Closed executive session called by city attorney.

The City Attorney will be holding a closed executive session to discuss pending litigation at 12:00 on Wednesday, December 21, that will last about 10 minutes.  Following the closed session, the work session on the shooting sports park will be held.

Story on work session.

Council animosity still apparent in emails this week over city manager and chief of police. Kerley accuses Mayberry of charter violation

What started as a seemingly routine email communication concerning an important city personnel matter seems to have degenerated into sniping, accusations and further examples of the animosity that remains between some Crossville city council members.

Monday evening June 20, Crossville mayor James Mayberry sent an email to interim city manager Steve Hill pointing out that the interim police chief's contract was near its end. Mayberry wrote, “with no other applicants from within the department, and the excellent results with coordination of other agencies, and the overwhelming community support, I request the city manager to pole (sic) the council for their input on the appointment of Mr. Shoap as permanent police chief.”

Mayberry continued, “The council is not authorized to hire or fire city employees. Being the interim city manager would cause reservations on the hiring and firing process and I'm sure cause concern. Therefore, I think council input is of utmost importance on the paramount decision for the city's future.”

That email generated a response email the next day from councilman Jesse Kerley asking that hiring a permanent city manager be placed on the July regular council meeting agenda and accusing the Mayor of violating the city charter by trying to interfere with the city manager's decisions. Since the council has not received any city manager candidate info from the city consultant MTAS, it appears Kerley's proposal may be to hire interim manager Hill permanently.

The following day, June 22, councilman Pete Souza sent his own email. Interestingly enough, Mr. Kerley's emails are blocked by Mr. Souza and Mr. Souza does not copy Mr. Kerley on their emails.

Souza wrote, “First of all the comment of councilman Kerley that the Mayor violated the charter is without merit. He made the same claim on me and I addressed this to the city attorney. It is our (the council's) prerogative to let the city manager know our desires not to be construed with ordering him to hire or fire someone. Mr. Ridley can feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I find it incomprehensible that councilman Kerley can bring up former assistant chief Sherrill but the mayor can't bring up Shoap.

Souza's email went on to praise the work of chief Shoap and his value to the community. He said he added his approval of Shoap with mayor Mayberry's and said while he couldn't speak for council members Danny Wyatt and Pam Harris he did say they had praised the chief in public meetings.

Souza's email continued, “Moving on to councilman Kerley's agenda item to appoint a permanent city manager, this was already decided in a motion. The selection would take place after the upcoming city council election with the help of MTAS.” Souza concludes, “So the question is how disruptive to the community does the city council and for that matter the interim city manager want to be?”

Based on looking at the email forwarding trail, councilman Danny Wyatt forwarded Mr. Souza's email to councilman Kerley and Kerley responded asking city attorney Will Ridley to advise on Article V Section 6 of the charter. Wrote Kerley, “I'm having trouble finding Souza's law degree license on the internet. It APPARENTLY is filed with the state along with his business license.” The last reference to an earlier squabble over Souza's electrical business. Kerley concludes with a political reference to Souza's race for county tax assessor adding in caps, “SIMCOX FOR ASSESSOR.” Mr. Souza was not included in the distribution list for Kerley's email.

City attorney Will Ridley responded to request for information on the charter and quoted the article and section in question.

“Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative officers and employees solely through the manager. Neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to the manager’s subordinates or otherwise interfere with managerial functions through such means as directing or requesting the appointment or removal of any of the manager’s subordinates…………..”

Ridley continued, “I can only provide information. I cannot make a decision as to whether an individual council member has violated the charter. To do so would violate my ethical duty to represent the council as a whole. Nothing in the above section prohibits a council member from giving their opinion or view point on an employee or department's performance. However it prohibits a council member from “directing or requesting” the city manager to make a particular decision.”

This reporter received some of these emails from Mr. Kerley in an email that opened with his opinion that, “FYI. This is a clear violation of article V section 6 of the city charter.” That remains to be seen.

Exclusive Interview with J. R. Blankenship--”I did not intend to break the law.” From Council meetings to Court to Yard Signs--the saga continues

The saga of J. R. Blankenship, where it stands now, 

and how it is sparking further discord in the city council.

What started, according to J. R. Blankenship, as a way “to inform elected officials of something they should be concerned about” has turned into a dispute that stretches across multiple courts, numerous accusations and numerous signs.

This reporter had an exclusive interview with Mr. Blankenship, has spoken to Crossville Police Chief Rod Shoap and sat in on Crossville municipal court held June 14 where motions from Blankenship concerning his citation and fine were heard.

The man, J. R. Blankenship, who gives his address as 279 Mockingbird Drive first came onto the public radar when he spoke at the end of the March 10 regular city council meeting with a very brief statement claiming he had evidence of council members who were “in breach of their fiduciary duty.” He continued that he had “polled 25 law professors” and added that he would make the information public after he heard back from them.

