MACC Coffeehouse returns this Saturday!

The MACC Coffeehouse returns this Saturday, June 26. While the roof is still being repaired, Sweet Gipsy coffee shop (http://www.sweetgipsy.com/) has graciously agreed to continue to host this event. This Saturday we will open at 7pm and go until 10-ish.

At 7, we will open with my trio, The Orchard Band featuring Alice and Robert Thatcher along with myself doing an eclectic set of folk-rock standards from the 60's and 70's and beyond!

At 8, former Signal Mountain resident Zach Laliberte will be performing his songs. You can find out more about Zach at his website http://www.zachlaliberte.com/. I have heard him and he is quite good and a pleasure to listen to.

At 9 we will open up the stage for the traditional open mike/jam featuring any musicians who want to come, bring their instrument and play either solo or with the group.

So come on out, sample some of Sweet Gipsy's coffee and treats and enjoy some local music. There is no cover charge.

Recent town council meeting and Signal Mountain business issues

Our latest Town Council meeting was this past Monday, June 14. There were several major issues on the agenda. One was an appeal of a decision by the Design Review Commission (DRC). I have long had concerns that the DRC's guidelines were too vague and that the sign ordinance was too restrictive. We have done several things over my term to try to help and support the DRC while requesting that they do a comprehensive review of these guidelines, many of which date back to the early '90's and are contradictory and unnecessarily vague leading to capricious decisions based on personal opinions of members rather than adherence to town guidelines.

There is a new business trying to open on Signal Mountain at the location of the old CVS. It is a restaurant called "Guthrie's Chicken" which is a franchise owned by local Signal Mountain residents. They have run into several regulatory hurdles from the town and WWTA and I have tried to help them through these issues. Their portion of their meeting with the DRC lasted over 2 hours and led to several decisions that they needed to appeal, one involving a logo required by their corporate office and one involving an admittedly awkward location for their drive-through. To make a long story short, I was highly gratified that the council decided to overrule the DRC and approve the items as appealed. This was after some discussion back and forth between Guthrie's and town staff and included give and take on both sides. It involved a drive-through setup with no perfect solution and I appreciate the council deciding to err on the side of supporting local business. While the process was unnecessarily long and tedious, I was glad it led to a positive outcome.

I should emphasize that I do not have a problem with reasonable regulations (reasonable being an admittedly loaded word). However, I feel that such regulations should be clear and precise and easy to interpret so that a building can follow them. If a business then follows the guidelines, their process of starting a business up here should be smooth and easy. I realize that no regulations can be perfect and account for every condition. That is where the DRC can be helpful and I have seen them work with a business to advise them on their signs or design in a cooperative fashion. They should also advise the council when they think their guidelines (which are town ordinances) need revision. However, no commission or councilmember should insert their personal opinions for or against business decisions that they just don't like or agree with.

Finally, there was an announcement from Hershel Dick that he would not run for re-election and from Susan Robertson that she would run to stay on the council. So the town council election, to be held Tuesday, Nov. 2, will have three seats up for election. So far, Susan Robertson is the only candidate who has announced. I have heard from one or two folks thinking of running, but noone else has announced yet. Decisions need to be made soon. The deadline for submitting your application to run (you have to get a small number of voters to sign a petition) is August 19. If anyone has any questions about the process of running or what's involved in serving, I would be happy to talk with them.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and some random political thoughts...

The League of Signal Mountain Voters met on Saturday, June 12. Dr. Clif Cleaveland led a discussion of the recent health care reform bill with 14 interested citizens. It was an informative presentation with questions and discussion which was polite and respectful showing Signal Mountain's citizens at their best.

Dr. Cleaveland gave some perspective and background, pointed out facts about health care delivery in the United States, based both on his research and extensive experience as a long-practicing physician. He pointed out the need for more coverage, more coordination of care, better cost-containment and the need for people to live healthier lives. We discussed issues of malpractice and defensive medicine, compared America's system with several other countries. He layed out the timeline for implementation of the various aspects of the Act over the next 4 years. He recommended a website for further research: http://www.kff.org/.

I hope to have our next meeting in July or August. I had originally hoped to have a candidate forum with the candidates for the District 2 County Commission race, but as you know I have been essentially stonewalled by the two candidates. I hope that some sort of forum will occur. I find that many people are still not even aware that there is a race (they thought Fields won the race by winning the primary and don't even know there is an independent candidate) and certainly seem unaware of the candidates' positions. While I encourage people to go to the candidates websites, I also strongly urge people to ask some hard questions of the candidates. They have encourage you call them and both have phone numbers and email addresses on their websites and in the Signal Mountain Guild phonebook. Both candidates have a site on Facebook.

Jim Fields' website is:
http://www.electjimfields.com/ . Mr. Fields also highlights his involvement in this organization:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

Mr. Fields makes no mention of education on his website that I can find, even though this has been an important issue on Signal Mountain and figured prominently in our forum with him and Dr. Casavant in May. He made a mention of the importance of paying attention to private schools and home-schooling, but didn't elaborate on how that relates to the County Commission position. He also looks to balance the budget with budget cuts, but is unable to provide specifics. He supports term limits, but doesn't specify how many terms he would serve. I would encourage voters to press him on these points.

David Cantrell's website is: http://www.davidcantrell.org/ . Mr. Cantrell is running as an independent, though I understand he voted in the Democratic Primary in 2006 and 2008. He moved here in 2005, so I don't know if he had any political involvement prior to that. He does have a statement on his website in support of public education, though I have a hard time squaring this with his active support of Joe Dumas in the School Board race 2 years ago (his wife was Joe's campaign treasurer). Since he wasn't here for the various votes that allowed the high school to be built here, I think it is important to ask for more specifics about just how he would support public education and whether he would have supported building the high school up here or whether he agreed with Joe Dumas' active and vocal opposition to the high school. Interestingly, Joe Dumas endorsed Jim Fields in the Republican Primary.

I do want to remind everyone to vote on August 5 or during early voting (July 16 - July 31). I also want to remind everyone that the Signal Mountain Town Council elections will be November 2. As you know, I am not running for re-election and at this point, Hershel Dick has not decided if he is running or not. Susan Robertson apparently is running for re-election. Anyone interested in running needs to file their petition by Thursday, August 19 at 12noon. So, if anyone has thought about serving their community, this would be a good year with at least one open seat on the council. Feel free to contact me for information or go to: http://elect.hamiltontn.gov/default.aspx. The last council election was uncontested which is never a good thing in a democracy.

MACC Roof and public input

On June 4 we had our monthly "agenda meeting". Most of this was routine. An engineer (James Cawthorne) presented details on planned improvements in water supply to our water customers down near the "space house" and Loretta Hopper reported on research on traffic calming devices like rumble strips. We also discussed an exciting proposal from a private company to do curbside recycling for a monthly fee but with "rebates" in the form of reward points based on amount recycled. We are researching this further, also.

Another issue which came up was one I thought of as minor though it created quite a stir from the rest of the council. However, it does bring up the broader issue of the role of our various town commissions and boards. We have many such boards and this council has expanded the numbers of boards over the last 3 1/2 years. It is my opinion that these boards are a valuable way to get citizens involved directly in town activities and provide valuable public input on specific issues as representatives of the town. While the town council obviously has final authority and responsibility to decide, I have always felt that input from citizen boards on issues pertinent to their area of interest should be strongly considered. Sometimes, it is valuable to try to hold large public hearings for citizen input, but doing this on too many issues can lead to paralysis.

The specific issue being considered was the project to replace the roof on the Mountain Arts Community Center. This roof was originally slate, but over time has been mostly replaced with shingles. The architect planning this project presented the idea of using a dark, brick red color which he felt would compliment the mountain stone facade. He presented this to town staff who liked the idea. Frankly, I was initially dubious, but after seeing a picture of the what the MACC would look like I was intrigued. I then was up in Nashville visiting the Hermitage and saw several old service building from the 20's and 30's with similar roofs and realized how attractive they were and that this would be an historic look and I became supportive. The staff then took it to the appropriate town committees. This was approved unanimously by the MACC Board. The MACC Foundation, formerly known as Friends of MACC, is not an official "town" board, but they reviewed the idea and approved it (I think there was one dissenting vote). Finally, the project went before the town Design Review Committee where it was also approved unanimously and, as I understand it with minimal controversy or discussion. My understanding was that the council liaison, Susan Robertson even raised no objections at that time. Nonetheless, with the shingles on order for this past Tuesday, Annette Allen went to the town manager over the Memorial Day holiday to ask for a public hearing process to approve this change and sent an email to the council. Bill Lusk emailed that the town should go ahead and replace the roof with his own personal choice of color for the roof based on the previous color instead of the one approved by the multiple committees. We delayed the process until the end of the week when our meeting was scheduled. This meeting was well-attended by members of the MACC Board, MACC Foundation and DRC and MACC Board chairman Bill Wallace made a presentation on the process of making this decision and asking why the council disagreed. The other members of the council stated that they thought it wouldn't be accepted by the public. When I pointed out that nearly 100% of the "public" on these three committees had supported it, I was told that they (the committees) were not representative of the "public" because they were "artsy" people and better educated than the general citizenry of Signal Mountain. I obviously objected strenuously and made a motion to accept the recommendation of the architect, staff, MACC Board, MACC Foundation and DRC. This motion was rejected 1-4. So, the MACC will have a grey roof (decided on by the council majority without any further public input). Since the price of shingles was supposed to go up 5-7% the next week, the various committees present asked the council to move forward rather than drag this out any longer with further public hearings.

