Chattanooga

18 Aug, 2014

Chattanooga considers new records retention policy

By |2014-08-18T06:28:02-05:00August 18, 2014|Categories: records management|Tags: , , , |0 Comments

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that the city is considering a new records retention policy that could potentially destroy "decades of old documents." Some citizens are raising questions. An excerpt from the story: Berke's senior adviser, Stacy Richardson, said creating a new public records retention policy is part of being open and could save taxpayers money. She said the city will keep the public informed on what records will be kept and which ones should be put in a public server for residents to access on their own. A records policy, she said, is complicated and takes time to study. "The city is 175 years old and has been [...]

4 Aug, 2014

Open Records Counsel: Chattanooga utility EPB wrongly demanded fees to view public records

By |2015-04-28T11:34:23-05:00August 4, 2014|Categories: fees|Tags: , , , , , , , |0 Comments

The city-owned utility of Chattanooga charged a University of Tennessee-Chattanooga student $1,767 to view its public records on advertising spending -- an amount that the state's Open Records Counsel said is not in line with the law. Despite counsel Elisha Hodge telling Electric Power Board of Chattanooga (EPB) that it could not charge labor fees to compile records for a citizen to inspect, the utility stood by its decision in a story in the Chattanooga Times Free Press and tried to justify its action by saying the student was working with a national think tank. Ethan Greene, a student at University of Tennessee-Chattanooga Student Ethan Greene on March 24 requested [...]

17 Jul, 2014

Read judge’s order in Open Meetings case against Chattanooga Industrial Development Board

By |2019-09-11T18:50:08-05:00July 17, 2014|Categories: economic development, Open Meetings, open meetings lawsuits|Tags: , , , , , |1 Comment

Helen Burns Sharp, whose career included working as a community planner for state and municipal government, spent $50,000 of her retirement savings to bring a lawsuit against the Chattanooga Industrial Development Board in 2013. She alleged that the board approved tax-increment financing for a Black Creek Mountain golf course community. In the deal, the developers got $9 million from industrial board-issued bonds to build road and sewer up a mountain to the community. And property taxes from all the expensive homes built there would be used to pay them off. She didn't think that was right -- that TIF funds are not supposed to be used for such projects -- and [...]

17 Jul, 2014

Chattanooga judge voids $9 million deal on Open Meetings violation

By |2015-08-18T07:40:48-05:00July 17, 2014|Categories: economic development, Open Meetings, open meetings lawsuits|Tags: , , , , , , , |0 Comments

A citizen spent $50,000 of her own money to bring a lawsuit against Chattanooga's industrial development board, and won. Hamilton County Chancellor Frank Brown says the board violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act when it approved a $9 million deal for developers of a golf course community. The judge's ruling voids the deal. This is the second lawsuit that we've shared on TCOG's blog in recent days on citizen lawsuits involving economic development, alleging violations of the Sunshine Law and operating in secrecy. Citizens in Greene County allege Open Meetings violations in bringing to town a company that wants to make liquid ammonium nitrate used in industrial explosives. Read the Times Free [...]

4 Jun, 2014

Update: Chattanooga judges release job applications after AG’s advice

By |2017-01-06T15:26:27-06:00June 4, 2014|Categories: Attorney General Opinions, state records|Tags: , , , , , |0 Comments

Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffery Atherton Hamilton County Chancellor Frank Brown In a story being followed by the Chattanooga Times Free Press, two judges who had denied the newspaper access to job applications for the county's Clerk and Master position reversed course and released the documents. The judges had originally told the Times Free Press that even if the applications were public records, they thought the privacy of the applicants "outweigh the public's right to know." They then sealed the records by issuing a court order in a highly unusual move considering there was no current litigation before them in which they had jurisdiction to issue an [...]

Go to Top