Last month, in a post titled "The Real Good Ol' Boy Network", we broke the story of how a few in city government had conspired to exclude a particular individual from potentially running for mayor. Since then, the Daily Herald has caught on to the story and published it in the Daily Herald a couple weeks ago and also recently in their sister paper, The Advertiser News.
Below is the article, in case you have not had the opportunity to read it yet. I have added some of my comments in bold.Deposition: Spring Hill mayor term limit designed to limit Mitchell
By D. FRANK SMITH/Staff Writer
SPRING HILL — Alderman Eliot Mitchell, who’s seeking his second four-year term in April, said he doesn’t bear his fellow aldermen any ill will even after discovering three of them may have attempted to stunt his political career.
In a November deposition, City Administrator Ken York said he heard conversations in 2004 between former Mayor Ray Williams and current Aldermen Brandon McCulloch, Sharron Cantrell, who are also up for reelection, and Miles Johnson.
York said in those conversations, all four individuals said they wanted to ensure that in case a future mayor was not doing a "satisfactory" job, their term would only be two years.
York said Williams had told him this limitation was aimed at keeping one person in particular from becoming mayor for more than two years — Mitchell.
When asked who other than Williams said this was a reason for the ordinance, York named McCulloch, Cantrell and Johnson.
"So if I understand it, the reason for the change in the ordinance was to keep Eliot Mitchell from holding office for more than two years?" Attorney John Schwalb asked York, according to the document.
"That’s correct," York said, adding later, "That is conversations I heard taking place."
Remember folks, this is all under oath.Asked this week how and where he overheard the conversations, York said he had "no comment whatsoever."
The deposition was taken at Schwalb’s offices in Franklin for the 2006 trial Charles Schoenbrodt vs. the City of Spring Hill and Danny Leverette, which contested the length of Leverette’s four-year term as mayor.
Schoenbrodt said because of the ordinance passed in 2004, the term should only be two years. However, Judge Robert Jones ruled in favor of Spring Hill and Leverette in December, allowing him to continue serving his four-year term.
As it turned out, Williams’ and the aldermens’ fears were unwarranted. Mitchell never ran for mayor in 2005.
Mitchell said he didn’t learn about the mayor and aldermen attempting to shorten his hypothetical term until Mayor Leverette informed him of York’s deposition.
Mitchell said the board in 2004 may have felt threatened by his successful campaign for aldermen against an incumbent in 2003.
"There was a contentious relationship between myself and that group of alderman, including the mayor, at that time," he said. "Anytime you’re running because you don’t agree with the way things are done, then that can be taken as a criticism by the people in power."
Johnson said Williams was likely the source of the animosity between aldermen, because he didn’t get along with Mitchell.
BINGO!"They disagreed on a lot of things, and Williams didn’t have a lot of respect for (Mitchell)," Johnson said. "I think that’s where a lot of this is coming from. There were some hard feelings, but things have changed a whole lot since then. We’ve got a good mayor in there now."
Yes, things have changed a whole lot from where we were. Let's not forget that we have fought for every single inch, the whole entire way. I wonder where the source of the resistance to this change has been coming from?Despite learning his colleagues allegedly worked against him, Mitchell said he’s on polite terms with Cantrell, McCulloch and Johnson, who remain on the board. Williams died of a heart attack in January 2005.
"I see them out in the community, and we have casual conversations," he said. "I don’t have any animosity against them. ... It (the Board of Mayor and Aldermen is) better than it used to be, for sure."
Johnson said he and Mitchell didn’t get along at first either, but they have since mended their differences.
"When he first came on board, he had his own ways and didn’t seem to care about anybody on there," he said. "Today, he has mellowed up, and I think he is a pretty good guy."
Though he doesn’t hold a grudge against his colleagues, Mitchell said he was surprised by what he learned from the deposition.
"I’m surprised anytime when you have people in power that conspire to manipulate the system. I think it’s an example of how small town politics can work," he said. "One of the reasons we have a Sunshine Law is to prevent back room politics."
York’s deposition did not reveal any direct evidence of a violation of the state’s open meetings law, also known as the Sunshine Law, Tennessee Press Association Attorney Richard Hollow said.
"There’s not a violation that jumps off the page," he said. "It hints at a violation, it suggests the potential for a violation, but it doesn’t give us a clear picture of one."
Asked if Mitchell was a target for the ordinance, Johnson said he did not remember.
"I don’t remember him being the reason for that, no," Johnson said.
What's interesting here is that Miles doesn't sound too sure...Cantrell also said she doesn’t remember the ordinance being targeted at Mitchell. But she said aldermen discussed the consequences of a two-year term for mayor at a 2004 work session.
