Power to the People.

The following email is from Lisa Clayton, Director of the Franklin Parks Department, in reponse to an email from residents of Lancaster Drive. The residents asked Ms. Clayton to eliminate the trail through Harpeth Meadows and instead support a sidewalk on Franklin Road to connect downtown to Harlinsdale. Ms. Clayton agreed:

Dear Mr. & Mrs. XXXXXX:
First of all, thank you for your email and your recommendation. As the Parks Director for the City of Franklin, I understand your concern and agree that sidewalks along Franklin Road would best suit the Harpeth Meadows neighborhood instead of the walking path. The original idea for the walking path came from following the original Interurban Rail system shown on the concept plan for the park at Harlinsdale Farm connecting to the Bicentennial Park. After the public forum in August, this was a decision that was easily made without question. Sidewalks would best suit your subdivision than the proposed walking trail. Therefore, I have contacted our consultants and along with many other suggestions, that is one that has been noted and will be changed. Residents of Harpeth Meadows will be able to see the change firsthand during the second public forum which will be scheduled for late October or early November. I will make sure Harpeth Meadows Subdivision is contacted with the exact time, date and location.
Again, thank you for your email and if I can assist your family further or answer any other questions regarding the neighborhood, please do not hesitate to call my office at 794-2103 or email me.
Thank you for your time.

Lisa R. Clayton
Director, Parks

The Inquiry.

Below is the text of a memorandum I delivered to Mr. Johnson and the BOMA this week. I anticipate an answer next week.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Jay Johnson
FROM: Dana C. McLendon III
CC: Board of Mayor and Aldermen
DATE: 20 September 2005
RE: Lt. Anderson and Lt. Taylor

A recent newspaper story included the following:

"It's clear the officers [Lt. Anderson and Lt. Taylor] were suspended. It's clear the city paid them more than $80,500 while they were suspended. And it's clear both officers were allowed to retire. What isn't clear is why the disciplinary issues that prompted the suspensions have never been resolved, and why the officers were allowed to retire."

As far as I know, the foregoing is a fair synopsis of the situation.
I deliberately did not inquire of the status of the suspensions during the suspensions because I believed it would have been inappropriate for an alderman to participate in the process at that time. As you know, had the matters taken a different course I could have been called upon as an alderman to adjudicate an employee’s appeal of a disciplinary action. It would clearly have been inappropriate to have acquired any knowledge outside of the appeal process.
Now, however, it appears I will not be called upon to adjudicate any appeal from Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor. I have a few questions that I believe should be posed and answered publicly. I ask that you respond to this memorandum as you believe is appropriate.
1. In the case of Lt. Taylor, I understand he was on leave for as much as three of the eight months he was suspended. That leaves at least five months of suspension under allegations including domestic abuse, disgraceful personal conduct, disobeying orders, and unlawful harassment. I understand that Lt. Taylor was, perhaps, unavailable as a result of his medical leave, but by the time he took medical leave, he had been on leave for perhaps 60 days or more. Why did the investigation require at least five months and as much as eight months?
2. In the case of Lt. Anderson, it is much less clear to me why he was suspended, but it has been reported that, “Shirley Harmon, Franklin's human resources director, and [Police Chief] Moore said Anderson's file is confidential under the state's drug-free workplace law.” Why did Lt. Anderson’s case take eight months to investigate?
3. At the time of their respective retirements, was either investigation complete? When might hearings have been scheduled?
4. Of the over $80,000 in payments made to Lt. Anderson and Lt. Taylor during the eight months they were suspended, was any part of the money paid to them money that they would have been entitled to regardless of the outcome of a disciplinary hearing? In other words, would either of them be entitled to some or all of the $80,000+ even if they had been terminated following a disciplinary hearing? If so, how much?
I am troubled by several things in this matter. First, two long-time city employees – indeed, long-time law enforcement officers – were suspended for a long time under apparently very serious accusations. If either of these gentlemen were guilty, the citizens of this community deserved swift action to separate them from the Franklin Police Department. If, on the other hand, they were not guilty of the allegations, these gentlemen deserved to be cleared and restored to their positions promptly. It is hard to see, based upon what I know at this time, how the city or Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor were well-served by the extended investigations.
Second, many thousands of dollars of wages were paid to employees who might, or might not, have deserved to be fired. The city presumably also had a ripple effect in wages (did the city not have to pay other officers to do the job the suspended officers were not doing?) It troubles me that if the allegations were accurate, that the city perhaps nonetheless paid tens of thousands of dollars that should not have been paid.
Third, I am concerned that there is or could be an appearance that employees under suspicion of wrongdoing who are near retirement can expect to be allowed to retire in good standing. Is there a city policy regarding the relationship between suspensions and retirement eligibility? It seems to me that we should consider whether a city employee on suspension suspected of wrongdoing should be allowed to accumulate additional retirement eligibility pending resolution of the allegations. I know the city couldn’t have changed the rules with respect to Lt. Anderson or Lt. Taylor, but I remain troubled by the result in these cases.
I await your reply.

