Referring to his candidacy, he says he is “your vote for change.” Topping his list of issues is redevelopment, which he maintains “should not be done on the backs of the public,” and he particularly the use of eminent domain as a tool ripe for abuse. TIF (Tax Incentive Financing), a critical component of the city’s redevelopment strategy, “is a serious mistake; each dollar diverted must be replaced by the people.” The whole process of eminent domain should not be done so that the city can maximize taxes, Baggett said.

Baggett takes issue with the “revisiting” of passed legislation that is subsequently found to be flawed, as the original redevelopment ordinance was. “If you don’t know (or aren’t sure), postpone.” He chastised city officials for not doing their homework before passing new legislation.

In his position statement, Baggett advocates:

• City Charter change to require a runoff election for City Mayor if the leading candidate wins by less than 50% of the vote
• Eminent domain should be used sparingly and only for Government facilities such as roads, schools, and utilities easements.
• Focus on the maintenance of high stanbdards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and conduct by employees and agents of the city (full/part time, paid and unpaid, elected or appointed to any board, commission, council, authority, corporation or other body sanctioned by the city)
• Retention of ward representation (he opposes “at large” council representation)
• Placing all boards and groups such as DDP (Downtown District Partnership) under the “Regional Planning Commission” since planning is their chartered responsibility.
• Consolidated government and streamlining government to maximize efficiency and productivity. “A consolidated government built around Constitutional officers.”

Baggett is a two-term former County Commissioner, and came in second to County Mayor  Bowers in the 2006 election.

[Show as slideshow]

Consider these salient points of interest:

1. Under oath, Mayor Piper admitted that he had not reviewed the city code or read the Building Maintenence Supervisor job description prior to making the transfer. He only did so after Mr. Burkhart refused the new position on the grounds of not being qualified. The mayor also had not read the official City Due Process Procedure.
2. Jeff Burkhart was fired by the mayor for insubordination after refusing a transfer to the Building Maintenance Department.
3. The interim City Human Resources Director stated that Burkhart did not meet the job requirements. He does not have the required state certification electrician license for the position.
4. Had Burkhart actually accepted the position, he would have been in violation of the City Code for accepting a position he was not qualified for.
5. Mayor Piper claims that this was a lateral transfer, not a demotion, with no loss of pay for Burkhart. However, the Building Maintenance position salary is listed at $30,000 less than the assistant fire chief position.
6. Had Burkhart accepted the position, again, he would have been in violation of the city code when the salary was not adjusted downward as the city code requires. Mayor Piper said he was going to maintain Burkhart’s assistant fire chief salary.
7. The city code states that an employee can legally refuse a job assignment if it is an unusual one that is hazardous or unsafe. Furthermore, it states an employee cannot be disciplined for declining that assignment. The actual job description states certain aspects of the job are hazardous and specifies state certification- electrician licensure – is required. Mr. Burkhart does not have such a license.
8. The two city council members who served on the appeal panel stated their position was the mayor can do whatever he wants, because he is the mayor. The city code does not state this. They ignored all these facts in evidence to grant the mayor his wish. They violated their oaths of office to first, serve the citizens of Clarksville and uphold the law, the charter and the city code. They had an obligation to weigh the facts, the law and render justice.

Mr. Burkhart has a solid foundation upon which to suit. The hearing proceedings is a public record and the testimony given was under oath. Statements uttered are part of the official record. Dereliction of duty may well apply. It will follow those folks into court. It will likely render the city liable for another guilty judgment and penalty award. This sort of thing was not suppose to plague us any more. Remember that campaign promise? Well, it seems we are in for a new but different round of lawsuits.

Forget a marina. Someone, please, turns the lights off as you exit this mess! Slide it back in the oven. It’s not done yet!