In our ongoing effort to keep you informed about what your Knox County commissioners are saying and doing at the monthly Knox County Commission meeting, we are publishing a partial transcript of the meeting minutes from the Knox County Commission October session. You can listen to the session by clicking here.
Because these meetings are long and the meeting minutes will not be made available until 60 days after the meeting, KCCRTN is publishing our shortened version of the meeting minutes.
Due to the length of the meetings, we have opted to only transcribe the parts of the meeting which generate the most comments or items that seem most important to Knox County residents.
We are also not transcribing the public forums, but have timestamped them so you can listen to them if you would like. Please note – this is not an exhaustive transcript of the meeting.
Please see “General Information” listed below to see the procedure we used.
Timestamps for the October Meeting
These timestamps serve as an outline of the meeting so that you can quickly find the portion you wish to listen to online or read on our site.
If the timestamp is highlighted in blue, there is a transcript of that portion of the meeting, and you may click on the highlighted section. It will link to the transcription.
24:33 – Discussion on resolution honoring the life and legacy of Charlie James Kirk
42:54 – Voting on Charlie Kirk Resolution – Roll Call
2:46:57 – Appointing a commissioner to the Knox County Audit committee
2:49:11 – Appointing a person to the Knox County Ethics Committee
3:20:59 Commissioner Oster – First Roll Call Vote
October Meeting Transcript
Resolution Honoring the Life and Legacy of Charlie Kirk
24:33 – Resolution honoring the life and legacy of Charlie James Kirk for courage to stand for his faith, family and freedom, including the First Amendment
Commissioner Lee makes the motion. Commissioner Fox seconds.
25:23 – Commissioner Rawls:
I’m opposed to any resolution honoring Charlie Kirk in Knox County. My concerns are rooted in principal, community, and character rather than politics. Knox County has a tradition of recognizing individuals who have genuinely served our community, strengthened our unity and contributed to the well-being of our residents.
Charlie Kirk has not demonstrated any of those qualities within our town. He has no ties to Knoxville, no record of service in our community and no apparent investment in the people who live here.
Furthermore, Mr. Kirk has built his national platform on division, not unity. His public record is filled with rhetoric that alienates and attacks particularly people targeting mostly minorities, people like myself and people like all the brown people sitting in this audience.
His statements have caused significant harm and controversy nationwide, and to honor him would send an unfortunate message that Knox County endorses voices that divide rather than unite at this time when our community is actively striving to build bridges, support the less fortunate and lift the next generation of leaders. We must be judicious about how in whom we celebrate. Honoring someone who has no roots here and public record that is inflammatory, speech after speech does not align with or advance our shared values of respect, inclusion and integrity.
I urge you, Madam, to reject this resolution and in our previous conversation when we discussed this last week, you said that you were appalled that people felt this way about the resolution. And I’m appalled that you brought this resolution as a person of color, as a black man. So with that, I will vote no on this resolution.
28:38 – Terry Hill
Clearly the fact that that you, you umm, folks are standing there tells me that Mr. Kirk had an impression in your life. I take nothing away from Charlie Kirk. I take nothing away from what he did and what he meant to many, many people in this country.
I will say though, as the Knox County Commissioner, this is the first time in my 6 years of serving on this Commission that I have ever gotten emails and ever gotten phone calls against a Knox County resolution.
That’s very disturbing to me because by our own rules, our resolutions talk about how they are supposed to be specifically for the community, our community to recognize and to celebrate and to honor and to memorialize people that have had a genuine impact on the people of our Knox County community I, I am very concerned because the two resolutions that we just heard were in fact what our resolutions in our fine Knox County are supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about uniting, bringing the community together and celebrating or remembering someone who had a special effect on all the people of our community.
We are privileged to be Knox County Commissioners, and we have even made a way as commissioners to understand and recognize that we may not all be on the same page, we may not all feel the same way as commissioners.
And this is exactly why our rules, the rules that everyone of us worked on and voted on allows for this type of thing. Commissioner Lee I, I heard you say that you were appalled about anyone being against this resolution and being against our Constitution and our First Amendment rights.
If in fact, this is the purpose is to stand for our Constitution and for our rights that are laid out in the Constitution, and a resolution would have been brought forth celebrating that and supporting that, it would have been a resolution that absolutely I believe, without question, would have garnered the full support of this Commission and the full support I would hope, of everyone’s sitting in the audience
At the same time, you could have also personally by our rules brought a proclamation that speaks to you and how you feel. You could have asked other commissioners even if they wanted to sign on to your proclamation, but you would not have put this Commission in the position of a vote for something that it was very clear last week that several commissioners did not support and did not agree with.
That is not supposed to be what our resolutions are about. I’m, I’m just, I’m very disturbed that we’ve been put in this position for, for you to refuse to do this or for any commissioner to not agree to recognize this difference and respect it in their fellow commissioners is extremely, extremely troubling to, to not do this leads to division. And don’t we already have enough division in our community and in our nation that we do not need to take issues like this and promote more division? We are better than this. This is not what we as a Commission are supposed to be about.
It it reeks of garnering headlines and political grandstanding. We are better than this. We are better than this. And as I stated, we have each of us personally as Commissioners been given an avenue to speak our own individual thoughts and feelings and to recognize someone without compromising the rest of the Commission, which in turn compromises our community in being forced into a vote like this.
So I ask you again Commissioner Lee, would you please consider your own personal proclamation about Charlie Kirk, who I have nothing negative to say about.
Did I agree with him all the time? No, I didn’t. Do I agree with everyone all the time? No, I don’t. Do I appreciate what he his attempts were and many, many of his beliefs? Absolutely I do. Do I abhor, do we all abhor the way that his life was taken from us so abruptly and so violently?
Of course, it would not matter who the person was. This is not something that any of us would choose or want for another fellow Americans. So I I just urge you, please, Commissioner Lee to just rethink and perhaps amend this to a proclamation.