J. R. Blankenship's comments at March 10 council meeting

Distributing unsigned material

The next time Mr. Blankenship's name came up was a day or so after the council meeting when some fliers (and no one seems to be able to determine exactly how many) were reportedly found posted on downtown businesses offering “a reward” of up to $500 for photos of any city elected or appointed official doing something wrong. The flier promised anonymity for the informant and that the evidence would be published. The flier was signed “Sam at the Daily Bull” with a phone number. According to Blankenship, he is known to some people as Sam.

The "unsigned flier"

The first reports of the fliers are believed to have come from city councilman Jesse Kerley who reportedly said he'd had several complaints about the fliers from downtown businesses. As the investigation moved forward, there were more emails flying between councilman Kerley, former city manager David Rutherford, city attorney Will Ridley and police chief Rod Shoap.

Emails from Mr. Kerley went to the city attorney and city manager. The city manager was asked to forward Kerley's email to the police chief suggesting the perpetrator should be charged with littering. Kerley's email to Ridley asked if someone distributing fliers needed a permit. Ridley responded that it appeared the action could be in violation of two city ordinances and Ridley said he had informed the police of his findings.

According to Police Chief Rod Shoap, Mr. Blankenship was quickly developed as a suspect and a copy of the ordinances was delivered to the house on Mockingbird Drive. Shoap said that Blankenship called the department and offered to turn himself in.

In an exclusive interview between this reporter and Blankenship, he said he had researched state and federal law before distributing the fliers but said he had not considered local ordinances. Said Blankenship, “I had no intention to break the law.”

Blankenship said that emails between Shoap and Rutherford indicated to him that Shoap felt there should not be prosecution. An email from Shoap to Rutherford said, “the culprit has confessed-he understands what he did was wrong and will be willing accept the cite, however, if we just warn him I am hoping he does not make a return visit.” Blankenship concluded that he would not have been cited except for direction by councilman Kerley.

We spoke with Chief Shoap and he said Blankenship's conclusion was inaccurate. According to Shoap, a council member can not direct his action.  Chief  Shoap stated that he would not allow that to happen. Shoap stressed that Blankenship had always been respectful to him and his officers but he said that he had received a call from a downtown business manager about the flier. Shoap described the complainant as “put out” telling the chief that he did not allow anyone to put fliers in his windows. Shoap said because of that complaint, on March 24, 2016 his department issued a single citation, not 30 citations as has been reported elsewhere.

Shoap commented on the situation, “I do want him (Blankenship) treated fairly.”

Shoap told this reporter that he only saw one flier and he said four were actually documented by his department. Shoap also said that Blankenship himself did not know how many fliers had been distributed. Shoap told us that he wanted to be very cautious on the action taken as he felt he needed to consider how charges might affect other fliers distributed for things such as fundraisers that kids might put out.

Shoap added that up to this point he and his officers had spent some 40 hours on the matter of the fliers, time he felt could have been better spent protecting the public.

Blankenship stated in our interview that he didn't know how many fliers had been put out but he had 50 of the fliers printed and he still had a stack of them at his house.

From Council to Court to yard signs

Blankenship's anger is generally directed at councilman Kerley who he feels has pushed the prosecution of him through his position on the council and friends that, according to Blankenship, include city judge Ivy Gardner. Blankenship's feelings come through in the yard signs at the Mockingbird Drive house and the signs he has brought to city council meetings in the back of a pickup truck. In our interview he described Kerley's actions in the flier case as “official misconduct and oppression.” His comments mirror comments in a memo from councilman Pete Souza to city attorney Will Ridley dated June 1, 2016 that questions the actions taken in the case against Mr. Blankenship and Mr. Kerley's involvement.

Two page memo to city attorney Will Ridley outlining Pete Souza's concerns about Kerley's actions

It appears that some of the animosity currently between Councilman Kerley and Councilman Souza stem from this issue as well with Kerley accusing Souza of assisting Blankenship with the plywood signs he put up in his yard on Mockingbird Drive. Souza has also sent a letter to the Tennessee Open Records office after Blankenship filed several open records requests and received no information. Form letter responses indicate there are “No such records exist.”

Letter from councilman Pete Souza to State Open Records office

Blankenship faced his citation on the fliers May 10 in Crossville city court before city judge Ivy Gardner. After hearing about the case, Gardner found Blankenship guilty of 30 counts of “distributing unsigned material” from a single citation and fined the maximum $50 fine on each count totaling $1500. Blankenship also has questioned the ordinance under which he was cited and it appears that no one except Mr. Blankenship has ever been charged with the offense since the ordinance has been on the city books since the 1960's.

As this situation has further played out, city judge Ivy Gardner has filed a request for a restraining order against Blankenship claiming in a court filing that he “has engaged in a pattern of conduct to harass and unnecessarily alarm” Ms. Gardner. The action was filed for Ms. Garner by attorney Kevin Bryant.

