As a citizen of Coffee County, I am very interested in our local politics. The indictment of Alderman Kurt Glick was certainly something that got my attention, so I continued to follow the case.

When your article came out in the paper announcing the dismissal, it left more questions than answers — most notably, why was the case dismissed. It seems that the evidence & governing law showed serious defects in both charges. Mr. Glick was charged with 2 counts of official misconduct under two different provisions of Tennessee law. Both counts ultimately focused on the same board action: Glick’s vote in favor of placing city employee Casta Brice on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into her conduct. This action was a majority vote by the board of alderman, not Glick alone. It took an article in the Chattanooga paper with an excerpt from an affidavit by Mr. Lucian T. Pera, an expert ethics and constitutional law attorney, to explain things more clearly. Since Count 1 cited Glick’s actions as a city employee, Pera said. “Mr. Glick could not have violated the statue in question….through conduct that occurred only after his employment ended, or through his conduct in voting (or failing to recuse ) in an official position he never held while a city employee”.

As to Count 2, Mr Pera concluded that Tennessee law imposed no duty on Mr. Glick to recuse himself from the vote.

Mr. Glick has maintained his innocence all along. The state’s decision to dismiss recognized the fact that Mr. Glick did not violate any laws. The dismissed judgements bring both charges to a final close without a trial or conviction. No fines, sentence or other criminal penalty was imposed.

I really felt it was a disservice to both Mr. Glick & the citizens of Tullahoma not to have given more pertinent information relating to the state’s decision to dismiss.

Joseph Bundura

Coffee County