36:09 Commissioner Fox
Division is sometimes unavoidable, but what was remarkable about Charlie Kirk was that he promoted the idea that division should be handled through debate and peaceful engagement, not in political violence, which has plagued this country recently. I mean, we had riots – Black Lives Matter $2 billion worth of damage because people were upset.
And we’ve had other riots more recently. We’ve had cities being taken over downtowns, like in Portland. That’s political violence. On the other hand, we have Charlie Kirk. Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Thank you for showing your heart because you don’t believe in actual debate. You believe in crowding out and shouting down people who disagree with your opinion. Charlie Kirk promoted the exact opposite. Charlie Kirk promoted peaceful and organized debate to work through political disputes.
00:37:21- Commissioner Oster
Audience, we’re here to listen to everybody and I’m not going to have everybody yelling and screaming over each other. It’s rude and it’s disrespectful no matter what side you’re on. So let everybody have their opinion and their say. That’s what we’re here to do.
37:42 Commissioner Fox
That is what is being honored today because Charlie Kirk had a message of we need to engage in peaceful debate and not this alternative that was rising in our culture of angry violence in favor of a political message, any political message.
So, and of course his other primary message was his Christianity.
But he wanted people to learn how to debate things peacefully, and he was actually assassinated for that very reason, because someone wanted his message shut down.
So we need as a body to acknowledge and honor Charlie Kirk’s message of peaceful debate in the face of shouting that message down.
I’ll say the 9th district encompasses almost entirely the UT campus, and so I am effectively the commissioner for people who reside and people who attend the UT, almost exclusively people. There are people in Fort Sanders, of course, but the UT campus is in the 9th district and much student housing is in the 9th district.
And I stated this last week that Charlie Kirk did have a remarkable impact on the University of Tennessee, and I think to fail to recognize that is to diminish the students who attend UT and were impacted greatly by him. Uh, so I think in, in we are, or he did have an impact on Knox County citizens and people who reside in this, in this community and, and I’m proud to be associated with this particular honorary resolution. I urge everyone else to vote yes.
40:02 Commissioner Durrett
Charlie Kirk was a national political figure whose ideology and rhetoric whether you’re on his, were deeply divisive. I’m just going to say that his views do not represent the full range of people who live in Knox County, and we as commissioners are elected to represent all of them.
Every resident deserves to trust that this Commission’s actions reflect the Community as a whole, not a single political point of view.
When we use an honorary resolution to highlight a partisan figure, we misuse a tool designed to bring people together, as Commissioner Hill mentioned earlier about unity. It sends the message that this body endorses an ideology, a particular ideology over another, and that is not our role.
And once we go down that path, it doesn’t stop. If we honor one political activist, we’ll be expected to consider others from every side. And that’s a slippery slope that turns our ceremonial process into a political stage, eroding public trust and the integrity of this Commission.
If a Commissioner would like to recognize Mr. Kirk or any other national figure, that can be done through a proclamation, as was mentioned last week and tonight, that reflects that Commissioner’s personal view and not the view of the entire body.
We represent everyone in Knox County so let’s keep honorary resolutions for local, unifying achievements that truly reflect this community.
41:53 Commissioner Jackson
You know, I think anything that I say would be redundant. But I just want to make sure that everybody understands that everybody on this Commission condemns any sort of political violence, period, doesn’t matter what you say.
And I believe that we have some University of Tennessee students here. We have the Howard Baker Center. I just want to read to you a quote by Howard Baker. He says be civil and encourage others to be likewise. America expects better, better of its leaders than this, and it deserves better.
This resolution is here to divide, not bring us together. Knox County deserves better leaders than this.
Voting on Charlie Kirk Resolution and Reading of Resolution
42:54 Voting on Motion – Roll Call
Rawles – No
Durrett – No
Oster – Aye
Jackson No
Russell – Yes
Hill – Pass
Lee – Aye
Thompson – Yes
Fox – Yes
Jay – Inaudible
Frazier – Aye
44:03 – Motion passes 7-3-1
Commissioner Lee reads the Resolution
I won’t go into debate the the motion did pass and it’s unfortunate that we have to be divided because that is not what Charlie Kirk stood for. I do have the Turning Point here.
And other people that are here in support of Charlie and Charlie did. Charlie did unite this country and the world.
So, I’m gonna read the motion now.
Nick is the head of Turning Point here in Knox County vice president. OK All right.
WHEREAS Charles, Charlie, James Kirk was born October 14th, 1993, was a courageous American patriot whose life was tragically and unjustly cut short in the act of political violence on September 10th, 2025 at Utah Valley University.
WHEREAS Charlie Kirk was a devoted Christian who boldly lived out his faith with conviction, courage and compassion.
And WHEREAS Charlie Kirk was a dedicated husband to his beloved wife, Erica Kirk, a loving father to their daughter and son, exemplifying the virtues of faith, fidelity, and fatherhood.
WHEREAS, Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility.
WHEREAS Charlie Kirk, at 18 years old founded Turning Point USA in 2012, a student movement with a mission to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.
WHEREAS, Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful civil discorse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic.
WHEREAS Charlie Kirk personified the values of the 1st Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenging prevailing narratives and did so with honor, courage and respect for his fellow Americans.
WHEREAS Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young, young Americans across the political spectrum. And he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction.
WHEREAS Charlie Kirk spoke at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Knox County on March 13th, 2025 as part of his American Comeback tour, which drew thousands of students to hear question and answer debate and was considered by Kirk to be one of his most memorable campus stops
WHEREAS Charlie Kirk spoke at the Knox County Republican Party Lincoln day dinner on August 20th, 2021.
WHEREAS the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not only a heinous act of violence, but a sobering reminder of the growing political threat used by political extremists and hatred in our society,
WHEREAS such acts as Politically motivated violence are antithetical to the principles of a free Republic in which differences of opinion are to be debated, not silenced, with civility, reason, and mutual respect.
