Comments provided by Bill Summers, Ward 10

Ordinance 54 - Budget addition to the airport

Passed in a 9-yes & 3-no vote. I voted yes.

The continued financial and management oversight of the airport by both the city and county continues to be a problem. It was an element in this recent issue where the airport appears to be short in its building fund of just over $200,000. It appears we have a left hand, right hand and an extra hand in looking at costs and management.

Each hand has not been talking the same language and that has caused this problem. In looking at the numbers and supporting the need to get this airport finished, I supported the additional funding from the city for half the amount (the county covers the other half).

The new airport is looking great, money is being made on fuel operations, the city built a new fire station and other new ideas are on the horizon which could make this function operate at a breakeven cost. However, it is time to leave this operation in the hands of one government entity and stop the management by committee approach.

Since I have been on the council, it has been a continuing battle of what the airport needs, what the city will agree to, what the county will agree to, making sure one doesn’t give more or less than the other and a host of other issues and problems. It is time to consolidate the financial and oversight management of the airport. I believe the county government is the best function to hand it over to.

It appears the county is prepared to take over the actual accounting processes of the airport. This eliminates one of those hands I mentioned earlier. If the county does this, then it is fully capable of managing the airport itself either through a committee or the Airport Authority. It is time for the city to step out of the picture and stop the double taxation of city taxpayers.  Remember, you pay taxes to both the city and county and they turn around and both pay to support the airport, so you got to pay twice for the airport.

When Mayor McMillan was asked about what I am proposing at a recent radio talk show, she was non-committal. She referenced the city had an investment and we would have to look at all aspects. True, the city has made an investment, but we really don’t own the airport, the authority does.

In addition, we are all county taxpayers and elect the county government. The county is the only entity that can equally tax all taxpayers to fund the needs of the airport. Thus, the taxpayer still has oversight of the airport, but would do it through the county in my proposal.

Taking the city out of the management picture will also stop the airport from having to work for and answer to two bosses. History has shown that the two bosses can’t always agree and this leaves the airport in the middle. The city and county are preparing to build next year's budget and the current Airport Authority board will likely have a 100% changeover in personnel by the end of the budget year so the timing is perfect to make this change. I will pursue this course of action and keep you posted.

Resolution 28 - Establishing a Smart Growth Committee

Passed in a 12 –yes vote

You may recall I was not in favor of this at the beginning when the mayor brought this up several months ago. I felt that it was the council's responsibility to set a course of action and carry it out. I did not support the need to have another committee take a planning report that is full of good potential projects and telling us which ones we should do.

Last week at the executive session Mr. Jeff Bibb, one of the developers of the Smart Growth plan, provided an excellent presentation of what had been envisioned with this committee. His presentation was much better in listing the goals and working relationships than what had been previously provided.

This committee will primarily look at those issues or projects that cross the boundaries of both city and county.  The 2030 growth plan may provide some areas in which to research.  Development of new roads that may require or need the help of funding and planning through state or federal resources and whose beginnings and ends do not originate at the city/county lines is an example.

My concern had been that the city would use the committee as an excuse as to why some projects may or may not be put on our plate for consideration and action or prioritize what we should work on.  Mayor McMillan stated in the executive session that I could submit any project in the 2030 Plan to the council for consideration and action.

(Note to readers: I actually had done this with the East –West Corridor project which was a listed in the top ten of 2030 projects. The mayor refused to support it). This committee will not interfere with the city establishing projects and schedules, however, it appears to be up to the individual council members to try and do this based on the mayor's comment to me. The mayor has not submitted any projects to the council from the 2030 plan that she would be willing to take a leadership role for.

There were a couple of changes in the actual agreement between the city and county I found that needed addressing.  In the executive session the mayor had stated that there would not be any budget needs for this committee. However, in the actual contract it referenced that the city and county would address funding of the committee.

