Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Little Mermaid this weekend at CCA
Come see The Little Mermaid tonight (Thursday), Friday and Saturday night at 7pm at Center for Creative Arts (http://www.centerforcreativearts.net/). This musical is based on the Disney movie by the same name and features (among many others) my daughter, Mary Eliza Hendricks as Scuttle the Seagull! A great show for kids of all ages.
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
A better way to protect Signal Mountain's public lands
I am writing again about the issue of conservation easements on public lands in Signal Mountain. This is NOT about whether or not to conserve these lands. There is no evidence of any threat being posed to these lands. This is actually one of the ironies about the time being devoted to this topic which is essentially a solution in search of a problem. However, there is a principle involved of not constraining future generations right to make their own decisions. Thomas Jefferson said it well in 1786 : "this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, [has] no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own."
Nonetheless, this issue seems to be moving forward "like a freight train going downhill" according to one knowledgeable participant. My friend, and former Parks Board member Dr. Jeff Duncan has developed an alternative proposal which not only protects these parks, but actually adds additional protections. While the "easement" plan has been proposed as ironclad, it could be overturned by a simple vote of a future Council through eminent domain. This would require two simple majority votes. The process proposed by Dr. Duncan would provide a much higher degree of protection. Jeff's comments are below:
***********************************************************************************
Please see attached. I believe this draft ordinance offers a win-win solution for the land protection issue. I'm about to send it to Council members in hopes it will be considered. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions or consider modifications if needed.
Also, we need supporters. Council needs to hear from folks both in support of this ordinance (assuming you support it) and more importantly against the conservation easement movement. Please shake the bushes and get friends, spouse, and like-minded folks to email council and attend next week's meeting.
Thanks for your continued efforts, Jeff 423-718-2219.
************************************************************************************
Here are the Councilmembers and their email addresses:
Bill Lusk: blusk@signalmountaintn.gov
Susan Robertson: srobertson@signalmountaintn.gov
Annette Allen: aallen@signalmountaintn.gov
Dick Gee: dgee@signalmountaintn.gov
Bill Wallace: bwallace@signalmountaintn.gov
Honna Rogers (town manager): hrogers@signalmountaintn.gov
Susan Robertson: srobertson@signalmountaintn.gov
Annette Allen: aallen@signalmountaintn.gov
Dick Gee: dgee@signalmountaintn.gov
Bill Wallace: bwallace@signalmountaintn.gov
Honna Rogers (town manager): hrogers@signalmountaintn.gov
Please copy Jeff Duncan (drjefe @epbfi.com) with any comments you send or receive from the Council. Thank you.
This is Dr. Duncan's proposed ordinance:
An Ordinance Protecting Signal Mountain
Parklands and Authorizing the Establishment of a Town Conservation Policy
WHEREAS, the Town Council of Signal Mountain
believes that all land owned by the Town of Signal Mountain is held in trust
for future generations by the Councils and Citizens of this community, and
WHEREAS, the woodlands, wetlands, streams, and
open spaces of Signal Mountain help define the character of the town and,
beyond that, each succeeding year brings us more information on how vital such
natural lands are to our collective well-being and health of the world around
us, and
WHEREAS, they are also buffers which mitigate
the effect of reasonable development of private lands, and
WHEREAS, once converted to other use, such
lands cannot be replaced and therefore short term needs and pressures do not
justify endangering the environment of our town, county and state, and
WHEREAS, those who are most intimately
associated with these lands are the most qualified to protect them, and
WHEREAS, the Town presently has several boards
(i.e., Parks, Tree, Stormwater) focusing on environmental protection that
operate independently and without cohesiveness,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TENNESSEE THAT:
ARTICLE 1. LAND PROTECTION POLICY: The Town of Signal Mountain will protect its
public lands and waters as its citizens and their elected officials deem
necessary, free from residential or commercial development, and that the
current Town Council of Signal Mountain affirms and continues in the wisdom of
its predecessors in owning, protecting and maintaining the public lands of Signal
Mountain. All existing Town-owned parklands will henceforth be encumbered by
deed restrictions intended to limit develop exclusively to nature-based
recreational interests. The Town of
Signal Mountain hereby adopts a policy of protecting its publically-owned
parklands for the benefit and enjoyment of this and future generations.
ARTICLE 2. CREATION OF A CONSERVATION
COMMISSION: A Town Conservation Commission is hereby established for the
purposes of aiding and advising Town Council and the Planning Commission on
issues related to the status, extent, and management of Town-owned parklands. The Conservation Commission will create a
Natural Resource Management Plan for Town-owned resources that will include an
inventory of existing resources, threats, liabilities, and other management
needs on Town-owned lands. The
Conservation Commission replaces the Park Board, Tree Board, and Stormwater
Board but may, at the pleasure of Town Council, retain their current members to
carry out the missions of each board as committees of the Conservation Commission
in accordance with ARTICLE 7 herein.
ARTICLE 3. ZONING: A zoning classification is
hereby created for all existing Town-owned parklands. The new zoning classification will be termed
“CONSERVATION LANDS.”