"What I do remember thinking at the time is that it could be disastrous for the city — that in four years, someone could really do a lot of damage," she said. "But I don’t remember any one person being mentioned. ... So, to my knowledge, that conversation did not take place."
Sharon sounds a bit more definitive...McCulloch said he did not remember any conversation around that ordinance on anyone in particular.
"I have a lot of respect for (York), but I don’t know where he got that from," he said. "I don’t recall anyone being mentioned in particular for that ordinance."
and Brandon sounds like he just downright called Mr. York a liar.Cantrell and McCulloch are running for reelection this year. Four other candidates are vying for Cantrell’s seat for ward 3; McCulloch has two opponents for ward 1. The election will be held April 12. Early voting begins March 23.
Folks, somebody is lying here. Either the city administrator who was testifying for a deposition, or our aldermen...
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Update - The Real Good Ol' Boy Network
Monday, January 22, 2007
Re-apportionment at Work
Below is a map of the Current Wards with the residences of all candidates marked (I for Incumbants in Red, and C for Challengers in Blue).
The breakdown of candidates per ward is:
Ward 1 - 3
Ward 2 - 2
Ward 3 - 5
Ward 4 - 2
Now, lets look at a map of the Ward Boundaries BEFORE Re-Apportionment with the residences of all candidates marked.
The breakdown of candidates per ward BEFORE Re-Apportionment would have been:
Ward 1 - 2
Ward 2 - 8
Ward 3 - 1
Ward 4 - 1
Sound familiar? Here's a hint..The breakdown of candidates per ward is IDENTICAL to the Election of 2005. Don't believe me? See below:
Ward 1 - Johnson, 1 challenger
Ward 2 - Duda, 7 challengers (includes 1 write-in candidate)
Ward 3 - Gallardo (un-opposed)
Ward 4 - Raines (un-opposed)
Ah, re-apportionment did work! No more UN-OPPOSED candidates, though that may not sit well with Alderman Pickard who said, "It (unopposed candidates) is the democratic way." (watch the video here)
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Real Good Ol' Boy Network
Definition of Good ol' Boy Network from wikipedia Huh, that is very interesting! Continuing on... there is more...
The good ol' boy network is said to still exert considerable influence over many aspects of local government, business, and law enforcement. Usage of the term can often imply a wrongful exclusion of others from the network.
For some time this blog has been trying to uncover some hard facts (aside from innuendo, coincidence, rumor and the like) as to the existence of a Good Ol' Boy network that existed in this city prior to the current mayor and aldermen. As it turns out, the suspicions do have merit. This blog has uncovered some startling evidence that Good Ol' Boy politics did exist in Spring Hill and sheds some light as to why there has been resistance to change in this city around almost every corner.
Let's start with a flashback and some mandatory reading - Post from February 14, 2006 regarding Re-Apportionment titled Good Ol' Boy Network
If you didn't read the whole post, make sure you read the following from the Daily Herald article regarding re-apportionment (which did ultimately pass unanimously):
Alderwoman Sharron Cantrell said she fears Spring Hill would become a "good old boy network" if the way the city's aldermen are elected is altered.
"I think they're fairly represented," she said. "I have people from all wards calling me and that's one of the things I particularly like about the politics of Spring Hill. If someone feels comfortable calling me from another ward, I think that's good."
Cantrell said she does not anticipate a lawsuit by citizens alleging unfair representation and maintained the Board of Mayor and Aldermen make decisions based on the good of the city as a whole.
"If some of this is done, you're going to have a real case of the good old boy politics, and that's what I'd hate to see happen in Spring Hill," she said.
Okay, this might get a little confusing, but I promise if you stick with me the end result will be worth it.
In June and July of 2004, the BOMA passed unanimously an ordinance to reduce the mayor term from 4 years to 2 years. Why, you ask? At the time, Mayor Ray Williams had made it well known that he did not intend to seek an additional term of office in 2005. There not being a clear replacement to fill the shoes of Mayor Williams, the board voted to reduce the term of mayor to 2 years. Not much was said at the time, but the prevailing concern was that the city was growing at a rapid rate and that an 'unknown' could potentially take the helm and make drastic changes.
In the following sections, I'll be making several references to the deposition of Mr. Ken York during the civil lawsuit this fall of Schoenbrodt v. Spring Hill, Mayor Leverette, et al. For those that are interested, you may download the entire deposition here: Deposition of Ken York - Schoenbrodt v Spring Hill 11-2006.pdf (approximately 1MB)
An interesting discourse occurred between Mr. York and Mr. Schoenbrodt's attorney, John Schwalb.
I wonder what they consider "acting satisfactorily?" Are they trying to say, that if someone was elected BY the citizens, and this "good ol' boy" network disagreed with the opinions of that elected mayor...there should still be a way for a few in the city to control the government?