Obviously, this view of "citizen input" disagrees with my view. In our last meeting, we were presented with a budget item to replace the floor in the gym. This was a high priority from the Recreation Committee and was recommended by our staff (including the Recreation Director and Town Manager). The Council decided to take this item out of the budget. I recommended we meet with the Rec Board to better understand the need, but was overrulled with Hershel Dick in particular being very adamant that we should not have the board talking to us about budget items and that only staff should have input. Bill Lusk stated at our next meeting that he had "shot a few hoops" in the gym that morning and decided the floor did not need replacement. Again, I would have preferred a more open process with input from the citizen committee which has responsibility and particular interest in this area. A final example involves the MACC Board once again when they recently had some questions about the salary and employment agreement of the MACC Director and Mr. Dick asked Honna Rogers to inform the MACC Board that the director "works for the town, not for them". I pointed out that, frankly I considered the citizens to be the town and that we, the Council and all the staff work for "them".  This is my opinion.

I would urge citizens to give thought to our various committees and their responsibilities (and the amount of time that citizens volunteer for these committees) and let the council know if they are comfortable with these boards representing them.

Signal Mountain, Tennessee Issues and Politics: Upcoming benefit

Signal Mountain, Tennessee Issues and Politics: Upcoming benefit

Upcoming benefit

I'll be sitting in with Kathy's band on bass. Be there!

Paul M. Hendricks

County Commission election forum follow-up

It appears that my efforts to put together a candidate forum for the District 2 general election will not be successful. As you probably know, a political discussion group I formed, The League of Signal Mountain Voters had an informal forum before the Republican primary between the two Republican candidates, Casavant and Fields. We had always planned to do another one for the general election between the primary winner and the independent candidate, David Cantrell.

Immediately after the primary, on May 6 to be exact I talked directly with both candidates to inform them of our plans and followed with up with an email that same day suggesting details. At that time I suggested that the middle two weeks of July would be ideal, due to early voting dates, but that I was open to other dates and suggestions. I lined up the auditorium at SMMHS for this with the support of Principal McCullough.

After not hearing anything for several days, I ran into Mr. Fields who stated he was waiting to talk with Mr. Cantrell. While I thought it unusual that the candidates were working together on this, I felt that at least we were making progress. I subsequently learned that Mr. Cantrell suggested the dates of June 5-19 and Mr. Fields said he wouldn't be able to make those dates. I followed up with the two candidates on May 17 and asked if they could confirm a date before May 22. This was for my convenience since I have to set my July work schedule by then. Mr. Fields said that he was unable to make that deadline. I told him that scheduling would be more difficult for me after that, but that I was still open to working with them. Mr. Cantrell stated that he could't do the third week in July (seemingly implying that was the only time I had offered to do this) and that he was working with "others" to put on a forum.

I then learned that Mr. Cantrell had contacted town manager Honna Rogers about putting on a forum, without telling her that I was working on such a forum. Frankly I think this was disingenuous on his part. In retrospect I wish I had informed her that I was doing this (I guess I thought she would have read this in my blog). I did not think the town would or should conduct this for several reasons. First, to my knowledge the town has not previously conducted forums for races other than the town council. More importantly, it is well known that the Cantrells are close social friends of the rest of the council. Annette Allen and her husband, John Shearburn have already donated $1000 to Mr. Cantrell's campaign (as of the last reporting period: http://elect.hamiltontn.gov/candidate/current/042910/Cantrell,%20David%202010-04-24.pdf). I don't know if any of the others have donated to him since 4/24. Both Bill Lusk and Susan Robertson are listed as supportive on his campaign Facebook page and Bill Lusk's wife, Sandy has a link to Mr. Cantrell's site on her website: http://southernliberalliving.com/. I have not found similar links to Mr. Fields' sites. Because of this I was concerned that any forum sponsored by the Council would be unlikely to be acceptable to Mr. Fields. This is why I kept my efforts separate.

It certainly seems that both candidates have told me to move on and that they are unable to make a commitment. Frankly, the fact that these two were unable to find 2 free hours between May 6 and August 5 to get together to discuss issues with the voters makes me wonder how they will find time to serve on a County Commission which is essentially a second job and quite a busy one, but that is a question for the voters to ask him (although I am one of those, aren't I?). While I remain open if the candidates request my involvement, I will no longer actively pursue this effort.

The League of Signal Mountain voters will continue, however with a meeting on Saturday, June 12 at 10am on the porch at Sweet Gipsy. Dr. Clif Cleaveland will update us on the status of the health care reform legislation recently passed with an emphasis on implementation schedules and implications. Dr. Cleaveland is a well-respected physician and very knowledgeable about health care policy. This should be an excellent discussion. These meetings are always open to anyone interested in open-minded and civil discussion of important issues.

County Commission election forum

I am still waiting to hear from the two candidates for a commitment to a candidate forum this July. I had asked for a commitment by this past weekend or certainly by the end of this week (frankly, this is for my sake because of my work schedule). Mr. Fields said he couldn't commit by the end of this week. I have not received a reply from Mr. Cantrell other than his initial "I'll get back to you" reply. If anyone out there knows either of these gentlemen and supports the idea of a forum, I would ask you to encourage them to contact me. I have the sponsorship of Signal Mountain Middle/High School since we are using their auditorium. I also have a commitment from the Community News to give this forum coverage (I haven't contacted other outlets such as TV or Chattanoogan.com, yet. I was waiting for more specific dates). I am still hopeful this forum will occur. I feel strongly that the voters deserve more information to decide about these two gentlemen, especially as neither has served in public office before and therefore neither has a record. I encourage everyone to look at their campaign websites and ask them to be more specific about their specific stands on issues:

http://electjimfields.com/

http://davidcantrell.org/

I do want to thank Mr. Cantrell for responding to my curiousity about his independent candidacy (http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_175379.asp ).Frankly, I thought his response was pretty good. One of the pleasures of running for town council was the fact that it was a non-partisan race and this liberated me from being attached to any irrelevant national "party" issues. As Richard Casavant used to tell me "potholes don't have parties"... ie, local issues rarely fall down into partisan positions, so I certainly understand where Mr. Cantrell is coming from even though it does make it a harder race to run.

One other issue... I am going to start moderating responses to this blog. I do not intend to prevent anyone from responding to the issues I have covered. All the responses I have received to my blog issues have been appropriate and highly appreciated by me. However, somehow I am getting some occasional Chinese and Russian spam and even porn, which I do not want getting through, so plan to delete that. If you ever send a response and don't see it on here within a day, please email me (paulmhmd@comcast.net) and I'll be sure it gets there, but hopefully I can screen out the inappropriate and irrelevant nonsense. Ain't the internet a wonderful thing???

Thanks for the interest.
Paul M. Hendricks

County Commission election forum

As I have previously stated, I am working on putting together a candidate forum between County Commission candidates David Cantrell (I) and Jim Fields (R). I wanted to make something clear about our earlier forum. When we initially discussed having the forum held earlier between Mr. Fields and Mr. Casavant, I reminded the group that there was an independent candidate in the general election, Mr. Cantrell and asked if we should invite him. The consensus of the group was to only invite the candidates in the upcoming Republican primary. Our intent was always to have another forum between the winner of the Republican Primary and Mr. Cantrell before the general election. I am currently negotiating with the candidates to establish a date in July to hold this forum. SMMHS principal Tom McCullough has agreed to sponsor the forum in the auditorium at the high school. With two months to prepare, I hope for this forum to be better organized and better publicized than the last one which was admittedly a last minute affair. I am hoping that one function of the new organization we are forming, the League of Signal Mountain Voters will be to hold more forums such as this for local elections such as Town Council races (both for Signal Mountain and Walden) and County Commission and School Board races and maybe even state legislative elections. I'll post details when available.

County Commission primary

I am obviously saddened by the loss of Richard Casavant in the County Commission race. I have great respect for Richard and his service to our town and county. Without Richard we would not have a high school on Signal Mountain according to Claude Ramsey (along with Chip Baker and the many, many friends of the High School).

I do congratulate Jim Fields on his victory and compliment him for his gracious comments about Dr. Casavant after the election.

