Loudon residents want voices heard
Hugh G. Willett knoxnews.com-LOUDON — Residents concerned about changes that
might limit public comment during Loudon County
Commission meetings took umbrage with
commissioners Monday night.
The issue began at a commission workshop last
week when an item listed on the agenda as
"changes to agenda" offered no further
information about the proposed changes.
It was revealed during the workshop that the
changes to the agenda involved combining public
comments usually held at the beginning and end
of the meeting to a single comment period at the
beginning of the meeting.
Richard Truitt, a Loudon County resident and
frequent speaker at public meetings, took out a
half-page advertisement in a local newspaper
Sunday protesting the decision to change the
comment policy.
"Is this how government is supposed to work?" he
asked commissioners.
Without detailed information in on the agenda,
the public can't know in advance what will be
discussed later in the meeting and cannot
provide input to the commission, Truitt said.
Truitt was accompanied by his attorney,
Knoxville lawyer Linda Noe, who specializes in
open government issues.
In a letter to commission Noe wrote that the
refusal to "explain or provide any specifics
about your ‘changes' it is clear that you
purposely denied the citizens of Loudon County
the opportunity to know about a change which
directly affected them and you kept them from
being able to contact commissioners or to
comment on the unknown changes at the workshop."
"Open government is the key to good government,"
she said.
Tellico Village resident Richard Anklin said he
had reviewed county rules and procedures and
expected that the panel would take a vote on
whether to change the policy.
He acknowledged that the rules allowed Chairman
Steve Harrelson to make changes to the content
and form of the agenda. The question is whether
or not that would include making changes to
public comment periods without a vote, he said.
Harrelson said he never intended to reduce
public comment but only to provide a better way
for residents to make their case before
commission without having to wait until the end
of the meeting.
He gave an example of a resident who wanted to
comment on something that was not on the agenda.
Under the split comment period that person would
have to sit through the entire commission
meeting to make a comment.
"My thoughts were never to keep people from
speaking," he said.
Commissioner Kelly Littleton-Brewster said she
thought the controversy over the issue merited a
vote by commission.
Commissioner Van Shaver said he thought the
problem was based on a fundamental
misunderstanding of the difference between and
the purpose of workshops — where new ideas are
presented — and formal, voting meetings.
Commissioner Earlena Maples said she knew
nothing about the proposed changes before the
workshop. She said she would welcome an
opportunity to discuss and vote on any changes
to the agenda.
Harrelson said the issue would be explored in
future workshops and meetings before any long
term decisions would be made.
Below is a statement from Mr. Richard
Anklin sent to me in reference to the
above article and ask that I add it to
the end of this story. Mr. Anklin is one
of the citizens who attends most of the
county meetings and provides commentary
at many of the meetings.
________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Anklin disputes the quotes attributed to him, in the above article, and wishes to have these statements added as a clarification:
The 1st paragraph partially reflects
that I did review the County Rules and
Procedures, revised in May 2003, and
that I expected that a Vote on the
Proposed Agenda Change would happen at
the Commission meeting to change the
policy.
The 2nd paragraph misquotes me in that I
said:
While Rule #11I, The Chairman, states (I
read it verbatim)
"The Chairman has the authority and
responsibility for the content and form
of the Agenda".
I disagreed that this was the
case and, cited page 33 of 35 (were
again I read it verbatim)
"In meetings of the county legislative
body the statues require all business to
be transacted by a majority vote of the
entire body".
I further stated that any change to the
Agenda, the Counties business, as stated
in Rule 3, Order of Business, requires a
vote of the majority of the entire
board.
|
BACK
3/4/15