WHEREAS in the rise of targeted violence against individuals for their political beliefs undermines the very fabric of our constitutional democracy and chills the free exchange of ideas essential to a healthy Civic Society,
WHEREAS leaders in every level of government, education, media and beyond must stand united and unequivocal condemnation of political violence, regardless of their ideology.
WHEREAS the tragic loss of Charlie Kurt must not be allowed to deepen the divides in our nation, but instead serve as a turning point to recommit ourselves to better to be better angels and to the timeless American principles of liberty governed by truth and the virtues of peaceful dialogue.
And WHEREAS Charlie Kirk would not have had us respond to his death with despair, but rather with renewed purpose, to speak truth with courage, to stand firm in faith, to seek unity while standing firm in principle, and serve as living reminders of the values he championed faith, family, and freedom.
WHEREAS Charlie Kirk was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a civilian can receive.
WHEREAS Congress has voted to approve this resolution that was submitted by Speaker Mike Johnson.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Commission of Knox County as follows. The Knox County Commission condemns the strongest possible terms of assassination of Charles, Charlie, James Kirk, and all forms of political violence.
Commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect.
Extends the deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife Erica, their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace and healing in this time of unspeakable loss.
Honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty and calls upon all Americans, regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed, to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values and respect one another as fellow Americans.
Be it further resolved, that this resolution has take effect from an after its passage by the charter of Knox County in the public welfare requiring it.
And I would like to introduce Nick Suttle, and he would like to speak to you from the Knox County Turning Point.
00:50:30 Nick Suttle
Good evening, everyone. My name is Nick Suttle, Vice President of the Turning Point Chapter of the University of Tennessee, and it is honor to be here today along with our President, Emma Orange and the rest, and some of our other members.
I want to thank Commissioner Lee for initiating the resolution and dedication to Charlie Kirk and inviting us today. By now, everyone should have heard about just how great Charlie Kirk was, a man known for fighting for his conservative values and most importantly, his faith, but he also made an impact in this community.
Back in March, Charlie brought a tour of the campus and drawn about four to 5000 people that has the largest student event on campus besides sporting events and concerts. However, his social media presence allowed him to spread his message to so many others in the United States and here in Knoxville.
His main message was the epitome of free speech. Regardless of your conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, the ability to stand up and speak for what you believe in should be shared across everyone. That’s what Charlie was for and unfortunately what his life was ended about. So let us stand together in memory of Charlie and fight for our shared principles that make us the United States of America. And it is sad to see that so many people are trying to attack our shared principles, the ones that are founding fathers, agree upon.
And that was free speech, limited government and so many other principles and rights. And it’s sad to see so many people try to be against that. And that’s what we need to come together on. And that’s what Charlie Kirk stood for. And if we don’t do that, our country will go down, go downhill relatively fast, and we must stand together. Thank you.
00:52:18 – At this point Rhonda Lee invited members of the commission to come forward to get a picture if they wanted.
Other Resolutions, Presentations and Votes
Commissioner Oster
This is probably one of the times that we see most people here, when there’s conflict and divide and that kind of stuff, normally we’ve got maybe 10 people out in the audience and most of them are staff.
Yes, this was divisive, but we all feel different ways about things. But I hope the UT students will stay around because we’ve got other things to talk about in our county business to do. This is what we do in America. We’re able to have our voice. We’ve got 12 people signed up to be able to have their voice and speak to us. And we will be respectful and listen to that whether we agree or whether we don’t. But that’s the whole point of living in this country.
So I think each one of you have given these UT students a great example of wanting to come out and be involved civically. And like I say, we can all disagree on some things, but we’re going to find more to agree on probably than not. So I just wanted to say that and hope we can move the meeting along and have good rigorous debate, but be able to walk out of here and be kind to one another. I think that’s important.
54:38 – Resolution honoring the University of Tennessee Extension Master Gardener program for 40 years of service
58:48 Presentation School Security by Knox County Schools Assistant Superintendent of Operations, Garfield Adams, and Chief Carlo Granillo
“… this is basically just a presentation to show the investment that you have made in our communities and our schools and our administrators and faculty and staff and and mostly our students.”
60,000 students, 91 schools, apprx 10.8 million square feel of real estate – one officer in each school
Introduction of Chief Carlo Granillo
3rd largest school district in state and the largest public safety-school safety department in the entire state
1:11:50 Questions and comments by commissioners
1:25:25 – Presentation by Knox County Master Gardeners
1:36 – Comments by Commissioners Fox, Thompson,
1:41:01 – Public Comment
2:45:09 – Approval of Minutes of previous meeting & line item transfers- Notary Public apps
Commissioner for Audit Committee
2:46:57 – Appointing a commissioner to the Knox County Audit Committee
Two commissioners were nominated – Commissioner Fox and Commissioner Thompson
2:47:27 – Roll Call Vote:
Rawls – Fox
Durrett – Thompson
Oster – Thompson
Jackson – Thompson
Russell – Fox
Hill – Thompson
Lee – Fox
Thompson – Thompson
Fox – Fox
Jay – Thompson
Frazier – Fox
2:48:24 – Appointing Commissioner Thompson to Knox County Audit Committee
Knox County Ethics
2:49:11 – Appointing a person to the Knox County ethics committee – There were supposed to be three people who had not spoken before, only one was there, Mr. Joseph Parson.