As you should know, Mr. Fields will be running against David Cantrell in the general election on August 5. I honestly don't know Mr. Cantrell well at all, I've probably never said more than hello to him. I have had my differences with his wife, Melissa Cantrell who is the chair of the Planning Commission, though I realize that shouldn't reflect on him. I do know that he and his wife were strong supporters of and campaign workers for Joe Dumas during Joe's last political campaign which clearly raises red flags in regards to his support for public education. Other than the initial announcement article in the Chattanoogan:( http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_171610.asp )I have heard nothing of what his positions are or his reasons for running. I am, of course always curious about reasons why someone runs as an "independent". I really don't know his politics except that his wife once implied to me that they were Democrats (in an email from Ms. Cantrell she said to me "I've even been told that you are a Democrat - not a bad thing in my household"). Clearly if he was to run as a Democrat the primary field would have been clear. So, that is a question I would like to ask.

I was quite appalled at the lack of opportunity for the candidates to present their views to the voters. As you know, I put together a last minute forum for the two Republican candidates which suffered from being last minute. I plan to work towards putting together a forum this summer for Mr. Fields and Mr. Cantrell to present their views to the public. Details are pending, but I will work at publicizing it as much as possible.

Finally, I was also appalled at the pitiful turnout for this election. Less than 8.5% of Hamilton County voters voted. That is shameful. Stuart James commented on this on his blog:
http://www.truthfactor.org/articles_details.php?The-Death-of-Our-Republic-538 . I hope that we can get better attention on the upcoming general election this summer (August 5) and fall.

Candidate Forum News

Intrepid voters!

On Saturday morning, April 24, a group of hardy souls braved the rain and gathered on the porch at Sweet Gipsy Coffee Shop on Signal Mountain to hear from the two Republican candidates for County Commission District 2. Incumbent Richard Casavant and challenger Jim Fields spoke and answered questions for an hour on the topics confronting the County Commission and explicated their reasons for running.

Dr. Richard Casavant



The event started with opening statements. Dr. Casavant emphasized his experience and excitement about the future prospects for the county with the pending opening of the Volkswagon plant and several other new and expanding businesses. He mentioned his priorities were public education, sewer infrastructure to drive economic growth “where it needs to be rather than just where it perks”, and supporting opportunities for young families.

James Fields

Mr. Fields emphasized his business experience as a lawyer running a small practice and his volunteer work with his church and other community organizations. He stated he was running as a conservative and emphasized his opposition to any new taxes.

The floor was then opened for questions and education was clearly on everyone’s mind. The first question was about the news of the day that money was yet to be found to support the German “school” or program promised to Volkswagon executives. The moderator asked if the rainy day fund would be tapped or if other sources would be found. Dr. Casavant stated his support for this promise and his conviction that the money would be found. He stated he opposed using the rainy day fund in order to protect the county’s AAA bond rating which keeps interest rates low. He stated that the ultimate problem with funding was at the state level and that the BEP formula was unfair. Mr. Fields also agreed that the funding for the German school should be protected. He stated that education was important and that, rather than raising funds he would look at the cost side for ways to balance budgets. He also stated that private school and home school students should be addressed, but wasn’t specific about just how.

The next question was on protecting the IB program at Signal Mountain Middle/High School. Dr. Casavant stated that he was working on getting the teachers for the IB program. Mr. Fields stated that he couldn’t guarantee any positions and had no specific answer, but would do his best to fund education.

Next, the candidates were asked about Mr. Fields pledge to cut costs and he was asked for specifics. He stated he would “look through the budget” for what is essential, but did not know the specifics although he pledged not to cut “the classroom”. Dr. Casavant commented that there was always room for more efficiency, but that it was more important to be effective and give the teachers the tools to teach. He said that the education budget was already very lean. He stated he was proud of what has been accomplished on Signal Mountain and wanted to be sure that no “sand was put in the gears”. He also reminded the audience that there were other schools in the district that had to be considered, specifically mentioning the new Middle School in Red Bank.

On a related topic, but with a different approach, the candidates were asked “what’s wrong with increasing taxes for schools”. The questioner commented on living in other areas with higher taxes and more resources for schools. Mr. Fields again commented that he opposed increasing taxes unless it was voted for in a public referendum. Dr. Casavant noted that the property tax rate since 1997 had decreased from 2.982 per hundred to 2.7652 per hundred. While this decrease was primarily to compensate for increased assessments, he noted that without the increases passed over the last 12 years the town’s fiscal status would be very poor. He also commented that most of those increases had gone to schools.

Next, Mr. Fields was asked what new ideas he would bring to the County Commission. He corrected the questioner that he would actually bring a new perspective and different experiences. He stated he would focus on the VW plant and encourage local hiring, though again was not specific about how he would accomplish this. He mentioned the idea of having commission meetings at night. Dr. Casavant reiterated his excitement about the future for Hamilton County. He noted that he had seen an increase in his students getting jobs locally and the fact that the VW plant is already hiring and will be making cars soon. He also commented on the changing nature of our community due to international investment in Hamilton County and how important it was for us to prepare for global competition. He expressed his desire to continue to be a part of this economic future.

On a lighter note, the candidates were asked what they would do to improve the nutritional quality of school lunches! They both stated that they supported nutritional meals, but that those specifics were more the responsibility of the school board.

A more pointed question was then asked. The audience member questioned the “rosie picture” of the local situation presented by Dr. Casavant. He mentioned Spring Hill and wondered if the VW plant would just become an albatross, asking if taxes would rise to fund VW. Dr. Casavant mentioned examples such as Greenville, SC and West Point, GA which, unlike Spring Hill continue to have successful auto plants. He noted the importance to diversify our economy to prevent the very problem that the questioner presented and keep the county from becoming too dependent just on VW. Mr. Fields agreed with Dr. Casavant about the need to diversify and again stated his opposition to taxes as inhibiting business.

A related question on what else might be in the works for Hamilton County was put to Dr. Casavant. He noted that we should always be careful about assisting businesses since we can’t predict future success. He stated that we need people willing to risk their own money as entrepreneurs. Dr. Casavant was also asked about a rumor the questioner had heard about “discretionary funds” that each commissioner has and he reassured the questioner that any left over funds stayed with the county and would not be kept by him personally if he left office.

During closing statements, the candidates asked for the votes of the group and thanked them for their interest. The candidates had both agreed to answer questions from each other and Dr. Casavant asked Mr. Fields a final question about whether he had supported the bond issue which allowed SMMHS to be built. Mr. Fields responded that he had voted against that bond issue. He later contacted the moderator to clarify that his vote was not against the high school, but against the funding mechanism.

The group sponsoring this forum is a political discussion group recently formed by a group of friends on Signal Mountain. They plan to meet regularly to inform themselves and the public about issues and the public are always welcome at their meetings. They are meeting under the name “League of Signal Mountain Voters” and future meetings will be publicly announced.

Big Weekend Coming Up

Two big events this weekend deserve notice.

First, Saturday morning, April 24 there will be an informal candidate forum with the two Republican candidates for County Commission District 2 from 10-11am at Sweet Gipsy Coffee Shop. Some friends and I have recently started a political discussion group, tentatively called the "League of Signal Mountain Voters". This initially was inspired by the CoffeePartyUSA which was started as a counterpart to the so-called "Tea Party" movement. While the Coffee Party has had a decidedly liberal or progressive approach, we decided to keep this group non-partisan at the local level so are not formally affiliated with them. Our primary emphasis is to discuss issues on a factual basis with openness to opposing and dissenting viewpoints and a polite and civil approach to discussion. So, with all that introduction, we had our first meeting at Sweet Gipsy coffee shop a week ago with about a dozen folks there talking about what we wanted to do with this concept. We decided to put a strong emphasis on encourage voter education, participation and turnout, especially with the county primary coming up on May 4. So, that being said, we will have current County Commissioner Richard Casavant and his Republican opponent, Jim Fields at our meeting on Saturday at 10am on the porch at Sweet Gipsy. This will be open to the public. I will moderate and will expect all to act in a civil and respectful manner. There will be opening comments and then questions from the audience.

On a lighter note, the next day, Sunday April 25 The Orchard Band, featuring Robert and Alice Thatcher and myself will be performing at Sweet Gipsy during their weekly Sunday brunch from 11am-2pm. We will also have guest performers! So come on down for lunch and some good acoustic music!

Commercial Design Public Meeting

This Thursday, March 25 from 6pm-8pm there will be a public meeting at the Town Hall. It will be conducted by Ann Coulter and her company whom the town has consulted to help in developing commercial design standards. I urge all citizens to come and express their opinions on this subject.

I have to confess that I was initially reluctant at the expense for this project. The original cost was approx. $50,000. After some negotiation and narrowing of focus, we were able to decrease that to approx $25,000. I said at the time that I felt the timing was appropriate because I expected new commercial development on the mountain. Frankly, because of the enthusiasm this council has expressed toward expanded commercial development, I expected the proposed grocery store project behind the current shopping center to be approved. If I had known it would be rejected, I would have preferred to wait on this consultation until our finances were more robust. Nonetheless, this meeting is being held and it is important that all citizens have a say in the future of the mountain.