I notified the city attorney of this “funding” language. He must have notified the mayor as she stated that would be deleted from the agreement at the beginning of the discussions on this ordinance. With the mayor taking care of that concern, I moved on to the next couple of items I had for change.

The city is to provide six members to the committee and the county six also. The requirement was everyone had to live within Montgomery County. I proposed an amendment that the city sponsored members had to live within the city limits. This was approved by the council.

Next, the 12 members chosen by the city and county can choose three additional committee members on their own for a total of 15 members. I proposed an amendment that 2 of the 3 members chosen by the committee had to be city residents. The council approved my amendment. With those changes the council approved the revised agreement.

Resolution 38 - Amend the Current Charter in relation to conflict of interest

As I mentioned in the previous report, the mayor’s second effort to push through this single change on the old charter failed again. It appears, as this topic has been battled over, the mayor seems to alter the details. The mayor has mentioned several times (to include the recent executive session) that state law required some assignments of citizens with particular job or educational backgrounds. A council member asked for a list of those committee or board positions that the state dictated such requirements.

The mayor said she would get that list before the regular session vote. No list was provided and the mayor then denied she had mentioned any requirements by the state. This left some puzzled looks on a number of council members because they know she mentioned the “state” requirements.

The discussions got more interesting as another council member cited information received that the mayor had requested a citizen, that is on a city sponsored committee/group and does occasional business with the city, not to step down. The mayor denied this and stated she would not ask anyone to do anything that was illegal. However, the mayor then began to backtrack and talk about something related to some other types of commissions or authorities that our charter restriction did not apply to.

So doing business with the city would not apply and those citizens could stay and not be affected. This was news to council members as this was the first we had heard there was any exception. The mayor did not cite a legal source for this revelation.

The charter section that has caused this uproar does NOT state that there is any group, committee, authority, etc is excluded. It was a citizen serving on an authority (airport) that does business with the city and county that started all of this debate and now the mayor states the rule doesn't apply in all situations.

If we look at history on the charter issue and the changing stories, a definition of the word insanity comes to my mind. In that particular definition insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Only by changing the variables can a different result be achieved.

The charter revision has failed three times (twice at the state and once at the council) due to political interference at the state and local level. The effort to revise the old charter by piecemeal methods has failed twice because a core of council members have worked to ensure a complete and modern charter will be built, not one for political expediency.

The mayor has gone on record that a fourth effort to build a new charter will be undertaken However, she wants to follow the same path of development and approval that has led to failure every time.

I have submitted to readers that a new approach using the "Home Rule" charter appears to be a possible solution to our charter problems. It provides two variable changes that can produce a different result by taking the state legislature completely out of the process and adds the citizen voter as the final approval authority.

While the mayor has not extended the courtesy to respond directly to me on my request for the council to explore this option, she has gone on record of not supporting this approach in public statements.

The mayor wants to combine 12 citizens and 12 council members into a committee to come up with a (another) final charter. The questions that begs to be asked and answered is what happens if this fourth committee supports the policies presented in the initial charter efforts that the state would not support?  What happens if this group likes the proposals that the third charter committee was going to recommend, but the mayor did not like and disbanded it?

It must be remembered that a team of citizens were part of the initial charter revision and supported the policies (along with 2/3s of the council) that the state legislature was against (remember that none of the policies were illegal and are part of charters that other cities have).

The mayor has publicly stated that she is willing to accept the dictates of the state legislature on how Clarksville should operate. If the new 12 citizens are still supportive of changes and policies that the state and mayor did not like, what will happen then? Will the mayor disband them and start with round 5 of the charter update?

The mayor cannot assure that this will not happen unless she plans some pre-selection process that ensures that a majority of the chosen citizens will do as the state and mayor wants. The possibility of some mayoral directed pre-selection process has crossed the minds of several council members. Perhaps by having each council member find a citizen from their ward to work on this committee would lessen this concern. I know there are plenty of citizens in Ward 10 that would help.