2:51:38 – Each commissioner is to give his/her top two candidates
Rawls – Biddle & Cook
Durrett – Biddle & Cook (later changed vote from Cook to Corcoran)
Oster – Biddle & Corcoran
Jackson – Biddle & Driver
Russell – Biddle & Ruffalo
Hill – Biddle & Corcoran
Lee – Biddle & Ruffalo
Thompson – Anders & Corcoran
Fox – Anders & Corcoran
Jay – Biddle & Anders
Frazier – Biddle & Corcoran
2:55:05 – Vote is Mr. Biddle and Mr. Corcoran
Amending the Knox County Code Regarding Receipt & Disbursement of County Funds
2:56:39 – Item Number 43 Ordinance 025-10-101 is amending the Knox County Code Chapter 2 Article 8, Division Four regarding receipt and disbursement of county funds and budget procedures for defined services contracts establishing Section 2-558 previously reserved on first reading
Terry Hill suggested a substitute motion to defer this item for 90 days. Seconded by Commissioner Durrett
Discussion
Commissioner Russell:
I wanted to make sure that. Not only last week but this week that I expressed that I have worked on the accounting and transparency portion of this ordinance since before the beginning of the year. I have met with both people in the finance department. I have met with Director Holden, had conversation, multiple conversations with her in regards to the accountability and transparency portion of this.
My purpose here is simply to have accounting and transparency. I believe that we need audits of the non for profits. That money that the taxpayers pay is very valuable and we need to make sure that it is being accounted for properly through audits. My father was a Baptist minister. I think most, I’ve told most the people up here, he was the Baptist minister of a very small church. That church did a lot of great and wonderful things for the community. But the truth of the matter is that a lots of times people that volunteer to help at churches and at non for profits do so because they know that the people who have established those nonprofits or those churches have an open and caring spirit. And sometimes they’re just not the best stewards of money.
Because they do have an open and and caring spirit. And so they’re looking for the good and everyone and everybody who volunteers at a non for profit isn’t necessarily there for the good of others. We have seen that with the fact that there are people who sexually abuse children who are involved in in various churches. So you can’t just put absolute trust in someone just because they say they’re doing good. So I just want accounting and transparency. I have championed for the audits for there to be an accounting of where the money goes. And I put forth that ordinance. And I’m going to allow Commissioner Fox to address the immigration portion that he added to my ordinance, because I think he can better address that than I can since that was his inclusion.
Commissioner Fox
I’m disappointed that Miss Finch has already departed. I was hoping that she would remain for my comments. I appreciate entirely her position. In fact, I think all nonprofits should not accept tax dollars. I think they should be entirely self-funded through private means. That is how charity worked before the government began getting involved. Initially, I suppose you could say with FDR, but then with in the 60s with the Great Society and all that. And that’s of course why you have hospitals named Baptist Hospital and Methodist Hospital, because you had private organizations providing charity apart from the government. That’s how it should be.
And I think if anything, what has happened is that the government has crowded out, that’s the term, crowded out charitable contributions because of the enormous tax burden, mostly from the federal level created. And it also builds constituencies coming to the government trough to be to be fed.
And I’m astonished, basically the premise of almost everybody who spoke this evening in opposition of my additions was that everyone in the world has a right to live in the United States and every nonprofit has a right to public money. That’s it. Those are the 2 premises and then if you accept those premises, then all these comments make sense.
But I don’t accept these premises. In fact, there are numerous immigration laws passed by the federal government that make it unlawful to live in this country, in violation of the immigration laws. And they also, Mr. Nance make it unlawful to harbor. See here Mr. Nance and. Mr. Haskell, I think is what it was, makes it unlawful, and Mr. Watson makes it unlawful to harbor people involved who are living here in violation of the immigration laws, and your beef is with the federal government. But instead what you want to do is be a scofflaw. You want to shake your fist at the law. And not change the law.
And I’m going to get to the theology in the minute, Sir, because you do not rightly divide the the Bible. And I’m going to address that. (Dissent from the audience) Yeah, everybody’s had again, getting shouted down, shouted out. No, no civil discourse.
Do that and let’s see here. That’s that, by the way, that is a term of our from the Bible. That’s Second Timothy 2:15. And I want to address this is probably be the only time that I actually acknowledge Mr. Huckabee. I don’t know if he’s watching online or if he is here present, but he sent me the e-mail calling into question that my sincerity in entertaining all the statements made and saying I was looking at my laptop the whole time I was looking at my laptop to make sure I have my verses and so forth. Force in place and other items I may bring up, but just for his benefit, let’s see here I wrote down everybody’s name.
We had Rashad Woods, we had Drusilla. I’m I’m not going to attempt to. Miss Drusilla’s last name? Carl DeLeon, Michael O’Malley. Was it Matthew Nance, Jonathan Haskell, Samantha Young, Laura Zeisson, Mr. Ruggle? I’m sorry. No, OK, Sorry, Madam Chair, I should have done that. Let’s see here. Daniel Watson, Mr. Tolman spoke on a different issue. So and I took detailed notes, and I was paying attention to every single word spoken because I do take seriously your feedback.
And I appreciate, by the way, that many of you have limited your discussion to the kind of dialogue that Charlie Kirk advocated for. That’s how it’s supposed to work. You speak your mind and then I get a chance to talk to you so. So.
And I wanted to mention to Cynthia Finch also, she said. Has anybody, has anyone volunteered? I’ve given over $200,000 of my time pro bono. So, I know all about volunteering my time, uh, and, and causes that I believe in. So that’s just for Mrs. Finch, Mrs. Finch’s benefit. It’s actually, it’s more than that. It’s over $200,000.
So. The people that like to bring up the Bible. And say, what would Jesus do effectively? First of all, the Bible, as I like to put it, is a book, a personal piety, not public policy. Now you can derive values from the Bible that you apply in public situations, but primarily the Bible is a book that is the Gospel message to the world and its primary focus is Mr. Watson to draw attention to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the need for repentance.
Now Jesus said in Matthew 26:28, this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins for the many. And, uh, then of course in Romans 10:9, it says, if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is the Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Now if you’re talking so that’s the primary message.
The primary message is that every person, like it says in Romans 3:23, all sin to fall short of the glory of God. And if you want to have a relationship with God in this world and the next, you can’t bridge that gap with good works or any other means. It’s only by the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ who died, who was the perfect lamb. He was God the Son, the Son of God, and he died for everyone’s sins.