ARTICLE 4. LAND ACQUISITION: The Town is
hereby authorized to receive donated parcels of land in fee simple and/or
conservation easements from willing private donors/sellers for the purposes of
conservation. Upon concurrence of the
Conservation Commission and majority vote by the Council, the Town may purchase
lands from willing sellers for the purposes of conservation. Such land may be encumbered by existing
conservation easement with a third party land trust at the time of donation to
the Town.
ARTCILE 5. PARTNERSHIP FOR LAND PROTECTION: That
the Conservation Commission is hereby authorized to work with external partners
such as land trusts, non-governmental organizations, and government agencies to
improve natural resource protection on private lands within the Town or on
public lands not owned by the Town.
ARTICLE 6. CONSERVATION TOOLKIT: That the
Conservation Commission is hereby authorized to develop a Conservation Toolkit
of Best Management Practices to benefit Town government and residents of the
community. The Conservation Toolkit will
consist of a non-binding list of environmentally sound recommendations covering
topics such as yard maintenance, fertilizers, pesticides, invasive species,
water conservation, run-off, energy conservation, etc. While the Toolkit will be non-binding to
residents not withstanding existing regulations, Town Council, at the request
and recommendation of the Conservation Commission, may compel Town employees
carrying out their duties on Town-owned lands or facilities to adopt some or
all of the Toolkit’s provisions.
ARTICLE 7. MEMBERSHIP and ADMINISTRATION OF
CONSERVATION COMMISSION: That the Conservation Commission shall consist of 9
members each appointed by the Town Council for 3 year terms. Commission members can be reappointed for
subsequent terms. The Commission shall convene regularly monthly meetings in
public and produce and retain publically viewable notes or minutes. The Commission shall make recommendations on
conservation issues germane to the Town Council upon their request.
ARTICLE 8. In keeping with the spirit of
Article 1 herein, and to limit legislative entrenchment, the Town Council shall
not authorize the transfer of any Town-owned parklands to any third party
entity without the unanimous approval of the Conservation Commission, and any measure
intended to transfer ownership of Town-owned parklands or to convert them to
other non-park uses, and any measure to overturn or amend this ordinance, must
be passed by a majority vote of two consecutive Town councils separated in time
by a general election.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Giving away Conservation Easements on Public Lands
There is a difficult issue being discussed by the Town Council. They are proposing to donate conservation easements on public lands in Signal Mountain to a private organization. While I absolutely support the permanent protection of our public parks, as I have fought my whole life for protection of our National Forests, National Parks and Wilderness Areas, I think that we should trust the citizens of Signal Mountain to protect their public lands rather than depending on an outside organization over which we have no control. Dr. Jeff Duncan, former Parks Board member has been a leader on this issue and has prepared the following open letter to the Council which should also be appearing in the TimesFreePress soon. It should be clear from the signers of the letter that it represents a diversity of opinions. I urge you to contact your council members at the following addresses and let them know what you think:
Bill Lusk: blusk@signalmountaintn.gov
Susan Robertson: srobertson@signalmountaintn.gov
Annette Allen: aallen@signalmountaintn.gov
Dick Gee: dgee@signalmountaintn.gov
Bill Wallace: bwallace@signalmountaintn.gov
Honna Rogers (town manager): hrogers@signalmountaintn.gov
Open Letter to Signal Mountain Town Council Regarding
Conservation Easements
March 5, 2013
On March 11, Council is scheduled to vote on donating conservation easements over Town-owned lands. Despite this, few town residents, let alone members of Council, are likely aware of the far-reaching unintended consequences of this proposed action. With this letter, we hope to shed some light on the issue which we believe is poor governance, short-sighted, and arguably illegal. Combined, let’s just say we have several decades of experience and education in the conservation arena professionally and through public service to our town, and we represent a very broad political and ideological spectrum. Despite our differences, we whole-heartedly support protecting our town’s natural resources, as do most town residents. We simply disagree with the use of conservation easements as the means of doing so for the following reasons, and we propose a viable alternative:
1.
Conservation easements
are unnecessary for protecting our parklands.
Our publically-owned lands are protected by existing ordinances, and
most are protected by deed restrictions.
The existing provisions can and should be strengthened, but not with the
wrong tool.
2.
A conservation
easement is essentially a surrendering of the development rights for a given
parcel to a land trust. Can a land trust
really understand the future needs and desires of future town residents better
than the future residents themselves? If
conservation easements are enacted, we will essentially be saying, “We know
what’s better for future residents than do the future residents themselves.”
3.
Conservation easements
are PERMANENT! Once recorded, they can never be undone.
Period. The Town's hands will forever be tied by law. The action will be
irreversible by future councils, and the land trust will be bound to defend the
easements to the fullest extent of the law, even if that means suing the Town
for some inadvertent future incursion.
4.
While perhaps not yet
tested in court, entering into a permanent agreement with a land trust may be
illegal. The State has laws against one
council contractually binding a future council.
This action, like no other in Town history, would contractually bind all
future Town Councils. Furthermore, there
may be an issue concerning surplus property regulations since this move
essentially amounts to giving away property, or at least a portion thereof.
5.
