Submitted by WhitesCreek on August 26, 2012 - 12:42pm.
I need to find out more but it appears that outgoing Property Assessor Teresa Kirkham has laid off her executive assistant, Lisa Billings, and Rebecca Cofer, ostensibly so they can draw unemployment. I would be interested to see the rationale since there is a ton of work needing to be done. It kind of puts the big lie to Teresa's hounding of J T Woods to the bitter end over his unemployment compensation.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on August 26, 2012 - 2:58pm.
> From: "Sheila Lemons"
> Date: August 24, 2012 3:46:16 PM EDT
> To: "Sheila Lemons"
> Subject: Retirement/Goodbye Event
>
> Teresa Kirkham has asked me to invite you to the following event:
>
>
>
> A Retirement/Goodbye party on Friday, August 31, 2012 from 2-4 p.m. in the Property Assessor’s office at the Courthouse in Kingston.
>
>
>
> Please come join them as they bid Danny Smith and Melvin Moore a great retirement, and say goodbye to Teresa Kirkham, Becky Cofer and Lisa Billings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sheila Lemons
>
> Executive Assistant
>
> Office of the County Executive
>
> 200 E Race Street, Suite 1
>
> P O Box 643
>
> Kingston TN 37763
>
> 865-376-5578
>
> 865-717-4101 (direct line)
>
> 865-717-4215 (fax)
Submitted by Ray Collett on August 27, 2012 - 2:42pm.
Unemployment claimants must keep work search log
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Beginning on Sept. 1, anyone claiming unemployment benefits will have to show that they are actively looking for work, including keeping a work search log.
According to a news release from the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development, claimants will be required to conduct three work searches each week.
A list of valid work search activity is available on the department's website at Link... or at the nearest Tennessee Career Center.
Labor and Workforce Development officials will conduct random audits of 1,000 claimants' work search documentation each week to verify work search activity. If work search claims are found to be fraudulent, the department will stop a claimant's benefits immediately and can suspend payments for eight weeks.
Notices will be mailed next week about the new requirements.
By invitation only? Open to the public? I'm sort of on the fence with the farewell party. I don't know or can't remember when a party was held for a defeated incumbent, so it may be what is done. However, I did notice there were retirements in the e-mail, so that may be the way around it.
As if this entire election hasn't already taken on a life of it's own. You mentioned J T earlier, I wonder how his sweet family must feel about this most recent action of Mrs. Kirkham?
Submitted by ConcernedCitizen on August 26, 2012 - 4:23pm.
I see nothing wrong with a party at the court house as long as courthouse business continues. It certainly doesn't set any type of precedence. Ken Yeager had a St. Patrick's Day party for years. He invited dozens of people from inside and outside the courthouse.
Also I see nothing wrong with the employees being allowed to draw unemployment until they can find another job if it is done legally. That is why they paid into the system. They deserved nothing less for their long and faithful service to our county regardless of your feelings toward Kirkham.
Kirkham lost and for good reason. It's time to move on and look forward to something better in the future with our new property assessor. Bitching and moaning about how she spends her final days is not going to help anything. It will only serve to stir up more hard feelings.
This thread is just a case of stirring the pot to keep it stinking. It's time to let it go and move on. If you don't you're going to end on Julia's blog again and you know how bad that can be. :)
Submitted by ConcernedCitizen on August 26, 2012 - 8:09pm.
Up until now I didn't see the term 'firing' used but being laid off is similar and both can result in eligibility for unemployment payments so I won't take issue with that to avoid debating the differences between the two.
"But...Do you see anything wrong with firing people as you walk out the door just so they can draw unemployment? "
If this was an isolated case and out of the norm I would see something wrong with it but as far as I can tell it isn't.
Case in point: TVA retirees go to work for TVA contractors at Watts Bar for several months, sometimes years, and then are terminated until another contract comes along. As soon as they are terminated they take their papers to the TN Dept. of Employment Security and sign up. After a short delay they start receiving unemployment benefits. They draw their unemployment benefits until another TVA contractor calls them back to work and the cycle starts over. I'm talking about people who are already receiving a TVA retirement check and working for TVA contractors at the rate of $50 to $100 per hour. I don't think it is fair but it happens every day and I assume it is legal.
