Attorney gets go-ahead from council to serve papers on the mayor

By Teresa N. Settle
TENNESSEE EXPRESS STAFF WRITER

It’s been an item under “old” business for a long time—and dates back, according to Erin City Recorder Linda Bratschi for over 25 years. The issue: payments in lieu of insurance for city mayors and city attorneys.
“This has been a practice of the City of Erin for the past 25 years. I have documents to prove it,” says Bratschi, who cites at least four mayors in the past and several city attorneys who received in lieu of insurance payments.
However, this old business took up considerable time at the Erin City Council meeting last Tuesday, April 6.
At the outset of the meeting, City Attorney Jennifer Roberts apologized for Attorney Tim Potter, who was running late to the meeting. Roberts said Potter was in court, but that he should be able to make the meeting later.
Potter had been retained by the city council after a June 24, 2003 public hearing to file a declaratory judgment action to see whether or not receipt payments in lieu of insurance for the mayor and city attorney were “proper” or “improper.”
The wording of the city ordinance allows for payments in lieu of insurance to city employees; however, the mayor and the city attorney are not technically employees.
Potter addressed the board and said that he has done his job and after numerous trips to the city of Erin and other phone calls and investigations, he is ready to file the declaratory judgment.
City Councilmember Loraine Beechum asked Potter if he felt he had done an accurate investigation to the best of his ability, and Potter replied, “Absolutely.”
Potter also stated that he had been contacted by Assistant District Attorney General Carey Thompson regarding the case, but stated at the moment this is a civil matter, and this limited the scope of his investigation.
Roberts then sternly spoke to the council saying that past payments have been done for over 25 years and that it is the council that allowed them to be done this way.
“This board has continued to do that,” she said. “Those payments have been made, whether negligently or intentionally. Each one of you are the ones that did it.”
Roberts said the auditors see no problem with it, but the council obviously does but is not doing anything to stop it.
“Ya’ll have taken no action to stop it,” she said. “It’s still an ongoing issue, but it’s not being paid.”
Councilmember Wanda Lockhart said she had asked that when Mr. Potter attended the first council meeting that it be advertised in the local newspaper, but it wasn’t. She said during budget meetings she asked the mayor if the payments were going to continue and he said yes.
She also said that Councilmember Martha Greenfield made a motion in November to take the matter to circuit or chancery court, but that Roberts said a declaratory action had to come first.
Lockhart made a motion to request a full state compliance audit of the city’s affairs for the past five years to see if the laws were in compliance, which was seconded by Beechum.
Greenfield stated, “We should wait to get the ruling [on the declaratory action]. One step at a time. I just think that’s sensible.”
The motion failed before a motion to have Potter proceed with the declaration action passed.
When asked how long this would take, Potter said the Mayor as the responding party would have 30 days to file and answer, then either side would have “discovery” where they could obtain document depositions.
“I think we need to expedite the matter and get it heard,” Potter stated.
Later, Beechum stated for the record that Roberts was wrong in saying the council had done nothing to stop the in lieu of insurance payments from continuing. She said during budget talks she expressly stated that it should not be left in the budget.
She then made a motion to stop any payments to all unauthorized persons not classified as employees of salary in lieu of insurance according to the charter.
Alderman Terry Lewis addressed the mayor then by saying, “You are not receiving insurance money and Mrs. Jennifer [the city attorney] is not. Why have this motion? Why do we even have to vote on it?”
However, the motion passed.
Lockhart then asked Potter to discuss his conversation with the assistant D.A. Potter told him that he had not formed an opinion about the matter but that he did give him a copy of the declaratory action.
Stay tuned for other action by the board in part two. To send comments on this or other stories, write to Tennessee Express Writer Teresa N. Settle at redwriter@hctn.net.
MORE PHOTOS Read more!