JasonMcG's comment history

JasonMcG said...

It's your hobby? Seriously, Missy?

Since when do hobbies have to register with the State of Tenn. as an LLC?

No one in their right mind registers their hobby as a for profit LLC, unless you like filing federal business tax returns just for fun too. You register as an LLC if you anticipate earning a profit from business activities. Will the IRS, DOJ "Connect the Dots" of your LLC too now?

Cliff take a look back at Missy's time at Chattanooga State. This is a rerun of what she did with Chattanooga On the Move Magazine, and several other "hobby" projects she did there where she tried to use college resources and employees on personal/political agendas of hers (Tenn. Education Awareness TV "It's Education, Stupid" ad campaign for example) and claimed they were all under the umbrella of the magazine.That venture had a never ending cycle of trading "free ad space" in that magazine with local businesses and was eventually shut down by the state. Same crap, new day. I guess you can't teach an "old dog" new tricks.

Recall elections are part of the normal democratic process to remove politicians when there is merely a dispute over public policy.

Indictments are how politicians get removed from office for corruption and ethics violations. Just ask former Sen.Ward Crutchfield.

September 27, 2010 at 5:47 p.m.
JasonMcG said...

I strongly disagree with Zack Wamp's statement that recalls should only be in the event of corrupt or unethical politicians and not over the public disagreeing on policy.

Recall elections are precisely for the public being dissatisfied with the direction politicians are leading them in due to policy and are simply a natural corrective part of any election process.

Indictments and felony convictions are how corrupt politicians are dealt with, as was the case in the TN Waltz investigation. A recall election would have been sorely inadequate to deal with what was occurring in the Sherrif's dept. at that time.

The recall was the appropriate path as the issue here with Littlefield is whether or not his policies are good for the city, and by city I mean the citizens of Chattanooga- not the government, and there is no issue of corruption at stake here.

I think it was impressive that the recall effort was able to get so many people to participate given that only around 18,000 people voted in the last mayoral election.

Recalls are far less possible if more people vote, so if in the next round of city elections 50%, 70% or even 90% of the eligible voter base participates instead of 10% like the last city/mayoral election, you will get a city government that is more in touch with the city- and again by city I mean citizens of Chattanooga.

That's really the issue here is that the current city government was put into power by so few of the eligible voters. Once that changes issues like this will not come up, as the representation in government will more closely reflect the population and not be driven by catering to a small group of special interests.

September 9, 2010 at 1:04 a.m.
JasonMcG said...

I strongly disagree with Zack Wamp's statement that recalls should only be in the event of corrupt politicians and not over the public disagreeing on policy.

Recall elections are precisely for the public being dissatisfied with the direction politicians are leading them in due to policy and are simply a natural corrective part of any election process.

Indictments and felony convictions are how corrupt politicians are dealt with, as was the case in the TN Waltz investigation. A recall election would have been sorely inadequate to deal with what was occurring in the Sherrif's dept. at that time.

The recall was the appropriate path as the issue here with Littlefield is whether or not his policies are good for the city, and by city I mean the citizens of Chattanooga- not the government, and there is no issue of corruption at stake here.

I think it was impressive that the recall effort was able to get so many people to participate given that only around 18,000 people voted in the last mayoral election.

Recalls are far less possible if more people vote, so if in the next round of city elections 50%, 70% or even 90% of the eligible voter base participates instead of 10% like the last city/mayoral election, you will get a city government that is more in touch with the city- and again by city I mean citizens of Chattanooga.

That's really the issue here is that the current city government was put into power by so few of the eligible voters. Once that changes issues like this will not come up, as the representation in government will more closely reflect the population and not be driven by catering to a small group of special interests.

September 8, 2010 at 11:02 p.m.
JasonMcG said...

I don't think Judge Hollingsworth did Littlefield any favors.

Judge Hollingsworth could have agreed to move the issue to Chancery court instead of Circuit court which would have killed any possibility of an appeal.

Rather, I think the Judge had the insight to see the issue needs to be clarified at the state level.

The state law regarding recalls was modified in 1997, and states explicitly that if a city has a recall provision in their Charter, then the city charter provisions will satisfy the conditions of the recall.

There is a contradiction in the state law that needs to be resolved, regarding when city charter's prevail, when the recall is based on a percentage of the population, and when it is based on a percentage of registered voters. Right now as it sits the state law gives all three as possibilities.

What Hollingsworth effectively did was open the door for this issue to come under greater scrutiny at the state level, instead of just local.

Also, I don't think you can call the ruling a vindication of Littlefield's policies.

The ruling is purely that the recall appears to have failed to meet the criteria under the law, and is definitely not an endorsement of the current administration's path.

If anything the ruling is going to cause every little thing the Mayor and City Council due in the future to come under much greater public scrutiny

September 8, 2010 at 10:51 p.m.
JasonMcG said...

I don't think Judge Hollingsworth did Littlefield any favors.

Judge Hollingsworth could have agreed to move the issue to Chancery court instead of Circuit court which would have killed any possibility of an appeal.

Rather, I think the Judge had the insight to see the issue needs to be clarified at the state level.

The state law regarding recalls was modified in 1997, and states explicitly that if a city has a recall provision in their Charter, then the city charter provisions will satisfy the conditions of the recall.

There is a contradiction in the state law that needs to be resolved, regarding when city charter's prevail, when the recall is based on a percentage of the population, and when it is based on a percentage of registered voters. Right now as it sits the state law gives all three as possibilities.

What Hollingsworth effectively did was open the door for this issue to come under greater scrutiny at the state level, instead of just local.

Also, I don't think you can call the ruling a vindication of Littlefield's policies.

The ruling is purely that the recall appears to have failed to meet the criteria under the law, and is definitely not an endorsement of the current administration's path.

If anything the ruling is going to cause every little thing the Mayor and City Council due in the future to come under much greater public scrutiny

September 8, 2010 at 10:48 p.m.
JasonMcG said...

MTAS Attorney Says He Overlooked Section In His Recall Opinion http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_183296.asp

He retracted his opinion that the state law prevails, and says the City Charter numbers are the ones that prevail

September 3, 2010 at 7:13 p.m.
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 1:41 p.m.
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.
JasonMcG said...

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

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.

Certainly City Council members as individual citizens have the right to verbally endorse a candidate and endorse or defend a candidate financially 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.

The City Council is way out of bounds on this one.

September 1, 2010 at 1:23 p.m.
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.