Local News Articles

Local telecommunications providers including DTC Communications are protesting a proposal that would cut intrastate access fees collected from long-distance carriers that connect to their networks, a move they say could increase costs for rural customers.

Known as the "Uniform Access, Competition, and Consumer Fairness Act of 2011," the legislation is backed by a broad group of telecommunications providers including AT&T, which called the bill a "compromise" that would "modernize telecommunications policy and keep Tennessee moving forward."

Nashville attorney John Harris, III, who represents an association on behalf of seven rural Tennessee telephone cooperatives, including DTC, told WJLE Wednesday that if the proposed legislation is adopted by the Tennessee General Assembly, it could result in higher rates and or cuts in services offered by local telephone companies. "Their (phone cooperatives) concern is that this legislation that primarily AT&T is behind, because they are doing this in a number of other states, is going to be very bad for local government and for local communities that they serve for several reasons."

"The AT&T legislation really deals with a very narrow issue that has to do with how much AT&T, as a long distance carrier, has to pay a local phone cooperative, like DTC to connect an incoming long distance call to a DTC customer," said Harris. "For example, if a call originates out of Memphis, comes to Smithville and gets sent up some hollow somewhere to a rural customer, DTC wants to be paid a portion of the long distance charge because it owns the lines and has to pay for the electricity, the property taxes and it has to pay its employees to go out there and maintain the lines when a storm comes through. It has costs associated with its share of delivering that phone call. Presently, the rural phone cooperatives are charging anywhere from about four cents a minute to about ten cents a minute to connect that call statewide, depending upon the phone company. AT&T is charging its customers, in Memphis for example, as much as forty cents a minute to business customers to place those calls. AT&T is making plenty of profit on the calls," said Harris.

"What AT&T wants to do is to force the local phone cooperatives to accept approximately two cents a minute to place those calls across its network. AT&T's legislation would allow AT&T to benefit to the tune of about $16 million dollars a year in keeping those profits, those cost reductions, because the law that is proposed doesn't require AT&T to pass those cost savings on to its customers," according to Harris.

"From the perspective of the phone cooperatives, their response is that its actually costing them (cooperatives) anywhere from about five cents a minute to as much as nine cents a minute to provide that service and if the legislature is going to force them(cooperatives) to provide a service that costs nine cents a minute to provide and force them to only accept two cents a minute in compensation for that service then they (cooperatives) have to do something on their end to absorb that theft of services," said Harris. " Potentially, what they will have to do is either cut services, raise rates, or reduce the number of employees. It could mean as much as an eight dollar a month increase in cooperative customer basic monthly phone service rates to make up that loss which is really going into the pockets of AT&T," according to Harris.

"All the rural cooperatives are saying concerning this legislation is that we don't mind connecting and delivering the long distance calls. All we're (cooperatives) asking is that if it cost us, based on our calculations seven to nine cents a minute to do that (connect the calls) by the time you add in maintenance, employee salaries, and all the overhead, just pay us a reasonable amount of money to provide the service. AT&T doesn't want to do that," said Harris.

Harris added that the AT&T bill is getting a great deal of support from Republicans in the State House and Senate, except for a few including State Senator Mae Beavers and State Representative Terri Lynn Weaver who are standing with the rural telephone cooperatives in opposition to the legislation. "A real troubling thing about this is there is a perception, and I think it's a valid one, that a lot of the rural communities in Tennessee are part of the reason why the Republicans have now taken control of state government. We saw a shift in 2008 and 2010 in how rural communities are voting and that has given the Republicans the majority in the state house, state senate, and the Governor's office. But it's primarily the Republicans who are carrying AT&T's water at this point and turning on rural Tennessee with no apparent reason or concern for what it's going to do to rural Tennessee," said Harris. "We do have State Senator Mae Beavers and State Representative Terri Lynn Weaver and a lot of good Republicans and Democrats who are trying to look out for rural Tennessee. The problem is the Republican leadership like Mark Norris, who is out of Collierville near Memphis, doesn't have any rural coops in his area so he is not really concerned about rural Tennessee and he is the Senate sponsor of this bill," said Harris.

