Mayor Ron Littlefield said Tuesday he is filing suit to seek to block a recall effort that gained enough valid signatures to remove him. The lawsuit was filed in Hamilton County Circuit Court around noon.

He said the recall effort was faulty and will not stand up to a court review.

The mayor blasted those involved in the recall effort as "radicals" who he said were "spewing venom" and were "blinded by anger."

He made a number of references to one of the recall leaders, local Tea Party head Mark West.

Mayor Littlefield said if there is a recall election, he will be a candidate for mayor.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Hal North, asks for an injunction blocking the Election Commission from certifying the recall and setting a new mayoral election.

Court officials said the case will be assigned to one of the four circuit judges on Thursday morning. The judges are Neil Thomas, Jeff Hollingsworth, Jackie Bolton and Marie Williams.

The suit says the petitions were not properly prepared, including not including dates on each page.

It says the Election Commission should not have ruled that the less-stringent City Charter standard be used for the number of signatures required rather than the state law.

Here is the letter:

"Leadership carries with it responsibilities. Foremost among these is the responsibility of a leader to define a course that will produce a positive outcome. Responsible leaders must also make difficult decisions that are not always popular, but nonetheless necessary. On the other hand, a nefarious leader follows a dead end path pursuing an agenda that is in conflict with the betterment of the community.

"For several months now, the citizens of Chattanooga have been subjected to the aggressive behavior of a small group of radicals twisting arms at every public gathering spewing venom and promoting their cause with a reckless disregard for the truth and the well-being of our city. The chief proponent is a multi-millionaire complete with posh mansion and a healthy real estate portfolio. He made his fortune in assisted living and elder care - an industry that exists because of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Hypocritically, he now seeks to preach to us about the evils of taxes and government programs. He has also refused to meet with me, one-on-one, to discuss the questionable tactics that his foot soldiers have used in their crusade.

"Another prominent member of the small group is a young man who (in his own words) supports himself by donating plasma and through the largesse of friends and family. In a recent newspaper article he arrogantly states that he refuses to be “a wage slave at Walmart.” He should apologize to all the hard-working people who do work for that important employer.

"A third member of the group is a perennial publicity-seeking street preacher who first surfaced as sidekick for the late Dan Martino – a strange and misguided man who haunted the halls of local government for years in the 1980’ and 90’s.

"The rest of the small group of instigators are chronic grumblers and complainers well known to this administration and others dating back many years. The common thread seems to be that no one actually has a job other than tearing down what others have worked hard to create. In that regard, they seem willing to say or do anything.

"It is obvious that thousands of dollars have been spent to promote a petition to remove the mayor and ultimately several members of Chattanooga’s City Council. There has been no examination of the motives for this well-financed recall drive. We do know that the principal individual at the head of the undertaking is wealthy and willing to put his personal resources into the campaign, but we don’t know what other interests are behind the effort. We do know that all have refused to publicly disclose the sources and amounts of money and a list of contributors. We also don’t know their ultimate goal – other than intimidation.

"What do the recallers want? Do they actually believe that anyone new to office would roll back the bare minimum tax increase that was adopted to keep our city sound and strong? Do they know that only one council member was totally opposed to raising the tax rate and that three of those who voted against the budget actually wanted a higher rate? Do they, the recallers, think that new city government representatives will reverse the water quality fees carefully calculated to meet state and federal guidelines? Do they know the drastic and damaging effects that such a course of action would cause to happen?

"As my attorneys have explained in the lawsuit filed today this recall effort is a classic example of a dead-end path followed by a narrow minded fringe group fueled by misinformation and blinded by anger. They have missed several important points:

"First of all, the clear instructions of Tennessee law and the official opinions of the Tennessee Attorney General require that any recall election only take place at general county elections or general municipal elections. The last general election took place on August 5, and the next one will not take place until August 2012. The next general municipal election will not take place until March 2013 – a month before my term ends.