Shouldn't we afford the same opportunity for benefits to the people our county has working in it's offices that we give to highly paid TVA contract workers? I say YES we should. The people working in those offices are hard working members of our community, our friends, neighbors, and family who work for little pay. They are people who have paid into the system for years so benefits would be there when they need them. Should we penalize them simply because we disagree with how their boss ran the office or we didn't agree with their efforts to keep their boss in office so they could keep their jobs? I say NO. Anyone in a similar situation would do the same thing to try to keep their job. There's nothing sinister about it. It's the natural thing to do.
The first paragraph on the Tenn Dept. of Employment Security's website says, "The Employment Security Division provides a safety net for workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own." If Kirkham chooses to lay these workers off, fire them, terminate them or anything else you want to call it, the employees are loosing their job through no fault of their own and therefore are entitled to draw their unemployment benefits just as much as the TVA contractors who are let go. Wouldn't you agree? If not I can only come to the conclusion that you would want to penalize those workers because they work for Kirkham.
Let me make it clear that I know none of the workers in the assessors office and only know Kirkham in passing. I have no axe to grind.
Submitted by romanstone on August 26, 2012 - 10:59pm.
Rule 0800-09-01 of the Rules and Regulations of the Tennessee Employment Security Law, requires all employers to furnish each separated employee with a Separation Notice, LB-0489, within 24 hours of the employee's separation from employment.
There are three options for separation: Lack of work, Discharge, Quit [http://www.tennessee.gov/labor-wfd/Employers/forms/LB-0489.pdf]
From the State's Depapartment of Labor website -
Under Tennessee law, both you and your employer can be prosecuted for knowing making false statements.
If you knowingly collect benefits based on false or inaccurate information that you intentionally provided when you filed your cliam, you are committing fraud. UI fraud is punishable by law and violators could face a number of serious penalities and consequences.
If you commit UI fraud, then you could face a variety of serious penalities. These include:
•Prosecution by government authorities
•Possible jail or prison sentences
•Repaying the UI benefits collected, plus penalties and fines
•Forfeiting future income tax refunds
•Losing the eligibility to collect UI benefits in the future
Anyone who collects UI benefits is legally responsible for making sure he follows the requirements set by state law. Failure to follow the rules can result in serious consequences that will impact you and your family.
You may report someone who is fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits by contacting Benefit Payment Control at:
Benefit Payment Control
220 French Landing Drive
Nashville, TN 37243-1002 Esadmin.fraud@tn.gov
I assume the Separation Notices have not been delivered, but one would think Ms. Kirkham would only legally testify that the employees were either discharged or quit, as there clearly is plenty of work. Surely Ms. Kirkham wouldn't commit fraud on her last day as Property Assessor. I would hope that her former employees would not try to apply or accept unemployment knowing that it was fraudulent. If either happens, the fraud investigators are only a call away.
It is clear Ms. Kirkham has botched these forms in the past. On J.T. Woods' Separations Notice, Ms. Kirkham checked "discharged" then in the comments stated "services no longer needed" to complicate the matter. "A letter from Kirkham in his employment file simply stated Woods was no longer employed in her office as of his resignation date, Stooksbury said." [http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jun/01/roane-candidate-takes-own-life-outside-current/]. The documentation reeked of conflicting separation reasons: discharged, services no longer needed (laid off) and resignation. The same people that were involved in and testified during this botched case are being honored at this party. It will be more than ironic if Ms. Kirkham helps them get unemployment, especially since Ms. Kirkham and Mr. Moore fought to overturn J.T. Woods’ unemployment the day before his death.
Question - How many retirement parties does Mr. Moore get? He orginally retired on June 30, 2011 after 35 years in the Property Assessor's Office.
Morgan can fix this if he thinks it is an issue by offering them jobs. If they refuse the job, the benefits stop. He can even offer a lower paying job than they had for them to turn down and still get them off unemployment.
I don't know what unemployment is paying right now, but it can't be much. I think both of them will actively seek other positions that pay more.
Top unemployment it around $275 or so per week. Not sure about them having to accept a job that pays less than what they were previously making.
At this stage of the game, just let Employment Security handle the questions. Hopefully they will have the correct address for the Property Assessor's office.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on August 29, 2012 - 7:58am.
You have to know that "correct address" thing was total bs. When you file unemployment they use the Federal employer ID number for all employer information. As an employer of hundreds of people back in the day I know first hand how that goes.
Unpleasant as the subject is...go back and read coverage from the Unemployment Insurance issue with Mr. Woods. The wrong address was provided on his original filing, explaining the delay in action by the Property Assessor's office.
