A month after taking office and refusing both monetary
and insurance compensation as a benefit of her
position, Jill Holland Thursday used an agenda item
regarding the passage of personnel policy revisions to
broach the subject of whether insurance as a form of
compensation for publicly elected council members is
appropriate. Holland equated council members with
part-time employees, who are not entitled to the
benefits full-time employees enjoy.
"I don't know of any business where part-time
employees get the same benefits as full-time
employees," she said, going on to say council members
serve "part time at best and are actually
volunteers... yet taxpayers pay our insurance, and I
don't understand how that can be justified when we're
not paying regular part-time insurance."
She requested a written provision requiring that the
city pay council member's insurance. Mayor Walter
Winchester stated the provision was the result of
action taken in some past administration. Council
member Darra Adkins said it had to have been in place
some time before her service began in 1988 and council
member Jerry Arthur said it was before his
father-in-law served during the 1970s, while Hale said
it dated back to the 50s, 60s and 70s.
Holland said, "Doesn't it just seem rational that if
you have a city that is raising taxes and water rates
and we're in trouble...why do the taxpayers have to
pay our insurance? We're volunteers."
Also an elected member of the McKenzie Special School
District, she said members of that board are offered
insurance but must pay for it. She said she thinks the
question of whether the city should provide insurance
for council members is an issue the council needs to
pursue and "that's a question a lot of people out
there have."
Winchester advised, "If you feel that strongly about
it you can bring it up on the agenda at the next
meeting and vote on it again. That's how the council
does business."
Said Holland, "When we take our oath of office part of
it is that all of our decisions will be for the good
of the city and to me that's for the good of us."
Adkins countered, "Many of us put in many hours with
the departments that we serve."
"But, that's a choice," Holland replied.
Said Arthur, "I don't think it would be a choice -
you're elected to do your job."
MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service) opinions
on oblique issues refer to Tennessee Code Annotated, §
8-27-601, et seq., which authorizes municipalities to
provide medical insurance to officials as well as
employees. Section 8-27-603 authorizes the officials
or employees to accept or reject this coverage but
requires that all be offered the same coverage and
benefits. It does not authorize additional pay if the
official or employee rejects the coverage.
According to MTAS, the law provides that "all
municipal corporations and special school districts
are hereby expressly authorized to provide group life,
hospitalization, disability, or medical insurance for
all employees and officials of such municipal
corporation and special school districts and for the
dependents of these employees and officials. All
persons employed as teachers, principals,
superintendents and otherwise in the municipal or
special school district school system shall be
eligible for all insurance programs and benefits
conferred by the provisions of this part. T.C.A. §
8-27-601(a)."
MTAS further noted that elected officials'
compensation may not be altered during their term of
office.
Holland also took issue with a section in the
personnel policy regarding nepotism. "I realize that
in the city we have people in the same family that
both work for the city, however, according to this
policy it should not have happened," she said.
She wondered if the policy should not be amended to
say that family members could work for the city so
long as they did not work in the same department or
under the same direct supervisor.
Stating his desire that "everybody be given equal
opportunity to be selected" for employment
opportunities, Winchester said, "I'd prefer not to
pull that out."
Arthur said family members currently working with the
city would be grandfathered in and not subject to the
policy's provisions. Hale said most larger companies
have nepotism guidelines that allow family members to
work so long as they are not in the same department or
under the same direct supervisor and that in a small
town a strict provision reaching down to grandchildren
could cause the city to lose good employees.
Winchester said that, when two or more family members
work for the city, the public perception is that other
people did not have the opportunity for the job.
Arthur expounded on that idea, saying it appeared tax
dollars were going to one family.
At Holland's previous suggestion that city officials
determine how other cities handle the issue and
Huffman's motion, the revised personnel policy was
approved on first reading save for the issue of
nepotism.
The policy must pass a second reading and public
hearing before becoming official.
OFFICE-RESIDENTIAL ZONE PASSES ON FIRST READING
Council members approved on first reading an ordinance
that would add an office-residential zone to the
city's zoning ordinances. Winchester advised the
ordinance was proposed by the McKenzie Regional
Planning Commission as a "soft zone." He used as an
example entrances into cities where former homes have
been converted to businesses such as lawyer and CPA
services and that, should someone whose property
adjoins a commercial district desire to sell their
home to such a business, they could request the area
be rezoned to allow the transaction. Arthur further
clarified the zone as a buffer between residential and
commercial districts.
Upon Holland's concern that residents affected by the
zoning might object to the proximity of such
businesses and how it could affect property values,
Winchester explained the requirements of the zone
regarding parking, landscaping and fences could
encourage acceptance of the zone. Hale said the
requirements of the zone would enhance property
values.
Adkins asked whether the zone might re-allow property
owners to operate services such as beauty shops from
their homes. Winchester stated the zone would not be
applicable to a single residence as that would
constitute spot zoning and Arthur advised the zone was
not designed to be used in the middle of a residential
area.
Winchester explained that any request for rezoning
would have to go before the Planning Commission and be
approved by the council, constituting built-in
safeguards. Planning Commission vice-chairman Deborah
Turner advised the zone was conceived as a way of
protecting residences that might otherwise butt up
against commercial districts that could include,
Winchester added, car lots, convenience stores, and
the like.
The Planning Commission recommendation was originally
presented to the council during the October 28
meeting, when it was established that the ordinance
would create a buffer zone between residential and
commercial districts, allowing for office and service
industries and sales limited to those incidental to
the business, as well as residences.
Permitted uses of the O-R district would include
single family and two-family dwellings, not including
mobile homes; professional offices including medical,
legal, accounting, engineering, planning,
architecture, real estate, insurance, business and
management consulting services, and travel agencies;
business services including advertising services,
stenographic services, and document reproduction or
copying; personal services such as beauty and barber
shops; and retail sales limited to those that are
incidental to the office, business service and
personal used permitted.
Uses permitted on appeal upon application to the Board
of Zoning Appeals, following public notice and subject
to appropriate conditions and safeguards, would
include churches, schools and other public uses, group
day care homes and child care centers, and other
office, business service and personal service uses
deemed similar in character to the zone as approved.
Retail trade and other uses not of a nature
specifically permitted would be prohibited.
A public hearing and second reading must occur for
final passage of the ordinance.
