Term limits may soon face formal debate [Knox County, Tennessee]

Knoxville News Sentinel ^ | 6/2/6 | HAYES HICKMAN

[SmithL]

The case of the Knox County charter's validity and the reach of its term limits limped along into a third day of hearings today as lawyers continued to argue over admissible evidence.

Attorney Herbert S. Moncier offered massive volumes of county ordinances and previous trial transcripts for Knox County Chancellor John Weaver's review.

Several parties objected to the relevance of any of it. Yet Weaver still accepted many of the documents, offering Moncier wide leeway to make his case.

Moncier contends that the charter is valid albeit ignored by officials who have for years allowed several elected offices to continue despite no mention of them in the charter.

The court broke for lunch at noon and it is possible that it may begin formal arguments in the case by this afternoon.

In the initial lawsuit, five Knox County commissioners contend that the charter and its term limits are invalid because the charter was never properly adopted.

The charter fails, the term-limited commissioners argue, to specify the duties of local elected offices, including the trustee, register of deeds, property assessor and the county clerk.

Greg Mackay, Knox County administrator of elections, said Thursday he could not find the secretary of state’s approval, or any proof that the charter’s certified election results were sent to the state after voters approved it in 1988. Likewise, Mackay on Thursday said he found nothing to suggest that the same rule was followed for the term limits amendment after voters approved it in 1994.

The court proceedings are is expected to decide whether nine term-limited county commissioners, who won their parties’ nominations in the May 2 primary, will be allowed to run in August. Also hanging in the balance is whether the county’s term limits apply to most other elected county offices, such as sheriff.

[SmithL]

Term-limit decision is coming ASAP

Three-day trial wraps up; county charter's legitimacy is central to chancellor's ruling

By HAYES HICKMAN, hickman@knews.com
June 3, 2006

Knox County Chancellor John Weaver said Friday he would issue a ruling "as soon as humanly possible" in the case of the county charter's validity and the reach of its term limits.

Weaver kept the 15 attorneys before him in court until nearly 8 p.m. to finish the contentious three-day trial, which is expected to decide whether any county incumbents will be allowed to run again in the Aug. 3 general election.

Among the questions left for the chancellor to answer: Does the Knox County Charter include offices for all of the duties required of a charter county under the Tennessee Constitution?

Was the county's apparent failure to forward the results of the charter's ratification vote to state officials in 1988 a legal basis for voiding it now?

Are the so-called "constitutionally mandated" offices of county trustee, property assessor, register of deeds, county clerk or sheriff subject to the term limits approved by Knox County voters in 1994?

The county's elected court clerks and school board members appear to enjoy a special exemption from the term limits under state law, but that, too, will be left up to Weaver.

The state constitution requires a county charter to provide for the duties of a trustee, a register of deeds, a property assessor and a county clerk.

"And if they don't do that, they do not have a complete charter," argued John Valliant, attorney for the five term-limited county commissioners who started it all with a lawsuit in April challenging the charter's validity.

"There is no mention in this charter about a trustee, a register, an assessor of property, and there is really no provision made for the clerk, although it mentions it," Valliant said.

In defense of the charter, lawyers with the Knox County Law Department have cited its "severability clause" as protecting the document as a whole from any flaws.

"But (the absence of those offices is) not something we can cut out because it's unconstitutional," Valliant said. "It is incomplete and therefore would have to be void."

In fact, if the charter is valid, he contended, "I think this court would have to rule that (the four offices) are operating outside the law."

Yet that's exactly what's been happening since the charter was adopted 16 years ago, claimed Herbert S. Moncier, attorney to third-party defendant and county Commissioner John Schmid.

"All of the politicians decided to leave all the politicians in office," Moncier said. "And nobody is really concerned that we have duplication of offices."

Citing the recent state Supreme Court ruling upholding term limits for county commissioners in Shelby County, he said a county commission and mayor also are considered "constitutional county officers."

State law, however, only requires a charter to establish the legislative body, Moncier argued, while leaving all other duties to be provided for as the local government sees fit.

"Every single duty under state law is provided for by one of these offices we created," he said.

The circuit courts, general sessions court, the school board - they're all established by county ordinance since the charter took effect. For instance, the county's department of finance has the same authority as a trustee and a property assessor, Moncier contended.

"It's the duties that (state law) applies to, not the offices," he said.

Those powers all were transferred to the mayor's office under the charter, Moncier said, except for the sheriff's - and only the charter, not state law, calls for the office to be an elected one.

Attorneys for the disputed office holders, who have been named as third-party defendants in the case, said the charter couldn't trump what the constitution originally calls for under its default form of county government.

Robert Watson, representing Sheriff Tim Hutchison, said the state Supreme Court's decision only applied term limits to offices with qualifications spelled out in a charter. Knox County lists no qualifications for sheriff, or the other "constitutional offices."

Albert Harb, attorney for Trustee Mike Lowe, said it's unconstitutional to term-limit any office because the charter amendment is "vague and overly broad."

And if the charter abolishes the offices, he added, it would say so.

Meanwhile, Knox County Deputy Law Director Mary Ann Stackhouse claimed that the term-limited commissioners' challenge should have been made 18 years ago, when voters approved the charter.

She described the charter as part of a larger structure that includes the constitution and state law, rather than being incomplete.

The commissioners' lawsuit argues that if the charter were invalid, Knox County simply would revert back to the standard form of government prescribed by the constitution.

Stackhouse warned, however, that it wouldn't be nearly so simple. Pensions, ordinances, environmental laws and more might be called into doubt for years to come.

"I don't mean to sound like Chicken Little, but I don't think it would be as smooth as everyone thinks," she said. "I don't even know how invalidating this might affect our bond rating."

Still, what's the county's opinion on term limits? Weaver asked Stackhouse.

"I know that some people may not like my answer," she said, referencing to the state Supreme Court's Shelby County ruling. "But the only persons we can be confident that the term limits apply to are the county commissioners."

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_4747408,00.html