"A second significant point missed by this recall effort is the failure to adhere to one simple, clear requirement of Tennessee law. The statute requires that the petition contain a question – not an allegation. Yet, their petition contains no question, only a false claim that I would be “automatically recalled” if a small percentage of the registered voters of the city were to sign the petition. This is more than a legal technicality.

"There are other important issues that have already been publicly divulged somewhat. There is the question of state law versus the city charter and the effective requirement of 9,000 or 15,000 signatures. There is also the matter that several versions of the petition were utilized in the drive – rather than adhering to the form approved by the Election Commission, as required by law.

"Perhaps more importantly, the relevant statute also requires that the petition show the date of each signature, an important requirement because all signatures must be obtained in a 75-day period. However, thousands of signatures of registered Chattanooga voters counted by the Election Commission are not dated. We are proceeding to audit the submitted petitions and determine the effect of this failure.

"Finally, let me say that I have been elected to serve Chattanooga several times over the years: as Commissioner of Public Works under Chattanooga’s old system of government, twice as Councilman for District 6 and finally twice as Mayor. I served as the first Chairman of the new City Council when the new system of government was instituted in 1990, and then again in 2002. I have been through many political storms, and I have persevered. Never before in all my years in government have I witnessed such a persistently negative and untruthful campaign as we have just endured. I hope that we as a community shall never have to go through such a citywide trial again. The recallers should be ashamed.

"The people of Chattanooga have entrusted me with the responsibility of making our city the best place that it can be. I am proud to have been a part of the decades long effort that has made us the most transformed city in America. I love Chattanooga, and I will not stand idly by while this or any other group employs lies and deception in their toxic frenzy to destabilize this city. I refuse to be bullied or intimidated by the tactics of the recallers, and I refuse to allow our community to fall into the hands of a noisy and negative fringe group that seeks only to tear our city down and stop our progress.

"I believe that the Court will find that this petition drive is fatally flawed and that no recall election will be held before my current and final term of office expires. However, if there is another election, be assured that I will run."

Ron Littlefield

Littlefield Verified Complaint
Littlefield Motion For Temporary Injunction
Littlefield Notice of Filing Exhibit I
Brief In Support of Motion for Temporary Injunction

Here is the lawsuit:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

RON LITTLEFIELD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAMILTON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


No. _______________

Div. ____

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Comes Ron Littlefield (“Mayor Littlefield”), and, for his Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”), states as follows:

1 Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

2 Mayor Littlefield is the duly elected and incumbent Mayor of the City of Chattanooga, whose elective term extends until April, 2013.

3 The Hamilton County Election Commission (“Election Commission”) is the currently serving county election commission for Hamilton County, Tennessee, appointed pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-101.

4 This matter involves actions taken or threatened by the Election Commission in response to efforts to recall and remove Mayor Littlefield from the office of Mayor of the City of Chattanooga.

5 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-10-101 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-102.

6 Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-4-101.

7 Facts

8 In the last several months preceding the filing of the Complaint, certain groups and individuals have undertaken to seek the recall and removal of Mayor Littlefield from the office of Mayor.

9 On June 16, 2010, the Election Commission met and certified a form of a petition to be circulated concerning the recall of Mayor Littlefield. The Election Commission also announced the intent to schedule a recall election for the November 2, 2010 election, if sufficient signatures were collected. A copy of the minutes of the June 16, 2010 Election Commission meeting is attached as Exhibit A.

10 The form of the petition approved by the Election Commission on June 16, 2010 is attached as Exhibit B.

11 On August 5, 2010, the Election Commission met and determined that the number of signatures of registered voters of the City of Chattanooga required for such petition would be computed according to the provisions of Section 3.18 of the Charter of the City of Chattanooga (“Charter”), namely “qualified voters equal in number to at least 50 percentum (50%) of the entire vote for all candidates for the office of Mayor cast at the last preceding general municipal election . . . .” A copy of the minutes of the August 5, 2010 Election Commission meeting is attached as Exhibit C.

