Harry S. Truman
Since 7/14/10
Year To Date
Bickers Lawsuit - Update Brief:
Atty John Batson, representing the Town of Louisville and the three aldermen who were sued individually, said to Judge Kerry Blackwood, "This lawsuit was not ripe, the Planning Commission had "No Standing (to sue)", the ordinance that was the subject of the Declaratory Judgment "never became law", its "Dead and Buried" the subject is "Moot" and legislators are "Immune from Lawsuits". "Judges are too," the Judge responded. The attorney that Tom Bickers said under oath that "HE" hired, Attorney Melody Davis, responded in response to Batson's summary, "We may amend the lawsuit." None of them: Tom Bickers, Bob Gormley (Vice Mayor), Jere Ingram (Deceiver Editor, Joy's husband), John Loope, Darrell Dillard, Phillip Marshall, Nick White or supporter, Mayor Geraldine Anderson, showed up --- not interested enough to show up while the lawyers spent the Town's money arguing their preposterous case. I was there. The lawyers are laughing all of their way to the bank.
Have you seen the Coke "One Ounce" commercial where the actors say, "We want to sue Coke" and the lawyer looks at them as if to say, "Are you nuts, you want to sue yourself?" Well, that's the kind of lawsuit that Tom Bickers, himself an attorney, led the Planning Commission into.
Wayne Lance, Co-Founder
LCA
*Tom Bickers sues again?
Mayoral candidate, attorney and member of the Planning Commission, Tom Bickers, made the motion at the December PC meeting to sue the Town and to sue three of its elected officials, individually. Now there is another ordinance which Tom does not agree with so on his law firm’s stationary and without copying the Town’s attorney, Mr. Bickers sent his letter to State Senator Doug Overbey asking that he forward his letter to the State Attorney General (AG). Town Attorney, Chris Ralls, who wrote the ordinance, had agreed to get a legal opinion about some of the ordinance’s provisions from the AG in Nashville since it was his job to do so. However, the always litigious Tom Bickers acting as if HE were the Town’s attorney, got ahead of Ralls who fired back in the letter below. The following is the transcript in which Chris Ralls suggests Tom Bickers should resign from the PC. The LCA whole heartedly agrees that Tom Bickers needs to be out of our government.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Ralls [mailto:lawyerralls@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 04:44 PM
To: 'Tom Bickers'
Cc: 'Melanie E. Davis', 'Geraldine Anderson', 'Joe Gallagher', 'Robert Gormley', 'Rob Tingle',
'Steve Dixon'
Subject: RE: Letter to AG
One more thing Mr. Bickers, my client is the Town only, I do not represent any individual alderman, so I don't have clients I have 1 client.Since you are a lawyer you should understand that.
Chris ralls
________________________________________
From: lawyerralls@hotmail.com
To: tab@painetar.com
CC: mdavis@kizer-black.com; g576anderson@gmail.com; cgallag456@aol.com; robert.gormley@hp.com; alderman-tingle@louisville-tn.us; sdixon@spectrausa.com
Subject: RE: Letter to AG
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:22:25 -0400
Thanks for thinking of me, I guess you forgot that I told the planning commission that the BMA was going to address the issue at its next meeting, I don't understand why you think your letter shouldn't have been shared with all of us.Why should I have to ask you to make any special effort to keep me advised?
I resent any implication that I favor the BMA over the Planning Commission and I further resent your attitude.You have no basis to allege that.In fact I think such statements are childish.
I thought that we had made a move towards openess at the last Planning Commission meeting, your actions belie that.
I intend to ask the AG a couple of more questions about the new Ordinance and the provisions of TCA, and I am touching base with MTAS as well.
I refuse to comment on the efficacy of the PC's lawsuit against the town, but if my actions in trying to keep the planning commission from costing the town attorneys' fees causes any member of the planning commission to not want me to be town attorney or to reject my legal opinions per se then my opinion is that none of you are worthy of your positions.I think your objectivity is compromised, perhaps you should consider resigning.I intend that as criticism.
In terms of the ethics investigations, I will not let ANYONE tell me how to do my job.That is final.
Chris Ralls
________________________________________
From: tab@painetar.com
To: lawyerralls@hotmail.com
CC: mdavis@kizer-black.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:49:56 -0400
Subject: RE: Letter to AG
Mr. Rallls:
I have attached my letter of June 18, 2010 to Doug Overbey (click here). I trust this satisfies your demand and desire for immediate action. I wish you would treat the numerous requests I have made and those made on my behalf for the documents related to the ethics allegations that have been pending against me since December with the same urgency. You will see upon your review of the letter, despite the paranoia of your clients, that I submitted the exact three issues discussed at the meeting you attended and which the Planning Commission voted to seek review.
