Wed
Oct 22 2008
07:21 pm

Today citizens sitting on the Roane County Grand Jury did what our elected officials and politicians could not or would not do - they made a decision regarding the ethics complaint alleging that discrepancies in T. Kirkham's expense reports were violations of our ethics laws.

Without going into whether the complaints were valid or not, there are lessons to be learned from this affair.

First, what a shame this expense report issue was not handled in a more professional manner. Instead of working toward a decision that would settle the matter the Ethics Committee transformed the complaint into a political football creating a public spectacle that has hurt and disillusioned both Mr. Robinette and Ms. Kirkham.

Despite the fact that our officials are hired to make decisions, the Ethics Committee was content to rack up hundreds of dollars in meeting fees (yes, we pay them to meet) while avoiding any decision making. Instead of looking into the merits of the charges and making a determination, they created a circus by passing the ball to the County Attorney for “investigation”.

There was no mystery here and any literate person could have gotten to the bottom of the expense report caper - probably in less time than it takes to type this blog.

What was there to investigate – you look at the expense reports, look at the phone bills, and then ask a few questions?

Did you go to Nashville on or about these dates?

Can you prove it with reciepts or by collaborating witnesses?

Did you loan your car to a county employee to use on county business?

Can you verify this?

While this seems simple, the County Attorney could not sort things out. He says because Ms. Kirkham would not talk to him.

Yet what was there to talk about – read the expense reports then ask if it was reasonable that Ms. Kirkham went to Nashville on the questioned dates? If it was, ask if the resulting charges were proper? If they were, what was the big deal?

However, the County Attorney could not make a decision so he lateraled the issue to the Attorney General.

More time and taxpayer money up the chimney.

Next the AG wrote a few of his infamous letters before throwing up his hands and the ball to the Grand Jury.

Lo and behold, the matter finally reached a level where decisions are made.

In this case, who made the decision?

Not the paid, elected politicians on the Ethics Committee,

Not the paid, elected County Attorney, and

Not the paid, elected Attorney General,

No only the CITIZENS of ROANE COUNTY sitting on the Grand Jury had the guts to decide!

Folks, regardless of whether you agree with the Grand Jury or not at least they had the BLANK [insert word of your choice] to make a decision - rather thank goodness they weren’t so worried about their collective political futures that they couldn't make a decision.

It seems that all the politicians involved were too afraid to say publicly what they must have been thinking – “this is nonsense”.

Had the Ethics Committee taken time to dig into the paperwork this issue could have been put to rest at the very first meeting (saving a great deal of money).

Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the politicians failed to act. Why?

Here is my take:

First, from personal experience I know that some of our long-time politicians are all about chairing meetings, collecting fees, photo ops, and grandstanding but quickly fade into the woodwork when the heavy lifting begins.

Second, from personal experience, I have observed that some of our most prominent politicians won’t make a move without testing the political winds. (I swear I could pass gas in a meeting and our leader would have heart palpitations if he thought the ill wind was from a disgruntled voter!)

Put those two facts together and I believe you have a good handle on why the Ethics Committee turned a simple matter into an expensive debacle.

Did the elected officials on the Ethics Committee find it too hard to take action because they feared looking bad?

Did they fear how they might look if they actually made a decision?

They couldn’t and wouldn’t rule as did the Grand Jury because they were to scared someone might cry “favoritism”.

So politics trumped duty resulting in a sad episode of buck-passing. Instead of relying on their backbones for fortitude, it seems the Ethics Committee chose to shield itself from ridicule by shifting responsibility. They seemed not to have cared whether the charges were true, false, significant, or immaterial so long as someone else made the final determination.

Here’s a simple solution to the problem:

Since the citizens on the Grand Jury had no problem making a decision when none of our elected officials could, it makes sense that we need citizens on the Ethics Committee. We need people who were not worried about re-election or their political futures to serve.

Here are some ideas that may help clean up our County Ethics Committee:

1. Place an equal number of citizens as officials on the Ethics Committee,

2. Make a citizen, not an official, chairman of the Ethics Committee,

3. Require sworn complaints but only if

4. Complainants are treated like whistle-blowers and given immunity against retaliation.

If it seems paradoxical to give immunity against retaliation while requiring sworn complaints, it is not. The immunity against retaliation would apply only in cases where the complaint was made in good faith and was not frivolous. Thus, citizens would think twice against swearing a false or frivolous complaint.

On the other hand, the swearing requirement would not deter citizens from filing good-faith complaints because they would understand that they would not suffer retaliation - even if their good-faith complaint were thrown out.

In addition, if the Ethics Committee were made up of an equal number of citizens and officials, the complainants would likely feel more comfortable about swearing complaints.
In other words, they would not feel like they were “going up against the establishment”.

Naturally, immunity would not protect the complainant in cases of libel or slander.

In this case sworn statements would help make sure complaints were limited to valid issues.

In the end what choice do we have. If our elected officals and professional politicians won't make decisions, let's turn to the citizenry who can.

Well said!!! If you can't

Well said!!! If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. This was a pretty trivial matter, I feel it was driven by 3rd party personal motives, and was a waste of time and money.

Just read the brief in KNS,

Just read the brief in KNS, just wondered how Robinette affords Greg Issacs.

Thanks for the tip, Chelsea

Only Kirkham and her attorney showed up, while Robinette's lawyer, Gregory P. Isaacs, advised him not to appear.

Here's the link

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid / TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.