Although provisions
for recreational use can be written into an easement, we cannot predict the
future, and exactly what provisions to incorporate would require a crystal
ball. Who knows what recreation pursuits will be in 50 or 100 years? Who knows
what facilities or amenities future town residents may want to consider, say,
in the year 2063 or 2113? Should it be
for us to decide in 2013?
6.
Conservation easements
are but one tool for protecting land, and there are many more. Even our National Parks are protected not by
easements, but by legislation. Why shouldn’t we protect our parklands the same
way?
Instead of easements, we
propose creating a Signal Mountain land protection ordinance that would achieve
that same goal of protecting our lands but without disenfranchising future
generations. An assortment of cities and towns, some much like Signal Mountain
(e.g., Hamden, ME, Borough of Mountain Lakes, NJ, etc.) have adopted land
protection legislation to protect their public lands. Such an ordinance could be written to protect
our lands, and still provide future citizens with flexibility.
Although the details
would need to be developed, the ordinance could include protective conditions
much like a conservation easement, but without the need for enforcement by a land
trust. The ordinance could be written
such that it could only be amended by majority vote of two successive Town
Councils with an interceding election.
This would eliminate the idea of some future Council selling off our parklands
to Holiday Inn against the wishes of the citizens. Additional deed restrictions
(i.e., conservation easements granted by the Town to the Town, as opposed to an
outside land trust) also represent a viable land protection alternative worthy
of consideration.
As the Native American proverb suggests, and as is even suggested in the Town’s Power Point presentation posted on the Town website, “We don’t own the lands, we only borrow them from the future.” Let’s live up to that proverb. Let us trust our children, and our childrens’ children to do what’s right. We ask Council to vote against conservation easements, and instead work on more appropriate means of protecting our lands for future generations through a Town land protection ordinance. To that end, we stand united, ready, and willing to offer our assistance.
RESPECTFULLY,
Dr. Jeffrey R. Duncan
Doctorate in Ecology and Environmental Policy, Former Parks Board Member, Former Planning Commission Member, Professional Natural Resource Manager
Ms. Tish Gailmard
Former Parks Board Member, Professional Wildlife Curator, Life-long resident of Signal Mountain
Dr. Paul M. Hendricks, MD
Former Mayor, Former Planning Commission Member, Life-Member Sierra Club
Mr. Noah H. Long, Jr., Rear Admiral USNR (ret), Founding Member SM Tree Board, 25 years in commercial real estate.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Lusk appoints Robertson to Planning Commission
There is certainly some irony in this news. When Lusk told me he was running against me for Mayor in 2008 (he didn't have the courtesy to contact me himself, waiting until I asked if he was interested in running for the open vice-mayor position and then telling me he was going to run against me for mayor), I told him that a major reason I wanted to remain mayor was to finish the land-use work of the Planning Commission that I had run on. He state that he didn't know he had to be on the Planning Commission (as mayor) and that he didn't have time to do that and that I could remain on the Planning Commission when he became mayor (ie, he would take the position, but I would do the work-I declined). Ironically, (again) Robertson's (and Allen's) excuse for supporting him was that he was "retired" (or at that time actually unemployed after being fired, or pushed out by US Xpress) and had the time to do this that I supposedly didn't have since they insisted that the Mayor position was a "24/7" job and required someone not otherwise employed. Of course, soon after taking the mayor position, he took a job, first in Atlanta and now in St. Louis. Since then the Planning Commission has been unable to complete its work on subdivision regulations and zoning law re-writes begun over 5 years ago. It is unclear from the article if a vote was taken as required by the town ordinance "The mayor may appoint another councilmember to serve in his place if approved by a majority of the town council." although it appears from the article that Bill Wallace was the only one speaking in opposition. I would be curious to know if a vote was held and if Councilmember Dick Gee was present and took a public position on this issue. It's also worth noting that this appointment was not on the public agenda published in advance.
There is certainly some irony in this news. When Lusk told me he was running against me for Mayor in 2008 (he didn't have the courtesy to contact me himself, waiting until I asked if he was interested in running for the open vice-mayor position and then telling me he was going to run against me for mayor), I told him that a major reason I wanted to remain mayor was to finish the land-use work of the Planning Commission that I had run on. He state that he didn't know he had to be on the Planning Commission (as mayor) and that he didn't have time to do that and that I could remain on the Planning Commission when he became mayor (ie, he would take the position, but I would do the work-I declined). Ironically, (again) Robertson's (and Allen's) excuse for supporting him was that he was "retired" (or at that time actually unemployed after being fired, or pushed out by US Xpress) and had the time to do this that I supposedly didn't have since they insisted that the Mayor position was a "24/7" job and required someone not otherwise employed. Of course, soon after taking the mayor position, he took a job, first in Atlanta and now in St. Louis. Since then the Planning Commission has been unable to complete its work on subdivision regulations and zoning law re-writes begun over 5 years ago. It is unclear from the article if a vote was taken as required by the town ordinance "The mayor may appoint another councilmember to serve in his place if approved by a majority of the town council." although it appears from the article that Bill Wallace was the only one speaking in opposition. I would be curious to know if a vote was held and if Councilmember Dick Gee was present and took a public position on this issue. It's also worth noting that this appointment was not on the public agenda published in advance.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
SMPH Winter Play - The Red Velvet Cake War
The Signal Mountain
Playhouse announces
Red Velvet Cake War
directed by Brenda Schwab
Feb. 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23
8 p.m. at the MACC
Tickets available at the door or by reservation, 886-1959
$14.00 for all
tickets, which includes dessert and coffee prior to curtain
The Signal
Mountain Playhouse presents the Southern comedy "The Red Velvet Cake
War" on Feb. 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 at the MACC. Curtain is at 8
p.m. with the box office opening at 6:45 p.m. All tickets are $14.00 and can be
bought at the door or reserved in advance through calling the MACC at
886-1959. Dessert and coffee, included in the ticket price, will be
served prior to curtain, beginning at 6:45 p.m.
