September 20th, 2006 by Atomictumor
Constituent talking here now.
Folks, you’ve been at the job now for what, 20 minutes, and you’re already pissing everybody off?
Its bad enough that the county has been hellbent on cockblocking damn near everything that Oak Ridge (and Clinton) does, and that the leadership is shady as hell, but to shut the public out of a public meeting, without protest from one of you bozos is unforgivable (ahh, to be in Creasey country, backed by a man with the gonads to stand up for the public record).
This isn’t a good start, and seems that everybody who publishes something around here has started taking you people to task for it (I’m curious to see the Observer’s take on this, who employs Biloski).
Want my advice? Get your sorry asses in front of a keyboard or a microphone and explain why you did it (and the ‘questions in private’ line is pretty lame), and don’t do it again.
The county government is getting under tight scrutiny, and the next few years of your term will be mighty damn uncomfortable if you end up under the microscope as well.
Remember who you’re out there serving, dammit!
September 20th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Damn straight!
I was very disheartened to see that both our commish’s (commishi?) were behind the closed-door idea.
C’mon, folks, what’s up with that? I double-dog-dare you to come on here and tell us why that was a good idea.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Excellent post AT. This one does need to be explained by Mrs. Biloski and Mr. Iwanski. I tend to think that Robin may have succumbed to pressure since this was her very first every county commission meeting. Iwanski should have known better.
Nevertheless I agree, both of you need to communicate your reasons why you went along with this and quickly.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:04 am
“I tend to think that Robin may have succumbed to pressure since this was her very first every county commission meeting.”
Man, thats damn near worse than Iwanski. If she can’t stand up for herself (and her constituency), she needs to resign.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:07 am
I’m not cutting her too much slack AT. My point is that this was her very first commission meeting. She may have been much more likely to go along with what the majority of what commission wanted to do, since this was here first meeting.
That being said, I still think that she owes her constituents an explanation.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:11 am
The Oak Ridger also reports, “To their credit, a few of our county commissioners voiced their opposition to the behind-closed-doors meeting with Law Director Yeager. Those commissioners were Robert McKamey of Clinton, Jerry Creasey of Oak Ridge, and Harry “Whitey†Hitchcock of Oak Ridge.” (italics mine)
Glad to know that some commisioners did not cave. I’m especially glad to know that Jerry Creasey was not one those who closed the door. He represents the 7th district, which is mine, but unfortunately so does Shuey. Shuey also represents the 7th. (Full disclosure here: I voted for Shuey and I haven’t stopped regretting that.)
September 20th, 2006 at 8:13 am
My comment didn’t make it clear, but Shuey was for the closed door meeting, according to the Oak Ridger.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Rep Stacey Campfield posted an old, but very appropos joke a few weeks ago:
http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2006/08/bout-right.html
Bless his heart, he doesn’t look like he’s old enough to drive … but damn if he isn’t whacking the big dogs in N-town with a stick!
September 20th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Great joke LissaKay!
September 20th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Let me try this one more time since my whole message didn’t go through when I used the message area.
I am new to this blogging. This discussion was just brought to my attention. Here is my perspective. This issue goes back over 10 years. 5 years ago Clinton signed and agreement not to annex across the interstate. Without coming to the county to try to renegotiate, they simply violated the ageement and annexed anyway. We could have just let them violate, but we had no real choice except to take legal action. That is where we are with this today - in the courts.
Of course it wouldn’t be in the counties interest to discuss our legal options (ie., what are weakness and strenghts in the case and what are our chances of winning on each point) in an open meeting. Other government bodies, including our cities, do exectutive sessions routinely in legal matters. We take going into executive session very seriously and only do it if it is in the counties best interest and our legal coucil advises that we do it. In my 12 years on commission I don’t think we have used in more than 10 times, and most of those were for this issue.
In defense of our new commissioners, Clinton decided to wait until after the commission was in place to take this matter up again, so that is why the county law director brought it up at this meeting saying he needed direction on how to respond.
I expect this issue to be discussed in an open meeting in detail in the next month or two and each commissioner’s positon will be very clear as will the reason for any decision we make. Our case is weaker today than it was a year ago partly because the five year agreement is up but mostly because the state pulled the rug out from under us by changing the annexation laws (without our knowledge or opportunity to comment!)
I would be happy to discuss this matter in any forum including a citizen meeting, on WYSH radio on which I take call one a month, in commission meeting, or on this site (if I can figure out how to use it!)
September 20th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Myron, if that is you, I appreciate you’re coming over here. Frankly, it takes a big man (so to speak) to head over to the website of a crude, insulting opinionist like myself and discuss these matters, and you have my deep respect for doing so.
That said, I understand the importance of legal strategy, but what I don’t understand is why the scheduled meeting, which I am led to believe is a public affair, closes doors.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that a council meeting is an ‘on the record’ affair. If so, what is it saying to the county citizens that the first thing you do is close the doors?
From my perspective, and the perspective of most folks I’ve talked to, that looks downright ugly, particularly with the almost tabloid nature of some of the county leaders.
I welcome your comments. I’ll don’t know about a citizen meeting, because I don’t have that kind of pull, but if I can offer any help with this page, and putting your words on here, I’m at your disposal.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
We spent the entire meeting in open session except for the executive session to discuss this legal issue. We did the executive session as the last item of buisness and only talked about the Clinton Annexation lawsuit in the executive session.
After the executive session we went into open session so that if any commissioner wanted to take action base on the information the law director provided in the executive session they could make a motion and debate its merits in open session. After the executive session a motion was made and passed to release David Clark from the Rogers case since he cannot represent us. No one offered any other motions regarding the legal case, so we adjorned. I presume this is becase no one thought it was urgent enough to take action at this meeting.
This item was not on the agenda so no one knew it was going to come up. I do not think it would be fair to the public to take this important matter up without prior notice. I expect it to be on an agenda soon and voted on with an opportunity for public and commissiner comment in an open meeting.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
I did not succumb to any pressure Monday evening, I acted on the advice of your county’s law director, Mr. Yeager, on an imp’t on-going legal matter invovling AC and Clinton, for the past 5 years. He is the voice for AC in this courtcase. Legal council, whether for a group or individual entity is a personal matter, not to be taken lightly. In Exec Session, the law allows the legal representative to talk to the commission on the legality of the situation they are invovled in. Commissioners are not allowed to talk to each other- only to the attorney who represents them during that time. No action,or motions were taken; it was a question and answer time, which explains the duration, as many commissioners asked legal questions of our attorney, and he explained to us the seriousness of the case. The annexation issue between Clinton and AC has been a long process, and I am becomming more aware of all the ramifications of it, as I am now on your commission. Anyone who knows me from my different areas of service in Oak Ridge, knows I am a straight forward and painfully honest person. I feel by taking the advice of an attorney was in the best interest for OR, and the rest of AC. All of this will be coming out on the ongoing lawsuit, I am told, most likely in the next month or so.
Our meeting in Oct. will be the 16th, and @ 9:30 am. Folks are always welcome. Bring a jacket for the courtroom, as I almost froze in there Monday evening!
Now, since this is the first time I have ever used this system, I do hope I send it properly!
September 21st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Thanks for the chance to comment. If there is a discussion on the site regarding County Commission issues that I can weigh in on, send me an email and m.iwanski@comcast.net