The scope of this project has been somewhat misunderstood. Some have thought that Ms. Coulter would recommend where commercial development would occur on the mountain. However, those proposals were part of the land use plan and are included in that plan. Ms. Coulter will be helping the Design Review Commissiond revise our commercial design standards for appearance of our commercial buildings. This will obviously be of particular interest to owners and tenants of our current buildings and those interested in future developments. However, all citizens should have an interest and a say in these standards and also understand the potential pros and cons of such design standards in the area of expense, limits on renovationst, etc. So please turn out this Thursday and let us know what you think.

Shameless Musical Plug

Mark you calendars for this Sunday, March 7. My acoustic trio, The Orchard Band, featuring Robert and Alice Thatcher (and myself) will be performing at Sweet Gipsy coffee shop from 11am-2pm. So come by after church for lunch or a late breakfast and enjoy an eclectic variety of late '60's/early 70's acoustic music. For those of you who don't know where it is, it is on James Blvd, just north of Thrasher Elementary right at the entrance of the Orchard neighborhood! For directions, go to www.sweetgipsy.com! Y'all come!

zoning request for grocery store

I just returned from the Planning Commission meeting. The PC recommended against rezoning the land behind the shopping center on a 4-2 vote. Cheryl Graham and Van Bunch were absent and Guy Beaty recused himself due to personal connections with the case.

I confess to having been quite surprised by this. The motion to deny was made by Annette Allen and seconded by Bill Lusk. This is particularly surprising considering that this council had been so aggressive in promoting commercial development. Just a year ago there was great enthusiasm by Ms. Allen and Robertson in particular for selling town property for commercial development. I also know that Bill Lusk has recently been buying some commercial property in the town (but not in the shopping center involved). He stated he wanted more time to talk with surrounding neighbors and walk the property even though the request was original presented in, I believe October if memory serves. I'm not sure what more he wanted to learn. He also said he talked with a large number of business owners and has been unable to find any of them who support this. I would be curious to know if any business owners reading this talked with him and what their reasons were for opposing it.

The projected tax benefits to the town from this development are projected to be on the order of $300,000 per year. I certainly agree with concerns about the surrounding property owners potentially affected by this, although only a few would actually be directly affected. Approximately half the property would be preserved as potential open space (I would certainly look for guarantees such as conservation easements for this). Since this area is currently zoned residential, that protection is not guaranteed at present and I'm sure that any potential residential development would try to maximize use of all the property. I'm also just as sure that the property owners will not be content to let the property stay undeveloped and the town cannot prohibit any development on this property.

After hearing the presentation tonight, I would certainly lean towards supporting this rezoning, but would like to look at ways to maximize protection of surrounding property owners, perhaps through wider buffers or berms or other options. I fear that the town is losing one of the only potential sources of new revenues considering the strong opposition to future residential growth and the difficulty of annexation (and the possibility that the state may make annexation even harder). Planning Commission member Wayne Williams made an eloquent statement on this point. Our budgets are getting tighter and the demands are getting greater.

As an example, the sidewalk proposed for James Blvd, while mostly funded with federal tax dollars, will also require about $50,000 in town contributions. Frankly, I begin to wonder if we can afford this. The MACC will require a substantial sum to repair the roof just to get it opened for business again and we need to make some major repairs to the gym roof. We need a new public works building desperately and, should the annexation go through, will probably need to build a new fire station on Shackleford Ridge Road (though we have some money set aside for that).

Folks, it is getting to be time to make some decisions. We all want more services and sidewalks and want to add more parks and preserve our open spaces (certainly things I support), but we are going to need to pay for it. Our revenues from the Hall Income Tax (on investments) have decreased with the problems on Wall Street and property taxes are really about all we have to go on. I fear we are trying to have our cake and eat it, too and I fear that our chickens will soon be coming home to roost (hey, is there a market for mixed metaphors??).

Just completed one of our "agenda" sessions which was quite productive. I was given a preliminary draft of the potential locations for a future sidewalk down James Blvd. I want to begin by correcting an error on my part. I have said several times that my understanding was that we did not have the right-of-way across the street from the Country Club to build a sidewalk, but that is not the case. This preliminary document shows potential locations for a sidewalk on both sides of the street in the town's right of way. While other issues may arise (and apparently the issue of utilities is also pretty much equal on both sides), at present it seems that either side would be feasible. It think it is important that everyone know this. These plans will be available at the public meeting next Wednesday, Feb. 3 from 6-8pm. This is a "drop-in"meeting, so come when you can and stay for as long as you want.

Representatives of the Country Club, including club President Doug Fisher and Mike Feher, the Club's representative to the Council attended. They arrived with a very cooperative attitude and the discussions were mostly polite and open on both sides. There was some heated discussion between Mr. Fisher and Vice-Mayor Robertson over some statements she apparently sent out stating that only a few trees would need to be removed if the sidewalk goes in on the CC side. This seems to be overly optimistic based on new information and she admitted this. Clearly we are all gaining new information all the time (as my mea culpa above indicates). The meeting next Wednesday will be a good opportunity for information and input from the town's citizens to the engineers on this project. This is NOT a Town Council meeting. I have to work and will be unable to attend, but I'm sure the other members will be there to listen. I will receive copies of all comments and engineering advice and will give my own input and questions. I want to say that this should not be a "town vs the Country Club" issue and comments about elitists, etc are totally out of line. Apparently there have been some nasty personal comments made (probably on both "sides") and I hope this will stop. I'm tired of "sides". We need to decide what the town wants (and it seems that most do want to go ahead with the sidewalk) and how best to do it. Clearly we should do this the safest way possible and with the least negative impact on the Country Club. So, if you have advice, please tell us if you want the sidewalk or not and, if you do, how best to build it.

In other news... we approved the contract with EPB. Several of their executives were present and everyone was very relieved and happy that we had come to an agreement that I feel is very positive for the town and which they seem content with. Hopefully we should have EPB fiber-optic cable and internet by the fall (or possibly sooner).

We also discussed some new approaches to our efforts to cut energy use and decrease our carbon "footprint" in keeping with our signing the "Mayor's Agreement on Climate Change" when I was Mayor. We talked about appointing a committee to look at these issues in a more formal and systematic way. The organization (called "ICLEI") promoting this issue have tools for measuring the town's effectiveness in this direction. We are already saving money through these efforts, so this isn't purely a pie in the sky issue. We will be looking for potential members for such a committee and possibly dedicating some staff time the next time we bring a management intern to our town as we have in the past (probably this summer).

Finally, the issue was brought up to change our charter. This was raised by Ms. Robertson. Clearly our charter, approved in 1990 has a few outdated measures (such as authority to have sewers and schools). However, it doesn't require us to have these, so these measure are merely superfluous and doesn't restrict or direct the town in any way. A major focus seems to be on the Mayor position. Clearly this has been a concern for the rest of the Council. When I was Mayor, then-Councilmember Bill Lusk (with the apparent support and encouragement of the rest of the Council) went to our state legislative delegation to change the way Planning Commission members are appointed. This was done without my knowledge. Formerly, the Mayor appointed these members. This was essentially the ONLY specific power that the Mayor had. However, I and I believe all my predecessors have done so with the advice and consent of the rest of the Council, even though that wasn't required by law (as it was with all other boards and commissions). Certainly every appointment I made was done after consulting with all the other council members and were all affirmed with a unanimous vote.

In the interest of democracy I agreed to go along once I found out about this however, if I had known that the law passed by Rep. Floyd and Senator Watson ONLY applied to Signal Mountain and not the rest of the state, I would not have done so. Clearly any changes in our charter (even removing a comma) requires a vote from and the time and attention of the state legislature and therefore I believe should only be done for significant changes. Removing irrelevant or outdated passages without any effect are probably not worth taking up their time. Generally changes in the charter should be recommended by a committee of citizens with much input from the general public and I think if we make any more changes, this is the way it should be done. Among the changes Ms. Robertson seems to want to make are removing references to "the Mayor and Council" on issues such as receiving the oath of office and replacing it with "all Councilmembers". Currently "the Mayor or a majority of the council" can call for special meetings, she wants to make this only "a majority of council" and remove the reference to the Mayor. I don't know what her issue is with the Mayor's position. The others on the council have commented about a "future mayor" (this was when I was Mayor) becoming too powerful! The Mayor of Signal Mountain is elected every two years by a majority of the council! The Mayor is a creature of the Council and obviously, as recent history has shown, would be unwise to oppose or become too independent of the majority of the council if he/she wants to remain Mayor. With all the things that this council and our state legislature has on it plate at present, making these changes does not seem like a good use of their time and I see no reason to pursue them. I did suggest that Ms. Robertson use these suggestions as part of her platform when she runs for re-election in the fall.

