're live at the Hamilton County Department of Education for a special meeting called to discuss and vote on a previously approved proposal to provide retirement payments for school board members.

Education editor Aaron Collier covered the confusing and controversial proceedings at the previous board meeting.

Last week, during the last regularly scheduled meeting for the current school board, the agenda was quickly amended to include a proposed retirement payment for school board members who, pending the proposal’s final approval, will receive $750 for every year of service on the board.
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:03 p.m.

The following school board members are in attendance: Thurman, Ricks, Baker, Smith, Mosley, Bankston, Fairchild, Boydston. Wilson is absent.

The meeting has been called to order.

Bankston made a motion, seconded by Thurman, to rescind the benefits approved at the last meeting.
Aaron Collier Aug. 31, 2010, 6:03 p.m.
Horrible news coming in the first minute of tonight's meeting: Dr. Scales announced that a Hamilton County JROTC student collapsed during school and passed away this afternoon.
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:07 p.m.

The board is questioning a point of order regarding a proposed amendment to also rescind the health benefits which were approved along with the retirement payment.

Bankston's motion was to rescind only the retirement payment. Baker proposed an amendment so that both would be rescinded.
Aaron Collier Aug. 31, 2010, 6:17 p.m.
Apparently, Bankston's motion to rescind the August 18 vote for retirement payment does not include a re-vote for health insurance benefits for board members. However, Baker has made a motion to amend Bankston's motion and bundle the retirement payment and health insurance benefits together.
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:24 p.m.

The motion to amend passed 7-1.

Thurman: Yes
Ricks: Yes
Baker: Yes
Smith: Yes
Mosley: Yes
Bankston Yes
Fairchild: No
Boydston: Yes
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:30 p.m.

Thurman argues that adding health insurance to the debate is a way to force her into supporting the retirement payment plan.

"I think even Ray Charles can see the problem here."
Aaron Collier Aug. 31, 2010, 6:31 p.m.
Boydston said, "I voted yes for everybody," including a yes for health insurance and a retirement payment. Thurman responded that the health insurance benefits had already been approved - prior to the August 18th vote.
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:32 p.m.

Ricks is speaking to the board and says that he is disappointed by those wanting to revisit their vote. "We should stick to our convictions."

Chairman Smith took exception to Rick's assertion that proper procedures were not followed by allowing the board to reconsider.
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:34 p.m.

Fairchild argues against the retirement payments: "We cut a lot of things this school year to have a balanced budget, and then to come along and vote this for ourselves, it's wrong."
Aaron Collier Aug. 31, 2010, 6:36 p.m.
Fairchild said that the administration did not give an explanation of the original proposal until today - nearly two weeks later. Both Boydston and Ricks said they knew of and understood the proposal before August 18th.
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:41 p.m.

Point of clarification: the board is debating a one-time retirement payment of $750 for each year of service, not an annual pension plan (as has been reported elsewhere).

Audio of CFO Tommy Kranz speaking to this point will be available.
Aaron Collier Aug. 31, 2010, 6:44 p.m.
Board attorney, Scott Bennett said that the vote was not an ethics issue because the public was aware of the proposal. However, Bennett called it a pension, which is how the public understood the proposal - though it is not a pension.
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:45 p.m.

Baker speaking to the same point. "Not a pension, not a payout [over time]. That's a fact."

He acknowledges the process and discourse has not been ideal. "This is a public process and we should take the time to educate the public."
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:49 p.m.

Boydston: "I didn't go on [the school board] for money. I didn't go on it for a benefit. If the law says I'm entitled to it, if any board member is entitled to it, they should have it."

Bennet clarifies: "It's not a right to have it paid for by the school system."
Aaron Collier Aug. 31, 2010, 6:52 p.m.
A yes benefit is to rescind both the retirement payment and health insurance benefits. A no vote is to uphold the August 18 vote.
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:54 p.m.

Motion to rescind failed with a tie vote. Who voted to rescind?

Ricks: No
Baker: No
Smith: Yes
Mosley: No
Bankston: Yes
Fairchild: Yes
Boydston: No
John Hawbaker Aug. 31, 2010, 6:55 p.m.

The meeting has been adjourned. New school board members will be sworn in tomorrow morning.

Thank you for reading our live coverage of the meeting. Aaron Collier will have a full report later this week.

Like | Comments (5) | Email | Facebook | Twitter

Video: Pundits Tackle Local Education, Economy

2010-08-31T11:00:00-04:00

On Tennessee Insider, panelists discuss education in Hamilton County — school achievement, shortfalls and funding — before segueing into the local economy.

The panel includes Chris Anderson, Bobby Wood and Louis Lee.

Like | Comments (2) | Email | Facebook | Twitter

Who Is Funding the Recall Movement?

2010-08-31T10:45:00-04:00

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that the groups backing the recall won't have to disclose their financial interests until after a special election goes on the November ballot.

Via timesfreepress.com

Like | Comments (3) | Email | Facebook | Twitter

Littlefield Responds to Recall

2010-08-31T00:45:00-04:00

In a statement, Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield pulls no punches on an effort to recall him.

