Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Abatement Lawsuit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident sues over opioid abatement committee meeting notice; commission delays action pending potential legal challenge
Summary
A resident told the commission she filed a lawsuit alleging the opioid abatement committee failed to give required public notice for an April 8 meeting; commissioners debated whether to proceed with a $20,000 funding recommendation and later tabled or withdrew action pending resolution.
A resident addressing the Hamblen County Commission on April 24 said she filed a lawsuit alleging the county—s opioid abatement committee did not provide adequate public notice for an April 8 meeting that recommended $20,000 for the Third Judicial Court Recovery Court support services. The resident told commissioners the committee—s action is therefore void and urged the county not to ratify or act on the recommendation until the procedural concerns are resolved.
Commissioners discussed the claim and whether it affects the commission—s ability to accept the committee—s recommendation. County officials said the money in question came from opioid-settlement funds, not county general-tax revenue, and emphasized the committee has historically made recommendations to the commission for approval. County Mayor Capps and other commissioners said they had been advised that the procedural issue could be remedied by re-noticing and re-voting at a properly noticed meeting.
Because of technical difficulties and the pending legal claim, commissioners deferred further action on the line item during the meeting. At one point a motion on a related recommendation was withdrawn and members discussed tabling the matter until the lawsuit and notice issues are resolved. One commissioner said tabling could delay funds needed by programs, while others said compliance with open-meeting rules is required.
County legal counsel advised the commission that, if an action is taken in violation of the Open Meetings Act, that action can be declared void but also can be remedied by a properly noticed follow-up meeting; the attorney recommended re-noticing the committee meeting and then forwarding a recommendation to the commission for a properly noticed vote.
Commissioners did not complete a final county-level appropriation for the $20,000 item at the April 24 meeting; they instructed staff and counsel to address notice and remedy options and to bring the recommendation back for action if required by the courts or counsel.
The dispute raised broader questions about committee notice procedures and prompted commissioners to request clearer documentation of committee membership and meeting notices going forward.
