Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheatham County commission votes to pursue lawsuit over Hope Center Ministries sober‑living facility
Summary
After public opposition and a closed executive session, the Cheatham County Legislative Body voted 7‑3 to direct the county attorney to pursue litigation alleging incompliance by Hope Center Ministries at its sober‑living facility. A prior motion to continue settlement talks failed 5‑5.
Cheatham County commissioners voted on Nov. 18 to direct County Attorney Michael Bligh to pursue a lawsuit alleging incompliance by Hope Center Ministries at its sober‑living facility after public complaints and an executive session.
The action followed public comment during which Ashlie Farmer and Carmen Irizarry‑Zellmann, both identified as 4th District residents, spoke in opposition to the Hope Center Ministries facility and asked the county for updates. Commissioners moved into an executive session at 7:33 p.m. to discuss the matter for confidentiality reasons, and regular session resumed at 8:17 p.m.
A motion to allow the county attorney to continue settlement negotiations with the Hope Center Ministries lawyer until the December meeting failed by roll call vote, 5 yes, 5 no, 1 absent. After further discussion Commissioner Walter Weakley moved and Commissioner James Hedgepath seconded a request that the county attorney pursue a lawsuit for incompliance against Hope Center Ministries; that motion passed 7 yes, 3 no, 1 absent. The roll‑call record shows David Anderson voted No; Diana Pike Lovell voted No on the motion to pursue litigation; the final tally is recorded in the minutes.
County Attorney Michael Bligh had earlier told the commission that the topic required executive‑session discussion for confidentiality. The minutes do not quote participants verbatim from the executive session. Public commenters had asked for updates at the meeting’s public forum earlier in the evening.
No formal complaints or filings were included in the meeting packet. The motion directs the county attorney to pursue litigation; it does not itself file suit. The minutes record that the commission authorized the county attorney to proceed with legal action, but do not set a specific timetable for filing. Commissioners did not provide a detailed factual record in the public minutes about what legal claims will be asserted; the county attorney is the official authorized to initiate litigation on the county's behalf.
The commission’s action is the most recent procedural step recorded in these minutes. The county attorney indicated earlier in the meeting that confidentiality and legal privilege required the executive‑session discussion. The commission recessed for the executive session and resumed public session before voting on directions to the attorney. The next public step recorded in the minutes is that the commission will revisit the matter in December, and any further legal filings would be public records once filed in court.