From city hall:

Leadership carries with it responsibilities. Foremost among these is the responsibility of a leader to define a course that will produce a positive outcome. Responsible leaders must also make difficult decisions that are not always popular, but nonetheless necessary. On the other hand, a nefarious leader follows a dead end path pursuing an agenda that is in conflict with the betterment of the community.

For several months now, the citizens of Chattanooga have been subjected to the aggressive behavior of a small group of radicals twisting arms at every public gathering spewing venom and promoting their cause with a reckless disregard for the truth and the wellbeing of our city. The chief proponent is a multimillionaire complete with posh mansion and a healthy real estate portfolio. He made his fortune in assisted living and elder care - an industry that exists because of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Hypocritically, he now seeks to preach to us about the evils of taxes and government programs. He has also refused to meet with me, one-on-one, to discuss the questionable tactics that his foot soldiers have used in their crusade.

Another prominent member of the small group is a young man who (in his own words) supports himself by donating plasma and through the largess of friends and family. In a recent newspaper article he arrogantly states that he refuses to be “a wage slave at Walmart.” He should apologize to all the hard working people who do work for that important employer.

A third member of the group is a perennial publicity-seeking street preacher who first surfaced as sidekick for the late Dan Martino — a strange and misguided man who haunted the halls of local government for years in the 1980’ and 90’s.

The rest of the small group of instigators are chronic grumblers and complainers well known to this administration and others dating back many years. The common thread seems to be that no one actually has a job other than tearing down what others have worked hard to create. In that regard, they seem willing to say or do anything.

It is obvious that thousands of dollars have been spent to promote a petition to remove the mayor and ultimately several members of Chattanooga’s city council. There has been no examination of the motives for this well-financed recall drive. We do know that the principal individual at the head of the undertaking is wealthy and willing to put his personal resources into the campaign, but we don’t know what other interests are behind the effort. We do know that all have refused to publically disclose the sources and amounts of money and a list of contributors. We also don’t know their ultimate goal — other than intimidation.

What do the recallers want? Do they actually believe that anyone new to office would roll back the bare minimum tax increase that was adopted to keep our city sound and strong? Do they know that only one councilmember was totally opposed to raising the tax rate and that three of those who voted against the budget actually wanted a higher rate? Do they, the recallers, think that new city government representatives will reverse the water quality fees carefully calculated to meet state and federal guidelines? Do they know the drastic and damaging effects that such a course of action would cause to happen?

As my attorneys have explained in the lawsuit filed today this recall effort is a classic example of a dead-end path followed by a narrow minded fringe group fueled by misinformation and blinded by anger. They have missed several important points:

First of all, the clear instructions of Tennessee law and the official opinions of the Tennessee Attorney General require that any recall election only take place at general county elections or general municipal elections. The last general election took place on August 5 and the next one will not take place until August 2012. The next general municipal election will not take place until March 2013 — a month before my term ends.

A second significant point missed by this recall effort is the failure to adhere to one simple, clear requirement of Tennessee law. The statute requires that the petition contain a question — not an allegation. Yet, their petition contains no question, only a false claim that I would be “automatically recalled” if a small percentage of the registered voters of the City were to sign the petition. This is more than a legal technicality.

There are other important issues that have already been publically divulged somewhat. There is the question of State law versus the City charter and the effective requirement of 9,000 or 15,000 signatures. There is also the matter that several versions of the petition were utilized in the drive — rather than adhering to the form approved by the Election Commission, as required by law.

Perhaps more importantly, the relevant statute also requires that the petition show the date of each signature, an important requirement because all signatures must be obtained in a 75-day period. However, thousands of signatures of registered Chattanooga voters counted by the Election Commission are not dated. We are proceeding to audit the submitted petitions and determine the effect of this failure.

Finally, let me say that I have been elected to serve Chattanooga several times over the years: as Commissioner of Public Works under Chattanooga’s old system of government, twice as Councilman for District 6 and finally twice as Mayor. I served as the first Chairman of the new City Council when the new system of government was instituted in 1990, and then again in 2002. I have been through many political storms and I have persevered. Never before in all my years in government have I witnessed such a persistently negative and untruthful campaign as we have just endured. I hope that we as a community shall never have to go through such a citywide trial again. The recallers should be ashamed.

The people of Chattanooga have entrusted me with the responsibility of making our city the best place that it can be. I am proud to have been a part of the decades long effort that has made us the most transformed city in America. I love Chattanooga and I will not stand idly by while this or any other group employs lies and deception in their toxic frenzy to destabilize this city. I refuse to be bullied or intimidated by the tactics of the recallers and I refuse to allow our community to fall into the hands of a noisy and negative fringe group that seeks only to tear our city down and stop our progress.

I believe that the Court will find that this petition drive is fatally flawed and that no recall election will be held before my current and final term of office expires. However, if there is another election, be assured that I will run.