Overbey called me yesterday to discuss the request. I mentioned that the State Planning Office might also be asked for an opinion, as that was also discussed at our meeting and, I believe, part of the resolution passed by the BMA this week. Doug indicated he would prefer we seek that review before asking the AG’s office for an opinion. I told him I agreed with his suggestion. I would hope you would as well. I plan to make that request of the state office on behalf of the Planning Commission. You are more than welcome to sign my letter as a joint submission if that is what you desire.
I am going to address your comment in an email to Melanie Davis yesterday in which you stated that you were making a “mild protest that someone is usurping my job.” I assure you that I have the same law license as you and have every right, as a member of the Planning Commission, to communicate with and seek the assistance of my elected representatives. You are not going to dictate who I talk to and what I say. As much as your clients desire to exercise total and absolute control over Louisville, including what people say or write, I intend to exercise my rights as a citizen, a member of the Planning Commission and an attorney. You and your clients will just have to accept that fact and live with it. While I am more than willing to accept criticism, and more than my share is being hurled at me, it should be apparent to both you and your clients that I will not allow myself to be threatened, intimidated or harassed. However, I trust your comment was intended as a criticism, and that is that manner in which I have taken it.
Finally, I want to address your comment that “[t]he Planning Commission does not have a separate lawyer except for the lawsuit, and I represent the Town of Louisville including the Planning Commission for all other matters.” I am very confident that I represent the view of every member of the Planning Commission with what I am about to write. As a result of your conduct in the litigation and the obvious bias you have demonstrated against the Planning Commission and in favor of three individual aldermen, the members of the Planning Commission do not want you as their attorney and do not trust your legal advice. They, like the majority of citizens in our town, view you as the personal attorney for Aldermen Dixon, Gallagher and Tingle. If, as you claim, you represent the Planning Commission, then you should have respected your clients’ request to withdraw. The fact you didn’t and stayed on at the request of the three aldermen, who have other counsel, reinforced in us that you do not represent our interests. This should come as no shock to you. Any attorney experienced at representing organizations knows that as soon as he takes sides in an internal dispute and represents one side over the other, the side not chosen will no longer believe the attorney is unbiased and have trust and faith in his advice. Our ethics rules are designed in large part to ensure that clients have faith and trust in their attorney. That is why the rules on conflict of interest exist and are so strictly enforced. As I have heard Don Paine explain on more than one occasion, the conflicts rules are not to be viewed through the eyes of the attorney, but through the eyes of the clients. Hopefully you now have some understanding of how things look through the eyes of your alleged clients on the Planning Commission.
Tom Bickers
* FYI UPDATE:
AN ORDINANCE was passed by the BMA on second reading and a public hearing in May
of 2010. The following are the sections of it which have been objected to by the Planning Commission lead by Tom Bickers. Responsive to that objection the BMA through Town Interim Attorney sent sections of it to the State Attorney General for an opinion.
First, the Board of Mayor and Alderman is the chief legislative body of the Town of Louisville which has five elected members. It consists of a Mayor who is elected for a four year term and four aldermen who are elected for four year terms. This November the Mayor’s and two Aldermen’s (Gormley and Tingle) terms expire. The Planning Commission has seven members who are appointed by the Mayor to four year terms except one member is appointed from its membership by the BMA. Robert Gormley is the BMA’s appointment to the PC and Jere Ingram occupies the Mayor’s seat on the PC.
Tom Bickers is a candidate for mayor of Louisville, is an attorney and is a member of the Municipal Planning Commission (PC).
Ordinance Background:
Section 5. The BMA appoints one of its members to serve on the PC. In 2006 Robert Gormley was designated by the BMA to be its representative. In December 2009, Gormley voted with the PC to sue the town and three (3) of its elected officials. That led to a vote of “no confidence” by the BMA with regard to Gormley’s representation. The BMA on the advice of Town Attorney interpreted “serve at the pleasure of BMA” means the BMA can change its representative to the PC whenever it chooses. Tom Bickers argues “at the pleasure of BMA” means the BMA can’t make a change in its appointment until the elected term of the appointed member expires. Go figure?