12 The Election Commission has thereafter been receiving signed petitions seeking an election for the recall and removal of Mayor Littlefield from the office of Mayor, and has been determining the voting qualifications of the persons signing the petitions.

13 Several versions of the petition have been circulated that vary from the petition approved by the Election Commission. These versions omitted spaces where the date each person signed could be stated. Examples of the different versions of the signed petitions submitted to the Election Commission are included in Exhibit D.

14 Neither the form of the petition approved by the Election Commission on June 16, 2010 (Exhibit B), nor any of the signed petitions subsequently turned in to the Election Commission included a question concerning the recall.

15 On the examples included in Exhibit E, each petition signature marked with a check mark (ü) has been designated as valid by the Election Commission’s staff, and each petition page contains in the top right corner a tally of the petition signatures on that page designated as valid by the Election Commission’s staff. As the examples contained in Exhibit E illustrate, the Election Commission’s staff has been designating as valid petition signatures those that do not contain the date(s) of signature.

16 On August 25, 2010, the Election Commission, through its counsel, advised Mayor Littlefield’s counsel that it appeared quite possible that the Election Commission will certify petitions submitted as adequate for a recall vote. See August 25, 2010 letter from Chris Clem to Harold L. North, Jr., attached as Exhibit F. According to press reports, the Election Commission continued to accept additional petitions until 4:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, August 30, 2010.

17 Because of the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(g) that persons signing petitions must be given eight (8) days to remove their signatures after a completed petition has been submitted and before a petition can be certified, the Election Commission cannot lawfully meet to consider whether the petition can be certified under Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(h) until eight (8) days have passed following August 30, 2010.

18 The Election Commission has announced its intention to place the recall election on the ballot for the election to be held on November 2, 2010, should the requisite number of signatures be obtained by August 30, 2010.

COUNT I

Violations of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151

19 Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16.

20 Section 3.18 of the Charter authorizes the recall of elected officials, including the mayor. A copy of Section 3.18 of the Charter is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit G.

21 For cities that authorize the recall of elected officials, Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151 establishes the requirements for the recall procedure. The requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151 apply “notwithstanding any statutory provision or charter provision of a municipality or county to the contrary”, except that local governments could, after 1997, enact different requirements for the minimum number of signatures to trigger a recall election and/or the time for collecting signatures after certification of the petition form. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(j).

A. Requirement of the Designation of a Question

22 Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(b)(2), (e)(1), (f)(2), and (i) require that a recall petition must set forth the full text of the question of whether the referenced incumbent official shall be recalled. The Election Commission’s counsel has recognized this requirement in previous advice given the Election Commission. See April 22, 2009 letter from Chris Clem to the Election Commission, attached as Exhibit H (“The specific question to be placed on the ballet [sic] needs to be included. In this case, I would recommend: ‘Shall Ron Littlefield be recalled as Mayor of Chattanooga? Yes or No?’”).

23 None of the forms of petition, including the form certified by the Election Commission and the other versions being circulated and received by the Election Commission, contains any question proposed for a vote of the people.

24 The Election Commission has acted erroneously and in violation of state law in certifying the form of petition attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B, because it does not contain any question and, particularly, does not contain the question whether Mayor Littlefield shall be recalled from the office of Mayor of the City of Chattanooga.

25 The Election Commission has announced its intention to further violate state law by scheduling a recall election based upon petitions of various forms that do not contain any question and, particularly, do not contain the question whether Mayor Littlefield shall be recalled from the office of Mayor of the City of Chattanooga.

26 The Election Commission may not certify, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(h), petitions that do not contain any question and, particularly, do not contain the question whether Mayor Littlefield shall be recalled from the office of Mayor of the City of Chattanooga. As such, the petitions fail to meet applicable legal requirements.

