So We Can’t Have a Special Election

Posted by sadcox
August 21, 2007

But Mark Siegel has an idea…

Nothing, however, prevents County Commission from directing the Knox County Election Commission to have a non-binding election for the offices which were occupied by a term-limited incumbent, and then have its re-do following the election. Let’s see which Commissioners vote for anyone other than the winner of the non-binding election.

I really like the idea, but it has one fatal flaw–these guys have shown repeatedly that they really don’t give a flip what we think, and they aren’t too concerned with having to face the music when elections roll around. If they did, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

Similar Posts:

Popularity: 1% [?]

del.icio.us:So We Can't Have a Special Election  digg:So We Can't Have a Special Election  spurl:So We Can't Have a Special Election  newsvine:So We Can't Have a Special Election  furl:So We Can't Have a Special Election  reddit:So We Can't Have a Special Election Tags: , ,

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments
Comment by mbradley on August 21, 2007 @ 9:48 pm

Have you talked to your county commissioners and shared your views? If you haven’t and want to, let me know. These folks are not bad people and they do care what you think – at least I know the ones that represent you in your district do.

Comment by sadcox on August 21, 2007 @ 11:41 pm

Fair point Marty.

This is a good opportunity to state that I’m relatively pleased with how my district’s commissioners have handled the appointment situation from the beginning. I think they did the best they could do with the situation, and I think the choice made for the replacement of the term limited seat in our district was a logical one.

Those individuals deserve to hear that as much as they deserve to hear the complaints about the commission as a whole.

I’ll send an email on Wednesday–thanks for the bitch slap!

The commission as a whole is obviously a different story.

Comment by Marty on August 22, 2007 @ 8:33 am

The most interesting thing in all this term limit / appointment stuff is that with only a couple of exceptions, EVERYBODY says the same thing…

“Well, I like the folks appointed in my district, but I can’t believe the people that they appointed in the (insert # here) district. What an outrage! Throw those scoundrels out!”

Unless something scandalous breaks individually for any of these appointees, I predict that almost everyone will be elected in February.

You are in the 4th district, I believe, and email isn’t your commissioners’ strongest mode of communication. However, they are good folks and I know they would like to hear from you.

Comment by sadcox on August 22, 2007 @ 9:00 am

No, I voted in the 4th, but I live in the 5th now.

It’s not a personal issue with anyone. It is the process by which appointments were made that people take issue with. Whether you can trust the people in the seats or not, if you can’t trust the process it doesn’t matter.

At the very least, it looks shady, and it looks like the process may have been abused. That’s not too much of a leap considering the reported actions and reactions of several commissioners during the January meeting where all of this went down.

For the record, I’m against term limits.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.