And if you recognize that you are a sinner and you accept that salvation, that atonement that Jesus Christ undertook for the whole world, then you will be saved and then you can have a relationship with God. But the Bible talks quite a bit about goats and sheep, and goats are the ones who reject that. And there are many people in this world who reject and they have the knowledge and they reject the knowledge of salvation. So if you’re going to talk about what the Bible is talking about, I’m going to respond. And I see lots of people having a problem with that.
Commissioner Durrett
Point of Order. Madam Chair. The ordinance doesn’t pertain to. I know we had a lot of people speak to biblical, biblical references, but the ordinance doesn’t pertain to biblical references. So can we get back on topic?
Commissioner Fox
But I will say that Jesus mission was personal and private sector and it had nothing to do uh with him asking the government to give money to nonprofits or to any other organization. It was Jesus personally providing his services.
So, there is a a misconception to be as kind as possible about what the Bible calls for governments to do. And uh. Tax dollars have a higher bar than any other funds. And if people don’t want to be responsible for saying, look, there’s nothing in my mission that gives money to people who are living here in violation of the immigration laws, then they can go get self-funded. They’re not entitled to tax dollars. But if you want to have tax dollars, then you need to meet certain criteria. And I think this criteria is fair, and we should not be doing anything to help people who are living here in violation of the immigration laws.
Commissioner Hill brought up a point of order that they were working of the substitute motion for 90 days. Commissioner Fox asked to amend that to be for 30 days.
3:09:11 What they are discussing right now is to defer the amendment for 30 days…procedures
Commissioner Thompson
So aside from immigration status or whatever, we’re just talking about taxpayer dollars and making sure that they land where they’re supposed to. Our current system is fairly outdated and we need to amend it. I’ve spoken with staff and you know they’re they’re on board with relooking at this.
You know anytime you come out with something it’s not perfect the first time and you put a few miles on the car sometimes you need to tweak a few things and tighten up some bolts right and. From my experience in dealing with federal grants, state grants. You know, Tennessee ag enhancement program, anytime there’s, there’s federal funding, state funds. You have to qualify for it. You have to prove that you are eligible. You have to prove that you use the funds the way they were intended for.
We typically have random audits just because the state’s big, there’s lots of lots of applicants. So sometimes audits, check-ins are pretty random, but you know they’re coming or could come and. You know there. In, in agriculture sector, if you’re going to get federal grants, you have to have property that’s registered with FS Farm Service Agency. You have to prove that you are producing this crop or you’re in this endeavor, you have this enterprise, you have to, you have to prove certain things before you get the funding.
And like with the RCS, when you do a project, it’s a reimbursement. So you, you do the project they have, they come out and they inspect to make sure it was done properly. They pay for certain things, they don’t pay for other things. And so if there’s if there’s money. Involved. Everybody likes money, right? Every organization likes money, and you can never really have enough if you’re trying to do things. And so some folks will figure out how to you know, find the loophole, find the workaround to get extra money, right. And so that’s, that’s where the screws just need to be tightened up a little bit where there’s a there may be a few loose ends that need to be tied up.
We need to relook at this, however, as was stated last week the next review is not until 2028. So we’re going to, we’re going to the current amendment to, to the motion says 30 days. We’re going to pass something now and see what the results happen 2 years from now. Right. So we’re not in a rush.
We’ve got a UDO that has to be done before the results of this motion are going to happen. We have more important things to deal with right now. Then to rush this through and make it happen. To Commissioner Russell. Thank you. OK, because you, you have done this correctly, you’ve gone to the department. You worked with them, you asked the right questions. You said, let’s figure it out. I think there’s some holes and I think you’ve gone through this process correctly and I, I, I think you need to be recognized for that. Because you asked the right questions.
I don’t think that this, I don’t feel like you’re trying to rush something through. I think I think we the spirit of this is we want to get it right. And it’s not just about legal status in the US. Blount County residents are not entitled to Knox County taxpayer funds. Neither is Union County. Granger County. One lives. You might be a U.S. citizen, but if you live in another county, you’re not obligated to Knox County taxpayers funds. And so that that’s. The recipients of of our taxpayer funds are. You know, they’re required to to show that they’re justified in receiving them.
And so I was, I was actually going to ask Commissioner Hill if she would be open to amending hers to 180 days to give us more time, have a few workshops. I mean, like I said, we’ve got a UDO to finish long before this is ever going to any, any fruit of this is going to be seen.
So that’s my two cents, my thoughts. I think it’s worth getting right so we don’t have to continue doing this again and tweaking it again if we get it right, you know, this time. We can sit on it a while and let it run because I have from a fiscal responsibility perspective our staff, our mayor, the office, they’re not big spenders. We don’t have wasteful spending in the in the in our offices and and I think if if anybody tries to go through and apply for grants through. To the county, It’s not a simple process. We’re not freely just handing money out, but there are a few little loopholes and loose ends that need to be tightened in. So that’s my thoughts.
Commissioner Rawls
The discussion is around the 30 days, but could a new motion be made?
Director Moyers
No, no, we have to do this, this one first. If this fails, it goes back to the main motion which is for a 90 day delay. At that point you could move to amend it that number to whatever I got you.
Commissioner Rawls
OK, so my discussion around the 30 day is that 30 days is not enough to get this correct. We know based on the agenda review last week that there are a lot of pieces to both ordinances that are problematic that are that need rewording, that need to be reworked and we actually all agreed last week that we would take it to the table for 90 days. So I don’t know why we’re shortening it.
This thing has only existed for us for a week. Not even a week and then it’s been redlined. It’s been. It’s been changed multiple times within that week. And we still haven’t landed on a version, and this version that we have right now that we’re looking at is not good. There are pieces of it that are just problematic. Excluding the piece that has been talked about Agnosium, tonight let’s talk about the donor piece. The donor piece as a non profit. No one shares their donors list. They barely share the donors list with staff. Why would they share the donors list with outsiders? Right there, there’s these requirements that we’re putting on nonprofits that just are problematic.