"AT&T is using it's power, it's size, and influence politically to take advantage of rural Tennessee communities and its critical that people in these rural communities contact their telephone coops and phone companies and ask what can we do to help fight this? Who do we need to call? Who do we need to email? How do we get the attention of Governor Bill Haslam and the State Senate and State House of Representatives to make sure that AT&T doesn't succeed in stealing phone services from rural cooperatives," Harris concluded.

In a prepared statement, DTC Officials have said " If AT&T and the telecom giants are successful, we estimate lost revenue to DTC will be $700,000 per year".

Members of the DeKalb County Board of Education and Director of Schools Mark Willoughby gathered with their counterparts from across the state in Nashville on February 22nd for a day of legislative networking at TSBA's annual "Day on the Hill" event. This year, featured program speakers included Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey, House Speaker Beth Harwell, Senate Education Committee Chair Dolores Gresham, and House Education Committee Chair Richard Montgomery.

"Day on the Hill" is designed for school board members and directors of schools to study pending education legislation and discuss priorities with local legislators. The event began with a breakfast at the Downtown Sheraton Hotel and was followed by visits to legislators' offices and committee hearings.

"Day on the Hill" provides a unique opportunity for school board members throughout the state to promote public education and seek assistance from the General Assembly with one collective voice", said TSBA President and Oneida Special school board member Nancy Williamson. "A quality public education system is essential to the future economic development of our state, and every citizen has a vested interest in its success. We look forward to partnering with the General Assembly to continue improving the quality of schools in Tennessee."

In addition to Director Willoughby, Charles Robinson, chairman of the DeKalb County Board of Education attended along with Kenny Rhody, vice-chair, and John David Foutch, first district member.

Rhody said the "Day on the Hill" provides a great opportunity for local board members to exchange ideas with state legislators. "To sit down with your elected representatives and discuss our needs with them in detail is so important", said Rhody. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease theme is still important when dealing with funding or the lack thereof. If we don't stand up for what is right for our children, who will?. We must provide what they need for their future, and ours. To bring back federal and state dollars to our county and state is what has worked well for DeKalb County for 40 plus years and we must keep bringing our money back to work for us. The local tax base should not and cannot fund everything our kids need. That's why working with our elected representatives and senators is so important now."

In addition to serving as Chairman of the DeKalb County Board of Education, Robinson is a member of the Tennessee School Board Association Board of Directors, serving as the board's TLN representative. Robinson is also a Master School Board member.

During the recent 2010 TSBA Annual Convention, Robinson was named to the All Tennessee School Board.

Each year, TSBA recognizes five to seven outstanding school board members as members of the annual All Tennessee School Board. These individuals demonstrate the dedication, professionalism, and vision needed to take public education to the highest level.

Rhody, meanwhile, recently earned the designation of Master Board Member, having reached the fifth and highest level in TSBA's Boardsmanship Program. The program is designed to recognize school board members for participation in board activities beyond the local level through a commitment to training, willingness to participate in workshops and conferences and a volunteer spirit.

To obtain Level V, board members must earn at least 250 credits in three areas, including attendance at school board academies; participation in activities such as the TSBA Annual Convention, leadership conferences and workshops; and completion of activities such as speaking to civic clubs or meeting with legislators. Candidates must complete a portfolio detailing their accomplishments.

Rhody was also recently elected to serve as the Upper Cumberland Federal Relations Network district coordinator at the TSBA Fall District Meeting. The FRN promotes communication with the Tennessee Congressional delegation to explain the impact of federal education policy on local school districts.

Nashville lawyer John Harris, III has been employed by members of the DeKalb County Election Commission to represent them in a federal lawsuit brought in 2009 by the former administrator of elections, Lisa Peterson.

The three Republican members, Barbara Vanatta, Jim Dean, and Commission Chairman Walteen Parker voted to hire Harris during a special called meeting Monday night. The two Democrats on the commission, Nolan Turner and Kenneth Moore voted against it.

The decision comes after the county's insurance carrier recently withdrew its legal representation based on a December federal court ruling, and after the state attorney general, Robert E. Cooper, Jr., in a letter to Chairman Parker, wrote that the commission could not rely on the state to provide a defense and would have to hire its own legal counsel in the case. The cost of defending the election commissioners will have to be borne by the county.

Peterson filed the lawsuit only a few months after the Republican majority of the local election commission chose not to re-appoint her to another term. Another case involving the election commission, also filed by Peterson during the summer of 2009 in DeKalb County Chancery Court, is still pending.

