At a Special Called Session under heavy police presence, the Clarksville City Council heard from a wide cross-section of the affected redevelopment district and concerned citizens Monday night. Attendance was estimated at over 200 people. Despite pleas for more openness and deletion of the threat of eminent domain against homeowners and property owners, the Council gave first reading approval of Resolution 96-2007-08 with a vote tally of 3 Nays against 9 Yeas.

The agenda presented at the meeting deviated from that released to the public. The previously released agenda stated that the council “desires to delete Ordinance 73-2005-06 in its entirety and amend the same, or replace the same, with the hereafter Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan.” No explanation was offered for the change-up in agenda criteria. Ordinance 96-2007-08 was listed as “an ordinance adopting the Clarksville Center Redevelopment and Urban Renewal Plan.

After motions to delete several items from the agenda, Mayor Johnny Piper gave a slide presentation summarizing the history of the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. Acknowledging that the original plan had failed to follow several provisions of state law, Mayor Piper said several steps were taken to correct those flaws. However, repeal of the plan was never pursued.

Consultation with the Knoxville Community Development Corporation (KCDC) aided in revisions being incorporated into a revised plan. During the city council’s trip to Knoxville, KCDC President/CEO Alvin Nance told the council and visiting citizens that, unlike Clarksville, “Knoxville never considered declaring their entire downtown area “a blighted area or district. They utilized several individual projects encompassing varying, smaller sizes within the their downtown area in their overall redevelopment district. Additionally, Knoxville held multiple public hearings to insure public input and continued support as their redevelopment plan progressed. Also, Knoxville had very little displacement of residents in the impacted areas They made concerted efforts to insure long established neighborhoods were not destablized or suffered population make-up shift.”

After reviewing observations from the Knoxville trip, further revisions to the Clarksville Plan were presented to the public at a public hearing on March 27th. One item Mayor Piper stressed was addressing concerns of “taking of private property without full fair market value compensation.” Over 30 comment cards calling for the outright repeal of the plan were recorded as a single repeal comment in the finalized public hearing transcript. The mayor said that the March 27th public hearing on the former ordinance would be used to satisfy legal requirements for such a hearing for the newest ordinance incarnation.

Public Comments Oppose the Plan

Following the mayor’s presentation, the council received public comments.

George Fort, a resident of the Red River District, called for extending the timeframe for obtaining residents understanding of the repercussions of this plan: “It isn’t there yet.” He called for a demonstration project to let the area residents see the plan’s potential impact to their community.

Mrs. Virgina Hatcher, president of the local chapter of the Commission On Religion and Racism (CORR), told the council that people are not pleased with this plan. “Displacing people from their homesteads of many years, or even causing them to unnecessarily fear such displacement via underhanded political manipulations, is wrong. It is unchristian,” she said. She stated she was speaking as both a resident of and for the Red River Community. She asked the council to heed the people’s discontent and reject this plan.

Don Sharpe, called for a show of hands of those in favor of the plan-there was no response. When he called for a show of hands of those opposed to the plan, every audience member raised their hand.

Debbie Hunt of the Property Owners Rights Coalition told the council that this whole process has denied property owners their rights and opportunity to voice objections and have their concerns heard. The abuse of eminent domain has not removed. Assurances of fair market value compensation are not quantified in this new ordinance any more than its predecessor. Assemblage clauses continue to pose a threat to homes that are not “blighted.”

Terry McMoore (left) urged council members “to not let the ultimate puppetmaster, Mayor Johnny Piper, pull your strings. The people, the constituents, are here, and they have spoken. They do not support this plan.” He urged the councilmembers to listen to the people.

Rick Reda of Rick Reda Auto Sales at N. 2nd Street said he favors redevelopment. However, he said, this isn’t a plan. He stated the ordinance lacks any specific spelled out projects as presented in the Knoxville model. “There is no plan, but rather a bunch of rules and regulations not geared towards the residents benefit.”