As you all know, Eliot Mitchell is the antitheses of "good ol' boy network." In fact, Eliot Mitchell has been trying to make this city government more open and accessible to all for years, which is exactly why certain figures in our city have been quite uneasy. In fact, with our board becoming more open to the public by the day, that may be why desperation mode is setting in with a few of the "good ol' boys." 
Do I really need to comment?
Hold on! Is all of this really going on behind the scenes? Isn't there a Sunshine Law or something? Surely we have not cultivated an environment in this city that allows for, or even cultivates scheming behind the scenes to exclude certain members of the public. Let's see what else we can learn...
So Mayor Leverette was not involved in this scheme? Maybe that is why many of the "good ol' boys" in this city are not big Leverette supporters. I have heard rumor that this group of "boys" also held out hope that a certain former County Commissioner would be in prime position to take over as Mayor when the 2 year term was finished. Speaking of which...now this is just conjecture...but I wonder if this whole lawsuit was really pushed by Charlie, or by some of these people that are a little bit miffed at the current state of affairs in the city? Lawsuits are pretty expensive, and it would be a shame if Charlie was left holding the bill on all of this.
You know, this attorney sure does know all of the right questions to ask. If in fact there was a conspiracy to keep Eliot Mitchell, or other undesirables, from becoming mayor for more than 2 years, I wonder how widespread this opinion was (and how far this "good ol' boy" system extends)? Surely if Mr. Schoenbrodt's attorney knows the questions to ask, he must have found out from someone? You know, I think maybe I will revisit this particular thought here in a day or two, so for now, let's move along.
Wow! It sure is strange to hear Mrs. Cantrell talk about POWER (as was her argument against Re-Apportionment, the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, Subdivision Regulation Ammendmants by the Planning Commission and the formation of a Historic Commission), "good of the board", and not wanting "good ol' boy politics" to take hold in this city. (Flashback...Watch the video of Mrs. Cantrell lecture us about 'Control' and 'Power' during the Re-apportionment debate in February 2006.) In fact, if you talk to outsiders of Spring Hill, they talk about how crooked some of the past dealings are in this city, and THAT is why many choose to stay out of the business and development arena in our city. THAT is why new developers like GBT and Huntly Gordon are treated like outcasts and carpetbaggers by some in our city.
Indeed there was a "good ol' boy" network in this city (and to some extent still is) and it makes perfect sense for some of those on the board to fight tooth and nail to keep some of that in place. It now makes it clear to everyone the REASONS behind those fighting against Mayor Leverette, Jonathan Duda, Eliot Mitchell, Mingo Gallardo, and in many cases Miles Johnson (who has really been trying to do the right thing, despite immese pressure). I hope that everyone begins to understand now why re-districting was so important, why keeping the "Gorilla in the Corner" was so important to a few in Spring Hill. Now we understand why it was so important for some on the BOMA to squelch Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Duda when they had a chance. The doors to government are being opened a little wider in Spring Hill every day, and as more get involved, those that dealt in the back room and dark alleys are being pushed out the back door. As Mayor Leverette says so often, "The sun is shining on the city of Spring Hill today," and that "sun" is bringing to light many things that have gone on in the past, and are still going on today! Thankfully, there are also those going around with flashlights to search out some of the other nooks and crannies that are not lit by the sun all the time. Thank you to those aldermen carrying the flashlights!
THIS is what we are changing in this next election. We have an opportunity to take control of our city right here and right now. The foundation has been laid, and now is time to clean house and get on with building this city openly and cleanly. There are contested races in every ward thanks to re-apportionment, now get out there and vote!
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Celebrate!
For those of you that have been taking part in this website from the beginning, you may be excited to know that the ordinance dealing with re-apportionment passed it's second reading on Monday night (making it a done deal). To all of you that helped gather the over 1,100 signatures, and created pressure, we thank you and your work has been rewarded. This is a HUGE development for the city, and the reason the site was started in the first place. The "gorilla" is no longer in the corner.
Here is how they are drawn up now. 
Hopefully in less than a week (next Wednesday) we will have another celebration.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Great Start to the Week!
Well, thank you for all of those that were able to assist in the many things going on in this city the past few days!
** First of all, the petition drive last weekend added another couple thousand signatures bringing the drive totals to around 4,000 so far. That is a pretty nice start, especially considering that we still have a month to work. Do not stop working until the day after the CON hearing (that would be July 27th for those that are counting)
** Re-apportionment passed the first reading last evening at the BOMA with an 8-0 vote (Jonathan Duda was absent). Fantastic news!!! Again, we appreciate all of the hard work many months ago bringing this about. As the mayor always says "It is a great day to be living in the City of Spring Hill." It is only getting better so keep paying attention.