Section 6. The BMA on the advice of Town Attorney contend Tennessee Code gives the authority to the BMA to set the terms of the PC members. The ordinance term limits those who serve, to two terms. Several of the members have served on the commission since the PC was formed in 1992. The BMA’s will is for other citizens, including minorities and women, to have the opportunity to participate and serve. Tom Bickers argues the BMA cannot limit the terms of the PC members. (This means that the same individuals can serve over, and over and over again.)
Section 7. John Loope has been the perpetual chairman of the PC. The ordinance ordains the leadership of the PC to change every two years. Tom Bickers argues the BMA does not have the authority to legislate that change. Mr. Loope is the largest commercial land owner in Louisville, as well as a developer. This seems to be a conflict of interest, since he also chairs the Commission that is responsible for zoning and development in the town.
Ordinance:
Section 5: The member of the Planning Commision appointed by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
Section 6: No person shall be reappointed to serve more than eight total years as a regular voting member of the Town of Louisville Planning Commission.
Section 7: No member of the Louisville Planning Commission may serve as chairman for more that two consecutive years or for a total of four years during their membership.
Many really good things are happening in our Town. However, the Town will never be all it can be as long as a few want to maintain a power base even though they are not elected officials. The BMA is the Chief Legislative Body and runs the town. The Municipal Planning Commission is appointed by the Mayor except for one who is appointed by the BMA. The BMA wants changes in the Planning Commission, both in its member composition and in its direction. The BMA wants no more metal buildings in commercial zones and these members have approved many. So that’s where the story begins.
SEVEN WHITE MEN SERVE ON MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION
John Loope, several terms
Robert Gormley, several terms
Jere Ingram, several terms
Phillip Marshall several terms
Darrell Dillard, first term
Tom Bickers , first term
Nick Whitehead, unexpired term
An unexpired term was on the horizon and the only woman on the commission was leaving so Alderman Steve Dixon sent an e-mail to Mayor Geraldine Anderson advising her that she had not made appointments to the Planning Commission which complies with state law. The following is the applicable code, see the last sentence.
Tennessee Code Annotated: 13-4-101 (a) (1) the chief legislative body of any municipality, whether designated board of aldermen, board of commissioners or by other title, may create and establish a municipal planning commission. Such planning commission shall consist of not less than five (5) members and not more than ten (10) members, the number of members within the limits to be determined by the chief legislative body. One (1) of the members shall be the mayor of the municipality or a person designated by the mayor and one (1) of the members shall be a member of the chief legislative body of the municipality selected by that body. All other members shall be appointed by such mayor, except as otherwise provided in subsection (b). In making such appointments, the mayor shall strive to ensure that the racial composition of the planning commission is at least proportionately reflective of the municipality's racial minority population.
The Mayor’s response was to appoint Nick Whitehead. Aldermen Dixon, Gallagher and Tingle were disgusted with Mayor Anderson’s appointment. Alderman Tingle and Steve Dixon began to communicate with David Buuck, Town Attorney, about possible ordinances which would force the mayor to appoint folks other than all white men to the PC. First, state law provides that the BMA can set the number of PC members and the length of their terms (see law above). The idea was that if the number of members was reduced it could be increased as the mayor had acceptable candidates. David Buuck agreed that could be done legally. Also, Attorney Buuck agreed that the subject ordinance did not have to be considered by the Planning Commission. He later changed his mind. The mistake that was made was that the Ordinance said that the mayor had to appoint not less than 40% on women and minorities --- that too was approved by David Buuck. It turns out this is reverse discrimination according to the Supreme Court. That percentage in the Ordinance made it voidable. Now, the PC had a fit because two of its members would have to go off. With Loope, Ingram, Gormley and Marshall all having severed multiple terms then that didn’t seem unreasonable. So now you have the frame work for the Ordinance. The Ordinance was voted on in November and December of 2009. At the December meeting Attorney David Buuck was terminated and Attorney Chris Ralls was hired. Immediately after the vote, Alderman Dixon sent out an e-mail to the town recorder instructing him not to advertise the Ordinance which is required for it to become law. He stated he want Chris Ralls to read the Ordinance and give an opinion before it became law. On December 18, without consultation with the Town’s new attorney, the PC sued the Town including Aldermen Dixon, Tingle and Gallagher, personally. Now, next please see what Town Atty Chris Ralls told the court: Click Here
Click here to read my response to Joy Ingram's "Observer/Deceiver"Ever wonder how the $1.5M Town Hall got started?
Read this article from the Daily Times Oct 22, 2006, 2 weeks before the Election (Click Here).
You can expect similar shananigans again this year.
