Election panel favors candidates
The commission voted in favor of the candidates
during a Sept. 4 hearing.
“As employees of LCUB, we are unable to run,” Maples
said during the hearing. “When you made that decision last week to
take my name of the ballot, or in this case run to be re-elected in
the November election. I ask that I be treated fairly and that the
laws that are applied to me, brought by them to take my name off the
ballot, also apply to them.”
Maples entered several pieces of evidence she
believed proved those serving on council qualified as employees of
LCUB, including information about compensation for LCUB board
members, a video of council members reading a conflict of interest
statement that included the phrase “because I am an employee” and
documents related to general employment.
Pat Hunter, a county resident, served as a witness
for Maples. Hunter provided the information on compensation and the
video of council members reading the conflict of interest statement.
Council members were represented by two attorneys,
Amanda Smith and Matthew Knable, who were hired privately.
Smith argued that serving on the LCUB board did not
qualify council members as employees in the same way it did Maples,
entering into evidence an opinion from the state’s attorney general
from Oct. 9, 2000, on whether a member of a county legislative body
qualified as a county employee, which she argued was “directly
analogous.”
According to the opinion, “membership on a county
legislative body would not qualify as a position of ‘employment’ as
the term is usually utilized in state statutes.” The key factors in
the opinion are that an employee would be “in the service of an
employer” or under a “contract of hire.”
Because council members are elected and do not serve
under any supervisor other than the voting body, Smith argued the
opinion applied to current council members.
“Earlena is an employee of the Lenoir City Utilities
Board,” Smith said. “That is a different animal than being elected
and part of her job duties being to serve on the Lenoir City
Utilities Board. I think that’s very apparent.”
To further push the point, Smith questioned Shannon
Littleton, LCUB general manager, about the differences between
Maples’ employment, which falls under Littleton’s supervisory
authority, and the council’s role on the board, which does not.
“All employees report to a supervisor and ultimately
to me,” Littleton said. “... They (council) ultimately just report
to the rate payers. They have no supervisory body over them other
than being elected.”
Smith questioned Mike Henline regarding
employment outside his position as councilman, arguing the
compensation given to council did not equate to full-time
employment with LCUB.
Knable presented a dry erase board with
information about compensation for board members, as well as
Maples, to highlight a disparity.
“I would like to say that they keep pulling these
benefits around and our travel around, and that’s not anything
uncommon,” Henline said. “I’m not ashamed of that. ... You act
like that’s something to be ashamed of and it’s not, and I’m not
ashamed of our salary.
We put in a lot
of time working on different things and I think it’s very
deserving and I feel like I was elected by the citizens of
Lenoir City to represent them on the city council and the power
board. Nothing about a job there. It’s just to represent the
city of Lenoir City.”
David Choate motioned for a vote on the
candidates’ eligibility, followed by a second from Darlene
Schrubb. The vote was 4-0 to keep the four candidates on the
ballot. Sue Jane Hartsook, the only member to vote in favor of
Maples the week prior, abstained.
“Going in I was confused as to how anyone thought
that we were LCUB employees,” Wampler said. “Everyone except for
me has been an elected official. I was appointed to finish
Harry’s (Wampler) term, but being appointed my duty is to
oversee LCUB and make those decisions to regulate, but I am not
an employee. ... I was confused and concerned as to how it got
to where that was even a charge being brought.”
Maples disagrees with the decision and stands by
her argument that council members are employees because they
draw wages and receive benefits.
The next step for Maples would be to take the
matter to Loudon County Chancery Court.
“I’m just trying to take my time and consider
everything,” she said. “I can’t say I was really surprised at
the outcome, but I’m just going to kind of sit back and take my
time and think about it and decide what I think is probably the
right thing to do.”
|
BACK
9/17/18