Directing seasoned and newcomers in this hilarious comedy is Brenda Schwab
of the Chattanooga State Theatre Arts Department. The plot of this fast
moving romp involves the attempts of the three Vereen cousins, Peaches,
Jimmie, and Gaynelle, of Sweetgum, TX, to plan a family reunion. All the
relatives come with their quirks, and Texas tornado season is also threatening.
For
more information, go to smph.org or call Anne Rittenberry at
886-5243.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Issues before the town council
I continue to hear from folks that they appreciate my attempts to keep people informed about the goings on in Signal Mountain. I will continue to try to be as informational as possible. Improving communication was a major goal of mine and, while not as successful as I'd like, much was accomplished.
As many of you know, the Council meets during the work day once a month in "agenda meetings". While these were originally initiated for the sole purpose of preparing the agenda for the upcoming Monday night meeting, they have evolved into work sessions where many controversial topics are discussed. Unfortunately, these often don't get the scrutiny that they deserve (in my humble opinion).
I'd like to point out a few items that I think might have general interest. The Council is apparently considering the idea of allowing beekeeping in residential neighborhoods (including front yards). Also, the Council is looking at converting the swimming pool to a salt water system. I've swum in salt water pools in Florida and it wasn't appealing to me, but I honestly don't know if this is the same thing. Nonetheless, those of you who use the pool might be interested.
When I was on the Council, I discovered that Signal Mountain bans rock climbing in the town limits. Since this area is world-renown for this activity, I tried to get the ban lifted, but was shot down by the Town Council. This is again on the agenda and hopefully they'll reconsider.
There is talk about putting a crosswalk across Taft Highway between the shopping centers. Sounds like a great idea, but the primary issue might be the cost. Hopefully a designated cross-walk with a sign would be reasonably within the budget.
Finally, with Fox Run and Windtree entering the town the end of the year, Bill Wallace very appropriately encouraged the council to slow down on board appointments for the New Year to allow residents of those neighborhoods to apply. If you live out there (or anywhere in the town) and are interested in volunteering on a board, go to the town website (http://signalmountaintn.gov/) and apply.
Here is the agenda for tomorrow's "agenda session":

1Fit page to screen
width
2Fit two pages to screen
width
1Fit page to
screen width
2Fit two
pages to screen width
As many of you know, the Council meets during the work day once a month in "agenda meetings". While these were originally initiated for the sole purpose of preparing the agenda for the upcoming Monday night meeting, they have evolved into work sessions where many controversial topics are discussed. Unfortunately, these often don't get the scrutiny that they deserve (in my humble opinion).
I'd like to point out a few items that I think might have general interest. The Council is apparently considering the idea of allowing beekeeping in residential neighborhoods (including front yards). Also, the Council is looking at converting the swimming pool to a salt water system. I've swum in salt water pools in Florida and it wasn't appealing to me, but I honestly don't know if this is the same thing. Nonetheless, those of you who use the pool might be interested.
When I was on the Council, I discovered that Signal Mountain bans rock climbing in the town limits. Since this area is world-renown for this activity, I tried to get the ban lifted, but was shot down by the Town Council. This is again on the agenda and hopefully they'll reconsider.
There is talk about putting a crosswalk across Taft Highway between the shopping centers. Sounds like a great idea, but the primary issue might be the cost. Hopefully a designated cross-walk with a sign would be reasonably within the budget.
Finally, with Fox Run and Windtree entering the town the end of the year, Bill Wallace very appropriately encouraged the council to slow down on board appointments for the New Year to allow residents of those neighborhoods to apply. If you live out there (or anywhere in the town) and are interested in volunteering on a board, go to the town website (http://signalmountaintn.gov/) and apply.
Here is the agenda for tomorrow's "agenda session":
Discussion
1. Discuss
Tentative Agenda for December 10, 2012 Regular Meeting
2. New
Employee Introductions
3.
Bee
Hive Location
4. Sewer
Moratorium Update – Cleveland
Grimes (10:30 am)
5.
Pool
Salt Water System – Robert Moss (12:00 pm)
6.
Climbing
– Britt Reynolds (1:00 pm)
7.
New
Street Criteria
8.
Crosswalk
Ordinance
9.
Administrative
Hearing Officer Ordinance
10.
Christmas
Train
11.