Ron Littlefield

Like | Comments (12) | Email | Facebook | Twitter

'Inception' Hits IMAX Friday

2010-08-30T12:30:00-04:00

Widely praised for its ambition and scope, Christopher Nolan's new thriller Inception didn't rely on 3D gimmicks to wow viewers. Chattanooga Pulse critic Phillip Johnston writes:

Inception is that single summer blockbuster that inspires in its audience a genuine sense of wonder. Once you wrap your mind around its complex methods, all you can do is sit back and marvel at the genius of a master filmmaker working in tried-and-true 2D.

That doesn't mean bigger can't be better. And starting Friday, Sept. 3, local audiences will be able to enjoy that 2D experience on a grander scale at the Tennessee Aquarium IMAX.

Showtimes are 7:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 8:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday, from Sept. 3 through Sept. 23. It will also be shown at 7:00 p.m. from Tuesday, Sept. 28 through Thursday, Sept. 30.

Tickets are $10.95 for adults and $7.95 for children ages 3–12. The film is rated PG-13.

Like | Comments (2) | Email | Facebook | Twitter

School Board Retirement Pay Up in the Air

2010-08-27T09:00:00-04:00

Current and future school board members can expect at least $3,000 more per term for their service on the school board. That’s if a controversial new retirement payment benefit can withstand five more days of heated political pressure.

Last week, during the last regularly scheduled meeting for the current school board, the agenda was quickly amended to include a proposed retirement payment for school board members who, pending the proposal’s final approval, will receive $750 for every year of service on the board.

Though the proposal was not given to the board until moments before the meeting began and was not discussed during the meeting, it quietly passed by a 7–0 vote with Everett Fairchild and Rhonda Thurman abstaining.

The proposal’s easy passage touched off a media firestorm this week, as board members that voted to approve the payment include Kenny Smith, Janice Boydston and Chester Bankston, who will be retiring from their office in only a few days.

Responding to the intense scrutiny, Bankston and Thurman lobbied chairman Smith to rescind the vote, and on Wednesday, a special called meeting scheduled for Thursday was amended to include further discussion of board benefits. However, the meeting was not amended in time for the board to cast a revote on the controversial payment, according to board attorney Scott Bennett.

Revote Rescheduled

For the school board to take action on an agenda item during a special called meeting, they must provide notice to the public 72 hours in advance, Bennett explained. As a result, the board will now squeeze the revote into the remaining hours on Tuesday evening before new board members are sworn in on Wednesday morning.

“I find it very difficult to believe that we can put something on the agenda five minutes before the meeting starts and get it passed, and then we can’t rescind it within two or three days,” said Thurman.

Pushing for a revote on Thursday evening, Fairchild said, “I believe 90 percent of the people in Hamilton County know about this. Because I think half of them have called me. And there’s no question in my mind about what their sentiment is about this.”

“One of the things that concerns me is that we can have this thing dropped in our lap up here in the last minute and be asked to vote on it without enough time to read it or discuss it or anything else,” Fairchild added. “And if we don’t have a policy that deals with that, then I think we need to be looking at one because I resent being put on the spot.”

Bennett replied that the board does have the discretion to not amend the agenda before a regularly called meeting, indicating that Fairchild could have made a motion to table the proposal before it was voted on.

Thurman argued that majority votes are tallied behind the scenes in order to push through controversial proposals.

Furthermore, Bankston, who was recently elected as District 9 Hamilton County commissioner, argued that the matter needs to be dealt with because of ethical violations, though he voted for the proposal last week.

“I’m pretty sure, and I’ve got to check this out, but we just may have had an ethics violation because you’re not supposed to vote for something that benefits you financially,” he said.

Cashing In on the Way Out

According to Tommy Kranz, chief financial officer for the school district, the retirement benefit is not a pension; rather the board voted to approve a simple one time payment of $750 for every year that he or she served on the school board.

Outgoing member Boydston could receive as much as $21,750 for her 29 years on the school board.

“When I found out that we were entitled, I was pleased, and I’m still pleased,” said Boydston. “I’m pleased for every member of this board because it’s the fair and right thing to do. And it’s not just about me. I voted yes, and I will vote yes again because if I’m entitled to whatever it is, absolutely.”

George Ricks, who also voted for the benefit, became frustrated with Thurman, Bankston and Fairchild for pushing a revote.

“I respect whatever decision the majority makes,” Ricks said. “I try to live by that, and I think we should continue to live by that. A decision was made. I’m not going to go back and put it back because I don’t think it’s right to do that. If you can’t live by the way you voted then something is wrong with that ... We made a decision. Move on.”

Chairman Smith nevertheless scheduled a revote for Tuesday, Aug. 31 at 6:00 p.m. Bankston said he will cast a no vote the next go around, while Thurman and Fairchild will also vote no on Tuesday. Jeffery Wilson, who voted yes the first time, said he will be unable to attend the vote on Tuesday because he will be out of town. If one or more of the remaining board members switch his or her vote, the retirement payment benefit may be reversed.

Like | Comments (4) | Email | Facebook | Twitter