B. Improper Description of the Recall Process

27 The Election Commission acted erroneously and contrary to state law in certifying the petition attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B, because it contains a description of the recall process that is inconsistent with the requirements set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151, stating “[i]f this petition is determined to have the sufficient number of valid signatures then the Mayor of Chattanooga is automatically recalled and the board of election commissioners shall at once order and fix a date for holding said successor election not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days from the date of the certificate showing that a sufficient petition was filed.”

C. Requirement of the Date for Signatures Obtained

28 Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(e)(4) requires that each petition signature counted toward the statutory minimum number of signatures contain “the date of the signature.”

29 The forms of petition submitted to the Election Commission and attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D omitted spaces where the date of signature could be stated. Many petitions, as illustrated by the examples contained in Exhibit E, contain spaces for the date of the signature that are otherwise blank.

30 The Election Commission and its staff have acted erroneously and in violation of state law by designating as valid petition signatures that do not contain the date of each signature.

31 The Election Commission has announced its intention to further violate state law by scheduling a recall election based upon petitions that do not contain the date for each signature.

32 The Election Commission may not certify, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(h), that petitions that do not contain the date of each signature as meeting applicable legal requirements.

D. Improper Designation of Recall Election Date

33 The Election Commission has announced its intention to schedule any recall election at the election to be held November 2, 2010. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(f)(2) requires that recall elections be held only at a “general municipal or county election.” The next general municipal election will be held in March, 2013. Charter Section 5.3 is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit I. The next general county election will be held in August, 2012. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-3-202. The Election Commission cannot legally and validly place any question regarding the recall of Mayor Littlefield on the ballot for the election to be held on November 2, 2010.

34 Mayor Littlefield is entitled to a declaration by this Court that (i) the petition form certified by the Election Commission does not comply with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151; (ii) the Election Commission may not certify, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(h), and may not count toward applicable minimum signature requirements, petition signatures that are not affixed to the full text of the question whether Mayor Littlefield should be recalled as Mayor of the City of Chattanooga; (iii) the Election Commission may not certify, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(h), and may not count toward applicable minimum signature requirements, petition signatures that do not show the date of signature; and (iv) the Election Commission may not place any question regarding the recall of Mayor Littlefield on the ballot for the election to be held on November 2, 2010, because that election is not a “general municipal or county election.”

35 Mayor Littlefield is entitled to have this Court enjoin the Election Commission, both temporarily and permanently, from acting contrary to the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151 and other applicable law, from certifying petitions that do not meet the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151 and other applicable law, and from placing on the ballot for the election to be held on November 2, 2010, any question or issue regarding whether Mayor Littlefield shall be recalled from the office of Mayor of the City of Chattanooga.

COUNT II

Violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d)

36 Mayor Littlefield restates and incorporates by reference each allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33.

37 The City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, has adopted Home Rule within the meaning of Article XI, Section 9 of the Constitution of Tennessee.

38 By Ordinance No. 9435, which was passed on third and final reading by the City Council of the City of Chattanooga on August 21, 1990, and ratified by a vote of the citizens of the City of Chattanooga on November 6, 1990, the previous Charter of the City of Chattanooga was amended, pursuant to the provisions of Article XI, Section 9 of the Constitution of Tennessee, to provide a procedure for removal from office of the mayor and other elected or appointed officers of the City.

39 As last amended in 1990, Section 3.18 of the Charter provides in pertinent part as follows:

In the case of an official elected at large, a petition signed by qualified voters equal in number to at least fifty percentum (50%) of the entire vote for all candidates for the office of mayor cast at the last preceding general municipal election, demanding an election of a successor of the person sought to be removed shall be filed with the commissioners of election of Hamilton County . . . .

