Tempers flared at the recent meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, prompting the mayor to call for order more than once as elected officials and the city’s attorney did not see eye to eye on changing the 2045 Comprehensive Plan from an ordinance to a resolution.

The tension began when former alderman Daniel Berry, during public comment, questioned why the city would try to change the ordinance to a resolution, suggesting they had some bad advice from legal counsel.

“The document you are about to vote on was built on a deliberate misrepresentation of state and local law,” Berry said while looking toward City Attorney Brittany Hoskins, noting there were many hours spent on coming up with the present plan. “They trusted that when the city adopted something into law, it would protect their neighborhoods.”

Berry believes that making 2045 a resolution would remove the protections that the ordinance provided. He noted that counties use resolutions and cities use ordinances. “That distinction exists because it matters. You do not accidentally omit the words that defeat your own argument.”

He said that by going to a resolution, there could potentially be four votes that could allow a development anywhere with no legal obligation to follow the plan.

“A warehouse next to a neighborhood, high-density housing on a residential street, no required public process, no guaranteed right to object,” he explained.

He then took Hoskins to task, questioning her grasp of the law as it pertains to the 2045 Plan and its application in Tullahoma. He added that making the plan into a resolution would “silence the voices” of the citizens.

“The entire purpose of this resolution tonight is to silence your voice,” Berry maintained, urging the board to table Resolution 2045 and get an independent legal opinion and hold a proper public hearing.

Hoskins, who was ready to fire back, was put on hold when Alderman Kurt Glick objected to Mayor Lynn Sebourn calling on the attorney for an opinion.

Glick pointed out there was no proper notice in the first reading to repeal the 2045 ordinance, and it should be brought back for first reading again. The repeal must pass two readings before it is officially repealed.

In response, Mayor Lynn Sebourn attempted to get the city’s attorney’s opinion but was stopped by Glick. “Point of order. Point of order,” he interjected, saying Robert’s Rules of Order does not give the mayor the right to ask a question of the attorney during the meeting.

After a delay where the Robert’s Rules of Order book was fetched from the mayor’s offi ce, it was suggested that a super majority of BoMA would be needed to overturn the rules and allow the mayor to solicit opinion from the attorneys who were in the audience.

“I’m getting a little tired of being surprised by legal opinions at board meetings,” Glick said. “I think legal opinions should be given to us in writing ahead of time or given to us in executive session.”

Alderman Busch Thoma argued that things come up in the course of a meeting and that the board has commonly asked for a legal opinion during the meeting. “I’m not sure why this is any different,” Thoma voiced.

Alderman Bobbie Wilson argued that the city attorney’s opinion when it comes to the 2045 Plan “differs from state law”.

The board voted 5-2 to suspend the rules, with Glick and Wilson voting against. The mayor immediately recognized City Attorney Brittany Hoskins, who responded to the earlier allegations questioning her legal expertise.

“Mr. Berry has suggested I have misled the board of the city, that it is totally inaccurate,” she said, only to be cut off by Alderman Wilson.

“Just answer what you have been asked,” she interjected, only to be found to be out of order by the mayor.

“You’re out of order,” the mayor said. “You need to address your words to the chair.”

“She’s out of order!” Wilson yelled, pointing at Hoskins. Wilson was once again cautioned by the mayor to let the attorney speak.

Once she had the floor again, Hoskins pointed to a flaw in Berry’s reasoning, noting the law says “may” and not “shall,” which is something she said is right out of Law School 101. She reasoned that if the state wanted to require cities to pass comprehensive plans only by ordinance, then they would have dictated it. “They did not dictate that,” she said, adding that the cities she has looked at all did their plans by resolution and not ordinance.

Glick interrupted Hoskins, getting another “out of order” prompt from the mayor, telling him to let the attorney finish.

“I think this is being used as a tactic to instill fear in the public by telling them that this body now has the authority to put a gas station beside their home,” she said. “That is completely inaccurate. This board, by passing it by resolution, is changing nothing about the comprehensive plan.”

She went on to quash claims of conspiracy. “To allege that the city is somehow doing this secretly is completely inaccurate,” she said.

In the end, the board voted unanimously to remove the resolution from the agenda since the second reading to rescind the original ordinance was not placed on the agenda for the evening due to an oversight. However, debate still rolled about whether the first reading to rescind the ordinance should be counted since it was not advertised before the vote was taken.