I would like to briefly cover the issues involved with the proposed sidewalk down James Blvd. The town received a grant some years ago for this sidewalk, portions of which have already been built from the library out towards Thrasher and from Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church to Maryland. This grant is specific for this stretch of road and cannot be applied elsewhere, so we are basically in a "use it there or lose it" situation.

The first decision for us is whether the sidewalk needs to be built or not. Not building it would mean giving up the rest of the grant, although I have no need to just spend money (even "free" money... and, yes, I know that federal tax dollars are still tax dollars) unless it is needed and wanted. Frankly, I think that the majority opinion at this point, at least from the mail I've received is in favor of building the sidewalk. This will, however involve an investment by the town of $50,000 over and above the amount of the grant, so this decision should be taken carefully.

The second decision involves the technical details of where to put the sidewalk. At present, we have an engineering firm looking at these details. The public meeting planned for Feb. 3 will be an opportunity for the public to review these details and give input to the engineers about what needs to be considered in placing the sidewalk. My understanding is that we have inadequate right of way to place the sidewalk across the street from the country club, but I expect this issue to be answered more formally, through a survey if necessary. There also are issues of utilities, etc.

One side issue involves the "ownership" of the Country Club land. While technically the land is owned by the town and leased to the club, my understanding of the deed is that, if the country club ceases operation the land will revert to the original owners and therefore be available for residential or maybe even commercial development. I don't think that is the best outcome for the town, so I believe it is desirable that the country club remain viable. I have no interest in harming their interests as a business.

The final issue for me involves safety. While the trees the country club planted may not be the best solution and are not a perfect solution, I believe they do a fairly good job of preventing line drive golf balls from endangering pedestrians and vehicles on James. I realize there are controversies about the original approval and planting of the trees, but frankly that is water under the bridge. We are where we are and we have to move forward from here. While I never like the idea of cutting down trees needlessly, I do not see this as an "environmental" issue per se and arguments in that direction are not particularly persuasive. However, back to the issue of safety, I will not be able to support a sidewalk along the Country Club unless the engineers can assure me that pedestrians can walk safely on it. I am sure that if it is built along the country club side, some trees will need to be removed, but I am hopefuly that some solution will be found that will allow a sidewalk to be built safely and still protect the interests of the club. This might involve a fence, a hedge, a net or some similar precaution. These are not necessarily mutually opposite outcomes. However, the devil (as always) will be in the details. I hope that our citizens will keep an open mind and that we do not get into choosing up sides on this issue. Let's try to work together for the best interests of the whole town. This will probably involve compromises by all interested parties, but I think it can be done.

A brief note in case you were planning to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight (Thursday, Jan 21). The developers requesting rezoning of the property behind the shopping center and between Lancaster and Cauthon Way have requested a postponement, so there will be no vote tonight. It is tentatively rescheduled for Feb. 4.

The issue of animal control has obviously raised concerns. I want to address those concerns. First, I want to be clear that my intent and I believe the intent of the council is to use East Ridge as our primary animal control agency (we should get a final word on this very soon). This is a very low-kill shelter, similar to the Humane Education Society we have used in the past. Town Manager Honna Rogers negotiated an arrangement with Cleveland as a back-up, but the numbers of animals sent to shelters from Signal Mountain is so low that I hope it will not be needed. This would only be stray animals picked up whose owners can't be found and only if East Ridge is unavailable. Since we have averaged less than 10 animals a year in this category, I doubt we would need this fall-back. All stray animals delivered to either facility by the town must be held at least 72 hours before adoption or euthanasia.

As to animals surrendered by owners, you would not be required to take these to East Ridge or Cleveland. There are many shelters that will accept such animals. Signal Mountain will no longer pay for this to be done for free, however. You will need to pay a fee wherever you take them. Since animals voluntarily surrendered are not required to be held for 72 hours, I would advise animal owners to do some research before dropping them off. If you find a stray in town, you can contact police dispatch for a free pick-up, but to be honest, I'm not sure if that would fall under the 72 hour rule.

I confess that the arrangement with Cleveland was a surprise to me which I have not personally investigated, but it was always presented as a "last chance" back-up arrangement and we may make similar arrangements with other towns and under those circumstances I support them. We did visit the East Ridge facility and were very impressed with it.

Thank you for all the input and passion. Obviously, the best solution to all of this is for owners to keep their pets under control (ie, follow the leash law) and to be sure they have identification, ideally a microchip id. We have talked in the past with local vets about "volume discounts" or special arrangements for these and if there were a lot of interest in the town, I would certainly support trying to arrange something with our local veterinarians.

I will be reviewing all these arrangements with the town manager try to keep everyone updated on these arrangements. My goal all along has been to provide quality and humane animal control at a reasonable cost to the town. Our current contract with the Humane Education Society, I believe is excessively expensive. If anyone wishes to raise voluntary funds for better arrangements, I will be happy to personally contribute. If anyone has ideas of other facilities we could use, please let us know (we did have talks with McKamey, but they couldn't help us). Thanks again for all the feedback, it helps me do a better job.

I have spent a bit of time on this blog expressing my frustrations with the direction and governing style of the majority on the Town Council. However, in spite of this there are still many wonderful things happening in this town. I recently attended a meeting of the MACC Board. As you know, we have major structural problems with the roof of the MACC and the building is closed for safety issues until these problems can be fixed. I was very pleased that the Council unanimously voiced its support for repairing the building. Our new MACC Director, Barb Storm is working with other town staff to put together the specifications needed to bid out this project. While no decision on funding has been reached, the general discussion has been around using a bond issue. Among the advantages of this approach is that interest rates remain low. Also, I remain hopeful that much of this can be paid for through voluntary contributions rather than a need for any extra tax revenue. A yearly payment on a bond issue would provide a great focus for such contributions and the Friends of MACC are currently stepping up to the plate with great plans for increased fundraising. The enthusiasm of this board is infectious and sure to raise anyone's spirits. Laurie Buchanan has applied for an open position on the board and I expect her to be enthusiastically supported by the Council on Monday. This remains a major bright spot in our town, among many. Our town is a much better place to live because of the enthusiastic volunteerism of its citizens.

In addition, I realize that I go on about our town staff, but with good reason. With the current "snow situation", our staff has again risen to the occasion with employees actually spending the night at the transfer station to be sure that the roads were open for the early morning commute. A recent water pipe break near Alexian brought out our excellent water department working late in the freezing cold to repair this problem. So, next time you see a town employee, give them a hug (or at least a wave!).

From time to time I try to go back to my original "campaign" website to refocus on why I ran for this position. I became a physician because I enjoy helping people and I became a town councilmember for the same reason. I was warned when I ran that I would be deluged with calls demanding various things. I can say that I have never been "deluged" with calls, that nearly all my contacts with our town's citizens (my friends and neighbors) have been respectful and civil and that nothing gives me greater pleasure as a councilmember than to help a fellow citizen steer their way through the bureaucracy. Certainly sometimes the answer I have to bring back is "no", but at least if I can get them an answer I feel I have done a service. Like medicine, government is a service industry and, while we can't be all things to all people, if we lose sight of that fact then we don't deserve to be here. So, in my last year on the council I pledge to refocus on service, continue to do all I can to improve this town, keep our citizens informed about what's going on and hopefully to leave an easier job to whoever may succeed me on the council. Even with the current frustrations and disappointments, it is still a great honor to serve and I will never regret asking for and receiving the trust placed on me by the people of this town.

CORRECTION

CORRECTION! I mentioned our contract with the "Humane Society" in my last blog and referred to them as "HSUS". That acronym is for the Humane Society of the United States. The local organization is called the Humane Education Society. I don't know if they are affiliated in anyway, but I should clarify that our contract is with this local group. Their website is:

www.heschatt.com

I should also state that I have no problems with this organization, wish them well and encourage anyone who so desires to donate to them. However, as a public official with responsibility for your tax dollars it is my responsibility to get the best "bang for the buck" I can and I believe our new arrangements will be much more cost-effective. I appreciate the reader who brought this to my attention so I could clarify and correct it.

