posted October 24, 2007
Bring on the recall election.
According to our mayor, Mr. Ron Littlefield, he is not giving former Councilwoman Marti Rutherford anything. He is simply allowing her to buy into the City's group health insurance upon retirement and her 62nd birthday. Obviously there is a benefit to being able to obtain that insurance over an alternative option.
After a three week investigation, City Attorney Randy Nelson filed a suit in Hamilton County Chancery Court that alleged Ms. Rutherford:
Did not live in District 6 and provided false information on her nominating petition to run for that seat.
"Intentionally and knowingly registered to vote" at 3442 Alta Vista Drive in District 6, even thought she was "not entitled" to do so.
Committed "official misconduct" by serving in District 6 even though she had not resided inside the district for a year before taking the seat.
Does that sound like the actions of a person who should be given city benefits upon retirement? If you count the last stint she served representing District 6, Ms. Rutherford qualifies for benefits by serving more than ten years in city government. My question is, how can those last couple of years count? She served them fraudulently, and they should not be counted towards any retirement benefits.
And finally, I have an open statement to Mayor Littlefield:
Mayor Littlefield, "I am a 23-year-old college student and small business owner. On my next birthday, I will have to get my own health insurance. I will more than likely be married with a family over the next several years. Health insurance for me and my family is going to be very expensive considering I'm a small business owner and have no company group insurance to purchase. Can you please add me to the City of Chattanooga's payroll? I will gladly reimburse the city for all pay received, but the benefit of purchasing the health insurance would greatly help me and my family out. After all, it is the right thing to do.
Kevin B. Burke II
* * *
First, you assume that what Ms. Rutherford did is illegal. There may or may not be any problem with what she did. The only way we would have known would be to take the issue to court.
So what if the cost of taking the issue to court totaled $750,000 would it be worth it? Is it the right thing?
So here is a woman who has served the city and was three days from retirement. So instead of costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars and fight what she may have won, she resigned. Now she has no health insurance.
So what if this health insurance only costs $150,000. Is that worth a savings of $600,000? You are a small business owner. Which number is bigger? Which one is smaller?
Again, do not assume that what she did was illegal. It may not have been, but the court costs to the city would have been the same. So now, what do you think the right thing is to do?
And what is this nonsense about a recall. Please. Yeah, Mayor Littlefield, for doing what he thinks is the right thing for Ms. Rutherford, the city and the budget.
Johnny Franks
* * *
Johnny,
I think your opinion on Marti Rutherford is misguided. What she did was against the law. She knew it and resigned. She should not be compensated with insurance or credited for the years she broke the rules.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. The comparison of saving money is a fallacy since she resigned in light of the lawsuit that was filed and there was no need to go to court.
I respect Mayor Littlefield's compassion, but it is misguided since he wants to expend public money rewarding wrong behavior.
Ted Jameson
tedjameson85@yahoo.com
* * *
First: What Ms. Rutherford did was obviously illegal or she would not have resigned. I reject the notion she was motivated by some sense of self-sacrifice.
Second: When we reduce law enforcement to an economic question, we stop enforcing the law. Do you really want to live in that chaos?
Patrick McFadden
* * *
I know that one person's opinion is just that. But my opinion on this is that if she were working in the private sector and she had resigned she would not be put back on payroll to make sure she got the benefits coming to her.
Is Marti better than anyone else who turns in their resignation? She made the decision to falsify records and she is being rewarded for this.
I try to teach my son values of honesty and yet Marti can lie about where she lives and tries to rectify the situation by resigning and the mayor goes oh that is okay everyone knew you were lying so let me go ahead and make sure that you can have the benefits you don't deserve.
I am so glad that the politics in Chattanooga are so straight forward. It doesn't matter that my taxes will go to pay for the upstanding honest Marti Rutherford's retirement package. I am so excited about that. I did vote for Mr. Littlefield but if he runs again I know that I will be one vote he does not get.
Tracy Allen
Chattanooga
* * *
Mr. Franks:
Why do we always have to take things to court? Doesn't common sense count for something. If you evaluated Mrs. Rutherford intention with any of said common sense you would see she was cheating the taxpayers and her district out of legal representation. She tried to get by with a fraud and you say it is alright.
As far as Mr. Littlefield resigning, I believe the whole commission should resign if, as Mr. Littlefield said, they all knew about her status.
This is just another wink, wink, ha ha political sham put over on the taxpayers.
Richard Elrod
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |