I am appalled, disappointed and angry at the brazen disregard and flagrant circumvention of legal process by Mayor Littlefield in keeping Ms. Rutherford on the city payroll to allow her to keep city benefits. It is clear that Ms. Rutherford was never entitled to serve in the position which she held for the past two years in the first place. He is now rewarding her illegal behavior!

This kind of "back scratching, back room" politics is what continues to erode the public confidence in our government and dilutes the value provided by true public servants (i.e., those who are serving the public instead of themselves).

If the citizens of Chattanooga have any backbone, they need to show it now and recall this mayor who has clearly shown the citizens that the law does not apply to him and those of his choosing.

Barry L. Abbott
babbott@cavett-abbott.com

* * *

As I read this morning's "Littlefield Putting Rutherford On Payroll For 3 Days So She Can Get Medical Benefits" headline, I was astounded. The Marti Rutherford situation is complicated at best, but it seems like you can boil it down as follows:

1. Marti was accused of not living in her district.

2. Marti fought the accusations

3. Someone found an electric power bill that showed she was paying what seems like $25 for "living" in her house in the district (I wish someone would point me in the direction of providing electricity for a month in my house that cheaply).

4. Lots of back and forth "I live there," "No you don't," "Yes I do," "Oh no you don't"

5. Marti quit.

Note the last line....Marti quit. What's that phrase the legal community uses "res ipsa loquitur?" I assume she quit because she had the decency (or intelligence) to realize that she was occupying an office she was not legally and/or morally entitled to occupy. With that said, why in the world Littlefield would jump up to pay her out of our (the public's) money is beyond me. For whatever reason, the city created a rule that said you had to serve in office for x amount of time before you could draw those benefits.

Again, Marti didn't serve the required amount of time. One could theoretically say she missed it by three days or one could say she missed it by x years (assuming her most recent term was not legal). Under either scenario she does not comply with the rules that the public decreed was required to receive the benefits. Something tells me there is nothing in the law that says "Employee must have x years in service to receive benefits unless the mayor says "That's OK, it's cool, pay her.”

I'm sure Marti is a nice woman, but I think I'm a heck of a nice guy too (others probably disagree). I've been working in Chattanooga for 23 years, how bout' shooting me a check. If not, Marti should have the decency to decline the coverage as she does not deserve it. If not - as Barry said - "Call him back.

Arch Willingham

* * *

I think the mayor made the correct decision. By giving Miss Rutherford the extra working days to complete her pension requirements you have extended an olive branch to someone who has given what most people would say (up until this tempest in a teapot) was good representation to the Brainerd area.

Yep, she broke the law, but she never stopped doing a good job for Brainerd. To you circulating a petition for her to repay her salary, just remember, by doing this it is implied she provided no services, therefore none of her past votes will count. Talk about opening a can of worms for no good reason. All you are doing is making many lawyers rub their hands in glee.

Heck, since everyone seems intent on revenge why don't we put her in Silverdale? Why don't we confiscate her property and make her pick up trash? Send her to Brushy Mountain, maybe.

While I didn't vote for the mayor and I don't live in Brainerd, I agree with his solution. It's nice to see somebody actually make a smart, thoughtful decision for a change.

Too bad it hasn't happened more the last few years in Washington, D.C.

Wes Ellis
Hixson