Board
Appointments
12. Council
Strategic Planning
13. WRUD
Interconnection
14. Any Other
Business
Loading...
Ctrl+FSearch the
document
F3Find next
Shift+F3Find
previous
Edit online
Ctrl+SDownload
original
Save in Google
Docs
Ctrl+PPrint
(PDF)
Ctrl+Shift+→Zoom
in
Ctrl+Shift+←Zoom
out
Shift+Ctrl+FCompact
controls
HPlain HTML
Help Center
User Forum
Report an issue
?Show keyboard
shortcuts
Ctrl+FSearch
the document
F3Find
next
Shift+F3Find
previous
Edit
online
Ctrl+SDownload original
Save in
Google Docs
Ctrl+PPrint
(PDF)
Ctrl+Shift+→Zoom in
Ctrl+Shift+←Zoom out
Shift+Ctrl+FCompact
controls
HPlain
HTML
Help
Center
User
Forum
Report an
issue
?Show
keyboard shortcuts
Monday, November 05, 2012
Another Signal Mountain Parks Board member speaks out
This letter was provided to me by Tish Gailmard, long-term member of the Signal Mountain Parks Board in response to the ouster from the Parks Board of Dr. Jeff Duncan by Town Council member Annette Allen:
Dr. Jeff
Duncan’s term on the Signal Mountain Parks Board “was allowed to expire without
public vetting nor a direct vote.” This is a true statement and one that the
citizens of Signal Mountain should be aware of before they vote in the upcoming
election.
Dr. Duncan
challenged the Parks Board to think harder and more open mindedly about the
proposed donation of conservation easements over town-owned lands to an outside
land trust. Bill Fronk, secretary of the
board, took it upon himself to state that the board was in favor of the
easement. I am also a member of this board and I voted on no such proposal.
Jeff notes “that there had been no vote by the Parks Board nor Town Council
adopting the position detailed in Mr. Fronk's letter as the town's policy” which
is completely accurate.
Furthermore,
the next action in this story is even more appalling to me. When Annette Allen,
current Signal Mountain Town Council member seeking re-election, asked Jeff to
withdraw his application for a new term as a Parks Board member, she clearly
had an agenda even though she states her rationale as identifying a qualified
replacement who was retired and had more time.
The Signal
Mountain Parks Board is run by a few who are well intentioned, but do not
handle business properly. Many ideas are discussed, but the work that is passed
is biased and close minded. A board is meant to be a consulting entity to guide
practices. Board members bring expertise which helps the board wisely discuss
matters. Unfortunately, the current Parks Board acts on the input and desires
of a select few. While trails may be maintained and built, new ideas that can
affect the future of Signal Mountain’s town owned lands and other important and
lasting decisions may be in jeopardy.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Dr. Jeff Duncan's reply to Parks Board
This is Dr. Jeff Duncan's reply to Bill Fronk's recent letter trying to change history about Jeff's removal from the Park's Board. It is followed by some more information I have since obtained. Your Town Council in action:
Signal Mountain Town Council: "Move
Along Folks...Nothing to See Here"
My name was recently invoked in an opinion piece supporting the
re-election of Annette Allen to the Signal Mountain Town Council (TFP, 10/29/12). In it, Bill Fronk suggests that a "rumor"
about my dismissal from the Parks Board is false, stating, "we should not
allow rumor to replace fact."
To that end, I agree with Mr. Fronk.
But just because something is rumored does not preclude it from being true. What’s puzzling is why Mr. Fronk would choose
to bring up this so-called rumor in supporting the re-election of Annette Allen
to Town Council when relatively few people knew or cared about the issue
previously. It seems akin to the cop
standing in front of the murder scene telling passersby “there’s nothing to see
here.”
Whether I was kicked off, removed, terminated, axed, or whacked is a
matter of semantics. The bottom line is
that after seven years of service, and after being asked in writing by the town
manager if I would to serve another term (to which I responded yes), my term
was abruptly allowed to expire without public vetting nor a vote.
Why did this happen? Here are the
facts; you can decide for yourself. Last
October, I wrote a letter to the TFP voicing concern regarding Ms. Allen's proposal
to donate of conservation easements on Town-owned lands to a land trust. It was in direct response to a letter by Mr.
Fronk reportedly on behalf of the Parks Board promoting the donation. There had been no vote by the Board nor Town
Council adopting the position detailed in Mr. Fronk's letter, yet Mr. Fronk
enthusiastically supported the action, implying it was the official position of the Board. I felt obliged to provide Signal Mountain residents
an alternative view about the long-term ownership of their public lands.
Soon after my letter was published, Ms. Allen requested that she and I
meet to discuss the issue. At the end of the meeting, we cordially agreed
to disagree. A week later, she called
and requested that I withdraw my application for a new term on the Board,
stating that she had identified another qualified candidate. I respectfully declined to withdraw my
application. At the next Council
meeting, my replacement was appointed. My term was simply allowed to expire
without a vote nor any record of public discourse.