The effort to establish a new charter committee will actually work for the benefit and timing of a "Home Rule" charter effort. In addition, if the new committee found a topic that raised concern, it could be sent directly to the voters for a final decision. This would offset or eliminate any pre-selection or predetermination that might find its way onto the latest charter committee proposal.

I will continue to research and present the “Home Rule” option as one that Clarksville should consider. I have presented information on this option to two public groups and have received very positive feedback. If you have a group or association that would like to know more about "Home Rule", please let me know.

That's a wrap.

Thanks

Bill Summers
Ward 10

Eve Ensler's touching, often hilarious series of monologues about women and performed by women has played to packed houses around the country, and the Roxy Regional Theatre's production of THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES, opening January 6 at 8pm, is no exception.

Heather Anderson, Ashley Laverty and Adriane Wiley-Hatfield are joined by Jill Eichhorn, professor of women's studies at Austin Peay State University; Paige King, proprietor of home boutique Hodgepodge; and Melissa Schaffner, marketing director of Fort Campbell's MWR program; in readings of these monologues, which were drafted following interviews Eve Ensler conducted with 200 women about their views on sex, relationships, and violence against women.

THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES is presented in theotherspace, the 50-seat black-box theatre located upstairs at the Roxy, and runs January 6 through February 4, playing Thursdays at 7 pm and Fridays and Saturdays at 8 pm.

Tickets are $10 and may be purchased online at www.roxyregionaltheatre.org, by phone at (931)645-7699, or at the theatre during regular box office hours (9am to 2pm, Monday through Friday).

Have you always wanted to play the violin but never got around to picking up the instrument? Or maybe acting or dancing is your thing, and for years you've suppressed the desire to take the stage.

Whatever your long suppressed artistic cravings may be, the Austin Peay State University Community School of the Arts likely has a class suited for you this fall.

For more than two decades, the CSA has provided music, art and dance lessons for children and adults throughout Clarksville, and another semester of classes is set to begin on Aug. 29.

This fall's classes and programs include:

Individual, one-on-one, Music Lessons
Suzuki Violin Lessons for Ages 4 and Older
Organ Lessons
Beginning Class Piano for Ages 4-6
Beginning Class Piano for Adults
Continuing Class Piano for Adults
Clarksville Youth Chorus for Ages 8-12
Clarksville Teen Singers for Ages 13-18
Clarksville Community Chorus for Ages 18 and Older
High School Flute Choir
Youth String Orchestra
Advanced Percussion Ensemble
Jazz studies and performance
Individual Art Lessons for Ages 7 and Older
Ceramics for Ages 15 and Older
Advanced Ceramics for Ages 15 and Older
Painting with Watercolors for Ages 8-14
Introduction to Digital Photography for Ages 15 and Older
Digital Photography and Photoshop for Ages 15 and older
Mixed Media: Collage Elements for Ages 15 and Older
Journaling with Mixed Media for Ages 15 and Older
Puppetry Theatre Class for Ages 6-12
Audition Prep Workshop for High School Students and Adults
Beginning Ballet for Ages 6-9
Beginning Ballet for Ages 10-17
Adult Beginning Ballet
Introduction to Dance for Adults
Hip Hop Dance for Children Under 15
Hip Hop Dance for Adults
Creative Movement for Children Ages 4-5

The CSA is also offering three Kindermusik programs for young children this fall. Kindermusik Village, for ages 6-18 months, works to stimulate a baby’s growth and development through a blend of multilevel activities, including creative movement, vocal play, object and instrument exploration and a colorful literature component.

Kindermusik Our Time, for ages 18 months to three years, uses music and creative movement to build confidence, self-control and communication skills. Kindermusik Imagine That, for ages 3-5 years, encourages socialization, sharing and participating in group activities through singing.

Open registration for the CSA classes begins Aug. 8, with classes starting the week of Aug. 29. Fees vary for the different classes. A complete list of the programs and costs is available online at www.apsu.edu/csa. For more information, contact the CSA at 221-7508 or by email at csa@apsu.edu.