Friday, September 30, 2016

The IRONY of the Germantown Email Scandal--Blame the Water Bills and the Open Records Request Law

So now, Germantown has its very own email scandal!  

WREG looked into the scandal-- residents were complaining that they were receiving unwanted campaign literature from incumbents sent to their private email addresses. These residents questioned how the candidates obtained their email addresses. They naturally prefer that their email addresses remain private, and were wondering if the candidates used email addresses taken from water bills or "opt in" email notices. 

Here are the two reports.   

Residents Question How Candidates Got Email Addresses 

David Klevan, an incumbent alderman, admits using the water bill email addresses for campaign purposes. He says it is entirely legal, as does the City.  Email addresses, Mr. Klevan and the City maintain, are public records and thus discoverable under the open records request law.

As WREG's Wayne Carter pointed out, the law relied upon is an old one, enacted before emails were commonly used. Citizens interviewed by Mr. Carter say this is an invasion of their privacy.  

Keep in mind also the purpose of the law. The law's intent is to afford citizens the opportunity to scrutinize the conduct of city officials.  This law was never intended for the use of political candidates, particularly incumbents who hold the purse strings over City resources.

It is ironic that the candidates now using this law find themselves in the same category as citizens who are invoking it to uncover questionable practices.   

It is particularly rich that the incumbents in this election are using, for the purpose of remaining entrenched in office, the same law being utilized by citizen whisteblowers whom they have been quick to villify. The incumbents blame these whistleblowers for increased legal expenses. Yet, at the same time, they are using the law to burden citizens with unwanted solicitations for votes. 

Germantown Open Records Requests Costly    

David Klevan's use of the open records law thus puts him in the same category as Sarah Freeman and Jon Thompson. Oh.........and me. I have done a few requests myself; however, I do NOT use the law to obtain email addresses of citizens. 


Is the City really required to hand over its list of email addresses to anyone who wants it? If so, any business could use that list for its own purposes. Do we want that? Our email boxes filled with spam? City officials should not hand this information over unless they are absolutely certain that the law requires it. If the law does in fact require the City to provide email addresses upon request, certainly the law does not mandate that the addresses be in electronic format.

Let us hope the email addresses were provided to the candidates in paper format. Why make incumbents' vote canvassing easy?  I personally have made a number of open records requests and I have yet to receive any information in electronic format.


Mailing Labels

I was taken aback by Patrick Lawton's statement to WREG's Mr. Carter that the candidates (or businesses) could, if they wished, purchase mailing labels containing resident's home addresses. Really? NO! Sorry, but that will not wash. If this is true, then businesses could inundate us with unwanted paper spam. 

The City is not allowed to "make money" on records that are required by the Open Records law. They are limited to recovering the cost of supplying the information, in time and other resources (and the first hour is free). If the City claims to be making money on an activity, then what they are providing is over and above what is required by the Open Records law.    

I am posing a question. Do we want the City to make money by providing our private information out to candidates and businesses?  Again, they would have to be going over and above the requirements of the open records law to make a profit, per the law.

The the citizen's email addresses were transferred in such a way as to make it appear like an official Germantown email

The sentence appearing at the end of Mr. Klevan's emails: 

"You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the City of Germantown."

This sentence reads to me like the standard closing you would expect to see from any email response sent by the City. The statements makes no sense in the context of a campaign email. It made it sound as if we actually requested the email. 

At the very least this gives us the clue that the email address list came from the City. 

Sunday, September 25, 2016

The UNDEAD-- Germantown Road Realignment

The supposed "deadness" of Germantown Road Realignment can easily be countered. Consider the following facts:

Does it have current outside funding? No. Can that funding be applied for immediately? No. Can it come up again in the next year? No. 

But, do these things make road realignment dead? Absolutely not. A better way to put this is that it is in a short hibernation. An alderman stated at the forum that the City can apply for funds again in early 2019, just over two years from now. How is that "dead"? 