...is a Möbius strip (twisted, non-orientable) that seems to make sense to her only. Laying off her top staff is "..I've done him (Morgan) a favor.". Or she was unaware of JT's claim because the unemployment office had the "wrong address.". What about the one from 2008 when candidate Robinette went to the executive's office to obtain copies of her expense reports to show the citizens of Roane County that her expenses and cell phone records contradict each other, only to find the reports were missing. Kirkham's answer to the news, "they went missing around the time Robinette went looking for them."
Kirkham's calling is to write movies for Hollywood. Hollywood agents need only assign her a documentary and the result would be a suspenseful, box office hit, the kind with twists and turns at the end, that you have to watch again because you still can't figure out what really happened. A nomination for suspense or thriller is awaiting.
Hollywood is calling Teresa, please listen, pleeeeeze.
Submitted by GiveMeABreak on August 30, 2012 - 7:48pm.
In the “real work world” when one leaves a position, that employee will fill in the new employee, but wait, Kirkham was fired from her job by the people of Roane County and it’s wasn’t her choice to leave, “ouch.” Kirkham is going out as a poor sport instead of a class act. What legal right did Kirkham have to let go of two employees? If they did not want to work for the “new boss” they have the right to quit. Employees can wait to see if the new boss hands out pink slips for all to be re-interviewed, this is done every day in the “real work world” and it wasn’t Kirkham place to do so. How can they legally draw unemployment and what would be Kirkham’s reason for the layoffs? How can Mr. Woody say he doesn’t understand what “the big deal” is – how about unlawful dismissal/layoff and that it just may be fraud against the Unemployment Department for the State of Tennessee. Woody is a fool if he goes along with this act. There is no doubt that someone will report this action to the state of Tennessee. Does Woody really want this headache? If Courthouse Employees are held to a different set of rules, please let the people of Roane County know.
Submitted by RoaneBooster on August 31, 2012 - 1:55pm.
It is not his responsibility to regulate how any other elected official handles hiring and firing within their own office/department. The County Executive is only responsible (legally and otherwise) for hiring and firing processes within the departments he/she has. Elected officials - like the Property Assessor, Register of Deeds, Circuit Court Clerk, etc, etc, are not under his supervision as to hiring and firing practices.
Well then why is it one of his employees who is responsible for sending out news/invitations to others for an office he has no control over? ie: Ms. Lemons sending out the announcement of the retirement/farewell party at the Property Assessors office. Wouldn't that, based on the above post, be the duty of the particular office. Not nit-picking, but trying to understand why his office is responsible for some duties of other offices and not responsible for others.
And with that, I am off this thread, which has gone way off track.
Everybody have a great Labor Day weekend.
Submitted by RoaneBooster on August 31, 2012 - 4:35pm.
One is a matter of practice and custom at the courthouse, the other is a matter of law. One does not do away with or really relate to the other.
The person in the Executive's Office handles - and has handled for YEARS prior to this controversy - mass emails that go to all offices in the courthouse (and some outside the courthouse, such as Solid Waste & Highway Dept). It's a matter of communicating. It's not a legal or ethical issue - it's merely an issue of using the tools at hand, i.e. an email distribution group and access to all email addresses within the county government.
The other is a matter of law. Each elected official is responsible for the departments they operate and run. They may have different hiring practices, sometimes possibly based on the laws governing the particular office they hold. No elected official has the legal authority to direct the processes within a department or office they were not elected to run. It's that simple. The County Executive cannot dictate hiring and firing or other things within the Property Assessor's office. The Sheriff cannot do the same within the County Executive's bailiwick. And so on for all other elected offices that may be a part of county government.
Submitted by GiveMeABreak on September 1, 2012 - 2:37pm.
Everyone has someone to report too, who controls/oversees the courthouse for conduct, processes, and employment issues. Does State Departments rent rooms at state wide courthouses and are the State Departments responsible for all their office within the state? Now, if Woody is not involved in the hiring or firing process why is he always quoted? If he has no authority he should not be making any comments to papers. Now that's pretty simple.
Submitted by RoaneBooster on September 1, 2012 - 7:32pm.
I'm not sure what you mean by "State Departments."
Renting offices is still different from governing the running of an office that is held by an elected official. If you doubt what I'm telling you, you spend the time looking it up in TCA like I did. You'll see that I'm accurate in stating the the County Exec or County Mayor has no authority to govern how another elected official runs their office.
He is quoted because people ask him and he is free to respond. There is no policy that he cannot answer questions asked of him. There is no law saying the same either.
It's completely up to his decision. If you or I should get elected to that position, we could make that decision for ourselves. But we can't make it for him, and there is no legal or other provision for us to govern that.
