KYLE MURPHYStaff Writer

After the Board of Mayor and Aldermen recently passed its recommended changes to the city charter, the Tullahoma Utilities Authority (TUA) Board of Directors passed a resolution to request changes regarding the removal of board members.

Prior to the Jan. 23 TUA board meeting, TUA President Brian Skelton and Chairman JT Northcutt came before the board during its Jan. 8 meeting expressing concerns about the change in the language in the charter regarding BoMA removing an appointee to a city board.

Per the current city charter in Section 8 (c) 1 and 2, the mayor and the board of mayor and aldermen may remove any board or commissioner appointed for cause and allows a 10-day notice and a hearing to allow the appointee the opportunity to be heard in person, or by counsel, where BoMA will then vote to remove the appointee by a majority vote. As for the amended city charter, the language that is proposed to be replaced in Article 2, Section 14, that references TUA, along with other city boards, states that the mayor and BoMA are “empowered to remove any of these members of these boards or commissions, where removal provisions are not provided for under the laws of the State of Tennessee.. The appointed member serves at the will of the appointee.”

The resolution was presented to the TUA board by Skelton and said if the board approved the resolution, it would be sent to State House Rep. Rush Bricken and State Sen. Janice Bowling, who will be the local sponsors of the proposed city charter changes, to talk to the city board and encourage them to change the language. The changes to the proposed city charter presented to the TUA board include striking “Tullahoma Utilities Authority” from Article 2, Section. 14, and strikes the sentence “as provided for the in Article 2, Section 14 of the charter of the city,” which was added under the Tullahoma Utilities Authority Private Act, Article 2, Section 8.

Per the memo from Skelton, the change in language is a dangerous change as TUA board members need a level of independence from the “politically elected” BoMA. Some of the concerns he listed include those appointed to five-year terms can be removed with no cause at any BoMA meeting, the TUA board overseeing $50 million budget, maintaining assurance to make sound business decisions without the worry of BoMA removing them without cause, unrestricted removal powers leading to undue political influence, loss of knowledge and disrupting continuity needed decision making and losing public trust.

“Basically, this language would simply mean that BMA could remove board members but they have to have cause to do so,” Skelton said. “They couldn’t just do it because they didn’t like you or voted to raise fees or condemn property.”

When opened to discussion, board member Patty Deen said she was not in favor to the proposed resolution as recommended, as it appears to be TUA asking for favoritism, as well as by principle BoMA has the authority to appoint people to committees and boards.

“[BoMA] has a fiduciary responsibility to the public, to the citizens of Tullahoma, that if for some reason that they feel that some issue comes up and they need to remove a board member and they are the appointing authority,” Deen said. “I think they should retain that.”

She went on to say that it is a political appointment and hopefully that ethically the city board wouldn’t just remove board members, and reiterated she doesn’t’ feel she could support the resolution as presented.

Board member Mike Stanton expressed with his concerns, stating that he didn’t think that’s the kind of ability that the city board should be allowed to have.

 “I think that is going way beyond what they should do, what they ethically should do, and what they democratically should do,” Stanton said. “It’s so far out of anything I would consider. If I was a city board member I would fight that to the end. It’s ridiculous to allow the city board to act in that way.”

Board member Jimmy Blanks said the issue in the recommended changes to the charter is the removal of “for cause” in the language, adding if there was something serious enough to remove anyone from a board or commission then that would initiate a cause.

“If you take cause out of there then it becomes more subjective, and I think if you become more subjective with that then you might start sliding down a slippery slope,” Blanks said.

Deen followed up and said if the board is going to establish a cause then there should be a standard to measure against, and the current city charter does not establish what cause is. Blanks responded that the current city charter does have due process, and the changes would remove that.

“If you are going to be removed, you are taking away your due process rights away as a member of the board,” Blanks said. “That’s not American in my opinion.”

Stanton added the previous actions by current BoMA would lend them to take advantage of the amended city charter if it’s not nullified by the state legislature.

“The truth of the matter is trust in the city board right is very, very questionable,” Stanton said.

Knowis stated, from his experience of serving on BoMA for nine years, when someone comes to the city board to present themselves as a nominee to any board, are selected based on the credentials they bring and present to the board.

“You bring somebody that is right for the job,” Knowis said. “People appointed to these boards become responsible to the boards they serve on.”

Stanton responded to Knowis regarding appointing qualified people to boards and commissions by sharing the recent statistic that out of 153 utilities in the state, TUA ranked the tenth lowest electrical rate.

“I think that speaks loudly to the responsibility we take here [at TUA], we take it seriously,” Stanton said.

Chairman JT Northcutt said the decision that is made on the city charter changes has the potential of having large reaching affects. Northcutt said to anyone who applies to serve on a city board, their first obligation when selected is to that board. He added that he believes there is a reason for the current BoMA wanting to change the city charter, but the language giving them the authority to remove an appointee is already in there. Northcutt said was opposed to the changes because no board member should feel under pressure to not act in earnest and do what is needed for the right reason due to possible retaliation from the city board, adding there are plenty of times when board members don’t agree with each other, but it’s good to have differences.

“It’s good to have different point of views, but if we are going into the business that allows the micromanagement of these boards, it’s not good,” Northcutt said. “I think it’s really bad, I think that would really hurt our town going forward.”

He went on to say that BoMA should the right and maintain the right to remove someone from a board with cause, but to change the language to be able to remove someone without cause was wrong. He added that he wasn’t just thinking about the current BoMA but future city boards because they do not know the mindset of those future board members.

With no further discussion, the TUA Board of Directors approved the resolution 4 – 1, with Deen voting no.