published Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Recall battle moves to court

The deadline Monday for the last signatures gathered by the three groups pushing for recall elections ended just the first phase of the initiative. The second act opened predictably Tuesday when Mayor Ron Littlefield finally issued his response — a blunt letter chastising the recall proponents and their signature-collection methods, and a lawsuit that seeks to bar the Election Commission from staging a potentially mismanaged recall initiative. Now, it’s up to Circuit Court to decide whether a recall election actually will be held and, if so, under what law and what terms.

Questions abound, and understandably so. The legal path to a recall has a lot of trip wires that could derail the process.

Foremost is whether state law or the city charter controls a recall. If state law prevails, the proponents would need more than 15,000 qualified signatures, not just 9,000, to gain a recall. It now appears that recall advocates do not possess the 15,000 qualified-signature margin.

If they do, the next question is whether the Election Commission correctly administered and vetted the form and date of the recall petition(s) and the voters’ signatures and signing dates to meet the legal standards necessary for a recall to proceed. The mayor’s lawsuit charges the commission with mishandling oversight of the recall process and time-frame at virtually every step.

If the Election Commission has properly done its job and the petitions and voter signatures meet legal requirements for a recall vote to occur under state law, the vote on Nov. 2 would be simply a yes-no referendum on whether to hold a recall election. If the answer is yes, the city would have to finance a subsequent separate citywide election to fill the recalled seat, or seats. Candidates then would file qualifying petitions and campaign quickly for the post against Mayor Littlefield, who already has committed to run again in that event.

If the city charter rules, if the Election Commission properly did its job, and if the petitions and signatures meet recall criteria, a recall election may proceed under charter rules. In that case, there would not be a yes-no referendum. The recalled candidates would be automatically removed and the Nov. 2 election would be won by the candidate with a simple plurality of the vote. If, say, five candidates split the vote but none got more than a simple majority, there would be no run-off. The candidate with the most votes would win the office.

Mayor Ron Littlefield, the chief target of the recall effort, had remained quiet, wisely from his point of view, throughout the signature-collection period. City Council members Jack Benson and Manny Rico, who also became recall targets because of their perceived support for some Littlefield initiatives, have also confirmed that they will run for office again if a recall vote is held.

Recall proponents had the last two months to lambaste the mayor. They accused him of corruption — a baseless charge absent legal facts — and pilloried his administration. Yet their recall effort has mainly hinged on antipathy to the badly needed 19 percent property tax increase — the first in eight years — that Littlefield initiated earlier this summer. Critics also denounced him for increased levies for sewer service — a service tied to water rates — and for storm-water runoff containment, which must be improved to comply with state and federal clean-water mandates.

In effect, their charges against the mayor, and more recently against Benson and Rico, have served as window dressing for their anti-tax complaints, never mind the pent-up needs of the city for improved public services and the cost of building the infrastructure that is necessary to attract new jobs. Th.at aspect of their recall effort suggests narrow, myopic motives for a recall campaign that would effectively harm the city’s image, governmental stability, development efforts and future potential.

Littlefield’s statement correctly underscores the fallacy of the excessive anti-tax sentiment. He noted that the chief recall proponent and underwriter is a multimillionaire whose elder-care business — and fortune — relies on the benefits to seniors of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

“Hypocritically, he now seeks to preach to us about the evils of taxes and government programs,” Littlefield charged. He called other “instigators” of the recall initiative “chronic grumblers and complainers” whose “common thread seems to be that no one actually has a job other than tearing down what others have worked hard to create. In that regard, they seem willing to say or do anything.”

Though Chattanoogans have yet to learn whether the recall effort will end in another election, it’s now clear that Mayor Littlefield will not — and should not — leave the field quietly if the recall petition comes to fruition. If it’s mainly about a rare and modest tax increase, an election should quickly resolve which direction Chattanoogans would chose for our city.

2
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
JasonMcG said...

By the City Council dedicating city legal and financial resources to the defense of Littlefield in a recall campaign, the City Council is violating quite a few state and federal election and campaign finance reform laws.

The City Council is the legislative body of the City of Chattanooga and their oath is to represent the constituents from their districts.

Certainly, City Council members, as individual citizens, have the right to verbally endorse a candidate and financially endorse or defend a candidate out of their own pockets.

However, the City Council does not have the right to commit the city's financial and legal resources to the defense of the Mayor's campaign to hold onto office.

Recalls are part of the election process, not the legislative process, and the City Council is overstepping it's bounds

September 1, 2010 at 1:40 p.m.
fairmon said...

Rare and modest increase my #@%^? Where have you been? Annual property taxes have increased significantly in the period our elected elite say there has been no tax increase. it borders on dishonest and is certainly misleading when the council and others say there has been no tax increase since the rate per thousand has remained constant. It should not be necessary to raise the rate per thousand with the regularly increasing annual amount paid by each citizen. Modest increase? Sewer rates have increased, storm water fees, emission testing have been added, more sales tax is paid due to normal price increases. Utilities cost and utility taxes have increased, check out the Gore tax on your phone bill.

The percent of disposable income taken from citizens for taxes has increased more than modestly. If being angry about that makes me a narrow minded person on the fringe then that is where you will find me working to assure the recall is successful then at the next election the current council is replaced. It is inflammatory to suggest a 20% increase is modest when all factors are considered. Bottom line, increases result from insensitive ego driven country club style management.

September 1, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.