This thread is not about Ron Woody. He has not done anything to be called to account for in how Ms Kirkham chose to run the last days of her administration. That is all Ms Kirkham.
.thumbnail.jpg "Rockwood Memories 150")
> From: "Sheila Lemons"
> Date: August 24, 2012 3:46:16 PM EDT
> To: "Sheila Lemons"
> Subject: Retirement/Goodbye Event
>
> Teresa Kirkham has asked me to invite you to the following event:
>
>
>
> A Retirement/Goodbye party on Friday, August 31, 2012 from 2-4 p.m. in the Property Assessor’s office at the Courthouse in Kingston.
>
>
>
> Please come join them as they bid Danny Smith and Melvin Moore a great retirement, and say goodbye to Teresa Kirkham, Becky Cofer and Lisa Billings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sheila Lemons
>
> Executive Assistant
>
> Office of the County Executive
>
> 200 E Race Street, Suite 1
>
> P O Box 643
>
> Kingston TN 37763
>
> 865-376-5578
>
> 865-717-4101 (direct line)
>
> 865-717-4215 (fax)
Unemployment claimants must keep work search log
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Beginning on Sept. 1, anyone claiming unemployment benefits will have to show that they are actively looking for work, including keeping a work search log.
According to a news release from the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development, claimants will be required to conduct three work searches each week.
A list of valid work search activity is available on the department's website at Link... or at the nearest Tennessee Career Center.
Labor and Workforce Development officials will conduct random audits of 1,000 claimants' work search documentation each week to verify work search activity. If work search claims are found to be fraudulent, the department will stop a claimant's benefits immediately and can suspend payments for eight weeks.
Notices will be mailed next week about the new requirements.
... these folks aren't likely to fall under the requirements of that law.
RB
By invitation only? Open to the public? I'm sort of on the fence with the farewell party. I don't know or can't remember when a party was held for a defeated incumbent, so it may be what is done. However, I did notice there were retirements in the e-mail, so that may be the way around it.
And the two "laid off" employees?
I'm going to be interested in seeing if that stands up to scrutiny.
As if this entire election hasn't already taken on a life of it's own. You mentioned J T earlier, I wonder how his sweet family must feel about this most recent action of Mrs. Kirkham?
I see nothing wrong with a party at the court house as long as courthouse business continues. It certainly doesn't set any type of precedence. Ken Yeager had a St. Patrick's Day party for years. He invited dozens of people from inside and outside the courthouse.
Also I see nothing wrong with the employees being allowed to draw unemployment until they can find another job if it is done legally. That is why they paid into the system. They deserved nothing less for their long and faithful service to our county regardless of your feelings toward Kirkham.
Kirkham lost and for good reason. It's time to move on and look forward to something better in the future with our new property assessor. Bitching and moaning about how she spends her final days is not going to help anything. It will only serve to stir up more hard feelings.
This thread is just a case of stirring the pot to keep it stinking. It's time to let it go and move on. If you don't you're going to end on Julia's blog again and you know how bad that can be. :)
I've actually been to several myself.
But...Do you see anything wrong with firing people as you walk out the door just so they can draw unemployment?
Up until now I didn't see the term 'firing' used but being laid off is similar and both can result in eligibility for unemployment payments so I won't take issue with that to avoid debating the differences between the two.
If this was an isolated case and out of the norm I would see something wrong with it but as far as I can tell it isn't.
Case in point: TVA retirees go to work for TVA contractors at Watts Bar for several months, sometimes years, and then are terminated until another contract comes along. As soon as they are terminated they take their papers to the TN Dept. of Employment Security and sign up. After a short delay they start receiving unemployment benefits. They draw their unemployment benefits until another TVA contractor calls them back to work and the cycle starts over. I'm talking about people who are already receiving a TVA retirement check and working for TVA contractors at the rate of $50 to $100 per hour. I don't think it is fair but it happens every day and I assume it is legal.
Shouldn't we afford the same opportunity for benefits to the people our county has working in it's offices that we give to highly paid TVA contract workers? I say YES we should. The people working in those offices are hard working members of our community, our friends, neighbors, and family who work for little pay. They are people who have paid into the system for years so benefits would be there when they need them. Should we penalize them simply because we disagree with how their boss ran the office or we didn't agree with their efforts to keep their boss in office so they could keep their jobs? I say NO. Anyone in a similar situation would do the same thing to try to keep their job. There's nothing sinister about it. It's the natural thing to do.
