It's sunshine time in Tennessee!

Thanks to our beloved Newscoma, I now know of a new blog, founded by our friend Tom Guleff, which is focused on maintaining the Open Meetings Law as it is now written. it even has a link or two to a Cracker column, for which I thank Tom.  

It's not easy or fun being on the opposite side of people you've worked for and still support, but it needs to be done.  Thanks, Tom.

Newscoma explains it better than I can

Go here and read what our beloved Newscoma has written about the assault on the Open Meetings Law and why it must not be changed.  She may be an "interested party", as someone suggested to me over the weekend, but I say to you, we ALL are, or should be.

I also want to say that MY representatives are the most accessible of any that I know.  Whether it's Carol Chumney, Jim Strickland, Shea Flinn, Beverly Marrero, Steve Mulroy or one of my closest friends, Mike Kernell, all of these people are very open and, by and large, strongly believe in transparency of government.

This isn't about me; I'm fortunate in that regard.  This is about people like you'll read about in Newscoma's piece who want to cut deals in private, who want nothing to do with public input despite the fact that they were elected TO LISTEN AND REPRESENT THOSE VERY PEOPLE.

If they were all as trustworthy as the people I listed above (and there are others, I'm just not in your District or area if I didn't list you), we would not have this problem.  But they're not, and we do. so go read Newscoma, as it sums this situation up far better than I could.

I have kept silent for too long...

I have been lobbied, as it were, by two different people who represent me, regarding whether the state's Open Meetings Law should be adjusted. As you may or may not know, a Knox County judge said that whenever two or more local legislators talk about an issue in private, it's deliberation, which caused local (and STATE) legislators to have a fit, claiming that was NOT what they had in mind when the law was initially passed. I have been advised that if this is allowed to stand, that lobbyists can line up votes with County Commissioners or City Councilors but other Commissioners or Councilors cannot.

I have trouble with that statement, because I believe lobbyists CAN and SHOULD be more regulated than they are. I think the ruling may have gone a tad far, but maybe not.

Let's face it: either you're for transparency in government or you're not. This needs to go to the Supremes in Nashville for a definitive ruling so we can see what, if anything needs to be done.

In the interim, here are some writings on the subject from the various sides:

Change the law: Steve Mulroy

Keep it as it is:

Joe Lance

Newscoma

Jack Lail

Russ McBee

Knoxville News-Sentinel

Joe Lance (again)

I want you to read all these (and if there are more in the vein of Mulroy, let me know and I will link to them.

I just have REAL trouble with this, especially at a time like this, when the average public servant is trusted by the public less than a three-card-monte dealer.

I want to hear your thoughts.