Mary Ferrara, an attorney for the local government insurance carrier, had been providing the legal defense for members of the DeKalb County Election Commission but that all changed after U.S. District Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr. found that the Republican election commissioners, in the counties of DeKalb, Hawkins, Weakley, and Putnam County, were not subject to liability for the monetary damages sought, in their official capacities as "state actors".

According to Harris, after the court's ruling that election commissioners were "state actors" the county's insurance carrier decided that it would no longer defend them. "When these administrators filed their lawsuits in federal court, they asserted that county election commissions and the county election commissioners were part of county government and as a result of that, in DeKalb County for example, the county's insurance carrier was providing a defense. In December 2010 the federal district judge ruled, based upon 60 year old Tennessee Supreme Court case, that the county election commissions and the county election commissioners are state officials. The court said they are state officials because they are not elected by the county voters and they are not appointed by county government, but they are, in fact, appointed by the state election commission to serve in each county so they are really an arm of state government. So what has brought us to this point is when the judge ruled that the county election commission and commissioners are actually state government officials rather than county officials, the insurance company said we only have a duty to represent the county and since these are state officials, we are withdrawing and you are on your own. The result of that was, the election commission still had an interest in the federal lawsuit. The named commissioners were still involved in the lawsuit, so it was determined that it was necessary for them to hire an attorney to continue to handle the case for both the commission and the commissioners."

However, according to Harris, had the county's insurance policy been written in such a way as to include the election commission as an insured entity of county government, just as county officials are insured, then the insurance pool most likely would not have withdrawn from the case. "That's an issue that the county commission and the county attorney may want to look at because by statute in Tennessee regarding election laws, the county is responsible for paying all of the operating expenses of the election commission with only a few exceptions which are written in the statute. The county is required by law to fund the operations of an election commission because the election commission is sort of like a school board in that they can't pass taxes, they don't have any way of collecting money, but they have to provide a service. And just like a school board the state says county, you have to fund a reasonable budget for the election commission which includes human resources issues if an employee claims I've been fired inappropriately or something of that nature. In this case, the insurance company has taken the position that the insurance only protects county government and county officials and because the trial court has found that the election commission is really apart of state government and that they are state officials, the insurance company has said we don't have to defend this case. Either one of two things has happened. Either the insurance company has sold a policy that is inadequate to cover the risks that the county might incur or they are just seeing this as an opportunity to get out, hoping that the attorney general perhaps would take it over. But the county may want to find out if they were sold an insurance policy that had a hole in it," said Harris.

Harris said the defendant election commissioners had also hoped that the state attorney general would come to their defense, but that too was not to be. "Early on, and then more recently on at least two attempts, the county election commissions have written and requested that the state attorney general, whose job it is to defend and represent state interests, undertake the defense of the election commissions and the commissioners since the federal court has found them to be state officials. The attorney general has some level of discretion in when to take on representation in a case. In this case, the attorney general, Bob Cooper, has written to each of these election commissions and declined to represent them which has caused a great deal of concern, not only to the election commissioners, but with quite a few legislators that I've talked to," said Harris.

Since the court has ruled that the election commissioners cannot be held liable for monetary damages, barring any successful appeal, Harris said the only significant remaining issue to be decided is the "injunctive relief" claim in the lawsuit. "There is a portion of the case which the trial court has not ruled on at this point and that is the issue of whether future election commissions will be allowed to take into consideration political party affiliation, if they choose to do so, in the decision to reappoint or select an administrator of elections. If the court takes up that issue and finds in favor of the plaintiff [Peterson], what the court could do is issue an injunction that says from this point forward, you do not have the discretion to take into consideration party affiliation. If the court does that, then the second prong of the potential problem for the county is that the court could order the county to pay the plaintiff's attorneys fees in the case which could easily be hundreds of thousands of dollars, in addition to paying its own defense costs since the state attorney general is not going to take it up. If the plaintiff wins on that, federal law allows the court to award attorneys fees to the prevailing plaintiff [Peterson]. It could award them to a prevailing defendant but it very seldom does so," said Harris.

Judge Wiseman's ruling on the monetary damages issue is being appealed to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court by the plaintiffs in the case, although a challenge has been filed by the defendants as to whether the appellate court has jurisdiction.