It sits on the 2018-2020 Metropolitan Planning Organization schedule as a "fiscally restrained" project. You can bet that the same leaders in our City that wanted this project last year will apply for it again, right on schedule. We can look for the process to start again in early 2019, a little over two years from now. 
We have been given a timeline. Click on the screenshot below and enlarge the print, or go to the Metropolitan Planning Organization document (this screenshot is from page 169) and judge for yourself. Please pay attention to facts rather than rhetoric. 

Saturday, September 24, 2016

My Answer to Various Attacks

I am rather tired of answering all the various attacks against me on Facebook, so I decided to set up a post answering all of them at once, so that I can just point people to my blog rather than spending energy answering lies.  

I am sure they will be creative and think up some other lies, so I could be adding to this list.

Here are some of the things I have heard lately. 

1. If I don't like Germantown I should move. I love Germantown.  That is why I am doing this.  I love it so much that my first blog post was about how much I love Germantown.  Not only that, it is one of my Pages I think. If you want to see how much I love Germantown, go here:  

2, I am somehow accused of working with/contributing to/or otherwise having some involvement with a PAC. Please show evidence of that because it would be news to me. I have nothing at all to do with any PAC.  

3. I write the Commercial Appeal articles, and/or talk to them or feed them information. Not true, to date. I have never spoken to a Commercial Appeal reporter about one of their stories. Is it possible at some time I that I will? Perhaps so. If I do, I will let you know on my blog. 

4. I am an operative for some candidate in the election. Not true. I have not even met any of them in person. I have not been to any events. I do not strategize with them, or plan anything with them. It just does not happen. I confess to having donated fifty bucks to one candidate, and that is it. 

5. I should not be spending time writing my blog, I should be doing something else.  Nobody really has the right to tell me how to use my time. I will use my time however I want, thank you very much. I would never be so presumptive as to tell someone how to use their time. There is such a thing as personal freedom. 

6. I should not be writing about what I do, I should be writing something else.  Nobody really has the right to tell me what to write. I will write what is important to me, thank you very much. I would never be so presumptive as to tell someone what to write. If this blog does not resonate with you, I suggest that you skip it. If you want something written about the Jumbotron (or _________fill in the blank), start a blog and go for it.  I promise I will not criticize you for the subject matter that you choose. 

7. I recently was called "Hater in Chief".  Apparently someone was taking issue with my exposing an email chain showing that Mr. Lawton was well aware of his auto allowance while contemplating the use of a city-issued car.  I do not hate anyone, but I do admit to providing a tiny bit of transparency to this wonderful City.  That apparently opens me up to spurious attacks such as this.  It is an "attack the messenger" thing so I just used mental techniques to deflect the verbal attacks.

8. I spend lots of money spreading lies on Facebook. This one made me laugh. I did try a couple of Facebook ads to see what they would do. One post I chose to promote was simply an unbiased list of the candidates' websites.  All I want is for people to be informed voters. I think I spent maybe ten dollars promoting this post on Facebook. It didn't seem to work very well. One can follow the metrics of Facebook ads and they are not particularly effective. I wish more people would spread this post around. Feel free to do that, no matter who you favor to win. Here it is:

Friday, September 23, 2016

Back to School, Part 3 Work Sessions

In Part 2 of this series, Back to School, Transparency, I mentioned the Board's work sessions. At the end of 2015, the Board began to hold its work sessions immediately prior to the meetings. Previously, the work sessions were held a week or two before the meetings. At these now combined work sessions/meetings the cameras roll the entire time, due to popular demand. Minutes are not taken at the work sessions.
The work sessions are supposed to be used to discuss issues, and ascertain what additional information must be obtained before the Board members can make informed decisions at the meetings. Obviously, this no longer happens. Holding the work sessions and meetings on the same day means that most of the discussion, even on meeting agenda items, take place during the work sessions rather than the meetings. Since there are no minutes of the work sessions, transparency is sacrificed because most people do not have time to watch the recordings. 