Samuel Hooker of Hooker Funeral Home, Franklin Street, questioned the wisdom of having paid a $10,000 county tax bill, having a pending city tax bill bill in June, and still be facing city condemnation of his property due to wanton acts of vandalism, under threat of eminent domain. He stated he had already been approached with offers of $750,000 for his business property, but he’s not interested in selling. Yet the city insists there are not already envisioned projects for the area. He asked if the city would give him that amount for his property under this plan. He doesn’t think so. Additionally, a long-time resident of Brandon Hills stated that unlike him, many of his neighbors live on fixed restrictive incomes and cannot absorb the burden of rehabilitation expenses resulting from proposed short corrective allowance timeframes under the new redevelopment plan. He pointed out that local banks are not approving home repair or rehabilitation loans in the area and no assistance has been forthcoming from the city. He urged the council to rethink this plan in its entirety. It is causing undue stress and anguish to people least able to contend with these pressures, he stated.

John Summers (above), Clarksville Property Owners Rights Coalition (CPRC) attorney, called the plan a blatant property grab. He characterized it as “a developer’s wet dream.” The spokesman for the Tennessee Historical Society repeated its criticism of the plan, characterizing it as a developer’s wish list. “There is no plan, no specified projects.” This plan contains the largest unrestricted application of eminent domain anywhere in the United States. “The national headquarters has called this plan audacious.”

The Council Moves to Vote

Following the public comment period, an unclarified amendment to the ordinance was approved with a vote of 10 to 2. Afterwards, several areas of concern for clarification were voiced by council members, including:

• vacant properties criteria uncertainties should be resolved
• property owners not residing in the district should understand they will only exercise one vote, despite the number of properties owned
• review the language of having a business representative serve on review board
• reconsider the six month restriction to correct code violations for longer corrective timeframe. These are adverse economic times and we should be cognizant of unforeseeable personal hardships impacting our community.

Councilman Jim Doyle, noting first that government’s highest purpose is to serve the people, reviewed the entire redevelopment plan creation process. He noted that a litany of mistakes have befallen this process and lamented that corrective steps, in support of local government actually fulfilling its duty to serve the people, have not been pursued.

Councilman Marc Harris (above) asked for deferral of the ordinance. The motion failed, No-8, Yes-4. Following Councilman Harris’s imploring council to heed the tenets of the Gold Rule, the vote on the ordinance proceeded. The vote to approve the first reading was called and passed 9-Yes and 3-No. At this point, the meeting was adjourned.

At a community meeting meeting held Friday, April 4, sponsored by Marc Harris, residents were also concerned with language in the new ordinance that allowed only “titled property owners” be eligible for appointment to a supervisory board, a move that excludes long time neighborhood residents who are renters from having a voice in the future of their own neighborhoods.

Debbie Harris (at left) also spoke at Harris’ meeting, is infuriated with the lack of response shown by the council to their constituency, voicing concerned that property around her home is being bought up by people anticipating approval of this plan and that her home will be taken under the “assemblage” clause in this ordinance. “Assemblage” was a major issue in the original ordinance, and remains a strategic part of the new plan. She was also angered by the fact that letters to property owners about the special Monday session were delivered by mail with a time frame of only 2-3 days before the first reading. It was no surprise to her that the revised document passed.

In calling for its enactment, President John F. Kennedy identified “simple justice” as the justification for Title VI:

“Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination. Direct discrimination by Federal, State or local governments is prohibited by the Constitution. But indirect discrimination, through the use of Federal funds, is just as invidious; and it should not be necessary to resort to the courts to prevent each individual violation.” See H. R. Misc. Doc. No. 124, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 3, 12 (1963).

The battles of the civil rights era are mostly thought to have resulted in major victories. However, as this 43rd anniversary approaches, a local citizen’s watchdog group has been studying Clarksville’s compliance status and the results do not speak well of us this late in game. To be kind, the city’s Title VI compliance status seems to be less than adequate, if not, totally nonexistent. Frankly, this is a seriously perilous situation. But how can it be?

Some salient facts to keep in mind as you consider this situation:

1. The City of Clarksville has no Title VI Implementation Plan. City Council has never adopted Title VI has the official nondiscrimination policy of city government.
2. More than nine racial discrimination lawsuits have been filed against the police department and the city.
   Of all the cases that have thus far gone to trial, the city has been found guilty every time.
3. The city is saddled with heavy judgment awards from each of the lost lawsuits. They are still yet to be paid and they are accruing interest, daily.
4. The police department has been undeniably and irrefutably identified as a racially hostile work environment for minority officers and personnel.
5. TDOT Commissioner Gerald Nicely stated in 2005 that the city and county must each develop their own Title VI Implementation Plan, as required by federal and state law, and disallowed Ms Woodle’s declaration that we could piggyback off of TDOT’s plan.
6. The receipt of federal financial assistance requires Title VI compliance up and down the line of that assistance distribution flow.
7. A loss or suspension of federal financial assistance becomes a real probable consequence when noncompliance is not addressed and remedied by primary recipients or their sub-recipients, including contractors and sub-contractors.