So what I’m saying is. In this discussion is we work with staff in a workshop and I think Commissioner Thompson is spot on with 180 days that we’ve got things to get through before we get here. This is not paramount so that is my discussion piece around the 30 days.
3:17:50 Commissioner Jackson
I think everybody agrees we need you know, a delay on this. We want to workshop this. 30 days isn’t long enough, but I don’t want to be here any longer than we need to be. So I’m going to make a motion that we end debate.
Commissioner Lee
I just wanted to ask if any of the commissioners served on a nonprofit board, and I think there’s a potential conflict in voting on this if they do serve on a nonprofit.
Director Moyers
I honestly don’t believe so. Not under our rules because they’re designed to keep people from basically from profiting from government contracts. I don’t see how that would be a conflict. I’d like to have to have the opportunity to study on that, but my initial feeling would be no.
Commissioner Lee
No, I, I just wondered if, if we can’t have a commissioner be on the audit committee, if her husband works for the county, how can somebody vote on something if they serve on a nonprofit that would affect nonprofit spending.
Commissioner Jay
Madam Chair, point of order, we’re just debating a timeline we’re not. Reclaiming whether to delay this 30,60 ninety 180 days so that we can spend more time.
Commissioner Oster
I understand, but she has a legal question and I. Feel better for Director Moyers to address it so there’s not issues later.
Director Moyers
I would like the opportunity to study that a little bit. But the simple fact that a commissioner votes on something that could affect them does not make it a a legal conflict. For example, if you decided to, if there was a we, we have a number of traffic ordinances that we’ve adopted if we. Decided to change the speed limit. Would that would ever be conflicted because they drive, you know, I mean, it’s, it’s not I I think it requires a situation where somebody might profit from that relationship. But like I said, I don’t want to answer that question definitively because I haven’t a chance to really study it.
First Roll Call Vote and Subsequent Discussion
So we are voting right now on the amended to 30 days. We’re going to do a roll call vote.
Rawls – No
Durrett – No
Oster – No
Jackson – No
Russell – Yes
Hill – No
Lee – Yes
Thompson – (inaudible)
Fox – Aye
Jay – No
Frazier – No
Commissioner Oster
Right, the motion fails 8/3. So we’re back to our substitute motion made by Commissioner Hill.
Commissioner Hill
Thank you and I am glad to accept the recommendation of my fellow Commissioner Thompson to change that to 180 days.
Commissioner Fox
That to me seems too long. I mean, I feel like this is just going to fade away. I mean, what’s gonna? How are we gonna, uh, ensure that when six months has passed that we’re actually going to consider this thing again instead of kicking it down the road further. And and I I thought the UDO wasn’t coming up until about 6 months from now. So, you know, to me and I, I think this does have a lot of value, frankly. But to me it seems like it should come before the UDO unless there’s a lot of deliberation that I’m not aware of is supposed to take place for the next 6 months on the UDO.
Commissioner Durrett
Six months from now will put us in April, which is right in the middle of budget, which I think is the perfect time to discuss this since it deals with our budget.
3:23:19 Commissioner Russell
Yes, I’m actually glad that the topic of budget was brought up. I find it interesting that when myself and Commissioner Fox asked for a mere 30-day delay when we had only had the budget for a period of two weeks and it was $1.1 billion, we were told we have plenty of time to look at it. This is not near that magnitude of money, but we need to take 180 days to discuss it and look at it? Umm, I find that very. Interesting that that’s people stand on it, umm, when a, a fellow commissioner asked for a mere 30 days to look at something of vital importance, $1.1 billion and we can’t find 30 days, but we can find 180 to look over whether we should have audits or not. That’s very interesting.
Commissioner Jay
To the sponsors of this and the next resolution, I imagine we’re going to be right back here in on the next item. Just hear your commissioners. Just hear us, every single one of the commissioners here tonight has said we are happy to go do some workshops with you, walk through it in a thorough process. That takes time.
Just listen to us. We’ve all said we’ll go to a workshop, we’ll go through line by line, we’ll have debates. If you get it done in two months or three months or four months and you come back and you have a consensus amongst 11 people or at least six of the 11 people that have something that is, is well thought out, then we’ll bring it back for a vote. But the process isn’t, you know just take it or leave it. I mean, if you want to vote on it, go push a vote.
Guess where it’s going to go? So eleven of us have said let’s go have a workshop, but you work with the chair. Schedule some time. We sit down, we walk through it time by time, and we debate it. That’s all we’re saying, and I think it’s very appropriate.
Commissioner Thompson
Thank you, Madam Chair. No, the 180 days it’s. There’s there’s. I don’t remember which, which book it’s from, but there there was a, there was a, a quadrant. So you had the urgent and important, you had the urgent, but not important. You had the not urgent but important, and you had the not urgent and not important, Right. And how do you prioritize what you need to get done? This is very important. But in the scope of when? The next cycle happens it’s not urgent, but it is very important. And since it is very important. We have the time to get it right. And so whether we did it in 30 days or 180 days or a year from now. It gets done.
But giving it the little extra time and giving staff the time to work with us and us being able to workshop and it may be a couple different workshops. And session so we understand because there’s only a couple of us that are attorneys up here and that was a lot for me to try to read and understand and I had to read it a few times. But getting it right, I don’t. I don’t want the length of time and the delay to, uh, give the impression that it’s not important.
OK, I just reading through it and getting the emails and the social media posts and the deep dives and talking with staff, I’m like, OK, there’s, there’s a lot to unpackage here. I just want to make sure we get it right. That’s the only thing that was the reason for for the length of time, not the not that it’s not important. But just that it’s not urgent and we have the time to get it right.
