Ellen Smith
By Ellen Smith
I was surprised and gratified by the recent news that the Progress PAC (the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce political action committee) endorsed my candidacy for City Council. To my dismay, several citizens have told me that this endorsement indicates that I have somehow “sold out†to the Chamber of Commerce. I am writing to respond to their allegations.
The Progress PAC endorsement was a surprise to me because I have never been aligned with the Chamber, I have strongly opposed some Chamber initiatives in the past, and I am not shy about my support for principles like conservation of publicly owned open space and putting the interests of existing residents and owners ahead of the interests of new business development.
However, I respect the Chamber as the main representative of and advocate for a very important element of our community—and a group whose members and volunteers who are passionate about the future of Oak Ridge. We share many common goals and interests for this community, and if we are going to make progress as a community, it’s necessary for government, the business community, our nonprofit sector, and (ideally) all citizens to try to understand each other’s interests and needs and work together for the benefit of all.
I told the PAC’s committee (hard-working civic volunteers, all) that I would accept their endorsement, just as I would accept the endorsement of any group of citizens who go to the trouble of evaluating candidates for office and making endorsements as a group. I see the PAC’s decision to include me among their endorsements as indicating a recognition that people with divergent perspectives can work together to achieve positive outcomes for our community (indeed, diversity produces more positive outcomes than uniformity!)—and that I am both qualified and committed to work for what’s best for Oak Ridge as a member of the City Council.
I was well aware that some people would be suspicious about the Progress PAC’s motives and the candidates who cooperated with the PAC. As I said a few weeks ago, the formation of a political action committee makes the Chamber’s role in local political activity more transparent than it has ever been in the past. The PAC must operate under stringent state of Tennessee rules for multi-candidate political action committees—getting its funds from member donations (no money from the Chamber organization) and publicly reporting all donations and expenditures over $100.
Additionally, the Progress PAC is not providing money to any of the candidates they are endorsing—I’m not sure what the PAC plans to do, beyond publicizing its endorsements. I recall that several other groups have endorsed (and promoted) slates of local candidates in past Oak Ridge elections, but I don’t believe that any of those groups registered as a PAC. With that background, I congratulate the Progress PAC for operating in full compliance with current state law.
Anyone who knows me at all well will laugh at the suggestion that the Progress PAC endorsement will change my opinions, positions, or future votes if I am elected to City Council. As I did in the past, I will make up my own mind, always aiming for what’s best for the community. I will do my own analysis, ask questions, seek out public input, and listen to what others have to say—and I will pursue consensus decisions where possible (because it’s rare for a 4-3 vote to result in a decision that everyone is happy to support—and our local government needs to present a more united front and a more positive image than it has done in the recent past).
The questions that the Progress PAC asked candidates were aimed at gaining information about candidates’ views on broad topics in local governance and our ideas and plans for responding to community challenges—they were not narrowly focused on the interests of the Chamber and the business community. I have the impression that most of us candidates (even those who refused to be considered for PAC endorsement) found it worthwhile to develop responses to the PAC questions because it helped us frame positions on questions that many citizens are asking. All of my responses to the PAC questionnaire are available on my website blog at http://ellensmith.org/blog.
Smith is a candidate for Oak Ridge City Council.
Raymond Charles Kircher says
Very nice comments about this PAC, Shall we allow non-residents to use our Civic Center, bring Knox County stray animals to the Oak Ridge Animal Shelter, charge families to attend Oak Ridge High School, yet allow a non-commerce action free space in a city owned Chamber of Commerce building? I can see how many citizens don’t feel our tax dollars are spent well. Could you comment on how the PAC is allowed free space in a city owned building, and how would you feel that the motivation of this PAC wasn’t geared toward your election?
Ellen Smith says
The Chamber of Commerce building does not belong to the city. It belongs to the Chamber (they built it).
The land the building sits on is leased from the city under a long-term land-lease contract that the city entered into a couple of decades ago. It’s a valid legal contract. I don’t know the how the lease rate was determined. I wasn’t part of that decision — and I believe the city has plenty of challenges to tackle that are much bigger than second-guessing this historical decision.
And yes, we do allow non-residents to use our Civic Center and other facilities, often for free, or for the same fees that Oak Ridge residents pay. One of those “other challenges” I mention above is to find ways to get nonresidents to contribute more equitably to the cost of city services that they enjoy as visitors to the city. What was your point?
Raymond Charles Kircher says
Free, there are non-residents using our Civic Center for free, while if you were to establish a committee meeting there you would be charged. So sad, Ellen Smith. Your point is not valid with the citizens who do pay to use that building. How about the loan backed by the property owners of Oak Ridge to expand the CoC? You agree that the citizens of Oak Ridge should be held accountable for that while the CoC board members are not accountable for that loan? According to most Realtor Agencies, the land-lease agreement is a shaky ground agreement, and that a 501c is operating there, why hasn’t any other 501c businesses received the same loan agreements by City Council? And what is the cost of the city to purchase that building the CoC built with the citizen’s credit when the CoC moves from there? Almost moot, the PAC will take over the premise leaving the CoC out of default while they move to Tech 20/20, IMO. Debt is a second-guess, is that also a point of yours?
Ellen Smith says
I will try to respond to the factual assertions you have made, Ray.
Non-residents can use some Civic Center facilities for free (the same facilities that residents can use for free), but the non-resident fee for meeting rooms is higher than the fee charged to residents.
I am not aware of any “loan backed by the property owners of Oak Ridge to expand the CoC” nor of any arrangement for the city to purchase the Chamber of Commerce building in the future. I’m not also aware of any plan for the Chamber to move to the Tech 20/20 building — a building that happens to belong to the City.
Aditya "Doc" Savara says
If I’m not mistaken, the lease agreement with Chamber requires the city to purchase the building at the end of the lease. Though maybe it’s an option and not a requirement. Also, maybe the lease is written with the intent that a renewal would prolong that [I have not read the lease]. I’m not saying it would be a bad deal for the city to acquire the building at the end of the lease, I’m just relaying some information that’s foggy in the back of my head.
Raymond Charles Kircher says
So the city is in the business co-signing loans to build buildings. Once again, liability is not any concern of the city council. It isn’t their money. At this point, lack of information coming the current city council and past council-members doesn’t shock me one bit. Thank you Tim Mason for providing the information on the CoC lease. As all can read the erosion of public trust by city officials past and present. If corporations won’t move to Oak Ridge, our city council will create their own corporate interest. There in lies the true intent of city council, to use our money not how we feel best, with as many “other challenges” our city has not resolved.
Joseph Lee says
Mr. Kircher, do you not fine it to be exhausting to be so negative about everything day after day year in and year out? The sky is not falling. The end is not just around the corner. Can we do better, of course. It’s going to be OK. Lighten up. You’ll feel better and don’t forget to vote.
Trina Baughn says
Righteous coming from the guy who makes death threats against public officials.
Raymond Charles Kircher says
$162,390.00 Loan using city property for collateral drafted in 2008. Ellen, you really believe they had the money to build their expansion? While you look up other property transactions in the Register of Deeds office, research the CoC ownership of the Tech 20/20 Building as per the registered documents.