A

The Board of Mayor and Aldermen will be having a special call meeting on Mon., Jan. 29, following their study session about setting term limits for the Mayoral and Aldermanic positions.

Mayor Pro Tem Jenna Amacher opened the study session, as she proposed it in the first January meeting of the month.

Amacher cited Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) 6-3-110 Cities and Towns, which states “the Board of Mayor and Aldermen [can] establish term limits for the Mayor and Board of Mayor and Alderman of certain municipalities by ordinance.”

“What I took from this is, you don’t establish [term limits] by charter, you establish it by ordinance,” she said. “I think what’s important that I took from this is it says that basically the Board of Mayor and Alderman of any municipality incorporated under this charter within a county that has adopted a charter form of government is authorized upon its own initiative and upon the adoption of an ordinance by a two-thirds vote.”

Amacher said “to me that means we are eligible 100% to adopt this ordinance, according to state law.”

She added that the positions of mayor and alderman should have separate limits.

Alderman Daniel Berry agreed with her about the need for term limits, but said “I think you need to find the right way to get it. This quotation here though, says ‘incorporated under this charter,’ and that’s specifically speaking on the charter laid out in common law…I don’t believe those rules apply to us.”

Amacher responded that Tullahoma has a private act charter, and they have “more leeway” so she didn’t “believe the general assembly would tell us ‘no, you can’t do this.’”

City Attorney Stephen Worsham said he didn’t think the code Amacher cited could apply to the city because the city has a private act charter.

“It’s totally inapplicable to us. We cannot follow these provisions. What we can do is put provision in our charter that allows us to establish term limits,” said Worsham. “First, we would have to have a referendum, as this code section suggests, in order to establish [term limits]…and in that referendum, we could adopt it, it would be the adoption of an ordinance.”

Worsham cited a state case, Jordan v. Knox County, which “holds that these provisions of counties and municipalities, and we don’t have the authority under the general law to have a referendum at all. There are only 12 different kinds of instances under general law that would apply to a private act city.”

“I don’t see why we can’t just pass this by ordinance,” said Amacher. “What would preclude us from doing that? Because our charter does not speak to it one way or another.”

Worsham responded that the ordinance, if passed under the current city charter, would “be invalid.”

“How so?” asked Amacher.

Worsham stated that the Supreme Court of Tennessee lays out how the process should be “in this case.”

“It doesn’t,” Amacher replied.

“This ordinance just does not apply,” said Worsham.

“Well that statute may not apply, but even if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t mean that it’s unlawful to do it,” said Amacher. “Show me a statute that makes it unlawful.”

After further exchange, Worsham said the case he cited “sets out procedure for” creating an ordinance regarding term limits.

“So what you’re saying is we have to put it in the Charter first,” said Alderman Kurt Glick.

“Right,” said Worsham.

Berry asked if they would need a special called meeting to add the term limit section to the Charter.

He proposed they set a special-called meeting for Mon., Jan. 29 to pass the charter revision, so that they could get it to the state legislators in time, as they have an early February deadline.

“And then if they pass it with the rest of our charter in April, we can then set that referendum in August,” said Berry.

“You have to have 75 days ahead of time [for a referendum],” said Amacher. “So it would need to go on in August and then it would be effective in the November election.”

Berry said he wanted to have a “trigger resolution so the second the state passes it, our clock has started and we’re good to go.”

Glick asked Worsham if an ordinance would work if the Charter revisions were approved.

Worsham said that they would, but “they can’t be retrospective. It can’t apply to anybody that’s held office in the past.”

Worsham said he’d like to check with the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) before adding the revision to the Charter, but he was pretty sure they just needed language saying they could introduce term limits in the Charter, and the ordinance could be made after.

Alderman Bobbie Wilson said they didn’t want to wait for MTAS, as they didn’t have much time. Glick asked Worsham if he thought it was “illegal to make it retroactive as to any terms [previously] served.”

Worsham said he thought that to be true.

“No, that’s not what this says,” said Amacher. “Not in this case law. And I’m reading right here, it actually just says–”

“What are you quoting, Ms. Amacher?” asked Worsham.

“I’m quoting the case you just gave me,” she said. “So, it says that’s how the county itself enacted. It was about changing their charter to begin with. One of the things that became a point of issue was the term limits. Well, the court ultimately said that yes, they had the authority to enact the term limits because the people opposing the term limits were current office holders that wanted to serve another term. The court at the end, in the conclusion, says ‘they shall hold their office until a successor can be elected.’ But the term limits are in effect and are enforceable.”

After further discussion about the law and deciding the special call meeting, Worsham asked “is there a reason why we want to do it so quickly?”

“Yes, I want it effective this election year,” said Amacher.

“Why?” asked Worsham.

“Why not?” Amacher responded.

There was some back and forth discussion between Worsham and Amacher, before Berry said “I’m gonna be honest. I do believe in this and it’s something that I’d like to be done.”

Berry said he wanted term limits to be made before he left office, if he left office following the fall election.

“I have respect for Daniel saying that,” said Amacher. “Because if we said two terms, it could potentially limit his ability to run as alderman.”

“Mr. Worsham, I would say this,” Amacher added, “your job is to help us figure out how to do what we want to do, not question why we want to do it.”

Worsham said that he was a Tullahoma citizen, and that he thought it was a valid question. He added that State Representative Rush Bricken told him “the more things we send up there, that may end up deterring action on the whole thing and we want the legislature to pass that basic new charter.”

He said he didn’t want the term limit revision to hold up the rest of their revisions.

“We worked a long time on the new charter, and that’s why I asked,” said Worsham.

“We have to make sure, Mr. Worsham,” said Amacher, “that we take off our citizen hat and operate under the role of city attorney in a formal meeting.” She added that she didn’t think it was appropriate for him to express his concerns as a citizen in a formal setting.

“Ms. Amacher, I’m not gonna debate with you the first amendment. You talked about that a lot, and I don’t have to argue about that,” said Worsham.

Alderman Derick Mann interrupted, saying “I think we need to get back on course.”

Mayor Ray Knowis agreed to schedule a special-called meeting for Mon., Jan. 29 and the study session was adjourned.