You decide.

The other candidate for alderman in the second ward claims on his web page that in September 2004, "we actually were drinking contaminated water." Let's take a closer look at the unadulterated facts.
In the May 20, 2005 Sanitary Survey, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation wrote as follows on this subject:

On 11 November 2004, the then-Director of the Water Department wrote the following memorandum to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen:





I apologize for the poor quality of the copy, but my copy is not good quality.
The substance of Mr. Woodard's memo is that immediately upon being notified of the presence of coliforms, the Water Department, working closely with TDEC, performed follow up and additional sampling. All follow up and additional samples tested negative for the presence of total coliforms. "Therefore," Mr. Woodard wrote, "staff is confident that the positive test results were not an indication of contaminated drinking water, but rather associated with testing procedures." As is obvious, TDEC did not shut down the water department or otherwise act to protect the public from the so-called contaminated drinking water.
Subsequently, working closely with TDEC, the city has discovered that some of the procedures previously used by our staff in collecting samples may have a tendency to contaminate the samples. The city staff has retrained on collection methodology and continues to work to improve in this area.
It is unfortunate that the city lost points on the sanitary survey for the contaminated samples and for the untimely notification of the customers of the system of the contamination. Neither of those unfortunate facts, however, supports the claim that "we actually were drinking contaminated water."
In short, it is highly unlikely that any citizen actually ever received contaminated drinking water.

We're Here From the Government. We're Here to Help.

ATTENTION RESIDENTS OF IVY GLEN AND CALDWELL ESTATES SUBDIVISIONS:
The Board of Mayor and Aldermen of Franklin on 13 September 2005 took the first steps to annex your neighborhoods. This may or may not come as news to you. Apparently some of your neighbors have asked to be annexed. You will NOT be getting a letter from the City of Franklin advising you that there will be a public hearing on the proposed annexation on 11 October 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Alderman Phillips and I tried to have the City send you a letter informing you of this proposed annexation, but the six other aldermen overruled the suggestion. If you want to share your thoughts on this proposed annexation, contact the Members of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen and/or come to City Hall on 11 October 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Some Good News

Below please find some good news. The Solid Waste Deparment received a perfect score on a recent inspection by TDEC of the city's transfer station. Note that this is the fifth straight perfect score on inspections of the transfer station. Thanks and kudos to the men and women in our solid waste department.

Conflicts of Interest and Other Issues

Numerous of the candidates and observers seem very interested in real or perceived conflicts of interest between the "day job" of candidates and the position of Alderman. Others seem very interested in the duration of one's residency in this community or familial connections. I offer no opinion on the position of other candidates or the people currently in office. I will, however, address my own situation for those who may be interested.

I am a lawyer. I practice by myself, no partners or employees. I've been in private practice in Middle Tennessee since I graduated from Vanderbilt Law School in 1993. Since 1998, I have practiced in historic downtown Franklin.

The nature of my practice is litigation, meaning I handle lawsuits. At any time, I have dozens of clients. The nature of the cases I handle range from criminal defense cases to personal injury lawsuits to divorces to the truly bizarre. I have no "permanent" clients. The vast majority of my clients are individuals who have a discreet, singular problem that requires the assistance of a lawyer like me. Occasionally I represent a business, but that turns out to be infrequent. When the problem is resolved, by negotiated settlement, trial or appeal, my representation is concluded.

I do not handle real estate closings. I do not represent builders, real estate developers, or any other "growth-related" entities. My law practice does not benefit in any way from growth or development (in making this claim, I am assuming that as population grows, more lawyers enter the market in proportion to the growth, which has been my experience).

I have found my legal background to be helpful in discharging the duties of Alderman. It has been nice that I work for myself and can, for the most part, set my schedule to accomodate the demands of the office.

My wife works part time for a small, family-owned business in another county. She benefits not one bit from growth, either.

My wife and I moved to Franklin in 1995 because we loved what we found here. Neither of us is from Williamson County and, until my parents moved to Fieldstone Farms this summer, neither of us had any other family here.

When I'm not trying to earn a living or spending time at City Hall, I spend time with my family. I coach baseball and football for my sons, who are 9 and 6. If you really need to see me and cannot find me, go to Jim Warren Park and wait, I'll be there any minute.

I ran for office in 1997 at the age of 29. I had lived here all of two years when I was elected. It has been a privilege and an honor to serve the people of this community, and I have met many, many fine people while serving as Alderman. When I was elected, I promised myself I would leave office with a clean conscience, and I am proud to say I have kept that promise.

Alderman McLendon's Answers to WCAR Questionnaire

Continued....