For Shame

Shame on you. My husband Scott is the most honorable, trustworthy, and above all, honest man I know. The person you quoted in the closing of your editorial ["Schumpert for County Executive," by Joe Sullivan, Vol. 8, No. 29] does not seem to share these same qualities. This person obviously has an ax to grind with Scott, and the quote should have been considered in that context. You printed it and passed it off as fact. Scott has the courage to take responsibility for what he says unlike the "commissioner" you quoted. Somehow this person is considered credible and Scott is not. Incredible. You are entitled to your opinion about Scott's politics and issues pertaining to the county executive race. To resort to character assassination is truly sad. My daughters are blessed to have a courageous father willing to put himself on the line for something he believes in. That is integrity. I only wish you had displayed the same kind of integrity in writing your endorsement of Tommy Schumpert.

Hope Davis
Knoxville

Shocked & Disturbed

I usually try to pick up your "newspaper" on a weekly basis. After reading the biased article by Mr. Sullivan in last week's issue ["Open and Shut Judicial Races," Vol. 8, No. 27], I'm not sure that I'll do that anymore. His professed expertise regarding the judicial races leaves me somewhat in shock. Where in the world did he get his facts? Did he double check his sources?

Regarding Mr. Fansler, he fails to point out that he has spent the last 15 years primarily representing insurance companies. When one takes a workers' compensation or injury claim to chancery court they might want to know that the person that may be deciding their case has been paid, mainly, by the deep pockets of the insurance companies for the last 15 years.

Regarding the claim that Mr. Houser has made "interim" decisions in "child custody and child support matters in pending divorce cases" simply isn't true. The majority of his work involves post-divorce cases dealing with the collection of child support from those who, for one reason or another, choose not to pay needed child support for their minor children. The decisions that he has made in over 15,000 cases directly involve the children and the taxpayers of Knox County. Guess who ends up paying child support through various government programs for children that aren't properly supported by a parent? That's right, we do. Regarding the claim that they are "interim"—they are interim only in that a judge or chancellor has to confirm the decision. In probably 99 percent of cases decided by Referee Houser in the last five years, they were "final" decisions that only required the cursory review of the judge or chancellor and a signature.

Yes, he had "yard" signs, however, he had no more signs than his principal opponent in the primary, or for that matter, those that won other elections in the primary. Is Mr. Sullivan telling us that if you have yard signs that the campaign is just a "good ol' boy" style of running for office?

Regarding the infamous "bar poll," I wish you would use your investigative reporting to determine which attorneys vote in these polls. The majority of attorneys that vote in these polls are associated with or a partner in the large defense firms such as the one that Mr. Fansler has been a member of for the past 15 years. These attorneys want someone on the bench that has a history of representing their "cash cow," the insurance industry.

Regardless of the misstatements made by Mr. Sullivan, if people want someone who has the broad experience necessary to effectively sit as a chancellor, they should vote for Republican Wayne Houser.

R. Faires
Knoxville

P.S. Also, Mr. Sullivan's statement that Attorney General candidate Mr. Davis has never tried a criminal case is, simply, incorrect. He needs to go to the City/County Building and check his facts.

Ed. Note:
Joe Sullivan stands by the statement that Jimmy Kyle Davis has never tried a case in criminal court.

Revisionist History

I seldom take time away from my responsibilities as sheriff to read newspaper editorials. I am even more reluctant to take the time necessary to respond to them, making an exception only in those cases where the author has crossed the line from differing opinion and blundering into factual inaccuracy. On that basis, your editorial of July 23, 1998 is one that merits a response.

The essence of the editorial is an attempt to defend County Executive Tom Schumpert and his staff, not on the basis of their record or ability, but by demonizing Commissioner Scott Davis. This includes your assertion that Davis would remove from office "the super-capable mainstay of Schumpert's administration, finance director Kathy Hamilton," an act that you apparently believe would leave me free to commit financial atrocities. Your editorial states that "Time and time again, Hamilton has challenged purchasing practices and shuffling of funds that she's convinced won't stand the scrutiny of an audit." The implication is clear—Hamilton is somehow the guardian of the public trust on fiscal matters, and I am some sort of renegade who flaunts the rules.

The fact of the matter is that the sheriff's office employs two administrative assistants with extensive backgrounds and experience in government finance and purchasing. Among their primary responsibilities is to ensure our absolute compliance with state and local law, and commonly accepted accounting practices. We take our responsibility as the guardians of the law very seriously. Strict adherence to the law is a standard on which we will not compromise.

While this office strives to conduct our daily operations within the limits of Knox County fiscal guidelines, the administration of County Executive Schumpert has simply ignored the rules and even gone as far as to violate the law in their efforts to expand the power of the executive's office. Ms. Hamilton ordered the illegal seizure of funds from this agency, jeopardizing our ability to protect the public safety. Additionally, funds were arbitrarily seized from several other office holders, impeding their ability to provide essential public services. The county law director declared this act illegal, and the seizure of funds was rescinded by the County Commission. This was not merely a procedural question; this was a clear violation of law.

You are certainly entitled to your endorsement of Mr. Schumpert, on whatever basis you feel is reasonable. I do find it interesting, however, that in order to do so, you must rely on a mix of revisionist history and character assassination, rather than even the most modest list of accomplishments.

Tim Hutchison
Knox County Sheriff
Knoxville