Court: Potter Still Mayor

August 5, 2004

By BEN GARRETT
Independent Herald Editor

JAMESTOWN - George Potter is still the mayor of Huntsville. At least for now.

That was the ruling handed down Monday by Chancellor Billy Joe White in Chancery Court proceedings here.

The ruling came in response to a suit filed by First National Bank in Oneida against the Town of Huntsville. The suit, which was filed by the bank's attorney, Allyn M. Lay, requested a declaratory judgement in the matter and listed as defendants the Town of Huntsville specifically, as well as Mayor Potter and each of the town's four aldermen.

The suit was filed, the complaint alleged, to settle confusion over who was responsible for signing checks for the town. The town maintains five accounts at First National Bank, including a general account, a street account, a utility board account, a special construction account and a special project account.

The problem arose after theboard's July 26 meeting, when the Board of Aldermen elected, by a 4-1 vote with Mayor Potter dissenting, to relieve the mayor of his duties and for Vice-Mayor Gary A. Sexton to assume those duties, after it was perceived that the mayor had vacated his office by moving his residence outside the town.

That opinion was stated by Andrew Hall, who had been hired as the town's attorney on the same evening. Hall stated that an April 2003 annexation by referendum was illegal because the properties annexed were separated from the previous municipal limits by a state highway. After Potter moved into a residence on one of the parcels of property annexed, located at 11095 Scott Highway, Hall said that he had effectively vacated his office. Citing the town's municipal code, Hall recommended that the board take action to strip Potter of his duties and place Vice-Mayor Sexton in charge.

The complaint filed by First National Bank stated that Alderman Charles Lance appeared in the bank's office on Friday with a letter stating that Potter was no longer handling the town's mayoral duties.

That letter, which was signed by each of the town's four aldermen, stated that "in a regular scheduled meeting of the board and mayor and aldermen for the town of Huntsville . . . a motion was made and duly seconded that the Mayor George W. Potter be relieved of his duties and authority to sign checks and/or purchase orders for the Town of Huntsville due to the allegation that his residence is 'outside the city limits of the Town of Huntsville.'

"Until this matter is resolved," the letter continued, "Gary Sexton, Vice Mayor, will be Acting Mayor for the Town of Huntsville. . ."

The complaint filed by First National indicated that the bank had taken a measure to freeze all of the town's accounts until the matter of who was the mayor was resolved.

Chancellor White ordered that both George Potter retain his mayoral duties and be authorized to sign checks, account agreements and conduct all other business on behalf of the town with First National Bank, along with Vice-Mayor Sexton, "pending the final disposition of this matter or until further Order of the Court."

While Hall had maintained that the April 2003 annexation was illegal and that Mayor Potter had vacated the town, Melissa Ashburn, a legal consultant with the University of Tennessee's Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) had stated that the decision of the Huntsville aldermen to relieve Mayor Potter of his duties was illegal.

That opinion was stated in a July 27 letter to MTAS management consultant Warren Nevad, a copy of which was obtained by the Independent Herald.

In the letter, Ashburn stated that "in my opinion, the mayor has not vacated his office and the board has acted illegally in relieving him of his duties."

Ashburn also pointed out that once an annexation becomes official, it remains so until the courts rule otherwise.

"Annexations which carve out parcels of property are not favored by our courts, but until the annexation is declared to be void by a court of law, the action stands and the property is considered to be inside the city limits," she wrote.

She stated that the annexation could have been challenged by Scott County, since the property was separated from the townÕs previous city limits. But, she wrote, "as the county took no action to stop the annexation referendum or to interfere with the election process, the annexation was completed last year and is effective as to all parcels."

Ashburn stated that a declaratory judgment action could have been initiated against the town under Tennessee Code Annotated 29-14-101, but no such action was filed. She further quoted a 1998 Court of Appeals decision, in which the court pointed out that it is "very difficult to challenge the outcome of a referendum."

news@ihoneida.com

Enjoy the Independent Herald? Have it delivered to your door! Click here for details.