I'll be the first to admit I have a busy schedule and a family, although
I'd like to correct Mr. Fronk's assertion that I'm a "senior executive." I'm simply an ecologist with expertise in
natural resource management and passionate about raising my children in our
great community. None of this should disqualify me nor anyone
else from service on Town boards, nor should voicing differences in opinions. Unfortunately, my case is not isolated, and
some members of Council (Bill Wallace excluded) have developed a pattern of
eliminating those who choose to speak out.
One example is the ousting of previous Mayor Paul Hendricks in a behind-the-scenes
power-fueled maneuver. And, there are
other examples.
Openness and diversity of opinions are essential components of sound democratic
governance. I believe Ms. Allen and
others on Town Council are missing the mark in that regard, and I plan to vote
accordingly. There is in fact something
to see here—a political practice lacking in principle--and it's time for
change.
Dr. Jeff Duncan
Former Parks Board Member
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Recently there was a letter from Bill Fronk, Secretary of the Signal Mountain Parks Board stating that "In 2011 the Parks Board recommended the appointment of a new member instead of re-appointing Dr. Jeff Duncan". This was in response to the fact that Dr. Duncan, a National Parks Service employee, professional ecologist, Scout leader and long time member of the Signal Mountain Parks Board was refused reappointment to the Parks Board after publicly disagreeing with a position taken by Signal Mountain Town Councilmember Annette Allen. I asked for a copy of the minutes for all the Parks Board meetings for 2011. There were 2 meetings, in April and May and there is no mention in either of these minutes of Dr. Duncan or other appointments. Honna Rogers, Signal Mountain Town Manager told me "I believe there was a third [meeting] (going off memory), but I do not have minutes for it. I don't think the Parks Board had a vote regarding Jeff. It's not customary for the Board to discuss or vote on member reappointments. The Council makes that decision, often with input from the Board Chair." Mr. Fronk seems to imply (and Ms. Allen has also claimed) that Dr. Duncan was removed for missing these two meetings. Of interest is that Tish Gailmard, another member of the Parks Board also missed both meetings yet remains on the Board. Also, Mr. Fronk himself spends summers in Michigan and, from what I understand the Parks Board essentially shuts down in the summer since he is not here (they apparently didn't meet again the rest of that year and there are no minutes for any meetings after March of this year except for some trail maintenance activities). I believe this subterfuge of creating political cover after the fact is self-evident.
Paul M. Hendricks, MD
former Mayor of Signal Mountain
Recommendations for Signal Mountain Town Council
As most of my friends know, I am supporting Bill Wallace for Town Council again this year. I have known Bill since serving with him on the MACC Board while I was on the council. Bill is thoughtful and independent and has been a voice of reason on the Council. He is a man of conservative inclinations and, while we may disagree on national politics, his approach to our town has been exactly what I want in a representative, fiscally responsible and open. As Richard Casavant once told me "potholes don't have parties"! His background is in communications and that shows in his constituent responsiveness. He opposed last year's unnecessary tax increase. He also opposed significantly increasing the salary of the town manager at the same time that the council was dipping into the general fund to balance the budget. He felt that an increase like that should also be associated with more commitment to the town than a 60-day notice of resignation.
He believes in smart, responsible growth but not in obstructionism that will only drive up our taxes and turn Signal Mountain into an elite community where only the wealthy can afford to live.
Bill has been attacked vociferously by friends of the current council majority for taking these positions. Several of the early letters attacking Bill attracted my attention. They included detailed attacks on some obscure votes. However, I didn't recognize the name of the writer of this letter or of some follow-up letters. My curiosity was aroused and I started trying to find out who these folks were. Extensive searching of public records and internet presence was without result. I contacted the newspaper who researched the letter. They informed me that they were "unable to confirm the address of the author" of the first letter and pulled the letter from running in the community news. At this point, I am convinced that these letters were written under a false name by a supporter of the Council majority candidates (Lusk and Allen) who had intimate knowledge of the details of some of these obscure votes, but didn't want his (or her...) name known. I would strongly urge the candidates to either confirm that the writers of these letters are real people who do live in Signal Mountain or disavow these letters and reveal if they know anything about their origins. These kinds of dirty tricks have no place in Signal Mountain politics.
Beyond Bill, my choices will be a bit surprising. Obviously, I have major differences with the current Council majority. Their approach to local government is secretive and many of their public comments have been filled with errors (whether intentional or not I can't say, but ignorance is as bad as deceit). Their approach to citizens volunteering to work with the town through town boards and through private fundraising has been extremely exclusive of and vindictive towards anyone who disagrees with them. This is clearly indicated by the vicious attacks leading to the destruction of the MACC/SMArt Foundation and the recent removal of Dr. Jeff Duncan from the Parks Board for disagreeing with Annette Allen on the issue of handing control of our public parks over to outside groups which, while honorable groups doing great work, are not controlled by the town of Signal Mountain. Frankly, this is the point. Ms. Allen and the council majority do not trust the citizens of Signal Mountain to protect our public lands and want to remove any control from the Town's responsibility. I find this attitude to be outrageous.