Complaint against Blankenship (left) filed by city judge Ivy Gardner and temporary restraining order pending the next court date of July 7, 2016

Prior to the initial hearing on the matter, a temporary restraining order was issued by General Sessions Judge Larry Warner. At the court appearance, a continuance was granted for Blankenship to hire an attorney to defend him. The next court date on the mater is July 7 at 1 PM.

It appears that the restraining order request comes from the sign in Blankenship's yard on Mockingbird Drive that says, “Twerley Trash=Quid Pro Quo 107 143 68” The numbers correspond to house numbers of property owned by councilman Jesse Kerley, his brother Joseph Kerley and a house owned by Joe B. Gardner, Jr.

279 Mockingbird Drive with yard signs including one some perceive as a threat

When asked about the numbers on his sign, Mr. Blankenship said it was a joke and they were the combination to his safe. He said he was willing to let anyone contact the man who keeps his safe. Crossville Police Chief Rod Shoap said that a safe combination was also what Blankenship told him the numbers represented.

Blankenship's Latest Court Appearance

Even though he is under a temporary restraining order, J. R. Blankenship appeared before Crossville city judge Ivy Gardner in Crossville city court on June 14 concerning motions he made following his guilty finding on distributing unsigned material and fined $1500. Blankenship filed a motion for discovery seeking documents, records and more related to his case. In addition Blankenship is seeking written “finding of facts” and “conclusion of law” for his case related to Judge Gardner's decision on her refusal to recuse herself, dismissal of Blankenship's counter claim and the fine imposed.

Gardner told Blankenship that her court was a municipal court and was not a court of record meaning that civil procedures do not apply and she was not required to provide the information he was requesting. Stated Gardner, “If a higher court tells me to do so I will do it gladly.” She said that she currently has no jurisdiction on the case as it was on appeal to a higher court.

Blankenship also asked that Gardner recuse her self from the case saying she “bore false witness against me.”

The city court fine has been appealed to circuit court and is scheduled be heard by Judge Jonathan Young on August 29, 2016.

Blankenship Appeal Notice to Circuit Court

Vandalism of Blankenship's Yard signs

Blankenship shared an image from the infrared camera in his yard that shows a person wearing a hoodie, shorts and tennis shoes wielding what Mr. Blankenship says is a sledge hammer that was used to knock down the signs that were nailed to a tree. While the face is unclear, Blankenship would like to know who the person is that damaged his property

Unidentified vandal in Blankenship's yard destroying signs 

Crossville council approves settlement in eminent domain lawsuit from 2011

Meeting in a special called meeting, the Crossville city council approved a settlement worked out over an eminent domain claim from 2011 and the construction of the Northwest Connector.

City attorney Will Ridley went over the legal matter with the council that started back in 2011 as part of the city securing necessary property to build the first section of the so-called Northwest Connector. The city offered land owner John Turner and his wife an initial amount of $33,360 based on an appraisal done on the property. Mr. Turner sought a total amount of some $109,000 for the property based on what he felt it was worth. About 2 acres of property was involved that included .9 of an acre purchased in fee simple, another .65 acre for easements and temporary construction use, .2 of an acre for drainage slope and .65 on an acre landlocked by the project without access to a road.

Previous city attorney Ken Chadwell filed the eminent domain action and putting the $33,360 on deposit with the court and allowing the city to use the property while waiting until later to settle on the final compensation. As a court date approached on the matter, the city council authorized attorney Ridely to participate in a mediation on the matter in an attempt to settle the matter without going to court.

The agreement reached through the mediation included paying Turner an additional $36,150 plus interest at prime plus 2 percent. The total amount to be paid to Turner would be $45,000.

Council member Pan Harris asked Ridley what the expected cost to try the case might be and Ridley said between $25,000 and $32,000 was budgeted for that expense. In addition, there could be additional payment to Turner ordered by the court.

Will Ridley told the council that he recommended the council to accept the settlement. Mayor James Mayberry moved to accept the settlement and received a second from council member Harris.

Councilman Jesse Kerley commented, pointing out that there had been no complaints about the special called meeting at a mid-day time as had been made about previous special called meetings.

Said Kerley, “I find that a little interesting considering a man is getting $36,000 here today who painted a council members political signs...”

“Point of order!” stated councilman Pete Souza, saying the comments had nothing to do with the agenda item under discussion. Souza added, “I have no political signs.”

Mayor Mayberry ruled that Souza's point was well taken and asked for no personal attacks. Mr. Kerley responded that he had used no names in his comment.

Kerley continued saying that the appraisal was the most inflated one he had ever seen. “I think this was handled wrong.” Kerley said he would not support the settlement. Kerley also added that he wanted the city manager to give a copy of the appraisal to the county property assessor David Simcox adding that Turner should be taxed off of the appraisal.

Councilman Danny Wyatt said he did not agree 100 percent with the settlement, but said it was probably best for the city and everybody involved in it.

The vote on the motion included three ayes from Wyatt, Harris and Mayberry. Mr. Kerley voted against the motion and Mr. Souza abstained having previously said he would recuse himself as he and Mr. Turner were close friends.