The first paragraph on the Tenn Dept. of Employment Security's website says, "The Employment Security Division provides a safety net for workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own." If Kirkham chooses to lay these workers off, fire them, terminate them or anything else you want to call it, the employees are loosing their job through no fault of their own and therefore are entitled to draw their unemployment benefits just as much as the TVA contractors who are let go. Wouldn't you agree? If not I can only come to the conclusion that you would want to penalize those workers because they work for Kirkham.
Let me make it clear that I know none of the workers in the assessors office and only know Kirkham in passing. I have no axe to grind.
These folks have lost their jobs because they are being rewarded for their service to Teresa and they can profit by it. This is an outrage!
Scam? No, it's what's commonly called politics as usual.
They were laid off
Rule 0800-09-01 of the Rules and Regulations of the Tennessee Employment Security Law, requires all employers to furnish each separated employee with a Separation Notice, LB-0489, within 24 hours of the employee's separation from employment.
There are three options for separation: Lack of work, Discharge, Quit [http://www.tennessee.gov/labor-wfd/Employers/forms/LB-0489.pdf]
From the State's Depapartment of Labor website -
Under Tennessee law, both you and your employer can be prosecuted for knowing making false statements.
If you knowingly collect benefits based on false or inaccurate information that you intentionally provided when you filed your cliam, you are committing fraud. UI fraud is punishable by law and violators could face a number of serious penalities and consequences.
If you commit UI fraud, then you could face a variety of serious penalities. These include:
•Prosecution by government authorities
•Possible jail or prison sentences
•Repaying the UI benefits collected, plus penalties and fines
•Forfeiting future income tax refunds
•Losing the eligibility to collect UI benefits in the future
Anyone who collects UI benefits is legally responsible for making sure he follows the requirements set by state law. Failure to follow the rules can result in serious consequences that will impact you and your family.
You may report someone who is fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits by contacting Benefit Payment Control at:
Benefit Payment Control
220 French Landing Drive
Nashville, TN 37243-1002
Esadmin.fraud@tn.gov
I assume the Separation Notices have not been delivered, but one would think Ms. Kirkham would only legally testify that the employees were either discharged or quit, as there clearly is plenty of work. Surely Ms. Kirkham wouldn't commit fraud on her last day as Property Assessor. I would hope that her former employees would not try to apply or accept unemployment knowing that it was fraudulent. If either happens, the fraud investigators are only a call away.
It is clear Ms. Kirkham has botched these forms in the past. On J.T. Woods' Separations Notice, Ms. Kirkham checked "discharged" then in the comments stated "services no longer needed" to complicate the matter. "A letter from Kirkham in his employment file simply stated Woods was no longer employed in her office as of his resignation date, Stooksbury said." [http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jun/01/roane-candidate-takes-own-life-outside-current/]. The documentation reeked of conflicting separation reasons: discharged, services no longer needed (laid off) and resignation. The same people that were involved in and testified during this botched case are being honored at this party. It will be more than ironic if Ms. Kirkham helps them get unemployment, especially since Ms. Kirkham and Mr. Moore fought to overturn J.T. Woods’ unemployment the day before his death.
Question - How many retirement parties does Mr. Moore get? He orginally retired on June 30, 2011 after 35 years in the Property Assessor's Office.
Why was the invitation coming from the county executive office?
Shouldn't it be coming from property assessors office.
... who sent the email is the one who always handles emails that communicate to all offices in the courthouse. It's that simple.
RB
Morgan can fix this if he thinks it is an issue by offering them jobs. If they refuse the job, the benefits stop. He can even offer a lower paying job than they had for them to turn down and still get them off unemployment.
I don't know what unemployment is paying right now, but it can't be much. I think both of them will actively seek other positions that pay more.
Top unemployment it around $275 or so per week. Not sure about them having to accept a job that pays less than what they were previously making.
At this stage of the game, just let Employment Security handle the questions. Hopefully they will have the correct address for the Property Assessor's office.
You have to know that "correct address" thing was total bs. When you file unemployment they use the Federal employer ID number for all employer information. As an employer of hundreds of people back in the day I know first hand how that goes.
Unpleasant as the subject is...go back and read coverage from the Unemployment Insurance issue with Mr. Woods. The wrong address was provided on his original filing, explaining the delay in action by the Property Assessor's office.
Found the article.
Link...