** Spring Hill Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution supporting the Spring Hill Hospital, adding to the fight another resolution and fist full of support letters.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Re-apportionment Proposal
Some of you may remember, but this is how our 4 voting wards are currently divided...
And this is the proposed new rezoning discussed last night by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen at the special called work session last night...
Below is the current population of Spring Hill based on the proposed new wards as provided by the Codes Department and the City Engineer taking into account the 2005 Special Census and the lots that have been built since then...
And below is the projected population of Spring Hill based on the proposed new wards after all currently approved lots are built as provided by the Codes Department and the City Engineer...
I saw this article on the Tennessean Site this morning:
Spring Hill Redraws Wards to Better Reflect Population
It is important to note that if the aldermen do approve the proposed ward re-apportionment, it would have to be approved in ordinance form, which would require 2 separate votes.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
AMAZING!!!
It is absolutely amazing how far we have come in just the last 6 months or so.
I will have a post in the morning re-capping all that happened at the re-apportionment meeting this evening, but until then think back at all of the happenings since Oct. or Nov. (There is a nice search engine and archive feature on this site that will allow you to review quite quickly.)
Much more to come in the morning!
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Re-apportionment meeting
For those that are interested, there will be a re-apportionment meeting on Thursday evening at 6:30 PM. It will take place at City Hall and the only topic on the agenda is re-apportionment. If you have some free time, I would highly recommend attending.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Special Meeting Re-cap
Okay, for those of you that could not make it through the storm and traffic to attend the meeting on Thursday evening, here is a quick re-cap. Posted below are also links from our local papers.
Williamson AM article
Columbia Daily Herald article
There appears to be change happening and I am not entirely sure why, but so far the change has been positive. I will give you all the conclusion first, and then we can start looking into the why's.
At the meeting on Thursday night, the BOMA agreed to allow the city staff to do the following:
* Develop a map to show potential redrawing(s) of the 4 wards.
* Develop overlays to show growth in certain areas of the city to better predict population changes.
* Provide a final analysis of the current situation, and a solution in ordinace form for the city to vote on by mid April.
* The vote, being an ordinance, would take a simple majority and two readings.
* The city staff will look at the issue of redrawing the ward lines on a yearly basis to reflect as close as possible 25% population in each ward, and will go into effect well in advance of each 2 year election cycle.
This So far, this has all been pretty positive. Hopefully it continues along a peaceful path. We will see soon enough.
Other notes:
* We will be running around picking up yard signs in the next few days. If anything happens that could possibly de-rail this process you will see us all back out with another campaign to add more signatures and create more awareness. For now, we will pick up the signs.
* PJ MEZERA (County Commission Candidate) has provided a website for us to link. We will be putting together a questionnaire for all of the candidates this week, and will be able to shed a little light on this race in the near future. If any other candidates would like to provide information or websites, we would be happy to post those as well.
That is all for now...
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Cautiously Optimistic
The Special Meeting called by the Mayor to discuss re-apportionment just ended. We will have much more information in the morning about the "goings on," but I have not left a BOMA meeting feeling this optimistic in a long time. I would like to thank each and every alderman for going into this meeting with a fairly open mind, and acting in a civil manner towards each other.
Mayor Leverette, you have taken a little bit of punishment on this site recently, but we appreciate the leadership that you provided this evening. For all of you that have kept this in front of the BOMA, it is paying off. Community involvement can and will take this city much further than apathy. Continue to stay involved and keep our elected officials accountable!
We have tried to keep this site fairly quiet in the past week so that we did not stir up emotions that cloud reason. We really appreciate reasonable, common sense decisions by the BOMA, and tonight all of us can go to sleep cautiously optimistic about the future of this city.
More in the morning....
Monday, March 06, 2006
Thursday night meeting.
There has been a special meeting called by Mayor Leverette for this Thurday evening @ 6:30 pm. This is a meeting of the BOMA to specifically discuss the issue of re-apportionment. It is open to the public if you are interested in attending, so we may see you there.
To all of you that have been helping to keep this in the forefront...Thank you!
Have a fantastic start to your weeks.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Petition Drive Results
For those of you interested, we have been involved in this petition drive for about 10 days and we have now topped the 1,100 signature mark! I still have 2 packets still out so it could climb even higher. To all of you that have helped in this adventure, thank you very much.
(To give you a little perspective, only around 1450 voted in the last mayoral election.)
236 in ward 1
932 in ward 2
159 in ward 3
113 in ward 4
How many is enough?
Now, attend this meeting tonight! Bring a friend or three!
7:00 PM at the Spring Hill City Hall.
See you there.
Monday, February 20, 2006
One Person, One Vote
"One Person, One Vote," what ever happened to that concept?
We have received a couple of pieces of email stating that our current Aldermen are representative of our community. Let me show you a photo that relays a little bit of information graphically so that we can all see exactly what our situation "looks" like.