40 The following referendum question was submitted to voters in the City of Chattanooga in the August, 2002, general county election:

SHALL ORDINANCE NO. 11272 TO AMEND AND RESTATE THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE BE APPROVED, WHICH AMENDMENT, AMONG OTHER CHANGES: (1) CONFORMS THE PRE-EXISTING CITY CHARTER WITH THE COURT ORDER CREATING THE MAYOR/COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT; (2) REPEALS FORMER CHARTER PROVISIONS CONFLICTING WITH THE COURT ORDER; (3) SUBSTITUTES THE WORD “MAYOR” FOR “BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS” OR “COMMISSIONER” WHEREVER THE SAME REFERS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT; (4) SUBSTITUTES THE WORDS “CITY COUNCIL” WHEREVER THE SAME REFERS TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR COMMISSION IN ITS LEGISLATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITIES?

Chattanooga voters answered the question in the affirmative.

41 Ordinance No. 11272 did not change Section 3.18 of the Charter, and this Charter section has not been changed since 1990.

42 Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d) provides in pertinent part as follows:

Petitions shall be signed by at least fifteen percent (15%) of those registered to vote in the municipality or county.

43 Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(j) provides:

This section shall control notwithstanding any statutory provision or charter provision of a municipality or county to the contrary; provided, that any contrary charter provision of a municipality or county which is enacted after July 1, 1997, shall control with respect only to the requirements set forth in subsection (d) relating to the statutory minimum number of signatures required in a petition, and to the provisions of subdivision (f)(1) relating to the seventy-five day deadline for filing of a petition after final certification by the county election commission.

44 The provisions of Section 3.18 of the Charter, governing the number of signatures required for a recall election of Mayor Littlefield, have been preempted and superseded by Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d).

45 The Election Commission has determined to compute the number of signatures required for a recall election of Mayor Littlefield in accordance with Section 3.18 of the Charter, instead of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d). The Election Commission has announced that approximately 8,957 valid petition signatures would be required by Section 3.18 of the Charter. The Election Commission has also announced that approximately 14,854 valid petition signatures would be required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d).

46 The Election Commission acted erroneously and contrary to state law when it determined that the minimum number of signatures would be computed according to the provision of Section 3.18 of the Charter, rather than the larger number required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d).

47 The Election Commission acted arbitrarily when it determined that the minimum number of signatures would be computed according to the provisions of Section 3.18 of the Charter. According to press reports, the Election Commission had previously determined in 2003, in response to advice of its counsel, that the required minimum number of signatures of registered voters of the City of Chattanooga for similar initiatives would be that set out under Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d). See Opinion of Jerry H. Summers and article “Save Our Streets Must Restart Petition Drive,” Chattanooga Times Free Press (April 30, 2003) attached as Exhibit J.

48 The Election Commission would further act erroneously and contrary to state law if it scheduled a recall election for Mayor Littlefield based upon the minimum number of signatures required by Section 3.18 of the Charter.

49 Mayor Littlefield is entitled to a declaration of this Court that the statutory minimum number of signatures required for a recall election for Mayor Littlefield is to be determined in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d).

50 Mayor Littlefield is entitled to have this Court enjoin the Election Commission, both temporarily and permanently, from acting contrary to the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151, and other applicable law, and from scheduling a recall election relating to Mayor Littlefield based upon any statutory minimum number of signatures other than as prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d).

WHEREFORE, Mayor Littlefield respectfully prays for the following relief:

51 That the Court issue a declaratory judgment, finding that:

52 As to Count I, the Election Commission has violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151, in that (i) the petition form certified by the Election Commission does not comply with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151; (ii) the Election Commission may not certify, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(h), and may not count toward applicable minimum signature requirements, petition signatures that are not affixed to the full text of the question whether Mayor Littlefield should be recalled as Mayor of the City of Chattanooga; (iii) the Election Commission may not certify, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(h), and may not count toward applicable minimum signature requirements, petition signatures that do not show the date of signature; and (iv) the Election Commission may not place any question regarding the recall of Mayor Littlefield on the ballot for the election to be held on November 2, 2010, because that election is not a “general municipal or county election.”