The City of Clarksville and Montgomery County are, indisputably, recipients of federal and state financial assistance. They are subject to compliance laws, rules and regulations of the federal and state agencies which distribute or pass thru federal financial assistance to them. Efforts by private citizens to urge local governmental bodies to meet compliance requirements and standards has met with strong resistance and direct denial. This noncompliance status jeopardizes the continued receipt of the myriad forms of federal financial assistance which continually flow into the city and county coffers and funds so many services and programs. Real leadership would move to put this ship, which is our local governmental triumvirate, on course, steering a true and honest path of compliance. The pie is big enough for all of us. After all, this is, “The Gateway To The New South!”

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!

A three-person city panel consisting of City Councilmen Bill Forrester ward 11, Wayne Harrison ward 12 and Clarksville Gas and Water Gas Division Manager Tae Eaton voted unanimously yesterday to uphold Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper’s decision to terminate former Clarksville Fire Rescue Assistant Chief Jeff Burkhart. Jeff Burkhart was fired by Clarksville Mayor Johnny Piper for insubordination in April, after he refused a transfer to the Building Maintenance Department. Burkhart had been with the Clarksville Fire Rescue for 22 years.

TM: Gabe thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity to interview you but before we begin tell us what you have been up to since your resignation from the City Council and do you plan a return to the political arena any time soon?

GS: Terry, Mostly I have been working in my back yard landscaping. You know, like moving dirt around and planting things; clearing out brush, weeds, thorns, etc. It is an on-going project that helps me meditate.

As for a possible return to local politics, yes. At least that is my goal. I tried last year to run for public office but my wife’s employer (Leaf Chronicle) told her she’d be fired (or be forced to resign) if I became an official candidate, so I will have to find a way around that in 2010.

TM: Gabe because of the time of day the hearing appeal for former Clarksville Fire Rescue Assistant Chief Jeff Burkhart took place and with my citizens unable to attend because of work can you tell us who the presiding authority was over the proceedings.

GS: Sheila Michaels, Interim Human Resources Director.

TM: Did panel members appear unstressed & unbiased?

GS: Tae Eaton asked questions that seemed like he was trying to get at the truth. The two Council members took the side of the city attorney every time. Their basic position is that the mayor can do what he wants. That philosophy is what they based their decision on

TM: Did the legal presiding authority, the City Attorney appear unbiased and even handed in has questions or objections?

GS: The City Attorney was very biased for the position of the mayor, but that was his job: to sell the firing of the city employee as a fair and legal thing for the mayor to do. In other words, the city attorney was not supposed to be unbiased or even handed.

TM: Why did Burkhart not feel qualified for the job and was this a true lateral job transfer?

GS: No, Burkhart did not feel qualified for the job, based on his working knowledge of the duties of that job and his ability to actually read the job description. And no, the move was not a lateral job transfer. There are four pay grades separating his former position of Assistant Fire Chief and Building Maintenance Supervisor. Burkhart’s attorney did an excellent job of questioning Sheila Michaels, and proved that according to our city codes, by definition it was a demotion for Burkhart to be transferred to the other position.

TM: Did anyone else support this feel of him not being qualified?

GS: No. But all witnesses agreed that Burkhart has done a good job at the Fire Department. I think Sheila Michaels may have admitted during questioning that Burkhart did not meet the requirements of that job, but I am not 100% sure about that.

TM: Did the deliberations among the appeal panelists seem to be sincere?

GS: No. At least for the two council members, they already had their minds made up. I say this because the only one of the three that actually deliberated the vote was Eaton. Forrester and Harrison didn’t add anything to the debate other than that the mayor can do what he wants.

TM: Do you think that the panel was a setup?

GS: I think it was a necessary step in the appeals process, and that in time it will be clearly shown the sworn testimony of the witnesses that our city code was violated many, many times in Burkhart’s termination. Everything was recorded and can and will be used again in a real court of law.

TM: Do you feel insubordination was really the issue?

GS: NO. I think Piper was out to show the Fire Department who the boss is.