I just finished one of our Agenda meetings today. Some good news and some unfortunate news. At our last meeting, we had informally agreed to reappoint 2 members to the Design Review Commission, Chair Greg Goodgame and architect Jay Caughman. Then, at our regular meeting in December, Mayor Lusk stated that since that previous meeting, several more applications had come in and moved to table the resolutions to reappoint them. I protested since there was at least one other opening and another likely opening (which has since occurred due to resignation). I stated that with 3 and probably 4 positions to fill, it made sense to retain our current experienced members (including the chair) and then fill the other two openings with new members. However, the motion to table passed. At today's meeting, it was clear that the decision was already made. Mr. Lusk wasn't present (he is apparently at his beach house in Florida for the holidays), but had sent recommendations for three new members (he wasn't aware the fourth opening had occurred). I again suggested that we retain our two experienced members and appoint two new people. However, my motion to reappoint Greg was defeated for lack of a second (ie, noone else supported it). Jay Caughman was recommended for reappointment along with three others (this will be formalized at our meeting on Monday). I abstained on several of these votes out of protest and not out of any opposition to any specific individual. This is a continuation of the moves by this council to eliminate anyone who has not been in lockstep with them. Most of you will recall that Greg ran for the Council in 2006, coming in 5th. After the 4th place finisher, Lolly Durant removed her name from consideration, Greg offered himself to replace Bob Linehart who had been recalled. Bill Lusk had also applied along with several others. I initially supported Greg for several reasons. He had been attending nearly every council meeting for several years and was very knowledgeable about the issues before the town. (Greg had actually been the person who had suggested to the council that the slow down the SROZ issue, about to be passed in the spring of that year, so that more citizens could become knowledgeable since he know it would be controversial. This allowed the whole "recall" movement to get going). In addition, I had many emails suggesting we should just appoint the next person "in line" from the election, which was Greg after Lolly dropped out. However, after two tied votes between Mr. Lusk and Mr. Goodgame, I decided to change my vote to prevent a divisive and expensive "special election". Greg did remain on the DRC for the next three years, indicating his continued commitment to the town which I appreciated. Nonetheless, he has now been removed in spite of his active participation and interest in continuing on the DRC. I find this continued move to remove anyone who is not a partisan of the council majority (along with Wells Blake just last month) to be highly regrettable and contrary to my own approach to town representation which is to have a diversity of views. Therefore I resigned as the Council liaison to the DRC. I certainly wish them well as we plan to put a lot of work on them in the next few months, but my influence is continuing to be minimized by this council so I can no longer be of any service in that capacity.

In other business, we approved a new cable contract with Comcast which should benefit the town. Hopefully, EPB will now agree to the same terms so that competition can finally come to Signal Mountain. We also agreed to pay Ann Coulter's firm just over $25,000 to conduct a review of our commercial design regulations and the current environment, including conducting a public meeting for input, then work with the DRC to develop new guidelines for future commercial development. While the cost is unpleasant in this fiscal environment, the need is there and the timing is forced on us by the pressure for more commercial development between the proposed Signal Plaza expansion, SMMS and other potential commercial proposals, so I supported it reluctantly. We also approved $727 to fix some playground equipment at Norris Field (on Signal Road).

One very positive element is our animal control situation. As Mayor and a new councilmember, I was astounded to find that we were paying over $36,000 a year to the Humane Society (HSUS) for animal control which has consisted of picking up less than 10 animals per year which had usually already been caught by our police. I pushed hard to develop a new arrangement. We had cancelled our contract with HSUS once, but an agreement we had tentatively worked out with East Ridge fell through, so we went back to HSUS. However now, through the hard work of our Town Manager, Honna Rogers and our Police Chief, Boyd Veal, we should have a new agreement soon using private contractors and the animal shelters of two other towns. This will save the town a LOT of money. The one downside for citizens is that, if you need to "drop off" an unwanted animal at a shelter, you will probably need to pay a fee now, however I do not feel it is the responsibility of the tax payers to pay for this service for individuals.

Well, that's the latest. Please feel free to post comments and your own thoughts. I would love for this to be a multi-way dialogue rather than just a one-way lecture! I hope to hear from you all, soon.

Wow, almost a month since my last blog and so much going on. First, check my new poll out. We recently put up a new sign announcing our monthly meetings. to replace the old black stencil on white sign. This is on the "sign board" on the road up the front of the mountain. Let me know if you like it or not! Now, sit back and relax. This one is kinda long...

On Dec 1 we had one of our monthly "agenda" meetings. We started having these meetings early in my term. We found ourselves having frequent "special meetings" and decided to have one extra meeting for informational purposes and to set the agenda for the upcoming "regular" meeting. These are, however official public town meetings though usually sparsely attended due to being held during the day. The town charter designates the mayor as the "chair" of all town council meetings and during my tenure I conducted these meetings. However, Mayor Lusk has decided to turn these meetings over to the town manager to run. Honna does an excellent job of it, but it has been an interesting and surprising change in the general running of the business of the Council.

Issues discussed at this meeting included several raised by Ms. Allen. As everyone probably knows, it is state law that all bicycle riders under 16 wear helmets and she would like this more aggressively enforced. Apparently, however the maximum fine is only $2. So we are going to take an educational approach. Certainly as an emergency physician I strongly encourage everyone (both under and over 16) to wear helmets when on your bicycle.

She has also raised the issue of charging a monthly fee for extra garbage cans (more than one) to try to encourage recycling and decrease solid waste. Mr. Lusk raised the possibility of a fee of $15-20 per household. Loretta Hopper was asked to study the costs involved and at our Dec 9 regular meeting, she presented some data indicating that the extra costs to the town of those using more than one can to be something less than $10 per year. I certainly urge all citizens to recycle and decrease their solid waste output. However it doesn't appear the cost impact is adequate to justify and extra charge at this point. It has also been pointed out that larger households have more trash and would be penalized. I should remind everyone, though that there are smaller cans than the 96 gallon ones most folks have, so if you have decreased your waste stream, feel free to downsize your trash can.

Good news is that the Council agreed to support repairing the MACC as soon as possible and we passed a resolution at the 12/9 meeting confirming this support. Mr. Lusk raised the idea of a bond issue which might be a reasonable approach with interest rates being so low. This would also allow repairs to begin soon and then efforts to raise private funds could continue to pay down this debt. We are currently putting specs together to get bids on repairs to determine how to move forward.

A major discussion was had over appointments to town boards. As everyone knows, the Planning Commission has become a major source of controversy. Soon after my election (both to the Council and as Mayor), I appointed Melissa Cantrell to the Planning Commission and reappointed Wells Blake, who had served for I believe 6 years at that point. I thought these two provided a diversity of opinions which would benefit the commission. At that time, the appointment process for the Planning Commission was solely in the hands of the mayor by state law, although the town had a history of consultation and consensus with the town council that I followed. Nonetheless, I found out about a year into my tenure that, without my knowledge Mr. Lusk had been working with our legislative delegation to change this law to take this power out of the Mayor's hands and make it a council vote. While I was obviously disturbed by the surreptitious way that this was done, I decided to support this effort in the name of democracy. I later found out that the bill the state passed ONLY applied to Signal Mountain and not to any other city or town. That whole process was frankly disappointing, nonetheless all my appointments were done with the unanimous agreement of the council and all were confirmed by unanimous vote.

At the meeting, when Honna asked if we should reappoint Wells Blake, both Hershel and I said yes. However, the other three councilmembers began raising objections. Annette felt that no one should be appointed to the Planning Commission who has any even peripheral connections with the building industry. Mr. Blake works as an appraiser, as did Reid Sisson when initially appointed though he has since changed jobs. This approach would also exclude Wayne Williams, an architect and an excellent, hard working PC member. While I do not think that the PC should be dominated by development interests, I certainly think they should be represented. Ms. Robertson then specifically accused Mr. Blake of "shmoozing" with developers after the meetings to get business and specifically accused him of conflict of interest. I found this accusation to be outrageous and told her so. Ironically, since Mr. Blake is contracted by banks and lenders, if he were "shmoozing" developers it would do him no good since they don't hire him. I think this approach and attitude is not in keeping with a diverse viewpoint on the PC and can only assume it is a part of a continued attempt to "stack the deck" towards a very narrow viewpoint. Unfortunately, Mr. Dick raised no objections and, while no formal vote was taken, Mr. Blake's name was taken out of nomination for reappointment. His experience, which is greater than anyone else on the PC will be missed. No replacement for him was decided on at that time.

This brings me back to the topic of Ms. Cantrell. As I said, I appointed her to the PC 3 years ago. However, I can know longer support her and voted against her reappointment. Some of you may know of her personal insults to me. While personal honor may seem an old-fashioned and quaint concept in the 21st century, it is important to me and her private attacks on my integrity are adequate reason for me to oppose her. However, I have other concerns. The email to which I am referring is reproduced below:

"From: "Missy"
To: ,"Susan Robertson" ,"Racie" ,"Annette Allen" ,"mary seay" ,"teresa Hon" ,,"Dr. Joe Dumas" ,,,"Annie Morrow"
Subject: town business
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:18:49 +0000


This appears to be Mr. Hendricks' final word on this issue. It seems a lot less damning, and from what I can tell, a lot more truthful than what he has been sending out in the past on the subject. Please feel free to send this out to as many people as you can tomorrow as this appears to be Mr. Hendricks lastest word on the subject.