Therefore, I've decided to offer my support to Joe Dumas. Joe and I have had many disagreements over the years. Frankly, I suspect we will have more in the future. However, Joe is smart. Joe cares about this town. Most of all, Joe is honest and open. Agree or disagree, you will know where Joe stands. He will not hide or tell you one thing while doing another. I hope that he will recognize that he represents the citizens which means that sometimes you have to vote for what the people want, even if it may not be what you would want yourself. However, I think it is time to give Joe a chance to add his voice to our community. He and I have had some very serious (diplomats would call them "frank"!) discussions. I have learned that he can change his mind on things. That is an important trait. He is trained in the sciences like me which gives me hope that he will look at the facts and make his decisions based on those facts rather than picking out (or making up) facts to fit his pre-conceived ideas as our current council majority is prone to do. You can be sure that he will keep a close eye on the finances of our town and be sure they are spent wisely and efficiently.
So, please vote for Bill Wallace. I also urge you to vote for Joe Dumas. As for a third vote, I know Frank Preston to be a fine man. Mutual friends have reassured me that he will be independent. I do have concerns about the fact that Lusk and Allen supporters seems to almost uniformly support him which makes me think that they see him as a "rubber stamp". I hope they are wrong. I do hope that Frank gets elected and adds another independent voice to Signal Mountain politics. I have never liked "tickets" in local politics. I didn't like "Farmer/White" or the "Recall" ticket or the "Keep Your Council" ticket and I don't like this "Allen/Lusk/Preston" ticket. This was no reflection on the individual candidates, but obviously one assumes that those on a "ticket" feel a commitment to "stick together". That has caused immense grief in Washington, DC and I don't want it here. Our Town Council members should be independent voices making their own separate decisions. They should be able to agree on one issue and disagree on the next and move on. It is obvious that is not currently the case and electing the "status quo" will only continue this lockstep approach to our local government. Thanks for listening!
Paul M. Hendricks, MD
He believes in smart, responsible growth but not in obstructionism that will only drive up our taxes and turn Signal Mountain into an elite community where only the wealthy can afford to live.
Bill has been attacked vociferously by friends of the current council majority for taking these positions. Several of the early letters attacking Bill attracted my attention. They included detailed attacks on some obscure votes. However, I didn't recognize the name of the writer of this letter or of some follow-up letters. My curiosity was aroused and I started trying to find out who these folks were. Extensive searching of public records and internet presence was without result. I contacted the newspaper who researched the letter. They informed me that they were "unable to confirm the address of the author" of the first letter and pulled the letter from running in the community news. At this point, I am convinced that these letters were written under a false name by a supporter of the Council majority candidates (Lusk and Allen) who had intimate knowledge of the details of some of these obscure votes, but didn't want his (or her...) name known. I would strongly urge the candidates to either confirm that the writers of these letters are real people who do live in Signal Mountain or disavow these letters and reveal if they know anything about their origins. These kinds of dirty tricks have no place in Signal Mountain politics.
Beyond Bill, my choices will be a bit surprising. Obviously, I have major differences with the current Council majority. Their approach to local government is secretive and many of their public comments have been filled with errors (whether intentional or not I can't say, but ignorance is as bad as deceit). Their approach to citizens volunteering to work with the town through town boards and through private fundraising has been extremely exclusive of and vindictive towards anyone who disagrees with them. This is clearly indicated by the vicious attacks leading to the destruction of the MACC/SMArt Foundation and the recent removal of Dr. Jeff Duncan from the Parks Board for disagreeing with Annette Allen on the issue of handing control of our public parks over to outside groups which, while honorable groups doing great work, are not controlled by the town of Signal Mountain. Frankly, this is the point. Ms. Allen and the council majority do not trust the citizens of Signal Mountain to protect our public lands and want to remove any control from the Town's responsibility. I find this attitude to be outrageous.
Therefore, I've decided to offer my support to Joe Dumas. Joe and I have had many disagreements over the years. Frankly, I suspect we will have more in the future. However, Joe is smart. Joe cares about this town. Most of all, Joe is honest and open. Agree or disagree, you will know where Joe stands. He will not hide or tell you one thing while doing another. I hope that he will recognize that he represents the citizens which means that sometimes you have to vote for what the people want, even if it may not be what you would want yourself. However, I think it is time to give Joe a chance to add his voice to our community. He and I have had some very serious (diplomats would call them "frank"!) discussions. I have learned that he can change his mind on things. That is an important trait. He is trained in the sciences like me which gives me hope that he will look at the facts and make his decisions based on those facts rather than picking out (or making up) facts to fit his pre-conceived ideas as our current council majority is prone to do. You can be sure that he will keep a close eye on the finances of our town and be sure they are spent wisely and efficiently.
So, please vote for Bill Wallace. I also urge you to vote for Joe Dumas. As for a third vote, I know Frank Preston to be a fine man. Mutual friends have reassured me that he will be independent. I do have concerns about the fact that Lusk and Allen supporters seems to almost uniformly support him which makes me think that they see him as a "rubber stamp". I hope they are wrong. I do hope that Frank gets elected and adds another independent voice to Signal Mountain politics. I have never liked "tickets" in local politics. I didn't like "Farmer/White" or the "Recall" ticket or the "Keep Your Council" ticket and I don't like this "Allen/Lusk/Preston" ticket. This was no reflection on the individual candidates, but obviously one assumes that those on a "ticket" feel a commitment to "stick together". That has caused immense grief in Washington, DC and I don't want it here. Our Town Council members should be independent voices making their own separate decisions. They should be able to agree on one issue and disagree on the next and move on. It is obvious that is not currently the case and electing the "status quo" will only continue this lockstep approach to our local government. Thanks for listening!
