Here we are less than a month away from the cut-off date for local candidates to file their petitions to run in the August election and we are facing a blast from the past that is not a positive development for our future.

Let me begin this by stressing how this is not a negative statement on the current candidates. They cannot control who runs against them, and as incumbents they are relieved that at least at this point they have no opposition. I doubt the newspapers and channel sixes of the area are thrilled, but the incumbents have got to love it.

This year finds us taking a big step backwards politically as a city, a return to the not-so-glorious days of the 1990's and early 2000's when both Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen members and Tullahoma Board of Education members often ran unapposed.

The last time two alderman candidates ran unapposed was 2004 when Lane Curlee and Phil Trimble glided into office without opposition. Since then we have seen a dramatic shift in incumbent decisions. Not one incumbent alderman has won re-election, and only one has even ran for re-election.

In 2005 Troy Bisby beat Steve Cope for mayor, and Janice Bowling and myself won the aldermen spots without incumbent opposition, although there were a number of candidates vying for the two spots.

In 2006 neither Jim Waters nor Richard Darden ran for re-election, with Jonathan James and Sandy Lindermen claiming the two seats. The same thing happened in 2007, with Curlee and Trimble limping out of office after a bizarre political year and James Eads and Mike Norris triumphing over a solid group of candidates.

Then 2008 came along and I made the decision not to seek a second consecutive term while Mrs. Bowling ran unsuccessfully for mayor. Jerry Mathis and Mike Stanton won against a small group of candidates.

In 2009 Mrs. Lindermen became the only incumbent to run for re-election to the BMA since 2003, although her bid was not successful as Jimmy Blanks and Greg Sandlin won. I'll bet never before in Tullahoma's history have we had four consecutive years of not only the turnover of both alderman seats, but political newcomers winning those seats.

All this activity with incumbents not running and newcomers winning during the past five years is a stark contrast to the previous 15 years, when Curlee, Cope, and Waters dominated the board.

I have no real point here except to point out how the dramatic events of 2004 and 2005 swept in a mostly-new set of leaders for our city. The issues facing the new BMA in 2005 were incredibly complex and controversial, yet we managed to systematically solve them one by one.

You as a voter certainly did your part. The outrage you expressed about events such as the firing of city attorney Steve Worsham and the Grundy Street Land Sale helped pave the way for this new wave of leaders to emerge.

But just as quickly as all that change happened, and our city went from being $1.6 million short on budget and having protesters marching around city hall and having the state Attorney General rule that multiple laws were broken by previous sessions of the BMA; to having balanced budgets and funding multiple recreation projects and school projects and bringing sanity back to city politics, we now seem to have fallen right back into complacency.

The natural ebb and flow of things would seem to dictate that we were bound to see a year when there wasn't a lot of controversy and when incumbents were confident in their re-election chances and when potential newcomer candidates didn't feel their chances of knocking off an incumbent were very good.

My hope is that this is simply a hiccup and not the beginning of a trend. We have seen what happens when folks stay in office too long and it is not pretty and we are still recovering from it. I'm guessing incumbents will not have such a smooth path to re-election, should they choose to seek it, in 2011.

What Are the Priorities?
February 23, 2010

The Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen met last night and there were a couple of very interesting items that were discussed. One in particular causes me to wonder exactly what the priorities of the BMA are in regards to funding.

On the one hand the BMA voted to begin the process of studying what it will take to get the Joel Ferrell outdoor swimming back up to standards. The pool is in pretty bad shape. Estimates for fixing it range from $350,000 to just get it fixed to up to $650,000 to get it suitable for competitive swim meets.

At the same time the board voted to cut approximately $700,000 from this year's budget because of declining sales tax revenues. One of the items cut, and the only one that was discussed, was street paving. A number of the board members commented on how paving continues to get cut and how we don't need to cut paving.

So let me get this straight. We are cutting paving money and other previously-budgeted money that supposedly was budgeted for essential day-to-day operation of the city while at the same time we are proceeding with plans to spend almost the same amount on a swimming pool?

Don't get me wrong. I am all for a city swimming pool. But let's keep in mind that we have just spent almost $2 million basically rebuilding the indoor pool and the entire D.W. Wilson Community Center. So we have basically a brand new pool facility in place.

If it was your house and your outdoor pool was in bad condition while at the same time your driveway was crumbling, and you had an indoor pool that was basically brand new, would you be studying how to fix the outdoor pool or would you spend your money fixing the driveway?

One of the most difficult decisions for BMA members is where to spend money when money is really tight. Based on the fact the budget has just been cut and revenues are under projections, we must assume that money is really tight.

So where is the priority here? Is it in a luxury item that a limited number of citizens use or is it in a basic, infrastructure item that everyone uses everyday and is essential for our city to function properly?

Although I hope we are able to pave all our roads and have a first-class outdoor swimming pool, right now that doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility, based on comments by BMA members last night. Remember, they voted 7-0 to cut paving funds from the budget.

The BMA also voted to begin a feasibility study on what it would take for the city to have its own Emergency Medical Services operation. I think that is a good thing and we should begin that study immediately. Based on what has happened during the past few months with the county, we should know all our options when the health and safety of our citizens are in question.

Enough Said
February 15, 2010

Although my blood is still boiling over the events that have transpired over the past 72 hours in regards to the first responder issue, I guess I have said all I need to say publicly about this.

Sometimes a person just has to speak his peace, and as a private citizen who pays for this small piece of the global communications network I appreciate the ability and opportunity to say what I think.

If I was an elected official then my approach would have been different, but since I am not then I felt compelled to do my best to influence those who are elected.