We have also heard that as the population of this city grows and fluctuates, it will eliminate the need to re-apportion because it will all "even out in the end."
Well, let's go back to a graph of the population in the year 2015...
We have also heard from a couple of people that the city should look at the issue in 5-10 years. Now, why would there be a need to fix this in 5 or 10 years when there is no need to fix it now? The truth is that there is a problem now, and there will continue to be a problem in 5 or 10 years.
This issue is not about the stewardship of our past and current leaders. There have been an awful lot of things done VERY well in this city for a number of years. This issue is about our community leaders reflecting our growing population now and in the future. This whole "movement" is about our population being closer to the belief of "ONE person, ONE vote."
With the stipulation in our city government that only allows for two aldermen to reside in each ward, how exactly do we consider the "representation" from each ward as being equal? We cannot consider it equal because it is not.
"One person, One Vote"
Friday, February 17, 2006
"Gorilla Tactics"
If anyone is interested, the gorilla had an interview yesterday.
For those of you that have not yet read the Williamson AM this morning, have a peek.
Gorilla Tactics
First of all, I applaud Miles Johnson for stating that he would not be opposed to re-apportionment. I would ask Mr. Johnson (or anyone else that views this site) what specifically has been stated incorrectly on this site? We do not have a hidden agenda, and we would welcome other opinions of the current situation.
I encourage discussion on this post to point out any possible statements of untruth. I really want to know what has been stated incorrectly.
Enjoy, and talk amongst yourselves.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Good 'ol Boy Network
Many of you may have not seen this yet, but here is this morning's Daily Herald:
Redistricting remains an issue for Spring Hill
By Nancy Glasscock
Staff Writer
SPRING HILL: Alderman Jonathan Duda said Monday citizens would be most fairly represented by a city government in which four aldermen are elected at-large and four are elected by the wards they represent.
Duda said according to a February 2004 MTAS opinion written by Senior Law Consultant Sid Hemsley and requested by Spring Hill city officials, the city's current at-large voting system does not allow for fair representation of all wards, though Hemsley acknowledges in the opinion the issue may be a very close question.
The opinion states, "where a charter mandates both that wards be established and that persons elected to represent those wards line in the wards they represent, but is silent as to the voting base from which such persons are to be elected, the Tennessee courts would require they be elected only by the voters in those wards."
State Rep. Glen Casada, R-College Grove, said recently he and Sen. Jim Bryson, R-Franklin, will attend the Feb. 21 regular meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to talk with Spring Hill city officials in hopes of inspiring a reapportionment of the city's aldermanic wards.
According to results from a 2005 special city-wide census, Ward 2 contains 13,609 residents while Ward 1 contains 1,810 and Wards 3 and 4 have 1,040 and 866 residents, respectively. Casada said he received numerous calls from residents complaining about unfair representation resulting from population differences between the wards. Casada said he and Bryson will present a draft of a bill that could become law in March, though any specifics of the bill have yet to be finalized.
Alderwoman Sharron Cantrell said she fears Spring Hill would become a "good old boy network" if the way the city's aldermen are elected is altered.
"I think they're fairly represented," she said. "I have people from all wards calling me and that's one of the things I particularly like about the politics of Spring Hill. If someone feels comfortable calling me from another ward, I think that's good."
Cantrell said she does not anticipate a lawsuit by citizens alleging unfair representation and maintained the Board of Mayor and Aldermen make decisions based on the good of the city as a whole.
"If some of this is done, you're going to have a real case of the good old boy politics, and that's what I'd hate to see happen in Spring Hill," she said.
Cantrell said most citizens she has spoken with feel they are fairly represented by the city's current election system, while Duda said more than a few people are leading the charge for reapportionment. "When I was running for aldermen and knocking on doors campaigning, it's one of the biggest issues I've found citizens to be aware of and ask me about," he said. "A statement that it's only a few people, I don't think it's accurate at all."
======
Ms. Cantrell, I agree with you in your concerns about a Good 'ol boy network developing. I am however on the other side of this...
I would argue that a network has already begun. I know that you are a very intelligent woman, and would be capable of looking at this through a different perspective. I would ask you to read this definition that I have provided below, and answer for me one little question.
Definition of Good 'ol Boy Network on wikipedia
Who is currently being excluded?
* With 90% of the population coming from Wards 1 and 2...
* With 80% of the population coming from Ward 2 alone...
* With 5 of 8 Aldermen running unopposed...
* With Aldermen from Ward 2 (and in some cases Ward 1) running against intense competition, but very little if any competition in Wards 3 and 4...
Who is currently being excluded?