TM: How much do you think politics played in this issue?

GS:  100%.

TM: Do you think he has a right to sue?

GS: Yes, and after hearing the testimony today I would encourage him to do just that.

TM: How can we as citizens get involved to stop this from happening again?

GS: Stop electing John Piper as mayor.

TM: Did the Mayor really state under oath that he did not or has not read the city codes?

GS: Yes, you could request a copy of the audio recording. It is public record. Check with Sylvia Skinner.

TM: Is there any thing you would like to say in closing?

GS: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Seriously, though, it was plain to see and hear at the appeal hearing today that the current Mayor John E. Piper was under the impression that he could do whatever he wanted to do because he is the Mayor. Fortunately for the rest of Clarksville, TN, he is mistaken.

Besides admitting under oath that he has not read the Charter or Code, he also admitted that he had not read the official Due Process Procedure for the City of Clarksville. That is a specific section of our city law that gives specific detail on how to reprimand a city employee and the steps that must be taken, as well as the rights of a city employee has if he/she feels they have been wronged.

(As a side note, this is also one of the key sections that was used by some of the black police officers when they won their lawsuits against the city for discrimination.) Funny how those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes from the past.

But that is exactly what the City of Clarksville is about to experience again with Mr. Burkhart’s termination. You might also remember that Mr. Tony Blakely lost his appeal hearing, and later won his federal lawsuit.

Ironically, Burkhart’s attorney proved that IF Burkhart would have accepted the transfer/demotion, he would have violated the City Code by being hired into a position that he was not qualified for, according to the official language of the job description. Also, the city codes would have been violated if somehow Burkhart accepted the transfer/demotion and kept his yearly salary, because it was about $30,000 more per year than what the job description allows.

AGAIN, IRONICALLY enough, our mayor did not read the job description for the Building Maintenance Supervisor either. But despite all this, the Council members present deemed it his right to do whatever he wanted to do simply because he is the mayor.

Piper admitted that he had not read the City Code, City Charter, Due Process section, or the Job Description. But he stormed straight ahead and did what he wanted to do. To me, that is pitiful.

All this said, I think the most important part of the entire appeal hearing was the part where it was stated that a city employee can legally refuse a job assignment if it is an unusual one that is hazardous or unsafe. Furthermore, it specifically states that an employee cannot be disciplined for declining that assignment. In the actual job description, it states that certain aspects of the job are “hazardous.” The part that is hazardous is the same part that requires specific state certification (licensed electrician) that Mr. Burkhart does not have.

None of that mattered to Forrester or Harrison. The city code-our city laws-were thrown out the window and trumped by one man’s demands that people bow down to him because he is the mayor and they are not.

There are checks and balances drawn into the design of our city government, and rules and procedures in place to protect city employees against this kind of unjust and illegal treatment. If the mayor and appeals board will not abide by the letter of the law, it is my sincere hope that the next court of real law will.

TM: Thank you Gabe Segovia for this very informative look from inside the Former Clarksville Fire Rescue Assistant Chief Jeff Burkhart’s termination appeal hearing.

GS: You are welcome.

All censorship ever does is create a firestorm of opposition, and a renewed interest in the material being banned. So why did the Customs House Museum think they would be an exception to this rule? Any censorship raises people’s hackles. Intellectually we know that allowing it to pass uncommented erodes our freedoms much more rapidly than by any other means.

Critics cry out that you can not desecrate the American flag. But it is perfectly ok for politicians to wrap themselves in the flag and use it to justify abhorrent actions. It is also considered ok for musicians to wear the flag as an item of their clothing. How many flag belt buckles have I seen proudly shown off over the years? How many pickup trucks and cars have I seen driving around town using the flag as a tawdry decoration? All those uses of the flag are fine, but don’t you dare use a flag in any way that actually makes a point!

Where one person sees desecration, another sees artistic interpretation and inspiration. Lets take a moment to read the words that the artist printed on the flag. “Waste creates jobs. Waste is good for the economy”; “Poor people are obese because they eat poorly”; “More Consumption, More Waste, More Jobs, More Economic Stimulation, More Consumption, More Destruction, More Jobs, More Economic Stimulation”. Know what he’s right. We are a consumer society for good or ill. We as a society place more emphasis on buying and owning, than on the community good. We can disagree with him all we want on how he made his point, but we can’t disagree that he has the right to make it.

