Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission holds nominations and multi-round votes for juvenile-court judgeship and District 75 seat; transcript lacks clear final winner names
Summary
The commission opened nominations and conducted multiple rounds of voting for a Division 5 General Sessions Juvenile Court Judge and for the Tennessee House District 75 seat; the transcript records rounds and clerk tallies but does not unambiguously identify the declared winners in the judge selection and contains inconsistent naming during the district seat tiebreaker.
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County commissioners conducted two multi-candidate nomination and voting processes Dec. 8: for the Division 5 General Sessions Juvenile Court Judge and for the Tennessee House District 75 seat.
For the juvenile-court vacancy, multiple candidates were nominated on the record. Commissioner Gannon moved to nominate the slate; the clerk collected and read vote tallies and reported to the mayor that the commission "have a majority," after which the presiding official congratulated the successful candidate. The transcript, however, does not present a clear, unequivocal clerk announcement of the winning candidate name in the recorded segments.
The District 75 seat required successive rounds of voting. Commissioners nominated several candidates and the clerk read tallies after each elimination round; the final two named in the transcript were Michael Lee Langford and Ally (recorded in the transcript as variations of "Ally Phillips"). The clerk's readout indicates the mayor cast a tie-breaking vote in favor of Langford per the clerk's last readbacks, but immediately following the clerk's announcement the transcript contains inconsistent naming, and the transcript does not contain a clear, singular final roll-call statement that explicitly declares the winner by name in an unambiguous manner.
Because the meeting transcript's readings and some spoken names are inconsistent in places, this article reports the process and the transcript-recorded steps and tallies and notes that the transcript itself does not supply a single clear, unambiguous declaration of the final winners for both the judge selection and the District 75 appointment. The commission's minutes or the county clerk's official certification should be consulted for the formal, authoritative results.

