to the editor:

published: December 28 2007 01:00 PM updated:: January 03 2008 10:20 AM

I frequently receive inquiries from constituents concerning the application of Tennessee?s ethics law to local government officials.

Tennessee?s ethics law, enacted in 2006, provides rather weak, limited oversight of local government officials. Such officials are required to file disclosure of interest statements with the Tennessee Ethics Commission, but the commission does not enforce certain code violations.

Each year, Tennessee General Assembly members are required to attend a review of the state?s ethics law. I recently wrote the executive director of the Tennessee Ethics Commission, Bruce Androphy, asking him to discuss the commission?s role in overseeing ethical and legal behavior of local government officials, and he has promised to include this topic in this year?s presentation.

I recommend that any interested government official or citizen listen to Mr. Androphy, as he explains what the commission can or cannot do about local government issues.

The presentation before the full state Senate should commence at approximately 10:00 a.m. Eastern time (EST) on Thursday, January 10, 2008.

A viewer may watch and listen to Mr. Androphy live, through Internet video streaming, or at any time, through tape archives.

For either option, follow this procedure:

** Go to the General Assembly’s Website, www.legislature.state.tn.us .

** On the page that opens, see a menu bar on the left side. Click the second heading, "Senate."

** On the page that then opens, see a menu bar on the left side. Under the second heading, "Senate," click the fourth subheading, "Video Streaming."

** On the page that then opens, see options to watch current proceedings (live video streaming) or past proceedings (tape archives).

I have posted these instructions in a page in one of my Websites, www.raymondfinney.com/video.html .

The Tennessee Ethics Commission provides a toll-free telephone number for any person to call about a question of ethics in government. This number is: 1-866-416-4730.

Respectfully yours,

Raymond Finney

State Senator

Eighth Senatorial District (Sevier and Blount Counties )

Comments may take up to 10 minutes to appear due to site cache.

User Comments

#1 James J. Wilson commented, on December 28, 2007 at 9:14 p.m.:

According to your statement above..."Tennessee's ethics law, enacted in 2006, provides rather weak, limited oversight of local government officials...but the commission does not enforce certain code violations." That is part of the problem and that shortcoming must be addressed at the state level. Another problem with the local ethics law is that one person, our couty mayor was allowed to choose every person on the committee with no oversight or public input. The mayor selected all the committe members and then the first batch of complaints were against the mayor and members of the ethics commitee. At the last meeting of the committe, three members had to recuse themselves from a vote on a matter where they all had a stated conflict of interest. The fourth member simply dismissed the complaint because they didn't have a quaroum. What does that tell you about the make up of the ethics committee? The crowd gathereed there became vocal and you no doubt by now have heard that deputies were called to maintain order. The public is fed up with perceived unethical behavior from our local officials and we need some help from our state officials. We need some real teeth in our ethic laws and we need some impartial oversight occassionaly. Sevier County deserves better.
As it stands now, I have no faith in the Sevier County ethics committee to reach an impartial and fair decision on any ethical matters brought before them.

#2 SQRPEG commented, on December 31, 2007 at 8:53 p.m.:

The above commentor sees the 'light of day', how many others have figured it out? The Commission has passed far beyond on really caring about where each of them as individuals stand on thee matters as they have delegated degree by degree these responsibilities. Understanding that it may be 'permissive' as per CTAS that certain individuals serve on this committee, that is the 'loophole' readily stepped through by the County Mayor as he makes these appointments, each propping up the other as reinforcements when the going gets rough. Doesn't have to get very rough to exceed the ability of getting beyond the cronyism and nepotism that has been the practice since about 1988. This didn't happen overnight and it will not be corrected in a fortnight! As was earlier reported in comment by the County Mayor, by media, that he had run things for past thirty years and a few people weren't making 'his' commission a circus, or to that effect! ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE FEW, US FEW, or are you sitting on your hands and saying 'law, law law'!? Lament, complaint, criticize but give it some serious thought - if you don't deserve better then keep going down this same tract, but, if you have any pride, integrity or concern put your words and action (tallents) to work!!

#3 John A. Meyers commented, on January 2, 2008 at 4:56 p.m.:

The state ethics committee has no jurisdiction over local matters. Bruce (at the number listed) stated that their office has received many calls and that "there are problems in Sevier County." He also said that there was nothing any concerned citizen could do other than file a lawsuit against the SC ethics committee for failure to "do thier jobs."

It is a shame that local citizens do not have an avenue to pursue ethical wrong doings (like the county mayor entering into a no-bid contract with his wifes printing company for county printing services). I hope the Seymour Herald will do some investigative reporting and bring ethical violations to light for public scrutiny.

#4 Peggy Marshall commented, on January 16, 2008 at 12:46 a.m.:

Citizens of Sevier County should not be required to undertake as an individual the burden of filing a complaint in any court when nothing more can be accomplished by bringing into the picture another faction who usually takes the position that the interest of the individual does not surpass that interest or common good of the public which stiffles any effort an individual makes -
the best approach is to cry loudly, make waves, demand a change in the process and shame them out of office! The loopholes which exist allow these individuals to skirt their responsibilities and when a claim of ignorance is more the style they prefer, one is forced to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that what they are doing (or fail to do) is wrong - they do not practice the Golden Rule, it is beyond the scope of their ability, knowledge or life-style, one cannot be expected to exercise the ability they do not possess and there is no substitute for a conscience!
You know you, I, and others who stand up and speak out are 'controversial' - maybe crazy, sore-tailed or 'wanting attention', right?

#5 Peggy Marshall commented, on January 16, 2008 at 1:11 a.m.:

Mr. Wilson, I like your approach to the Ethics Situation in Sevier County - as shown by my comments above:
Your letter posted in Mtn. Press, I responded to with these comments for the readers who may not have seen one question raised as to the Sheriff being accused of hiring a felon in capacity of food processing and purchasing for the Jail. Whether or not a complaint before the Ethics Committee, a Complaint in either the Chancery or Circuit Court, the question of the hiring is proven by Case No. 6411 of Circuit Court of Sevier County, Criminal Division, wherein Tyrone Paul Lintner, having plead guilty to a theft in excess of $49,000 was sentenced to six-year term in state custody, appeal Denied by Criminal Court of Appeals 2/01/99. Through his sworn testimony and admission he had a prior conviction, if not two, and it is absolutely undisputable that this employee of the workhouse or jail is in violation of TCA 38-8-106(4)
as amended by the General Assembly in 2006, which provides that all employees under the supervision of the Sheriff and hired after July 1, 2006 must be certified as all other police officers and that a waiver is not permissable under the Post Commission where the applicant is a felon; further, it provides that any person authorizing wage payment for such individual as an employee shall be punishable wherein it is known that these minimum requirements are not met. The simple technicality that his employment was 'arranged by another' prior to the Sheriff taking office is a mere technicality (loophole again) as when taking office March 2007 all employees were 'new hires' as to the responsibility of the office and the accountability for such - the case is the contrary however, as to practice, as the Sheriff says that Mr. Lintner has 'served his time, does a good job and has paid his debt', when the truth is that has not paid as he promised to pay one penny to the offended party - Mr. Editor,
what can you add as reporting on this subject?

#6 Matrova Keller commented, on February 23, 2008 at 10:55 a.m.:

law enforcement does not care what is said they overlook peoples complaints and even turn complaints against the individual complaining about anything.