Please, someone let us all know how it makes sense to not allow this community to remain flexible as the population changes? As this city grows, this problem will only become more apparent.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Columbia Daily Herald Article
Did anyone read the Columbia Daily Herald yesterday?
Re-apportionment as written by the Daily Herald
Spring Hill officials to consider reapportionment
By NANCY GLASSCOCK/Staff Writer
SPRING HILL — State Rep. Glen Casada, R-College Grove, said Tuesday he has received numerous calls from residents in favor of reapportioning aldermen’s wards to achieve fair representation for all citizens.
According to results of a 2005 special city census, Ward 2 contains 13,609 residents while 1,810 live in Ward 1 and Wards 3 and 4 have 1,040 and 866 residents, respectively. Two aldermen represent each ward. Casada said Spring Hill did not conduct a reapportionment following the 2000 census, though state law does not require it.
Casada said he and State Sen. Jim Bryson, R-Franklin, will attend the Board of Mayor and Aldermen regular meeting Feb. 21 to talk with city officials and present a draft of a bill that could become law in March, though he said he felt confident the matter will be resolved locally.
“We are concerned with the way the aldermen lines are drawn in the city of Spring Hill,” he said. “For example, you have one district that has 13,000 and another that has 800. The folks that called us, they want the state to intervene, but Jim and I want to sit down and talk with the aldermen of Spring Hill and talk about what we’re hearing from our constituents and just share that with them and see if Spring Hill would address the disproportionment of the aldermens’ wards.”
Casada said specifics of the bill such as whether it would be applicable to only Spring Hill, be based on the 2000 census or on the most recent special city-wide census in 2005, have yet to be finalized. He said current state law does not require a reapportionment based on the city’s current population numbers.
“There’s nothing specific that says we must re-draw the lines for cities and counties, but its commonly done,” he said.
Bruce Scotten, Parks and Recreation Committee member and Spring Hill resident of 30 years, said aldermanic wards in Spring Hill have never been reapportioned, and should not be until after five or 10 years, when the city’s rapid population growth slows. Casada said he, Mayor Danny Leverette and Ward 2 Aldermen Eliot Mitchell and Jonathan Duda have received a large number of phone calls from residents in favor of reapportionment, while Scotten said the move is lead by a few people.
“There’s no need for reapportionment at this time because it’s changing too rapidly, if you look at the 10,000 that are going to be in Spring Hill before very long in homes that are already approved to be built,” Scotten said. “As long as the state’s attorney says nothing is being done wrong, nothing is being done wrong.”
Scotten said the Tennessee State Legislature, an attorney general and the Municipal Technical Advisory Service are in agreement residents in Spring Hill are fairly represented.
According to an MTAS opinion for another city in the state, reapportionment is necessary for cities with officials elected from specific wards.
Regarding a Supreme Court case, Avery vs. Midland County in 1968, “The Constitution permits no substantial variation from equal population in drawing districts for units of local government having general governmental powers over the entire geographic area served by the body... In short reapportionment by municipal governing bodies has been elevated to a U.S. Constitutional command, and any statute expressly or implied to the contrary would not change that fact.”
I am still curious why anyone would be against making our city officials more accountable in terms of re-apportioning the aldermanic wards. And why has Bruce Scotten been so active in suppressing all of this? For those of you that are not familiar with Bruce Scotten, here is one little bit of information from the last time this issue was beginning to be raised. If Bruce Scotten is out there reading this, please tell me why you have opposed this in the past, and what the benefit would be in holding this issue off for 5 or 10 years? Could it be that in 5 or 10 years, the vast majority of this city will have been built, and representation will not be as effective on the planning of the city?
Williamson AM, May 19, 2004:
Spring Hill opts to leave its voting wards alone
Last-minute agenda addition stuns aldermen favoring redistricting
By BONNIE BURCH
Staff Writer
SPRING HILL - The city's four ward lines will stay the same after a surprise motion was made at Monday night's Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting.
In a last-minute addition to the agenda, the board voted to not redistrict the wards to better reflect the population growth especially in the mostly Williamson County Ward 2, where nearly 80% of the city's people now live.
Ward 3 Aldermen Bruce Scotten made a motion to vote on the issue the day of the meeting.
"This is something that keeps raising its head. The press has been interested in it and there has never been a general consensus. So instead of speculating on it, we need to be clarifying it. This is something that's been hanging over our collective heads for some time," Scotten said.
Currently, 79% of the city's population lives in Ward 2, an area of land that stretches east from around Columbia Pike to the city limits and as far south as just below Duplex Road. The two Williamson County residents on the board are from this ward.
Ward 1 and Ward 3, which has some land in Williamson County, both have 8% of the population, while Ward 4 follows with 5% of the city's residents. About 17% of Spring Hill's population lives in Maury County.
Some have argued that since most Spring Hill residents now live on the Williamson side, the wards ought to be redrawn to reflect that population shift.
