The Chattanooga City Council has failed to defend our own City Charter, the foundational document of our city, and is crushing the possibility of grassroots democracy and active citizen control of public institutions as a result. On Tuesday January 24 2012 the Chattanooga City Council voted to save the Mayor from having to sue the City Council of Chattanooga. Mayor Ron Littlefield has already sued the Hamilton County Election Commission and the voters of Chattanooga to stop his impending recall after citizens collected over 15,000 signatures in the summer of 2010. Recall is an important victory gained by actives from the progressive era and provides citizens a meaningful channel within which to exert their power and control over public institutions and officers. The recall has been a feature of the Chattanooga City Charter since the early 20th century.
On Monday, Judge Jeff Hollingsworth told Mayor Littlefield's lawyer Hal North, who works for the powerful corporate law firm Chambliss, Bahner and Stophel which has deep financial ties to Judge Jeff Hollingsworth, that it would be necessary for the City Council to enter the lawsuit.
Mayor Ron Littlefield had to either sue the City of Chattanooga or the City Attorney had to be commanded to enter the lawsuit on behalf of the Council. Rather than vigorously defend the City Charter, the same charter which empowered them to hold office, the City Council voted 6 to 3 to allow the City Attorney to enter the lawsuit and not advocate for the charter nor the right of recall provided in the charter to the citizens. This vote was the culmination of serious debate and came after some very deep and profound criticisms were publicly provided by Council representatives Russell Gilbert, Andrae McGary and Deborah Scott (hardly a common voting bloc).
On Monday, Judge Jeff Hollingsworth told Mayor Littlefield's lawyer Hal North, who works for the powerful corporate law firm Chambliss, Bahner and Stophel which has deep financial ties to Judge Jeff Hollingsworth, that it would be necessary for the City Council to enter the lawsuit.
Mayor Ron Littlefield had to either sue the City of Chattanooga or the City Attorney had to be commanded to enter the lawsuit on behalf of the Council. Rather than vigorously defend the City Charter, the same charter which empowered them to hold office, the City Council voted 6 to 3 to allow the City Attorney to enter the lawsuit and not advocate for the charter nor the right of recall provided in the charter to the citizens. This vote was the culmination of serious debate and came after some very deep and profound criticisms were publicly provided by Council representatives Russell Gilbert, Andrae McGary and Deborah Scott (hardly a common voting bloc).
The three dissenting City Council votes provided concrete substantive doubts about City Attorney Mike McMahon's ability to fulfill his official duties and that would clearly justify hiring an independent attorney to enter into the lawsuit on their behalf:
- The City Attorney has publicly come out against the recall and against the current City Charter.
- The City Attorney has gone on the record saying "I'm not gonna be able to serve two masters" - referring to his inability to fulfill his obligation to defend the City Charter on behalf of the City Council rather than defending Mayor Ron Littlefield.
- When the City Council approved for the the City Attorney to enter the lawsuit last summer he promised to "remain neutral", going so far as to say that he was "not representing the Mayor but defending the City" and the Charter, but the City Attorney refused to share his brief with the City Council prior to the trial and in fact went on to file a brief against the charter. In the subsequent City Council meeting after the trial, Andrae McGary pointed out this glaring conflict between the City Attorney's public commitment to neutrality and his support of the Mayor's legal position contra our own city charter.
- The City Attorney actually helped write the 2002 ordinance which seriously amended, revised, and re-enacted the City Charter and was voted on by the voters at the ballot box in 2002, which would qualify the Chattanooga City Charter to set its own rules and regulations with regard to the number of signatures and the time within which to perform a recall pursuant to TCA 2-5-151.
The following are direct quotes from both Andrae McGary and Deborah Scott:
"It boggles my mind that we can have a City Attorney that is conflicted, that has already made a decision about his personal feelings about this and that we would send him to represent us in this matter when we are conflicted. That makes, really, no sense... Some of the members here on City Council approved this [City Charter], they voted for this [City Charter]. The Mayor himself was on City Council and he voted for it, he led the review of this very document. Mr. McMahon helped write this very document that is now the subject of controversy ... The reason that the City Council is on the hook [of entering into the lawsuit] is because the Mayor's attorney is going to sue the City Council. That's a terrible situation to be in and the thought that it would even happen is mind-boggling. The people who signed the recall did not create this problem. We have a charter. It was adopted. It was affirmed by the people. We don't need to be a part of this lawsuit or if we are, then we need an independent counsel, someone who did not write the document and has not already stated an opinion."
- Deborah Scott
"For this Council to continue to suggest that Mike McMahon should represent this body if indeed we are to intervene in this lawsuit, to me either smacks of insensitivity or ignorance... The public looks at us to make a decision on their behalf and if we ignore our own city attorney saying that he is conflicted and send him in anyway, I wonder how we justify that."
- Andrae McGary
You can watch the entire discussion that took place tonight at the January 24 2012 6:00 PM City Council meeting here:
Perrin Lance contributed to this post.