SO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE RULES COMMITTEE MEETING?
We so appreciate the patriots who responded to our “Community Notice” (not quite the red alert of a full blown Call to Action) with only three hours’ notice. Eight showed up to the Rules Committee meeting. This was a teeny bit momentous, as thanks to newly passed House Bill 448, effective July 1, 2023, and adopted by the County Commission via Resolution 7-23-25 on July 10, 2023, this is the first subcommittee meeting with public comment!
Thursday, September 28th, 4:30 PM
Executive Conference Room at 1320 West Main Street, Franklin
COMISSIONERS PRESENT:
*Lisa Hayes (District 1)
*Gregg Lawrence (District 4)
*Mary Smith (District 5) – Committee Chair
*Chris Richards (District7)
David Landrum (District 10)
Steve Smith (District 12)
*Drew Torres (District 8) – Not on Rules Committee, so non-voting
Brian Beathard (District 11) – Not on Rules Committee, but as County Commission Chair, attends most committee meetings
*Endorsed by Williamson Families in 2022
ALSO PRESENT:
Two lawyers for the county
Eight citizens for public comment
The Play-by-Play:
Since the Resolution in question was not on the agenda, the lawyers informed Commissioner Smith that public comment on it was not permitted. She almost went along with that, but then thought wiser about it and called the lawyer back over. After quiet discussion, she announced that public comment on non-agenda items would be heard. Three speakers made comments, citing various reasons to maintain elected leaders’ abilities to call town hall meetings. However, the lawyers got their way with the remaining five citizens who did not utilize the sign-in sheet in time and prevented them from speaking (more on this in a moment). Most stayed for the duration of the meeting, however, and this is what happened….
5:02 – Commissioner Mary Smith brings up Resolution 9-23-46. Asks lawyers what are next steps to tying up the loose ends of this resolution? “How do we pull that back, start over and get a clearer picture for how to engage with the public?”
5:05 – Commissioner Smith will make a motion to withdraw the resolution at October County Commission meeting.
5:06 – Commissioner Gregg Lawrence (D4) – The resolution was meant to provide a framework of rules. He did a tax code town hall last year and got flack for it. There are valid questions about protocol for such meetings: whether to keep minutes and how to notify public are two examples.
5:08 – Commissioner Lisa Hayes (D1) – Is it not more of an education for us on what the rules are, rather than creating a new resolution? Mary Smith comments, “It [the resolution] is very vague.”
5:09 – Commissioner Drew Torres (D8) – The resolution is very vague. Is it really appropriate to make this a resolution? Suggests a matrix of procedures for various meetings to keep them safe on Sunshine Law. Comments that Sunshine Law is one of the worst written legal documents ever written. Suggests having county lawyers get another legal read of the law or hire outside counsel.
5:12 – Commissioner Chris Richards (D7) – Asks what actually happens with a Sunshine Law violation. Lawyer: it gets reported, the resolution it concerns would be dissolved.
5:13 – Commissioner Mary Smith (D5) – Sunshine Laws actually make it harder for us to be transparent with our constituents. As a county commissioner, apart from meetings, what do we truly have the ability to do?
5:14 – Commissioner Chris Richards (D7) – This resolution was sparked by an anonymous complaint filed against the March town hall. Who filed the complaint? Why are we rushing to create a resolution for 1-2 complaints, and who made the complaints?
5:17 – Green shirt guy – county has a lobbyist who keeps track of legislation at the county
5:20 – Commissioner Mary Smith (D5) – Asks lawyers: how do we get this resolution removed from the table? They respond that it would need to be out on the agenda for the next County Commission meeting and then she could motion to withdraw. At that point, the resolution would be dead. Commissioner Smith asks that it be thus put on the agenda for the October meeting. (Agenda to be released first week of October).
Overall, this was a success! Eight constituents showed up on three hours notice. The Rules Committee discussed the resolution in question, which was not on the agenda, and reached a consensus that it should be withdrawn. What to expect: Resolution 9-23-46 will be added to the October or November 2023 County Commission Meeting Agenda. Commissioner Mary Smith will motion for it to be withdrawn. We do not anticipate that any of the commissioners are willing to fight for this, as the support for it was weak to begin with, and now the opposition to it is more galvanized. Once the motion is seconded, a majority vote will withdraw the resolution and it will be dead. Officially.
If you would like to engage in Public Comment, the next County Commission meeting is 7:00 PM on Monday, October 9th in the auditorium of 1320 West Main St, Franklin, TN. If this item does not make the October agenda, look for it at the November meeting on November 13th.
An Aside on Lawyers….
In the beginning of the meeting, while navigating the public comment procedures, Rules Committee Chair Mary Smith continually looked to the two lawyers in the room for what she can and cannot do. The lawyers were spring-loaded to not permit any public comment whatsoever, and they were partially successful. Who serves who? The paid lawyer serves at the behest of the largely unpaid elected representative, who serves at the behest of the people who elected them, do they not? How is that the lawyers are running the show?
This is the same phenomenon we see at all county levels… Shauna Billingsley (who can be found on various left wing social media pages) de-facto runs the Franklin BOMA. Dana Ausbrooks continually misleads the Williamson County School Board from a legal standpoint. The County Commission’s lawyer, Bobby Cook, appears to be no different. Perhaps one of the most brilliant displays of agenda-driven legal “advice” would be the October 12, 2021, forced vote by the county commission on the installation of Josh Brown into the District 4 school board seat. (James O’Keefe was recently in town to ask about that!)
The lawyers on all three of these entities (btw, Spring Hill, Nolensville, Brentwood, speak up) consistently push leaders towards left agendas under the banner of “avoiding lawsuits.”
For the BOMA – Mayor Ken Moore just this week defended his vote for the Pride Fest, saying that his lawyers advised of potential lawsuits if he didn’t. Right.
For the County Commission – The commissioners were advised last June of the quite empty threat that the Election Commission could sue the County Commission for failing to purchase voting machines. That would be a long shot indeed, as the EC would have to open itself up to legal “discovery” and wouldn’t that have been a field day? Yet, multiple commissioners cited this as a reason to vote Yes on the purchase of ES&S machines (proudly, none of them were Williamson Families candidates).
For the School Board – Also last June, the left-leaning board members cited fear of a lawsuit for voting to keep pornographic material on school library shelves. Who told them that? Well, the joke’s on them because now a lawsuit has been filed because of their failure to remove these materials.
Across the board, the establishment lawyers that are part of the entrenched, unelected bureaucracy continue to shepherd our duly elected leaders towards weak positions on these issues due to shady legal advice. Grace should be given to the leaders who are misled, as it’s hard to look a lawyer in the face and say, “I know better” (especially if you’re not a lawyer). But that is exactly what needs to start happening.