|
January 26, 2004 WREG-Channel 3 TV Re: Norm Brewer Commentary – A Response To Whom It May Concern: Mr. Brewer misses the point. He opines: The best thing for the City is for Jerry Crawford to withdraw his nomination. We suggest: The best thing for the City is to have government conducted in the open. The citizens of Memphis deserve an answer to the real question: How and when was the decision made to reject Jerry Crawford, who everyone concedes is a qualified candidate? The vote was made on January 6, but there are reports that the decision was actually made before the vote in meetings and discussions that, if they occurred, violated Tennessee’s Open Meetings Law - the Sunshine law. The City Council has offered various pretexts and attempted justifications for their rejection of Chief Crawford - residency being the main one. It is uncontroverted that Chief Crawford is not required to live within the City under the Charter and a prior City Attorney’s opinion. Nonetheless, Mr. Crawford said that he would move into the City if appointed. One City Councilman has also asserted that an internal Fire Department report on the Dollar General Store fire “justified” the rejection, although he admitted that he had never read the report. It has also been suggested that the political “power play” between the Council and the Mayor was the real reason for the rejection. And of course, the “race card” has been played. Lately, the fact that Chief Crawford hired an attorney has been raised as a “reason” to justify the rejection. The fact that an attorney was hired after the rejection can hardly be used as a justification for the rejection. Like everyone else, Chief Crawford is entitled to seek advice from legal counsel. The Council has stated that the attorney’s letter was a “threat.” The letter was to the Council’s attorney and requested information. The fact that the Council considered a request for information “a threat” is telling. Chief Crawford had the right to hire an attorney given the Council's refusal to conduct a good faith hearing on the merits and its use of his residency as the stated basis of its decision, knowing full well that residency was not a legally sufficient reason. Furthermore, Chief Crawford had been to the Council. For the Council to suggest that Chief Crawford should have “come to the Council” rather than hire an attorney is as lame as its previous excuses. Does anyone believe that had Chief Crawford gone to the Council, they would have welcomed him with open arms and reversed their decision? Keep in mind that this Council took the unprecedented step of approving the minutes immediately after their vote on January 6th, precluding any reconsideration! Is the Council using the "attorney card" just as they did the "residency card" as an excuse to hide their lack of a real reason, or at worst, to hide the real reason - a pre-arranged deal? Mr. Brewer’s commentary ends with the words, “Channel 3 is the Memphis station on your side.” Whose side? If it is the public’s, Mr. Brewer and Channel 3 should be asking the Council for answers rather than advocating that Chief Crawford withdraw his nomination. Chief Crawford and the public have the right to have the Council answer the questions rather than provide legally and factually insufficient excuses. Government works best when it is performed in the open, with honesty and integrity. Sincerely, BOROD & KRAMER, P.C. By: Bruce S. Kramer BSK:am Cc: Chief Jerry Crawford L:\C\Crawford, Jerry\Correspondence\WREG ltr.doc |