Without knowing how this issue will ultimately play out, my hope is that somehow the city is able to convince the county that they continue to be short-sighted in their view of what is best for Tullahoma. I urge our city government to take whatever steps are necessary to insure the safety of our citizens.

On a bigger scale this tragedy has highlighted the continued disintegration of the relationship between Tullahoma and the county government. For some reason over the past 35-40 years the city has put more and more of its responsibilities in the hands of the county. The ambulance situation is one instance, along with the industrial board consolidation.

I realize that the state of Tennessee has, through multiple legislative actions, encouraged us to become more of one county than two cities plus a county. However, it is now apparent that in some instances that relationship is not working well.

Where do we go from here? I'm not sure, but status-quo should no longer be an option. Let's take a strong look at the original legislation that created the Ambulance Authority and insure that the balance of membership has been retained. If not then let's fix it.

I encourage each of you as Tullahoma citizens to contact your elected respresentatives and let them know your feelings on how they should proceed.

Click here for the email address of each member of the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

Open Letter to Tullahoma News, BMA, Citizens of Coffee County

It is too late for one family for the City of Tullahoma and Coffee County Ambulance Authority to reach an agreement on when the Tullahoma Fire Department is called out to medical emergencies, but before another emergency happens the city has the responsibility to do whatever it must to correct the arrangement immediately and protect its citizens.

Tullahoma's citizens have watched with amazement and disappointment as the relationship between our city and county governments has deteriorated. It seemed to begin when the city sued the county for its rightful rural sales tax school funds and has continued until now a person has died. And yes, it does appear that the two situations are related.

The city has appeared to do everything it could to try and resolve this situation, while being met at every turn with delays, excuses, and resistance.

Considering that County Commissioner Jimmy Bradford, who represents Tullahoma from the 17th district and is the Chairman of the Ambulance Authority, has stated publicly that he is the person who will decide how the TFD will be used in emergency situations, it would seem Mr. Bradford asked to be and should be held responsible for his lack of action.

Do we know if the fire department, which was on scene three minutes after it was called, could have saved the life? No we don't. We do know that it took the ambulance 16 minutes to get there, and we have been consistently told by those involved in this issue that a heart attack in particular is critical in the first five or six minutes.

We as a city must now determine a quick course of action to solve this issue and hopefully insure that this type of situation doesn't happen again. Our citizens deserve more than us waiting to see how the county will respond. They have had their chance and we have seen their response, which was to use the safety of our citizens as a political tool.

The lack of action and stalling of this important issue by those in positions of authority with the county, while they were being consistently urged to move quickly because of the obvious worst-case scenario, is unacceptable. They owe the taxpayers a complete explanation, and as a taxpayer I demand one.

I ask the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen to take immediately emergency action to resolve this issue. Perhaps a court order authorizing the TFD to be a first responder until an official agreement can be reached is a possibility. Perhaps the BMA voting to begin responding without the Ambulance Authorities' permission is the answer.

If there is any option the BMA can take that would at least temporarily result in immediate first responder status, then I urge the BMA to consider that action. Don't wait until we are faced with another situation.

A Split Vote is Not a Compromise
February 10, 2010

The Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Alderman voted 4-3 in a split vote to stop the long-held practice of solicitation at major interesections in our city. Although solicitations can continue at 4-way stops, considering the very limited number of 4-way stop intersections that contain significant traffic the board has for all practical purposes killed the practice.

There are very few 4-way stop intersections that feature enough traffic to provide significant fundraising opportunities.

Mayor Troy Bisby, along with Aldermen Mike Norris, Jimmy Blanks, and Greg Sandlin voted to end the only significant fund raising activity of the American Legion Auxillary, which offers services to aid disabled veterans, as well as a number of other charitable organizations that use intersection solicitation to raise funds. In my humble opinion this was not a wise decision and needs to be corrected in the near future.

The Mayor says the BMA reached a compromise on the issue, but it must be pointed out that a 4-3 vote is not a compromise. A compromise is when all parties agree. Aldermen James Eads, Jerry Mathis, and Mike Stanton didn't agree with the new solicitation rules, and I agree with their 'no' vote.

I realize that there have been occassional issues with solicitation at red lights. I realize people sometimes complain about things they don't like, and I know as well as anyone that when citizens take the time and effort to personally complain to elected officials about an issue that as an elected official you feel compelled to act on those complaints.

Do the complaints of a few outweigh the benefits that the effected organizations provide? In my opinion they do not. I have no objection to ball teams, church youth groups, etc. not being allowed to solicit at red light intersections. These groups are often participating in the practice for the first time and they sometimes don't follow the rules.

But groups like the Shriners and the American Legion Auxillary are very experienced at intersection solicitation and I have never, ever felt inconvenienced or threatened by them in any way. In fact I appreciate the opportunity to donate to these groups and the ease with which I'm able to help.

This is a long-standing tradition in Tullahoma that is being crushed by our city government because of the complaints of a few. The issue of safety is being used as the basis for this action, but there is no record of any injuries happening during intersection solicitation that I am aware of.

Although this issue may not seem like a major, front-burner type of issue right now considering that nobody is asking to solicit in this weather, you can bet when spring hits it will be a different story. Wait until a couple of our youth baseball teams are getting ready to head to Florida to represent our city or state.

How much money do these legitimate, charitable organizations raise when they solicit? What are the raised funds actually used for? These are questions that I haven't heard answered that seem relevant.

How many citizens have actually compained about the practice with their goal being to end it? While I was an alderman I don't recall anyone seeking to end the practice.

I want to strongly encourage the board to take another look at this issue. Allow select groups to solicit at red-light intersections. Force groups to come before the BMA to request their permit if necessary, but don't destroy the single mechanism that a number of extremely important charitable organizations have to raise much-needed funds.