3:27:27 Commissioner Russell
Commissioner Thompson, I greatly respect what you just said, and I do appreciate it. And it is very well stated, and I appreciate that you understand the importance of this. I would say that if we are pushing this off to April, how? Because we do only do the nonprofit interview or where we, we actually have them come in and talk, you know, and they’re graded and all of that every three years. However, the budget is up every year and in order to be just fair and transparent to any not-for-profit is what we are expecting from in the future. In fairness to them I feel like that it should be done well before April just showed that everyone, the non for profits, the taxpayers, uh, the administration, everybody knows kind of what is expected.
You never know, there might be a nonprofit that decides that they want to forego the money. And so then we’re in a situation where what do you do with that money? Do we how does the interview process go? What is expected? I just think it’s fair to everybody not to wait push it back to April that. Maybe the 90 days would be a more reasonable, it’s in January, you know, if we could get this done in January there there also has to be two readings of this, which creates an additional two months, so then you’re pushing it into June. It gives it a better opportunity for everybody, in fairness, to understand what the process is and for everybody to be on the same page. And like I said, I I deeply respect what you just said and I do appreciate it.
Commissioner Thompson
Well, thank you for that. And I’d say I dare say it’s safe to say that through this process, if we had workshops and learning sessions and education sessions to work, work with staff. I don’t. I don’t work in that office, but I dare say they probably have some procedures for when someone doesn’t take money. And I dare say it’s very rare when some organization says we don’t want the money.
But. I’m, I’m almost certain that they, they are diligent in looking at because when they, when they get their quarterly reports, making sure that the money is going where it’s supposed to under our current ordinance, but. I think if we if, if we, if they have some guidance and suggestion of where, where we’re going with this, if it’s enforceable, I’m fairly certain that they they would do so. But yeah, I just, I just wanted to get it right. Thank you.
Commissioner Oster
I want to reiterate what Commissioner Thompson said and what Commissioner Jay said. We’re all saying that we know that there’s some things that need to be worked on, We just need time to do it and you need to get staff time to do it because that’s not their only job. I mean, they have other things that they have to do that we require them to do. So I don’t think that it. You know, is any of us, we want to have transparency, we want to do it right and we want to make sure taxpayer money is being spent. But when you’ve got, I mean, you’ve got to take into account, you’ve got holidays coming up. And Director Moyers, if this were to this goes 180 days and it passes in April or May, then this is not going to go into effect until after 2028, correct?
Director Moyers
Well, it would go into effect.
Commissioner Oster
But I mean, it wouldn’t be. We shouldn’t. Couldn’t break contracts.
Director Moyers
Where it is contracts that currently exist would not be subject to being undone or affected by this. It would only be prospective in nature. So if we had any contracts that came up prior to the 2028 cycle, it would apply to them. But as I understand it, most of the contracts we have go through 2028, so it probably would not become effective in in a real way until then.
3:32:14 – Commissioner Oster
- And that I think that’s why everybody’s thinking this is not a tomorrow issue. I just want to be upfront about that and people do need to understand in the public because this Commissioner Thompson has stated there’s a lot of chatter out there and I’m not sure that if people understand that we have a full-time staff that has processes and procedures that they have in place now. And I think that Jenny Holden is more than willing to sit down and work with us. She’s been very upfront with me about it when I’ve called her. So I will be supporting the 180 days for all those reasons.
Commissioner Jackson
Point of order. We’re going back and forth between 30 days and 90 days and 100 and days. Well, we’re on 180 days or 180 days now, Mr. Moyers. Isn’t it under the Roberts Rules of Order? Can we not just make a motion to send it to a special committee made-up of the entire board and, you know, and allow the committee to bring it back to the Commission?
Director Moyers
It’s not just under Robert’s Rules, it’s under your rules. So yeah, the Commission can send this to a committee for study if you wish.
Commissioner Jackson
And there not be any time limit.
Director Moyers
That’s correct
Commissioner Russell
This ordinance was brought forth by myself and Commissioner Fox added on to it. Can I, if it goes to a committee for study, is it still our ordinance or do I need to just keep bringing one forward?
Director Moyers
If the Commission assigns it to a committee, it’s still your ordinance. It just would be the Commission would have would be tasked with.
Commissioner Russell
They would just make suggestions. And I can take them or leave them. OK. I just want to make sure because like I said, I just want to make sure that,the accounting portion of it being that I am a CPA and I have witnessed so many unfortunate situations where money was meant for good and people walked away with it for their own purposes. I want to make sure that if we are allocating money for the public good that it is going for what we allocated for. So as long as I have some input on the accounting portion of it, then I’m. However, that works.
Commissioner Frazier
I just wanted to make a quick statement that I will be supporting that 180 days simply for the fact that we only received amended language to the ordinances for the sections in both ordinances at 10:06 PM last night. So that’s less than 24 hours ago.
And so I definitely, it’s more time I’ve spent hours with community development. I’ve talked with nonprofit organizations, and I think we all are working towards the same thing. We want, an updated policy. We want it to align with our current processes. We want it to, adhere to state and federal laws. We want accountability.
Talking with one nonprofit even said yes, elevate the accountability. We would be agreeable to that. So I I hear everyone as Commissioner Jay said, I’m listening. I might have been pretty quiet tonight. I don’t feel well, but I’m listening and I think we all want the same thing. I think we can accomplish that with a 180 days in and doing workshops.
I would encourage the two sponsors to organize those. And invite, as one speaker said, invite some of our nonprofit community partners to the table. I think that would be very beneficial. As well as our staff members. Because it we need everyone that this is going to impact at the table. I feel like that’s what I would like to see. And and so I, I will support the 180.
Motion to Defer For 180 Days
3:36:35 Commissioner Oster
All right, we have a motion on the floor for to defer to 180 days made by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Durant and we will start in District 2.
