John Evans report of meeting
Posted in the Oakland Forum
#1 May 27, 2010
I am writing this to share what is going on in our town. Prior to the last Board meeting on May 20, 2010, I had a neighbor ( we are all neighbors whether it is the house next door or way across town) ask if he needed to be at the meeting. My response was you are always welcome but the agenda only has three items on it and it really does not appear controversial. BOY WAS I WRONG! Hence my need to share.
Let me first backup to the budget workshop held on the evening of May 18. This meeting brought out the following:
We have a financial consultant in place under contract working for $32.69 per hour. This contract was signed by Mayor Ferguson.
Mayor Ferguson had the resignation of the Fire Chief and the Assistant Fire Chief. Also one of the full time firefighters is on light duty(can not respond to calls) which leaves the Fire Department with only two people in the department certified to operate the brand new $300,000 fire truck. That truck must now sit until proper training takes place for enough people to operate it.
The initial requests for expenditures far exceed the projected income for the town. I know that is typical, major discussions, prioritizing and plain old whittling will definitely come into play.
#2 May 27, 2010
Now to the Board meeting. Immediately after the opening Alderman Wombough called for an election of a new vice-mayor, nominated Karl Chambless and Mayor Ferguson breaking the tie vote, voted for Alderman Chambless.The problem with this action is that it is against the language of the charter. I have asked for research into this matter and am posting the content of my request here-
At the last Town meeting of Board of Mayor and Aldermen in Oakland, Tn. it was brought before the board to elect a new Vice-Mayor. The new city attorney, Chris Patterson opines that the language in the charter (specifically Section 9) which in part reads "----that there shall be a Vice-Mayor who shall be selected at the first meeting after each election by the Board from among their number --- " is construed to include the special election of the Mayoral position, as the charter states " after each election".
Section 5 deals with elections and that the beginning of terms of office start with the swearing in at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Section 7 defines the Board of Mayor and Aldermen as comprised of the Mayor and four Aldermen.
In Oakland the 2008 election only had a challenge to the Mayoral position. The four Aldermen were seated unchallenged. After that meeting a Vice-Mayor was chosen from the Aldermen for the term of office. In 2010, a special election was held for the position of Mayor and a new Mayor was elected. No position for Alderman was on that special election ballot. This poses the questions;
Under the provisions of the Town of Oakland Charter, is a vice-mayor to be selected following a special election which does not involve any of the eligible candidates for vice-mayor?(In other words, I could see it being necessitated if the special election was for the Board of Aldermen.)
Is the term of office of the vice-mayor four years, as stated in the Charter, or is the vice-mayor's term limited to the period of time that elapses between his appointment and the next special or regular election?
(I think the charter is pretty clear that unless there is a VACANCY in the position of vice-mayor, the term of any vice-mayor is four years. It says that in the case of a vacancy, a new vice-mayor is selected to fill the unexpired term. The term is four years. The issue raised by Chris Patterson is not related; it says EACH election, referring to the general election; not EVERY or ANY election, which would refer to a special election as well.)
Next was brought up (also not listed on the agenda) request to confirm Rick Jewell as police chief. Again a tie vote broken by Mayor Ferguson to confirm. I voted "no" only because the job had not been posted. Mayor Ferguson made the temporary appointment after securing the resignation of the former Chief. At that time I discussed with the Mayor the need to post the opening and he has chosen not to. That is the only reason I voted in the negative.
It was then brought up to discuss the contract for the financial consultant. Mayor Ferguson with the city attorney stated that he did not need Board approval that he could do that under his administrative authority. This again brings up a question as to the charter which states:
Oakland Town Charter page C-12:
SECTION 14. Be it further enacted, that the Mayor shall be the chief
executive officer of the Town. The mayor:
7. Shall sign all contracts authorized by the Board to which the Town
is a party.