53 As to Count II, the statutory minimum number of signatures required for a recall election for Mayor Littlefield is established by Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151(d), and that the Election Commission has violated the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151 by establishing a lower statutory minimum number of signatures required.

54 That, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 65.01, 65.03, and 65.04, the Court issue a temporary and permanent injunction after hearing, to enjoin the Election Commission from acting as follows:

55 from certifying that the Petition referencing the recall of Mayor Ron Littlefield is complete and meets all applicable requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-151 and other applicable law; and

56 from placing on the ballot for the election to be held on November 2, 2010, any question, issue, or election regarding whether Mayor Littlefield shall be recalled from the office of Mayor of the City of Chattanooga.

For purposes of the injunction sought, the term “Petition” means the petitions in whatever form referencing the recall of Mayor Ron Littlefield, submitted prior to the August 30, 2010 deadline established by the Election Commission.

57 That the Court grant Mayor Littlefield such other, further and general relief to which he may be entitled.

58 That the Court tax all costs and expenses of this action, including attorneys’ fees and discretionary costs, against the Election Commission.

THIS IS THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF.

Respectfully submitted,

CHAMBLISS, BAHNER & STOPHEL, P.C.

By:

Harold L. North, Jr., BPR No. 007022

Frederick L. Hitchcock, BPR No. 05960

Tom Greenholtz, BPR No. 20105

1000 Tallan Building
Two Union Square Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
Phone: (423) 756-3000 Facsimile: (423) 508-1244

Mark West, Chattanooga Tea Party leader, said the letter issued by Mayor Littlefield about the recall shows "the politics of personal destruction."

He said the mayor did not speak to the issue of why residents were upset about the tax increase and other issues.

Here is the West letter:

"Today Chattanooga residents have been the unfortunate witnesses of the politics of personal destruction employed by the most powerful man in Chattanooga, Mayor Ron Littlefield, against not only several others and me, but more importantly against the 10,000 Chattanooga citizens and registered voters who believe that the Mayor should be recalled.

"Once again the Mayor has disparaged more than 50% of the citizens that voted in the last election. Must he do so? Can he not acknowledge for one minute that Chattanoogans might actually oppose his policies – particularly a 19% tax increase? And yet he wonders about the motives for the Recall.

"It’s unfortunate that when I, and members of the Chattanooga Tea Party, have consistently focused on policy, that the Mayor instead has descended into what all too often is referred to as gutter politics. Chattanoogas, like most Americans, have grown weary of a response that fails to address the opposing argument. We have consistently made it clear that our opposition has been about a 19% tax increase in the midst of the worst economic climate in 80 years. Area citizens are out of work, underemployed and struggling to meet their basic obligations. And rather than acknowledging his constituents’ struggles, the Mayor’s tax increase policy has made it significantly more difficult to make ends meet each month for thousands of area citizens.

"It’s also unfortunate that the Mayor would feel the need to engage in name-calling and character assassination. For instance, he has referred to me as 'nefarious' which, according to the dictionary, is wicked or criminal. Is opposing a Mayor’s tax increase wicked or criminal? If so, then 10,000 Chattanooga area citizens should be incarcerated!

"The Chattanooga Tea Party volunteers who contributed thousands of hours without compensation knocking on thousands of doors are hardly, as the Mayor put it, “chronic grumblers and complainers” without jobs. No, we are ordinary citizens who love Chattanooga and have a bright vision for our city – it just does not include higher taxes. We are patriotic, everyday citizens who have engaged in the process of government in a respectful, peaceful manner, and have consistently pointed to the Mayor’s policies, not his personality, as the source of our concerns.

"I do not doubt that Ron Littlefield, the man, is a wonderful husband, father and friend to many. And I would never begin to assault him in the manner that he has assaulted others and me. Rather we will continue to make this about Mayor Littlefield’s policies, PERIOD. Plain and simple.”

Mark West
President
Chattanooga Tea Party