Durrett – Aye
Oster – Aye
Jackson – Aye
Russell – Pass
Hill – Yes
Lee – Pass
Thompson – Yes
Fox – Pass
Jay – Yes
Frazier – Aye
Rawls – Aye
Commissioner Oster
The motion passes 8 to 3
Disbursement of County Funds Levied Through the Hotel Occupancy Tax
3:37:45 Item number 44. O-25-10-102 amending the Knox County Code, Chapter 58, Article 3, Section 58-92 regarding disbursement of county funds levied through the hotel occupancy tax. This amends Ordinance O91-11-101, adopted January 27th, 1992, and Ordinance 0026102, adopted July 22nd, 2002. On first reading
Commissioner Jay
Motion to postpone for 180 days.
Commissioner Hill
I am asking is there any wisdom with this 2nd motion to to, uh, have a friendly amendment that would, umm, allow it to be turned over to a committee of all commissioners headed by Fox and Lee so that they can take responsibility for. For bringing to us and presenting to us exactly what they want Fox and Russell. I mean, I’m sorry, Fox and Russell.
Commissioner Jay
I’ll amend my motion to send item number 44 to a special committee. Headed by the sponsors of the resolution.
Commissioner Fox
Uh, if it’s the will of the body to do that, shouldn’t we make it consistent with both resolution or both ordinances? And if so then don’t we need to revisit before the close of business the previous ordinance?
Commissioner Hill
I would concur, I would absolutely concur that that you need to be put together, umm, this. I just did my process.
Commissioner Jay
May I make a suggestion, then I’m going to go back to my original motion postponed for 180 days. The chair of Commission has the ability to create a special Commission at any time. At under the powers of the chair. So I’m going to go back to my original motion, postpone this for 180 days, encourage the chair to create a special committee to look at item number 43 and 44, which she can do without additional work or additional votes or additional discussion.
Commissioner Oster
Thank you. Second concur. OK.
Commissioner Frazier
I just had a quick question for the Law Department. What is the benefit of calling a special committee? I’m just curious.
Director Moyers
I’m not sure it’s really a legal question. Normally you would send something to a committee to have a smaller group of commissioners look at an issue and come back with recommendations.
So whether you do workshops on these ordinances or whether you have a committee that studies them, you’re still going to be basically having these issues hashed out and recommendations brought back to the body. So it’s just different ways of accomplishing the same task, really.
Commissioner Russell
Yes, in order to make sure that umm, everyone, that we understand umm. Which line items are of greatest importance to each of the Commissioners. Like if they have concerns, I think there were ten of them at the end, some with B&C or A&B.
So in order for everyone to do that, I think what I I plan to do because I do want to hear the input and see where the sticking points are. Is I do plan on immediately getting together with the administration and start setting up some dates for some workshops. And allow input by those 10 items. So if no one has any concern about item one, for instance, there’s not a whole lot of reason for us to spend a lot of time on that.
So that that is kind of the way I’d like to work the workshop, and I plan on being very proactive in that. So, trust me, I will be on this not tomorrow, but the next day. Have a My husband has a surgery tomorrow again.
Commissioner Durrett
I appreciate you saying that. And and I understand where you’re coming from because that was the whole point of of moving from workshop to agenda review. I do want to request that we get a full not redlined on a copy. Of both ordinances with all changes that have either been added either on the public forum or whenever via e-mail before we start setting dates for this meeting so we do have time to review the full unaltered ordinances and also want to make sure that all Commission is invited to the workshop.
Commissioner Russell
Yes, ma’am, I definitely actually. I planned on. I think Commissioner Fox should put some items on the forum that I will incorporate into it. Actually send that to administration. So that they have it. And then they can disperse it probably to us. I want to make sure that I follow Sunshine and, and that does create an issue. I don’t know. I want to make sure that it follows the approach. I guess I’ll put it back on the forum in that way and then send a another PDF copy to each, to each person individually just so that all sunshine laws are followed. And it will be on. I will make sure that. Druscilla that Drusilla sends out an invitation, not only a notice that we’re going to be meeting, but an invitation so.
Commissioner Oster
Make sure the law department is included and all.
Commissioner Russell
Just for the record, I did work with the law department too when I was going through this process
Commissioner Oster
I just want him to have all the questions that we may have. OK, we have got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jay, second by Commissioner Durant
Voting on Item 44
3:44:44 Vote
Oster – Yes
Jackson – Aye
Russell – Pass
Hill – Yes
Lee – Aye
Thompson – (Inaudible)
Fox – Pass
Jay – Yes
Frazier – Aye
Rawls – Aye
Durrett – Aye
The vote passed 9 to 2.
Announcements
Commissioner Fox
Briefly because my previous comments weren’t exactly on point. I do want to address a couple other things. The passages discussing obeying the law. Titus three one through 2 first Peter 2:13 through 17.
You know, it’s one thing if you’re saying the government’s violating your constitutional rights or violating a tenet of the Christian faith. But a lot of these comments arise out of just saying, well, we don’t like the law. And so we’re going to oppose and, and act in violation of the already established law. And we’re, we want to use your tax dollars to do it. And I just don’t think that’s right. And that’s why I made those changes. Thank you, in addition to other changes.
3:47:30 – Meeting was adjourned
**General Information**
We are purposefully avoiding posting any comments about this meeting. This transcript is for the use of our readers in determining what was done at this meeting. Approximate time stamps are included, and readers are encouraged to make use of those time stamps to listen to sections of the meeting that interest them. Please do not make decisions or post comments to social media until you have listened to the section of the meeting you are interested in. You can listen to this meeting by clicking here and then choosing the “Co Com R 267 251027″.
When notating the results of votes, only the commissioners’ last names are included. This is not meant in any way as disrespectful – it is simply a means of saving time.
In addition, the meeting is divided into sections determined by KCCRTN to make it easier to read. These sections may also include other items besides those noted on the title. Not every word spoken or every action taken by the commission is included. Those decisions were made by the editorial board at KCCRTN.
While every attempt was made to ensure the accuracy of this synopsis, we are human and we are utilizing technology that is not mistake proof so there may be mistakes. If you see one, please contact us at info@kccrtn.org and we will correct it.