The question of whether to allow the Div. II Sessions Court to move from Oak Ridge (where it has been since its creation 13 years ago) to Clinton was diverted to the County Commission Operations Committee on Monday.

Members of the Operations Committee are:  Mark Alderson, John Alley, Robin Biloski, Mike Cox, Scott Gillenwaters, Robert McKamey, John Shuey, and Tracy Wandell.  Addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses (those who have them)  for all commissioners can be found here.

I found it interesting that Judge Murch’s reasoning differed between the News Sentinel story last week and the one in the Oak Ridger yesterday; it seems that one focuses on security concerns, while the other highlights inadequate office space.  The contrast does make me wonder if either one is the real reason, or if it might be a matter of jockeying to put political allies in closer proximity to one another.

In any case, I am opposed to a move that would prove more costly and less convenient to Oak Ridgers, and have contacted those commissioners on the committee with e-mail addresses.

At some point after the Anderson County Commission meeting on Monday (where the commission voted NOT to drop the lawsuit against Clinton), local officials received the ruling from three administrative law judges who heard the dispute between Clinton and the County over a parcel of land adjacent to I-75.

The Sentinel report includes this statement:

If the county and its cities don’t buy into the judges’ proposal, the matter would go before another panel of jurists. Those new judges would have the power to adopt a growth plan without local input.

County officials have thus far proven quite stubborn in their insistence on keeping the matter tied up in court; at this point, the options appear to be to either give in, or send it to another panel of judges who are under no obligation to consider local input at all.

A couple of years back when the two were still trying to mediate, Clinton presented a rather generous revenue-sharing agreement (even though the County would benefit through property and sales taxes from any development anyway), but the County turned it down. Now, it seems like Rex Lynch wants to go back to the trough:

Clinton’s offer to split sales tax revenue with the county has been taken off the table as far as [City Manager Steve] Jones is concerned, he said Tuesday. The final say-so on that issue, he added, rests with City Council.

“I would hope that the city would be willing to share a portion of that (sales tax revenue) with the county,” Anderson County Mayor Rex Lynch said Tuesday.

If the Clinton City Council is smart (and I think they are), they’d add up their legal costs for the past two years, along with the lost tax revenue from a large commercial developer who walked out when the suit was filed, and ask themselves if the shread of goodwill is worth what they’ve already lost.

Then, adding injury to insult, remember the damage done to Clinton (and Oak Ridge, and Lake City, and Oliver Springs) when the County superseded the sales tax last May, and throw that in, too.

Seems to me it’s time to let the County take their loss and think about how they might work more cooperatively with their cities in the future. Remember, we’re part of Anderson County, too.

In a quarterly daytime meeting today, Anderson County Commission had yet another opportunity to drop their lawsuit against Clinton over a pending annexation issue. In my opinion, the lawsuit was ridiculous to begin with, given that the annexation request came from the property owners themselves… no one was being taken against their will.

But, reaffirming my lack of confidence in most of them,they defeated the motion to dismiss by 10-6. Kudos to Oak Ridgers Robin Biloski and Scott Gillenwaters for being among the six — since the 5-year moratorium on annexation is either expired or nearly so, voting to keep the suit alive is simply wasteful.

Also on today’s agenda was Judge Murch’s request to move the General Sessions Court, Division I, to Clinton (where the Division II court also meets). It has been passed on to the Operations Committee, of which Oak Ridge Commissioners Robin Biloski and Scott Gillenwaters are members.

Early this morning, I wrote to my two commissioners asking that they oppose this move (which would cost Oak Ridge more, while reducing services). Also an early riser, our newest commission member, Whitey Hitchcock, responded with the following points that he planned to take to the meeting:

Assisting law enforcement agencies and the community in addressing crime – especially drug-related crime – is extremely important to the residents of District 6 in Oak Ridge.

The majority of arrests occur in Oak Ridge.

Court involves more than perpetrators and police. It involves victims and the community. They must also travel or be left out of the justice process.

Physical separation of the victims and the justice system lessens the potential for restorative justice; i.e. assisting the offended.
The cost of moving Sessions Court may entail greater overall expense than finding a new and appropriate facility.

Therefore, I believe that it is in the best interest of the county, as a whole, to find and fund more suitable accommodations, within the City of Oak Ridge, rather than transfer court to Clinton.

I urge the County Commission to make this option a priority and to include a detailed cost analysis as part of any decision.

Then after the meeting, he followed up and let me know that the matter had been assigned to committee, and which Oak Ridgers are on that committee. Thanks, Dr. Hitchcock.

It seems that new commissioner (by one vote) John Shuey spent time huddled in the hallway with the Buildings & Grants director, Alan Beauchamp. Suppose he needed help figuring out how to vote? After all, he is the bailiff for the Div. I Sessions Court… seems like he might have some useful suggestions for improving security, if that is in fact the real reason for the suggested move.

Bob Fowler reported on Thursday that the Division I General Sessions Court, which has met in Oak Ridge for 13 years, is likely moving back to Clinton.

With the County’s highest population density in Oak Ridge, it makes sense to have one of the sessions courts meet here. If both are to meet in Clinton, then why have two sessions judges at all? The reasoning for the move is purportedly “security concerns” about the Oak Ridge courtroom, but it would seem that the renovations required to convert the County Commission room to a courtroom would cost at least as much — if not substantially more — as improving security in the existing courtroom in Oak Ridge.

Furthermore, moving the court to Clinton will cost Oak Ridge taxpayers more, as city police officers will be required to travel further, and will be away from patrol longer (probably resulting in an announcement of need for more officers).

And, from the perspective of Clinton taxpayers, there should be some concern about converting the Jolley building (which now houses Regions Bank on the first floor) to entirely public, non-taxpaying use.

Government office reshuffling may reshape the future uses of the five-story Jolley Building, said Alan Beauchamp, the county’s buildings and grounds director.

“Do we want to turn this building into a county services building, a criminal justice center? That’s what we have to decide,” Beauchamp said.

The Jolley building was originally built as a bank, and the first floor is currently occupied by Regions Bank. While I can appreciate the County’s need for office space near the courthouse, there’s something discomforting about the nicest office space in Clinton being reserved entirely for County government.

I plan to ask my county commissioners to oppose moving the court to Clinton.