These are the highlights of the meetings of areas I was not aware would be discussed. Not all inclusive of the meeting by any means and certainly not all of the issues that need to get to you. Since this is getting rather lengthy I will sign off for the moment, be sure though there will be more to come. Thank you for taking a look and feel free to pass this along to your neighbors.
#3 May 27, 2010
Well thank you John for "personal" comments about the board. Sound like you miss your calling. Maybe you should been a lawyer. I wonder why you never report on here the many times you and Maggie voted yes with Ex Mayor Mullins voting yes with you. Do your research and you will see the Chief and Asst Chief should have resigned.
They are the ones that only had three drivers trained on the new pumper. This allow their
ace Vol Lt Keyler to make app $12,000 last year as the primary driver. They refused to train other voltuneers. The interim Chief has 6 progressional firemen that can drive the pumper and he had only been a week. The Mayor needs to go head and appoint Doyle as Chief. You won't find a man with the heart, training and experience by putting a ad in the paper. I don't remember ever seeing it in the paper when Ex Mayor Mullins the "six" Fire Chiefs he appointed. The adlerpersons would see the change in the department and approve him next meeting. John I think you would even agree Doyle will get the Fire Dept to the professional level it needs to be. Why would the city need you as vice mayor, you don't intend on working with the Mayor for the overall good of the city. You can prove us wrong by telling the Mayor to go ahead and appoint a Fire Chief
pending the approval of the board. The ball is in your court.
#4 May 27, 2010
During the entire time mullins was mayor, Evans not only kept quiet as a mouse regarding all city business, he supported EVERY request made by mullins with his vote. Evans never took time to question or look into a single issue that would put mullins, not just in a bad light, but in front of a judge.
Mayor Ferguson is bringing a Much needed change to Oakland, our police force was corrupt, our books were full of errors, and the oversight that should have been done by the Aldermen, was nonexistent. Evans and powers, ALWAYS voted with mullins, to allow him [mullins] to run this town as if HE owned it, with virtually no accountability. For Evans to jump up and start acting as if he has been a good steward, concerned about the town, and what is right, is so transparent it is laughable! While mullins packed city hall with his relatives, evans was silent. While mullins ripped the town off, year after year, with his transmission scam, evans was silent. In fact, maggie powers, wanted the criminal mullins to be re-elected, she and evans were the 100% voting block that kept mullins in power.
Evans is fond of picking small parts out of the city charter, those that he likes, and acting as if he has trouble reading when it comes to those parts he does not like, Sound familiar?
Is evans willing to take credit for all the "yes" votes he gave mullins? Look where it has lead us.
I agree, we should all look at the Town Charter, page C-10, Section 9-read it all.
#5 May 27, 2010
John, I was present at the meeting the night Keith Hogwood was voted in as the permanent police chief and Chuck Wombough asked why the position wasn't ran in the paper and some type of search done to see who would apply in the case someone else was more qualified. Wombough also stated that The Town of Somerville had just ran an ad for police chief and was doing interviews to select the most qualified candidate.
Mullins response to this was that it was his job to determine who was qualified and he had checked Hogwoods resume and knew he would be most qualified. A vote was taken to appoint Hogwood as police chief and JOHN EVANS VOTED YES.
John, why was it ok for you to go along with Mullins when he did this but now you blast Mayor Ferguson and vote against him for doing exactly what you voted for 2 years ago? Admit it John, your not willing to work with Mayor Ferguson and you plan to vote against everything he brings to the table!
We believe the mayor should have the right to decide on his vice mayor, it only makes good since. Why would he want a vice mayor that's working against him and could undermind him each time given the chance.
If the minutes were pulled for the last 6 years, how many times would they show that John Evans voted to appoint department heads without posting their positions in the paper first? How many times would it show that John Evans, whichever alderperson that sat next to him, and Bill Mullins voted together against Chuch Wombaugh and Karl Chamblis on issues? Why John?
Now that the tables have turned you can't cry each time you get a dose of what you used to give out when Mullins was up there with you.