Paul M. Hendricks, MD
Friday, September 28, 2012
Signal Mountain Mirror slander
Dear Signal Mountain friends,
The Signal Mountain Mirror today is continuing a personal and fraudulent assault on the many good citizens who were part of the MACC Foundation, formerly Friends of MACC. I once considered Andrew Clark a friend and I frankly don't know why he has decided to use the Mirror to attack this organization by printing false information that we have repeatedly refuted to him. He will not respond to my emails requesting explanations and corrections to the falsehoods he has printed over the last few months about the former MACC Foundation.
The Fall Hodgepodge festival was given to the MACC Foundation by its founder to raise money for the MACC. The Foundation changed it's name last January (to the Signal Mountain Art Foundation) at the town's request and attempted to broaden it's outreach to support other arts organizations in the community such as the Signal Mountain Playhouse, Bachman, public schools, etc. This was due to the financial success we had achieved over the previous 1 1/2 years when we had donated nearly $50,000 to the MACC. We had planned to continue to sponsor Fall Hodgepodge, as we did for the last four years, as a fundraiser for the MACC. Over that period of time we had grown the event, added music and children's events and increased attendance and financial success each year. Instead, the town seized control of the festival and hired an outside professional event planner. The Foundation decided not to fight this seizure and to gift the ev
The Signal Mountain Mirror today is continuing a personal and fraudulent assault on the many good citizens who were part of the MACC Foundation, formerly Friends of MACC. I once considered Andrew Clark a friend and I frankly don't know why he has decided to use the Mirror to attack this organization by printing false information that we have repeatedly refuted to him. He will not respond to my emails requesting explanations and corrections to the falsehoods he has printed over the last few months about the former MACC Foundation.
The Fall Hodgepodge festival was given to the MACC Foundation by its founder to raise money for the MACC. The Foundation changed it's name last January (to the Signal Mountain Art Foundation) at the town's request and attempted to broaden it's outreach to support other arts organizations in the community such as the Signal Mountain Playhouse, Bachman, public schools, etc. This was due to the financial success we had achieved over the previous 1 1/2 years when we had donated nearly $50,000 to the MACC. We had planned to continue to sponsor Fall Hodgepodge, as we did for the last four years, as a fundraiser for the MACC. Over that period of time we had grown the event, added music and children's events and increased attendance and financial success each year. Instead, the town seized control of the festival and hired an outside professional event planner. The Foundation decided not to fight this seizure and to gift the ev
ent, which the Foundation owned, to the town rather than engage in a legal battle over ownership. The Foundation Board of Directors subsequently decided to dissolve primarily because of the ill will generated by these events. Whereas previously, the MACC had received 100% of proceeds from Hodgepodge after expenses, it will now receive 55%.
The article in the mirror today refers to the Foundation as a "splinter group" which is not true because we never "splintered" off of anything. The article in the Mirror today claims the town "salvaged" the event which is a gross misrepresentation of the facts since the festival was never at risk. The Mirror claims the Foundation planned to stage the event "independently" of the town which ignores the fact that the event was always "independent" of the town, sponsored by a private organization to benefit the MACC. It was never owned or operated by the town. The Foundation payed rent to the town (now being waived for the organizer hired by the town) for the facilities. The town is also now providing insurance for the event, which it never did for the foundation. The town charged the foundation for providing security. This is a scurrilous and slanderous article and I feel forced to get the truth out and to defend the integrity of the many fine people who volunteered their time and money over the years to support the MACC through the MACC Foundation.
I do want to be very clear that, while I am disappointed about the turn of events, my main goal is to present the facts and to protect the reputation of the organization that I briefly led. I wish no ill-will to the MACC or the Hodgepodge event. I have no ill feelings toward the Chattanooga Market or Paul Smith who leads that organization nor do I assign any blame or responsibility to them for the turn of events. Everything I have seen and heard about Paul and the Chattanooga market has indicated they are a top-notch organization of great integrity. They were asked to do a job that they are successful at and I think that they were a great choice. I know that his organization will do an excellent job with Hodgepodge. I feel we had inherited a great event and made it better and expect that the Chattanooga Market will continue that tradition.
I do want to be very clear that, while I am disappointed about the turn of events, my main goal is to present the facts and to protect the reputation of the organization that I briefly led. I wish no ill-will to the MACC or the Hodgepodge event. I have no ill feelings toward the Chattanooga Market or Paul Smith who leads that organization nor do I assign any blame or responsibility to them for the turn of events. Everything I have seen and heard about Paul and the Chattanooga market has indicated they are a top-notch organization of great integrity. They were asked to do a job that they are successful at and I think that they were a great choice. I know that his organization will do an excellent job with Hodgepodge. I feel we had inherited a great event and made it better and expect that the Chattanooga Market will continue that tradition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



