C

The Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted on a motion to initiate document disposal procedures in the Municipal Building, following the discovery of documents in an HR file closet, set aside for disposal.

The motion for the investigation was brought before the board by Alderman Jenna Amacher. Mayor Ray Knowis requested that Coffee County District Attorney Craig Northcott speak before the board and provide information on the legality of the proposal.

Northcott is currently petitioning a case against Amacher to have her removed from office on the grounds of not being a citizen of Tullahoma, as his case file claims. The petition for removal was filed in October of 2022.

Amacher protested Northcott being present and allowed to speak.

“He needs to be on the agenda,” she said. “He is not our city attorney. He is not on our payroll. If we want to have an executive session, we will need to schedule that.”

Disregarding Amacher’s comments, the mayor asked Northcott to provide his legal opinion on whether the documents are under the purview of the city board to review.

“These particular documents, due to the events of the first week of this month at the insistence of certain aldermen, as well as due to some of the conduct around it, have become evidence,” Northcott clarified. “As evidence, they are not available to anyone but law enforcement, under my control and purview. To the extent that an investigation revolves around accessing these records, that investigation is not going to be fruitful until such time as the criminal investigation is done.”

He stated that the documents are not subject to the Open Information Act, since they are considered to be evidence in a case. Amacher questioned who requested that the documents be taken.

“You did,” he replied. “You asked for it to be taken into the control of law enforcement, alleging that certain –”

“Specifically our city police department,” Amacher interrupted, “and we gave her the same direction,” referring to former city administrator Jennifer Moody. “We did not call you.”

Knowis instructed the board to allow Northcott to answer his initial question.

“These records were requested to be taken into control due to allegations of criminal conduct,” Northcott continued. “Once that happens, they leave the control of this body. They leave the control of this city.”

“Who requested it?” Amacher interrupted again. “Because we have to take a vote on that. You’re meddling and interfering in a separate branch of government right now. It is within our municipal code to conduct our own internal investigations first.”

Knowis banged his gavel, signaling for order in the boardroom.

“Ma’am, I have been elected –” Northcott started.

“You have not been elected in this city, and this is a city boardroom meeting,” Amacher interjected.

“Ma’am, I’m not going to educate you on the rule of supremacy, but I have been elected as the chief law enforcement officer of this judicial district, which includes –”

“And we are the chief legislative body of this judicial district, and we are not in your courtroom today,” Amacher rebuked. “We are not in the district attorney’s office today. We are in the city of Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting.”

Alderman Bobbie Wilson asked Northcott if she could ask him a question, prompting a laugh from the district attorney.

“Feel free,” he laughed. “I’m not sure I’m gonna be allowed to answer. We have someone here who seems to be smarter than the rest of us.”

Knowis requested that the board allow Northcott to speak to the legality of the motion suggested by Amacher, as the passing of this motion would affect a later vote to place HR Director Casta Brice on administrative leave.

Wilson asked if the state comptroller’s office would be able to arrange an audit of the documents and events of Feb. 1 with the district attorney’s office.

“They will have to coordinate that through me, to the extent that I think it was necessary for their assistance,” he said.

“This isn’t for your assistance; this is for an internal investigation,” Amacher quipped. “I don’t see in our code where you can block us from doing that.”

Northcott then cited a Tennessee Supreme Court decision, The Tennessean v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, from 2015.

As Northcott began to lay out the history of the case, Amacher interrupted again.

“You’ve already lost me,” she said. “The facts are not even similar.”

Knowis declared her out of order and directed Northcott to continue.

Per his explanation, a public records request by media members and other petitioners had been denied, due to the requested information being considered evidence in an ongoing criminal case. Documents that are relevant to a pending or contemplated criminal action are exempt from public disclosure under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16

During the pendency of a criminal case and any collateral challenges to any conviction, Rule 16 governs the disclosure of information, and only the defendants, not the public, may receive information contained in the police investigative files, as upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court decision.

“My point in reading that is that the only basis for access for anyone to any records under the control of law enforcement is through a Public Records Act request,” he said. “No one can access those records while the case is pending, other than law enforcement. To the extent that any investigation needs access to these records, it will be a fruitless endeavor until this is completed –”

“We are not the public,” Amacher interjected. “What’s the difference between the public and this legislative body?”

“For the purposes of accessing these records, absolutely nothing,” Northcott responded. “I have beat my head against the wall as much as I intend to.”

Alderman Kurt Glick stated his interpretation of the motion as an investigation into the process of document retention and if it had been violated, which would not be dependent upon access to the documents. He asked whether such an investigation would be able to proceed.

“If the investigation takes other course that does not need access to these papers, then that is outside my purview,” Northcott said. “The other thing that I need to bring to this board’s attention that touches on the issues of criminal justice and law enforcement is that this body has no ability or right to ask the TBI to investigate anything.”

“That is incorrect,” Amacher rebutted. “You are not our legal counsel. Please do not give us legal advice.”

Knowis and Patricia Junkin, board parliamentarian, stated that Amacher was violating board decorum with her outbursts, to which Amacher said the Junkin’s presence was a violation.

“I’m happy to return in a month, when this issue may no longer be a problem and we can have a civil discussion,” Northcott concluded.

Following the statements made by Northcott, the board returned to a discussion about the motion and proposed investigation, as it would be able to be conducted without access to the documents.

The board approved the motion with a vote of 5-2, with Mayor Ray Knowis and Alderman Jerry Mathis against.