As far as firemen not being trained to to drive trucks in the past, that sounds like a chief problem. If you knew about this problem then why didn't you address this issue before now? Probably because the past chief was a Mullins man and that's all that mattered in the past. Let's hope the new chief trains all our firemen to drive and fight fires for us.
#6 May 28, 2010
Sounds to me like someone wants to stay vice mayor, but his peers aren't going to elect him....
Since: Sep 09
#7 May 30, 2010
John again shows that he thinks all of us are stupid enough to believe all his crap. He is trying to play dumb to what has been going on in city hall for all these years.
John and Powers are now finding out what it feels to be on the other side of what they have been doing for years with mullins.
Next election we need to get rid of Powers and John, then we will really have a fresh start.
Wonder why John was removed or why he left his job at Oakland Bank. Gives you room to think about having him help running our town, doesn't it?
#8 May 30, 2010
I don't know about Powers, but Evans, trust him never!
#9 May 30, 2010
I have little doubt that evans is planning a run for Mayor in 2012, part of his plan is to hamper, every effort to clean our city hall up made by Mayor Ferguson. He is allied with powers, for years these two helped the mullins criminal machine, by doing nothing in the way of oversight, and voting to go along with anything mullins wanted. I've heard mullins is going to "back" evans's run for mayor. Don't for one second think mullins has had his fangs cut out, he is still in Oakland, he is still monitoring every single thing in city hall, he is obsessed with power, if he can help get evans elected, he will be "the power behind the throne", and be able to make some more of his "special buddie deals". Only complete fools believe cats change their spots. No one can trust evans, he is a snake.
#10 May 30, 2010
I don't think Mullins is interested in any kind of politics in any form or fashion. He has not interfered in any of the present leadership that I have noticed. He can't vote and I have heard from a close friend of his that he is satisfied being just another Oakland citizen and thinks the present Mayor is doing really good. I do agree that John Evans is NOT Mayor material, ever.
#11 May 30, 2010
You may be right regarding mullins, however; when the time comes, I would suggest the same old "mullins cronies" will line up with evans. This would include, but not be limited to, the developers, the builders, the mullins clan, those given special favor when it came time to annex, and others of the same ilk. This group has been and is now, only interested in themselves, with no thought to the town, or what is right and wrong. "Special deals", "special friends of the mayor", "Special considerations" and the like all harken back to the bad old days, when mullins ran the town as if he were king. And may I remind you, he was only able to do so with evans and powers as his "yes men". Mayor Ferguson is working hard to bring the town the type of recognition we want, NOT the kind we were getting, almost every week, because of something mullins or tisdale or hogwood said or did. Those escapades hurt property values and discouraged investment in Oakland, in fact we were laughed at around the Mid-South. I don't care if you were a mullins supporter or not, these are the facts. We have a long way to go in order to change the perception of investors and businessmen that may be considering investing and growing in Oakland. Cleaning up city hall is a must, Mayor Ferguson is getting this done, give this young man a little time, I believe we will all be proud of the job he has done, and our town as a whole. Even in todays economic situation, I think this is what the town needed (in a big way) in order to attract new businesses, during this next year, I think we will see new investment, and growth in Oakland. Our low property taxes are going to help attract this new money.
So far as mullins not being concerned about politics in Oakland, you may be correct, however; I have heard from many people, including having read on this board by numerous posters, he keeps a close watch on everything happening in city hall. If this is true, it doesn't sound like a man "no longer interested". Just a thought.
Add your comments below
|4 squad cars at Taco Bell (Oct '13)||Jul 1||It zoo||14|
|Impeach chief justice Roberts.||Jun 25||red olsen||1|
|Who do you support for U.S. House in Tennessee ... (Oct '10)||Jun 23||Pete||301|
|Lance Nelson||Jun 18||Cville||1|
|Miss Tennessee||Jun 17||guest||1|
Find what you want!
Search Oakland Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC