Does The Term Conflict Of Interest Have Any Meaning In Pulaski/Giles County?
With the announcement that Mr. Matt Crane has been appointed the "Giles County Business Entrepreneurial Development Center Director", a number of questions arise as to the appropriateness of such an appointment.
Mr. Crane is also a Pulaski City Alderman and as such he has a responsibility to vote on a number of matters that will directly and indirectly impact his new position as Giles County Business Entrepreneurial Development Center Director, major of which is the EDC/IDB budgets which contain his salary among other things.
Several years ago the state determined that Mr Speer could not serve as Mayor of Pulaski while serving as a paid employee of the IDB/EDC, so how is it that Mr. Crane is not in violation of this same ruling?
There is simply far too much overlap in his duties as Giles County Business Entrepreneurial Development Center Director and those as a City Alderman.
While I believe that Mr. Crane may be an excellent City Alderman and an employee of the IDB/EDC it is completely inappropriate that he attempt to fill both positions at the same time, there are just too many conflicts and potentials for conflict.
posted by Allen Barrett | 3:16 PM
28 Comments:
The answer is NO.
The two Rackley and Speer will sell out this man out in a heartbeat.
Speer has his medical paid by the EDC which includes his wife who owns the company. Does the new man get medical?
I heard all the elected people in the county has put family members in county and city jobs.
Change is on it's way! If not change, a run for their money. See how much are in pockets then!
I was under the impression that Mr. Crane already had a full time job elsewhere. Also, what experience or education does he have in the area of entrepreneurship or economic development?
What a stupid and totally ignorant post. Make a list on here of each elected officials family member who has received a job in the city or county and then you can make stupid statements like you did with PROOF. If you cant document it shut your mouth. Your ignorance comes out when you post.
5:47 Who are you talking to?
I will agree with you everyone should watch what they say and be able to prove it. But you do need to calm down. Is anything on this blog worth having a heart attack or stroke over?
11:3200 about elected officials all appointing family members.
2:58 I'm not sure anyone has given their relative a job now, but it has happen in the past I know. But really what's wrong with that?
Another day, another post and another enemy! Barrett you are an idiot!
Thank you 9:09 your insight is only exceeded by your blindness. One merely has to walk into any county/city office to see the names that match elected and appointed officials. I have less problem with that when they are qualified but it doesn't take long to understand some are there solely because of their family relationships.
There is not a much greater and more blatant conflict of interest than what exist with the attorney for the School Board. I have list those conflicts in a blog topic.
"To the victor goes the spoils"! Ever heard that before? Perfectly legal. You are so jealous of the power of other popular officials. So obvious.
To the victor goes the spoils, so true. I feel so sorry for the new Director.
Barrett, your post are becoming so boring! 2 responses, 12 responses, 4 responses, etc, etc. etc. Yes I do believe you are jealous of those that are in power and supported. Why can you not do something productive like Bill Young has done in support of Exit 14 Wastewater.... because no one would listen to your dumb ass! You should invite Bill to take over your Blog!
8:28 Are you jealous of Barrett or is he telling on your love one?
"Tennessee has a longstanding common law policy that precludes public officials from placing themselves in a position where their personal interests conflict with their public duties. This Office recently explained the rationale for this policy as follows:
At common law, “the essence of the offense [of having a conflict of
interest] was acting or appearing to act inconsistently with the best interest of the public . . .” Note: Conflicts of Interests: State Government Employees, 47 Va. L.R. at 1048. In Anderson v. City of Parsons, 209 Kan. 337, 496 P.2d 1333 (1972), the common law principle was described as not permitting the public officer “to place himself in a position that will subject him to conflicting duties or
cause him to act other than for the best interests of the public.” Id. at 1337. This policy is not limited to a single category of officers, but applies to all public officials. Low v. Madison, 135 Conn. 1, 60 A.2d 774 (1948); Housing Authority of the City of New Haven v. Dorsey, 164 Conn. 247, 320 A.2d 820 (1073), cert
denied 414 U.S. 1043.
The common law principle has been followed in several opinions of this
office. For example, this office has stated:
[t]here exists a strong public policy which opposes an official placing himself in a position in which personal interest may conflict with public duty . . . A public office is a trust conferred by
the public. The duties of that office must be exercised with fairness and impartiality. The good faith of the officer is not a consideration, for the policy exists to prevent an officer being influenced by anything other than the public good."
Opinion No. 13-38
http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2013/op13-38.pdf
I know that it is just an opinion but based in long held common law policy.
"As the Tennessee Supreme Court observed in Slagle, the “rule at common
law is that, where one accepts a second office incompatible with one already held by him, the office
first held is thereby ipso facto terminated without judicial proceedings of any kind.” Slagle, 89 S.W.
at 327. See also Tenn. Att’y Gen. Op. 07-159 at 2."
Opinion No. 13-18
http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2013/op13-18.pdf
Does anyone come to mind?
What happened to the tire recycling plant that was supposed to be started up in Pulaski?
Speer did not want the plant. He prefers us to be a retirement community.
I do not understand everyone's negative opinion of any town being a retirement community? There are many high paying jobs for all ages tending to the needs of the elderly. Jobs that pay way better than Magneti Marelli.
Think about it! You all are just looking for a reason to be negative
I guess many do not want their future opportunities limited by the older generation who has done nothing to provide choice for the consumers, choice of entertainment, and choice for jobs. But now that they are old and have left a legacy of decrepit town and county maybe we can find a job wiping their butts.
101: I would bet that your life has not been very fulfilling!
Retirement community? Who wants this place to be a retirement community. We need industry. Why would Speer not want a tire recycling center?
Yep. Those $10.00 per hour industries are what we need!
I know I'm replying late, but that's not why we didn't get the tire recycling plant.
Giles County follows something called the Jackson Law that requires people planning to open businesses like that to jump through a lot of hoops at the city, county, and state level.
There were several meetings and public hearings held by both the city and county for him to open the factory in a particular building. He just hadn't bought the building yet. The whole process took months for him to get where he did and he was finally at the state level when another industry bought the building.
That meant he was going to have to start all over from the beginning -same meetings and public hearings and things like that. He didn't want to so he went to a county that doesn't have the Jackson Law.
And Dan Speer wants this to be a retirement community so badly that HE'S the one responsible for Proper Polymers coming here.
What is Proper Polymers?
Sorry, I hadn't looked at WKSR's page today. anyone else missed it go read WKSR's page.
Didn't see nothing about Dan Speer being responsible for Polymers. Seems like they went around the local EDC like Magnetti did.
Post a Comment
<< Home