...is a Möbius strip (twisted, non-orientable) that seems to make sense to her only. Laying off her top staff is "..I've done him (Morgan) a favor.". Or she was unaware of JT's claim because the unemployment office had the "wrong address.". What about the one from 2008 when candidate Robinette went to the executive's office to obtain copies of her expense reports to show the citizens of Roane County that her expenses and cell phone records contradict each other, only to find the reports were missing. Kirkham's answer to the news, "they went missing around the time Robinette went looking for them."
Kirkham's calling is to write movies for Hollywood. Hollywood agents need only assign her a documentary and the result would be a suspenseful, box office hit, the kind with twists and turns at the end, that you have to watch again because you still can't figure out what really happened. A nomination for suspense or thriller is awaiting.
Hollywood is calling Teresa, please listen, pleeeeeze.
In the “real work world” when one leaves a position, that employee will fill in the new employee, but wait, Kirkham was fired from her job by the people of Roane County and it’s wasn’t her choice to leave, “ouch.” Kirkham is going out as a poor sport instead of a class act. What legal right did Kirkham have to let go of two employees? If they did not want to work for the “new boss” they have the right to quit. Employees can wait to see if the new boss hands out pink slips for all to be re-interviewed, this is done every day in the “real work world” and it wasn’t Kirkham place to do so. How can they legally draw unemployment and what would be Kirkham’s reason for the layoffs? How can Mr. Woody say he doesn’t understand what “the big deal” is – how about unlawful dismissal/layoff and that it just may be fraud against the Unemployment Department for the State of Tennessee. Woody is a fool if he goes along with this act. There is no doubt that someone will report this action to the state of Tennessee. Does Woody really want this headache? If Courthouse Employees are held to a different set of rules, please let the people of Roane County know.
It is not his responsibility to regulate how any other elected official handles hiring and firing within their own office/department. The County Executive is only responsible (legally and otherwise) for hiring and firing processes within the departments he/she has. Elected officials - like the Property Assessor, Register of Deeds, Circuit Court Clerk, etc, etc, are not under his supervision as to hiring and firing practices.
RB
Well then why is it one of his employees who is responsible for sending out news/invitations to others for an office he has no control over? ie: Ms. Lemons sending out the announcement of the retirement/farewell party at the Property Assessors office. Wouldn't that, based on the above post, be the duty of the particular office. Not nit-picking, but trying to understand why his office is responsible for some duties of other offices and not responsible for others.
And with that, I am off this thread, which has gone way off track.
Everybody have a great Labor Day weekend.
One is a matter of practice and custom at the courthouse, the other is a matter of law. One does not do away with or really relate to the other.
The person in the Executive's Office handles - and has handled for YEARS prior to this controversy - mass emails that go to all offices in the courthouse (and some outside the courthouse, such as Solid Waste & Highway Dept). It's a matter of communicating. It's not a legal or ethical issue - it's merely an issue of using the tools at hand, i.e. an email distribution group and access to all email addresses within the county government.
The other is a matter of law. Each elected official is responsible for the departments they operate and run. They may have different hiring practices, sometimes possibly based on the laws governing the particular office they hold. No elected official has the legal authority to direct the processes within a department or office they were not elected to run. It's that simple. The County Executive cannot dictate hiring and firing or other things within the Property Assessor's office. The Sheriff cannot do the same within the County Executive's bailiwick. And so on for all other elected offices that may be a part of county government.
It's pretty simple actually.
RB
I appreciate the reply. Thank you.
It takes some back and forth replies sometimes, but civil conversation will almost always work :-)
Happy Labor Day Weekend!
RB
Everyone has someone to report too, who controls/oversees the courthouse for conduct, processes, and employment issues. Does State Departments rent rooms at state wide courthouses and are the State Departments responsible for all their office within the state? Now, if Woody is not involved in the hiring or firing process why is he always quoted? If he has no authority he should not be making any comments to papers. Now that's pretty simple.
I'm not sure what you mean by "State Departments."
Renting offices is still different from governing the running of an office that is held by an elected official. If you doubt what I'm telling you, you spend the time looking it up in TCA like I did. You'll see that I'm accurate in stating the the County Exec or County Mayor has no authority to govern how another elected official runs their office.
He is quoted because people ask him and he is free to respond. There is no policy that he cannot answer questions asked of him. There is no law saying the same either.
It's completely up to his decision. If you or I should get elected to that position, we could make that decision for ourselves. But we can't make it for him, and there is no legal or other provision for us to govern that.
This thread is not about Ron Woody. He has not done anything to be called to account for in how Ms Kirkham chose to run the last days of her administration. That is all Ms Kirkham.
RB