But others say that since the aldermen are elected at-large, they are held accountable to all Spring Hill residents. The reason the aldermen must live in the voting district they represent is to make sure a majority of representatives doesn't live on the same street or in the same neighborhood, said Spring Hill Mayor Ray Williams.
The issue has been debated in Spring Hill for some time now, particularly as of late as new census figures have clarified the population shifts. But it was a surprise to some when it came formally up at Monday's meeting.
"It smacks of secrecy. I'm upset, you're right. But I think I have every right to be," said Ward 2 Alderman Eliot Mitchell, who has championed both redistricting and another topic added late to Monday's agenda: widening Buckner Road sidewalks.
The board is allowed to add items to the agenda at any time, said City Attorney Andrew Hoover.
"What was done here wasn't really a suspension of parliamentary procedure or the Robert's Rules of Order. It's was just to amend the agenda to add items."
Some items, such as rezoning land, require a public hearing before the board can proceed. But the ward issue, along with another late motion Monday night concerning sidewalks on Buckner Road, don't fall into that category.
"The things that were voted on don't have to be in a public hearing. They have to be in an open meeting but not in a public hearing," Hoover said.
Earlier, Mitchell had drawn fire by asking City Administrator Ken York why he did not tell him of the last-minute additions to the agenda. York said that as a city employee, he is not affiliated with the politics of the city and Mitchell's comments should be addressed to the mayor.
"One of the items to be discussed here tonight in this way is the most critical item the city faces. And there is no public advertising saying we were going to be doing this tonight. There was no time to get this in the paper so that the public would know," Mitchell said.
Although the aldermen all received the most recent census figures in regard to wards, there was little discussion of the issue at the last work session.
Ward 2's other alderman, Danny Leverette, also questioned whether Monday's board meeting was the time to take a vote on the issue. He said that he believed that having 10,000 people represented by one ward while others had much smaller numbers didn't seem fair.
"So we're making a motion to do nothing?" he asked.
"Yes," Scotten replied.
In the end, the board voted 7 to 2 to not redistrict, with both Williamson County aldermen casting "no" votes. In order to pass the vote, the motion had to have a two-thirds majority.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Casada and Bryson Call for Reapportionment of Wards
For those that have not read “The Advertiser News” there is a fantastic Article on the front page by Melissa Webb. I will post it here for you all to read.
Casada and Bryson Call for a Reapportionment of Wards
By Melissa Webb
“It is time that all cities draw lines for their wards so that one man equals one vote,” says State Representative for the 63rd District Glen Casada. “It seems logical that all Tennesseans be fairly represented. The Legislative body should be the voice of all citizens.”
Casada and State Senator, Jim Bryson, are calling for the City of Spring Hill to initiate a reassignment of Aldermanic Wards. Currently, Spring Hill is represented by two Aldermen from each of four wards. Talk of reapportionment of the wards heated up when the under representation of Ward 2 became apparent during the last Spring Hill election in April 2005. During that election, candidates for two Aldermanic positions ran unopposed; Aldermen Charles Raines in Ward 4 and Alderman Domingo Gallardo in Ward 3. A total of eight candidates ran for the position in Ward 2 with Alderman Jonathan Duda winning the majority of votes.
“I have had many conversations with constituents regarding this topic,” says Casada. “It is true that many people I have spoken with feel very strongly about the issue. Populations should be represented equally. Equal representation should apply to everyone in Tennessee.”
Casada and Bryson will be talking with a legislative attorney to review compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated. They plan to prepare a draft of a bill to be presented to the Spring Hill Board of Mayor and Aldermen at their regular meeting in February. Both Casada and Bryson plan to be in attendance to present their case to the board. “We are really hoping that Spring Hill will address this issue independently without the legislative body of the state having to intervene,” says Casada. “We want local issues to be resolved by locals whenever possible.”
After presenting the draft of the bill to the board in February, Casada and Bryson will go forward with moving the bill into law. The bill could become law as early as March or April of this year. Casada maintains that the intention is not to place a financial burden on the city. “For the sake of Spring Hill financially, we do not want this issue to be a burden,” says Casada. “We realize that Spring Hill is not scheduled to hold another election until 2007 and that having an earlier one could be costly. The logistics of how the reapportionment could be carried out are yet to be determined.” The bill would also allow for a 5% variance.
“Spring Hill needs to have the same number of people in each ward,” Says Casada. “I cannot emphasize enough that Senator Bryson and I are both hoping that Spring Hill will address the reapportionment of the wards on their own. If that happens, we may be willing to withdraw the bill. There are very few things that would precipitate getting the legislative body of the state involved in a local issue. Representation that offers one man, one vote is one of them.”
Monday, January 30, 2006
Re-apportionment Re-Visited
I have received some comments and email, and I am not sure that some of you understand what is at stake with this re-districting issue. I will make this post for those of you that are not sure exactly what is going on in terms of the growth of the city. This is an issue that should see broad support from the VAST majority of Spring Hill. It affects everyone, and is vital for making the city officials accountable to the citizens. I welcome discussion, and I would love for anyone to read this and challenge the facts. I think it is vital for the citizens to know "the fact of the matter" and not dwell on inaccuracies. If you see something that does not add up, let me know and be specific.
Here is a map that everyone needs to look at closely, and then read the rest of the post. For those of you that have been attending the planning commission work sessions, you are well aware of this information and can vouch for its accuracy.
Okay, now click on the map and look at those big voids that are soon to be filled in with neighborhoods and business developments. Also look to the eastern portion of the map….what is all that development going to be on the east side of I-65? Is that going to be Ward 1 and 2 as well?
How big are we going to let the discrepancies get between wards before we decide to do something about this? It appears to me that in time Wards 1 and 2 will hold the VAST majority of the population.
Here are a few quick facts to mull over from map posted above.
* By 2015 the City of Spring Hill will be approaching 45,000 people.
* Over 40,000 of those people will live in Ward 1 and Ward 2.
* Over 27,000 will live in just Ward #2.
Why is it so wrong with drawing up the boundaries and/or allow a few at large aldermen? Why has it taken this long to even bring up the subject of re-apportionment? Are we ready to act on this yet?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Now hear this! Now hear this!
For those of you interested in getting involved, you could not have stumbled upon this site at a better time. For the last several months, our group of concerned citizens have been pressing Senator Bryson and Representative Casada to bring legislation before the State to require Spring Hill to re-apportion our city government. That time has now come, and the first shots will be fired at the meeting on Feb. 21. Senator Bryson and Rep. Casada are coming to the next meeting to inform the BOMA that legislation will be presented if the city does not act first. I hear our aldermen constantly say...."my vote is not my opinion, but the opinion of the citizens of Spring Hill"....now is the chance for our city aldermen to put their money where their mouth is!
Not only are we planning to pack the house on Feb. 21, but look for a petition drive to begin in the coming weeks to back up our opinion. We NEED all of you to show up! Parking will be limited, so carpool. Space will be limited, so be willing to stand. But I cannot stress to you all enough how important it is that we show up, bring a neighbor, and force this board to begin using some common sense.
I would venture a guess that over 90% of this city is in favor of re-apportionment. For those alderman that happen to be reading this...YOUR VOTE IS NOT YOUR OPINION, BUT THAT OF THE CITIZENS OF SPRING HILL!!! The opinion of the citizens is to put in place a system that allows our elected officials to truly be accountable and flexible to the changing population numbers in all wards.
Read this and pass this on to someone new every day. There will be a huge buildup in both information and people in the coming weeks so stay informed and involved.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Aldermen Running UN-OPPOSED
Another topic that tends to relate to our need for redistricting is our need for more accountability among our current aldermen. While every alderman is voted on by the entire population of the city, you are only able to run for office in your ward. This becomes a problem when 5 sitting aldermen have either run un-opposed or have been appointed to their position.
Let's look at the facts...
(All of those that have run un-opposed or have been appointed will be highlighted for your viewing pleasure.)
Ward 1
2001 Election: Miles Johnson
2003 Election: Brandon McColloch (ran un-opposed)
2005 Election: Miles Johnson
Ward 2
2001 Election: Danny Leverette
2003 Election: Eliot Mitchell
2005 Election: Jonathan Duda
Ward 3
2001 Election: Scotten (ran un-opposed)
2003 Election: Sharron Cantrell (ran un-opposed)
2005 Election: Domingo Gallardo (ran un-opposed)
Ward 4
2001 Election: Hughes
2003 Election: Roop (later appointed Viola Pickard)
2005 Election: Charles Raines (ran un-opposed)
Now, let's look at the BOMA from that perspective. The only aldermen currently sitting on this board to run against another living, breathing, human being are: Jonathan Duda, Eliot Mitchell, and Miles Johnson. As you can tell, 2/3 are from Ward 2.......that produces over 80% of the current population, and has produced virtually all growth for Spring Hill. There seems to be no shortage of people interested in running for office in this ward, while others can produce virtually no opposition to current aldermen.
This board needs to be turned upside down! We need to place members that are willing to take Spring Hill on a progressive, forward thinking path. In 5 years this will be an entirely different city, and with our current leadership, Spring Hill will become nothing more than urban sprawl.
We need a plan. We need a direction. We need a sense of community. This Board of Mayor and Alderman, as it is constructed currently, is not in a position to offer solutions to the needs that face our community today!