DeKalb is among about a dozen counties in Tennessee where lawsuits have been filed by former administrators of elections asserting that they were not re-appointed to those positions because of their political party affiliation. Harris said whether or not that be the case, it doesn't necessarily give rise to a cause of action "because in Tennessee, every two years the county election commissions are reappointed and those reappointments are based on the political party affiliation of the election commissioners so that whichever party is in charge of the Tennessee General Assembly, that party gets three seats on the election commission and the minority party gets two seats on the commission. For the last 150 years, the Democrat Party has been in control of the election commissions in Tennessee, but that all changed in November 2008."

Meanwhile, legislation has been filed in the Tennessee General Assembly that if approved would require terms of county administrators of elections to expire when the commission's term expires. It would also allow county election commissions to consider political party affiliation, knowledge and experience when hiring administrators

Walteen Parker, Chairman of the DeKalb County Election Commission, issued the following statement on the developments that led to the commission's decision to hire its own attorney in this case. "The Election Commission has consistently been very astute in responding to this lawsuit. Initially, we chose to let the county's insurance carrier handle the matter, rather than seek an independent law firm. This proved to be a very wise decision. When the county's insurance attorney filed a motion to withdraw because we were deemed state agents and that motion was granted, we were required to file an appearance with the court within 30 days of February 4, 2011. Again, we agreed the next logical step was to contact Attorney General Robert Cooper and request his services. Unfortunately, AG Cooper decided not to provide legal counsel to any of the county election commissions involved in this lawsuit. After exhausting that avenue, we contacted an attorney who has the expertise in this matter, who has experience in election laws, who has a commitment to fairness and justice, and who can provide the best defense at a reasonable fee. That attorney is John Harris, III, whose references and recommendations were valid and very impressive. In procuring legal counsel, we are confident that we have been diligent in being mindful that neither the county nor the state should be responsible for the enormous legal fees of the plaintiff's attorneys. We will continue to choose the best course of action toward resolving this matter," said Chairman Parker.

The DeKalb County Trustee's Office was a busy place Monday as last minute taxpayers hurried to beat the deadline for payment of 2010 property taxes without penalty.

For those who didn't beat the deadline, a 1.5% per month penalty and interest will begin to accrue on 2010 taxes yet unpaid, starting March 1st.

Trustee Sean Driver said as of the close of business Monday, February 28th, collections were at 86.5%, which is almost as much as one year ago. "A lot of people came in today, even though it was a bad rainy day. We received a lot of mail today and I'm assuming more mail will come in the next two days, as far as postmarked mail and we'll be able to add to our collection percentages. As of right now, (February 28th) I finished with 86.5% in collections. That's about 1-1/2% off what it was this time last year but that can change with incoming mail tomorrow. From total tax rolls, which is $6.8 million, there's still about $950,000 that's still floating out there (yet to be collected). Of course a lot of people are out of work. We understand that. We wish we could do a whole lot more for them."

Driver said taxes may still be paid in person, or by debit or credit card either by phone, in the trustee's office or on-line at www.tennesseetrustee.com. " We are offering credit and debit card processing through the Business Information Systems for the property owners of DeKalb County. You may pay your property taxes using a VISA, MASTERCARD, or DISCOVER card. It can be handled on-line, in the Trustee's Office, or by phone."

In addition to the monthly accrued penalty and interest, Driver explained that a 2.75% convenience fee will be added to your tax bill, if you take advantage of on-line payment. However that convenience fee is collected through Business Information Systems, not the county. "If you want to do those payments on line, it is fast, easy, and secure. On-line payments may be made at www.tennesseetrustee.com. 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You may also pay your taxes with the accrued penalty and interest in our office at 1 public square, room 206 in the DeKalb County Courthouse. Our phone number is 615-597-5176. Office hours are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m."

Driver said he is also looking into the possibility of implementing a plan in the future where taxpayers could make partial payments during the year until their entire tax bill is paid. "We are looking into accepting partial payments. We're trying to work with the Clerk and Master on trying to get some kind of program up on that. We do need to get caught up further on prior year taxes."

Meanwhile, property taxes from 2009 may be paid in the trustee's office through Thursday, March 31st with the accrued interest and penalty. After that, unpaid 2009 taxes will be turned over to the clerk and master's office and subject to additional fees.