Thank you,

Missy"

This exchange was about my opposition to the proposal to sell town ballfields for commercial development. Frankly, I'm not sure what I said that was "more truthful" and, in spite of asking her, have no idea what was more "damning" and less "truthful". She has never explained it or apologized for it. However, more importantly it is obvious that this email was meant not only for private friends, but for select members of the town council and planning commission about a topic that undoubtedly would have been discussed and debated by the PC if it had gone forward. As such, it appears to be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the open meetings law. This also raises my concern that this isn't the only such private email on public topics. In addition, I have had complaints from PC members about her obvious personal bias against certain landowners regardless of their specific plans. She also refused to delay for one month a vote on the SROZ repeal, a topic obviously of no urgent importance when requested by a landowner who couldn't attend that particular month. This was an unnecessary rudeness to this landowner who has been a very active participant in our town's business. Possibly it is because one member who would likely have voted against her was out of town that month. Since the vote was 4-3 it appears she does know what it takes to get a vote to go her way. I think these are adequate reasons to oppose her reappointment even without considering the personal attacks.

Finally, a comment on my political future. In my last blog, I mentioned that I didn't plan to run for re-election. While I thought this was common knowledge, the Chattanoogan.com found it newsworthy:

http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_164262.asp

I found the first sentence interesting. For the record, when I informed the Council before the election that I would like to continue for 2 more years as mayor, I also informed them that it was highly unlikely I would run for re-election. The Chattanoogan.com made no attempt to contact or interview me for this article so their attempt to link my decision with the mayor race is an unfortunate and erroneous assumption. I truly love serving the Town of Signal Mountain and do not rule out asking for another term some time in the future when my children are grown, but at this time I feel I have asked enough from my family and medical partners and feel I need to put my energies elsewhere. However, I have one more year to go, so don't give up on me yet!

Finally (whew), Merry Christmas to all and a very Happy and Healthy New Year!

In my medical career I have frequently felt that some of my best decisions were to NOT do something. Sometimes, especially in an emergency there is a temptation to just do something, anything... but sometimes the best thing is to just stand there! Some problems resolve themselves, sometimes the initial impulse is not the right one and sometimes one has to take time to think to do the right thing.

Some of our recent Town Council decisions fit into this same rubric. My initial response to the speed camera proposal was negative. However, I have great respect for our police chief and his advice and wanted to evalute them further and also seek the input of our citizens. My research only reinforced my initial instincts and I am glad we are not moving forward with this. Although there was initially much enthusiasm among some on the council, clearly public opinion took its toll. While we don't always have to make an active decision not to do something, I thought this was a time when we should make that statement and made the motion to not move forward with this idea. I'm glad it was accepted and passed.

The same applies to raising the sales tax. Obviously we can always use more money, but at this time with the economy only just starting to recover and many of our businesses struggling, this would not be the right thing to do.

Bill Lusk has raised several other proposals recently which we have decided not to pursue. He asked the town to research curfews for youth. I did some research and found evidence that they didn't seem to work. Chief Veal agreed that the problem didn't warrant the solution. I'm glad we are not moving forward on that proposal.

Mr. Lusk has also raised the idea of a "dog park". I have owned dogs almost my entire life. I currently have two. I stand behind noone in my love for dogs. However, I don't see this as a pressing need in our community. Mrs. Robertson stated that we didn't plan to spend tax money on this and it would only be done if it was run by volunteers. Since we have never discussed any of this I'm not sure just what she meant. She may have just been expressing her own opinion, but she did say "we". If she is having these discussions with the rest of the Council in non-public meetings, it is a violation of the public meeting law and that would be unfortunate. Obviously, if someone wants to buy some land and create a dog park with volunteers I would say more power to them, but since this was brought up as a town effort, it would clearly involve tax dollars even if volunteers agreed to "scoop the poop". I think there are much more important issues for us to address and greater needs for our tax dollars at present.

While those that know me as a liberal might be surprised, I am a believer in the principle that government which governs least governs best. It is a classic liberal principle to keep government out of people's lives as much as possible. I do believe government has a role to play in public safety and can do much to improve people's lives, but was never interested in just looking for things I could meddle in. We have way too many needs in this town to be creating more.

As I enter my last year in office (and no, I do not plan to run for re-election), I hope to see a few things finished that we started. I wanted to re-write some of our ordinances to make them clearer and began re-organizing our whole board and commissions structure. Honna has taken my initial work, improved it and the Council will hopefully be passing this re-write in December. I hope to see the Planning Commission and Council complete work on re-doing our subdivision and zoning regulations before I leave, but considering how long it is taking, I am not optimistic. Considering that I have been totally sidelined on this issue anyway, it probably doesn't matter.
I am please with many of the environmental initiatives we have begun. These have not been just "feel good" initiatives, but actions such as replacing lighting fixtures with more energy efficient ones and replacing light bulbs with compact fluorescents will save the town money while cutting down our carbon emissions. I am proud of that. I'll deal with a few other outstanding issues over the next few months.

Speaking of elections, the town council elections are a year off! We were criticized last year for not publicizing them more broadly and some thought this is why noone ran against the incumbents. Clearly there will be at least one open seat next fall, mine. Hershel was talking about running for re-election last I heard from him, but I honestly don't know what his final decision will be. I also don't know what Susan Robertson, who is also up for re-election will do, though I would be surprised if she didn't run. I would urge anyone who has considered serving in town government to think seriously about running. It is a great service to your community and a great experience. I'm happy to talk with anyone considering this. Deadlines for "signing up" aren't until next August, but elections up here have gotten a lot more serious lately, so it is best to do some advance planning. Give it a try!

A few issues in the news...

I wanted to comment on a few issues currently in the news. We had our monthly agenda/work session last Monday and several of these were discussed.

On the topic of "speed cameras", I have previously stated my opposition. I just don't think we need them on Signal Mountain right now, although I support our police chief and his efforts to enforce our laws. It seemed apparent to me that Hershel Dick also opposed these and he expressed this in the meeting. The other three Councilmembers had seemed fairly supportive of the idea, however Bill Lusk stated that after further research he was now leaning against them. I suggested that we should formally make a statement that we would not be moving forward on this issue. The other two (Ms. Allen and Robertson) expressed no opposition, so I suspect this is a dead issue and will be formally dropped.

Mr. Lusk has also raised the issue of curfews for minors. We have had some problems with vandalism in some of our parks and apparently he had been asked by citizens to consider this option. Many cities have adopted these and, while the cities claim they decrease crime, at least one independent study that I found did not support this. Mr. Lusk had asked Chief Veal to research this and, while Chief Veal stated it would give the police more flexibility, he didn't seem to think it would help that much. I have my own concerns that the primary effect would be to hassle law abiding minors returning late from dates, etc without significantly impacting the few problems we have. I did tell the Chief that I supported the idea of the police contacting parents of minors found out late at night. I think that sort of notification is the best approach to this issue. The general consensus seemed to be that this was a solution in search of a problem and that we shouldn't pursue it.

In the paper today is an article about dog parks. This is another issue Mr. Lusk has raised for the town staff to research. I have never heard anyone raise this issue before. I don't see this as a need for this town and in the current fiscal situation could not support any money being put towards this kind of a project. I can certainly see the need in cities where many people live in apartments with pets, but in a town where the council continues to prefer to require that citizens have large yards it doesn't seem necessary.

The staff has suggested we consider a referendum on raising the sales tax. Our current tax rate is 9.25% with the highest allowable rate in Tennessee being 9.75%. The concern raised was that the state legislature might consider raising this tax statewide to raise revenue and, in that case Signal Mountain would lose significant funds unless we raised it ourselves first. However, it has also been pointed out that next year is an election year and, with a state legislature controlled by taxophobic Republicans, it seems likely they would look for more subtle ways to raise revenue. It seems unlikely we will be pursuing this anytime soon. Certainly the town could use additional funds for capital projects and this is the case that would have to be made. However, while the recession seems to be over the the economy starting to slowly recover, it doesn't seem like an ideal time to raise this tax.

As many of you may know, the MACC is having major ceiling and roof problems. Raccoons have nested in the ceiling for years and their, shall I say "items left behind" have led to deterioration of the ceilings. This building originally had plaster ceilings. When the ceilings began to crack, apparently the school board covered them with drop ceilings as a cosmetic fix. However, the damage is such that the plaster ceilings are now beginning to fall through and the roof has leaks in it, too. Parts of the roof have been repaired in the past and some areas such as the "portable" metal buildings and the cafeteria area are still usable, however it would be foolish to repair the ceiling without repairing the roof, so this has turned into a major project. We are currently in the process of collecting bids and proposals, so I will have more info later. The MACC board has been very active and supportive of this effort as has the Friends of MACC. We will certainly be seeking any grants available for this historic building and if any of you have ever considered contributing to the MACC through Friends of MACC, this is the time to do it. I want to thank Barb Storm new MACC director for her leadership in taking on a project which was not apparent when she took the job!

Finally, my personal congratulations to the Signal Mountain High School Girl's Golf Team on winning the State Championship and to the SMMS Varsity Football team for making the play-offs! Go Eagles!