Ned Couch the executive director of the Customs House Museum has supposedly in the name of protecting community sensibilities used his personal judgement that this exhibit might offend Museum patrons as justification for requiring the artist to remove portions of it. In doing so he has offended the community much more than one artist and his exhibit ever could. Part of his job is to protect the right of Clarksville citizens to experience the arts. He abdicated that responsibility by choosing to exercise censorship over this exhibit. As such he should step down from his post.

Call the museum and tell them that you oppose their actions on this matter and that they should restore the exhibit in full. You might also consider letting them know that if they do not reverse this rash decision then you will consider terminating all support you give their organization.

Phone Numbers:

Voice:  (931) 648-5780
FAX: (931) 553-5179
TTY: (931) 553-5101

E-mail:

Mailing address:
Customs House Museum
P.O. Box 383
Clarksville, TN 37041-0383.

A couple of election related things to talk about.

Automated phone calls for election purposes, these should be banned. Let living people call as much as they wish, provided they promptly honor requests from the phone customer to be removed from their list.

Deceptive campaign ads. These should never be tolerated. Once it’s proven that a clearly deceptive ad was issued by a candidate, whoever authorized them should be sent to jail. No if’s, but’s, or excuses.

Voting machines, must output a voter verifiable paper ballot instead of storing the vote talley internally. Once the voting machine prints the ballot the voter checks to make sure the votes are indicated accurately and then deposits it in a locked ballot box. These machine readable ballots then can be scanned, rescanned, and manually checked if there is any question about the reliability of the votes.

Vickie Koelman the administrator of elections has a lot to answer for. In both the primary and the general election it took quite a bit of time for the voters to finish voting due to long lines. 3+ hours in the case of the general election. She has had several chances to get it right and it has proven to be beyond her abilities. She should step down and allow someone more capable to come in and replace her. There was no excuse for 3 hour lines for voting even with a 46% turnout.

We should modify state or federal law to require that in order to win the election a candidate must receive 50.1% of the vote or more. No one should ever hold elected office due to 28% of the vote. In the event no one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote then the two candidates with the highest vote total should have a runoff election within 2 weeks.
 
Other than that I am fairly happy with the elections. I will say this, I am glad they are over! I intend to cut back on the amount of political coverage and try to do more events, arts, crafts, and other civic articles for a while. That is unless something major comes up. Does this work for you?

I was going to write an article on the Democrats taking both the House and Senate, but due to my illness yesterday, Christine beat me to the punch. Read her article it’s quite good!

Polling Locations

MONTGOMERY COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION VOTING PRECINCTS

* Clarksville Online is not responsible for any errors contained herein, the information was taken verbatim from the Montgomery County Election commission web site. Any factual errors are solely their responsibility.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Choose Charles Smith

As we near the end of this race, we are propelled forward by folks like you! Now it’s time to sprint to the finish line!

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your continued support and vote!

It was not until I attended a race relations summit, and I heard Tennessee Rep. and black caucus member Johnny Shaw speak these words that my political lifestyle would be forever changed. He stated:

When it comes to politics you are either on one side or the other, people who straddle the fence are just afraid to make a stand on anything.

So recently when I sat down with family members for our weekly family dinner, I once again reiterated this story to them. I told them why we should, as a family, vote and support the following candidates for office based on the common interest they all represent.

Charles Smith for mayor of Clarksville; Joe Pitts for state House 67th District; Harold Ford Jr. for U.S. senator; Bruce Gibbs for state House 78th District;  Keith Svadba for City Council Ward 3; Tim Barnes for state House 68th District; Bill Morrison for 7th U.S. House District and let’s keep Phil Bredesen for Governor & John Tanner for 8th U.S. House District

It is time to stop straddling the fence and recognize that we need change across the board. Now that I have chosen a side, it completes me and the above-mentioned candidates will help Clarksville to grow, heal, and to become complete by recognizing the true strength of its diverse population and how to use it to its advantage.

On Oct. 23, Family Vote Day, my family and I will vote for change. I hope you and your family will too. God Bless!

CDE has corrected some of the misinformation that Charter and other opponents of the Fiber Referendum have been clouding the air with. CDE calls it misstating, I call it lying. Well CDE has to be political on this subject matter, I however do not. They have launched a new web site, Vote Yes CDE. They are also holding their yearly Electric Expo on Saturday at the CDE office.