I was very proud of the citizens of Signal Mountain Monday night. We had at least 2 very contentious issues. The meeting was well attended. Everyone was polite and spoke to the issues without any personal attacks. Obviously, the big issue was that of traffic control cameras. Bill Kroski of American Traffic Solutions presented the technical details on these systems. Obviously, as owner of the company he was making a sales pitch and painted a very positive picture (pun intended) of the cameras. He answered questions and tried to dispell concerns. Next, the citizens got their chance to speak. It is probably no surprise that the overwhelming majority of comments were in opposition to this proposal. However, again everyone who spoke did so in an appropriate manner, respecting the decorum of the meeting and also respecting the 3 minute time limit, intended to give everyone a chance to speak.

I must say that I am not opposed to these systems in general. There are positive reports of increased safety in larger cities and paticularly dangerous stretches of highway. However, I don't think the citizens of Signal Mountain are ready for them and I would prefer to look to other alternatives for controlling our speeding problem. I have great respect for our police force and our Police Chief, Boyd Veal. He became aware of a problem and presented a potential solution. That is his job and I appreciate it very much. I do not think our speed limits are too low. I believe Taft Highway is our only multi-lane road and since its extent in our town limits is nearly all either residential or crowded commercial, I could not support increasing it. I know that some have suggested we increase the speed limit past the traffic light going down the mountain. This has been the site of most of our fatal accidents. Since many drivers "pad" the speed limit by 5-10 MPH anyway, Chief Veal showed earlier that lowering the limit to 35 succeeded in lowering the average speed to 40MPH. I think this is fine for this steep downhill stretch and personally I find that, by downshifting and occasionally tapping my brakes I can keep my speed at 35 without problem.

Our next potentially contentious issue was a proposed increase in the sales tax. Currently, our total sales tax is 9.25% with the potential to go up to a total of 9.75%. The state is actively pursuing opportunities to increase revenues and if they raise the state tax, we will only receive back a very tiny portion in shared revenue. However, if we raise it ourselves first, we will be able to retain the entire portion for local projects. Obviously, this is being presented as a defensive measure depending on what we think the state might do. However, it would benefit the town at a time when we have several capital infrastructure needs including the need for a new public works building, repairs to the Town Hall and the MACC. There is a legitimate concern as to whether this would put our local merchants at a disadvantage, although frankly the gas to drive off the mountain would cost more than the few cents saved (tax would mean an extra 50 cents on every $100 spent in town). Ultimately, the only way for this to go into effect would be by a townwide referendum which I suspect will be presented in the late winter or early spring so you'll hear more about this.

Many of you probably know that we have a grant for sidewalks on James Blvd. They have already been put in from Thrasher to the library and the next phase is from the library to Timberlinks. The grant is very specific and can only be used for this purpose in this location.
For reasons of right of way and infrastructure, it seems the best place to put this would be on the Country Club side. Representatives of the Club were present to raise concerns about safety which have also concerned me. The leland cyprus trees were planted along there for this reason, but at least some of these will have to come down to build the sidewalk. We approved an engineering study for the sidewalk which should address the safety concerns. At that point we will have to see what measures will have to be taken so that people casually strolling down the sidewalk will not have to risk injury from errant golf balls.

Finally, the really important and exciting news was giving authority to the mayor to sign the deed transfer for the MACC. After 10 years of leasing the building, it is about to become the property of the citizens of Signal Mountain. As an old and historic building, it has many needs including the urgent need to clean out years of debris due to racoons nesting in the attic! However, ownership opens up many new opportunities for grants. I think this is great news for the town and enjoy my relationship with the MACC board as its liaison. This is a great group of individuals working hard, along with Friends of MACC to preserve this treasure.

As always, let me hear from you on these important issues.

We had a council work/agenda session yesterday. This served to reinforce a decision I made last summer. After the repeal of the SROZ, I decided that I no longer had any effectiveness in that area and that I had been totally marginalized on issues of land-use, so I felt I should put my energies elsewhere. After the recent meeting with Randall Arendt, I allowed myself to get excited again. While the Council and Planning Commission continue to claim to move towards conservation and open space design, I have felt their approach was too confrontational and therefore counterproductive. I ran pledging to try to bring people together to work cooperatively. However, I have seen an unfortunate move in the opposite direction.

From my previous post, you know that opposition has arisen to Mr. Arendt's offer to do a "pilot project" conservation subdivision design on a local piece of property. I had hoped that if the Planning Commission continued to be interested in this proposal, that the Council might support it. However, the meeting yesterday made it clear that there is minimal to no support on the Council. As a matter of fact, I was surprised that this proposal was perceived by the rest of the Council as a gift to the participating landowner and that Mr. Arendt's presentation to us was seen as self-promoting and more about selling himself to the developers than about helping the town. I tried to explain that I felt his emphasis on the economic benefits of conservation design was an attempt to show the landowners and developers present the advantages of using these designs. The response from the Council was that we didn't need to show any benefits, that the Council had the power to impose these regulations and the landowners would just have to accept it. This was a far cry from the cooperative atmosphere with which we started this process and I see no future in my continuing to waste any energy in this area. I never wanted this to be about cramming these ideas down any one's throats, no matter how strongly I supported them, but about creating processes which were mutually beneficial.

It is ironic that I occasionally wonder if I should have taken Mayor Lusk's offer to remain on the Planning Commission. When he told me he planned to oppose me for mayor, I told him that being on the Planning Commission was one of the reasons I would like to remain mayor through the completion of my term. This was because we were still in the middle of this process and I truly wanted to see it through. He replied that he didn't realize that the mayor served on the Planning Commission, that he was already too busy and didn't have time to do it and that I could continue on the Planning Commission. I told him that I thought it important that the mayor perform this important duty and that I didn't think I could honestly represent anyone who had opposed me for mayor or a council which had rejected me.

So, while I still hope the Planning Commission will discuss and consider Mr. Arendt's offer, I don't see much hope of the Council accepting it regardless. I think this is an unfortunate missed opportunity. At this point I think I just need to wash my hands of the issue.

In other business yesterday, there seems to be strong support on the Council for adding so-called "speed cameras" to the town. There are certainly arguments in favor of them, but there is also strong opposition in the town from all I've seen. I am trying to continue to keep an open mind, gather information and input from citizens, so let me know how you feel!

The Council will probably put a referendum on a ballot for early next year to add 1/2 cent to the sales tax. There is a strong feeling that the state will add this tax on state-wide and if we do it ourselves, we will retain a much larger portion of the tax. So it is probably not if, but when and how. Obviously the decision will ultimately be up to the citizens via the referendum.

EPB made a presentation in requesting a franchise agreement to begin offering their fiber-optic internet/tv/phone services. Once the contract is tweaked a bit I'm sure this will pass and they think they will have service up here by the first of the year adding another option for these services for our citizens.

In follow up to my previous post on Randall Arendt's offer to do a "model" conservation zoning plan on some local property, I have since found out that at least 2 Councilmembers (Allen and Robertson) have notified Mr. Arendt that they oppose this idea and especially paying anything for it (probably about $2000). I am disappointed about this and especially the fact that neither member raised any particular opposition to this proposal at the Planning Commission meeting (other than some vague comments about making sure it was done legally). I am also concerned that the initial communications to Mr. Arendt and to the landowners who volunteered their property were done without any discussion with the Planning Commission or Council and were communicated in such a way to imply that the offer was rejected. Ms. Allen has since clarified that she was expressing her personal opinion and not speaking for the Council. My opinion is that this offer was made at a Planning Commission meeting to the Planning Commission, not to the Council. It did not originate with a landowner, although the landowners present were enthusiastic about the idea. It was my impression (considering the discussion was all very positive and noone spoke against the idea) that there was broad consensus on accepting this offer. The Chair of the Planning Commission (Melissa Cantrell) has since pointed out that she neglected to take a formal vote on this proposal. I find it unfortunate and a poor reflection on the town to first accept a very generous offer from our major consultant on this issue and at least 2 major landowners in public, then to reject it in private. I urge the Planning Commission to take a formal vote on this proposal at its next meeting on October 8 and obviously would urge them to accept it. I think this would be the proper process. The Town Council would then have to consider providing the funds for this project, but after 3 years of drawing out this process of re-writing our subdivision regulations and zoning laws (which they haven't even been started yet), we have spent very little money and I feel that a few thousand dollars to accelerate and complete this project would be well worth it. I would certainly hope that if the Planning Commission asked for this project, the Council would support and approve that request. If the Planning Commission members reject it, then that is their decision and I will accept it.

I hope, too that in the future Councilmembers will remember that they are public officials bound by the Open Meetings laws and that discussions and decisions of this sort should NOT be conducted in private. It was obvious from emails and proposals presented and shared with some and not other Councilmembers that "back-channel" communications continue on this Council which I find highly objectionable. Also, Councilmembers should be very careful in communicating with citizens and consultants that they are only expressing their own personal opinions, which is appropriate vs. speaking for the Council which is not appropriate. Decisions by the Council can only be made in public meetings.