JAM questions this policy, and explains why so well  that I really don't need to do anything in this post other than provide a couple of examples.--December 2015  -

One unfortunate consequence of holding the work sessions and meetings on the same day is that the work session rushes its work in order to accommodate the start time of the meetings. There often is insufficient time for a complete discussion of important issues. This very thing happened at the January 19, 2016 work session/meeting. Student tuition was brought up at the end of the work session and there was only seven minutes to discuss it. However, because it was discussed in the work session, albeit briefly, student tuition was struck from the agenda of the meeting in a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Hoover and Mr. Dely dissenting. JAM discusses this below:

Although not directly related to the subject of work sessions, it is interesting to note from JAM's discussion that Lisa Parker seemed sure of the outcome of a vote before it actually took place. Had three members of the Board talked about this issue prior to the meeting (which would be a violation of the Sunshine Law)? This account certainly raises the possibility of either "group think" or Sunshine Law violations.

Not surprisingly, The Board's decision to hold work sessions directly prior to the meetings has adversely affected decision making, as contracts, for example, are voted on with no advance notice.

At the combined work session/meeting on August 15, 2015, the particulars of various bids on stop-loss renewal insurance coverage were discussed by staff in the work session. However, according to Mr. Hoover, the bids were not all based on the same criteria and thus not comparable to each other. Although the staff had come with a recommendation based on the guidance of an insurance expert, they were unable to answer Mr. Hoover's questions about how the evaluation of the bids was made without an assessment of comparable bids. Thus, the Board had to vote with incomplete information. If the work session had been held even a few days before the meeting, Mr. Hoover's questions would have been answered before a decision was made about the contract under review. 

In short, there are three reasons why holding work sessions immediately prior to meetings is unwise: (1) lack of transparency because the discussion is forced into the work session rather than the Board meeting, where minutes are taken (2)  lack of transparency because discussion can be cut short due to lack of time in the work session, and (3) decision making with incomplete information. 

This completes my three part series on issues involving the Board of Education. Here are Part 1 and Part 2. In order to remain informed, please keep reading JAM and subscribe to their feed, watch the Board meetings online if you have time, read the minutes of the Board meetings, and participate in Facebook groups such as this one.


Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Challegers' Late Notice Leads to Imbalanced "Forum"

Honestly, I am at a loss for words over this. 

And now that I have learned that three incumbents knew of this Forum weeks earlier than the the challengers, I am outraged (it is essential to see underlined update below, which gives a lot more information on this than the Commercial Appeal article).

A Forum of candidates was planned so late that one of the five is unable to attend due to a previously planned out of town business meeting. Yet they went ahead with it anyway? From what I get from this Commercial Appeal article, the emcees were more important than the candidates, which led to the late notice.  

I am sure the emcees are sort of important, but not as important as giving adequate notice to the candidates. There are certainly substitute emcees, but not substitute candidates.

Once a candidate could not attend, due to the late notification (less than two weeks), the Forum should have been rescheduled. If that was impossible, it should have been cancelled. If it was not cancelled, all of the candidates should have refused to attend.  

Kudos to Dean Massey for refusing to participate, when David Nischwitz was unable to attend due to inadequate notice.  

I have no idea why the other candidates did not follow suit. 

It is interesting to note that the organization responsible for this "Forum" was the Leadership Germantown Alumni Association. 

Here is a list of Leadership Germantown Alumni:   

All three of the participants who chose to participate in this Forum without other candidates present are graduates of Leadership Germantown.  Neither of the challengers are affiliated with Leadership Germantown.

One wonders if there would have been a greater effort to reschedule this Forum had it been one of these graduates unable to attend due to the late notice.  

This Forum was not on the City Calendar until one or two days prior to the forum.  Yet the forum for the School Board candidates was shown on the city calendar much earlier. Why was this?  

Adding this: A reliable source has informed me that a Leadership Germantown Alumni newsletter went out to all graduates on August 11, informing them of the dates. The incumbents, who are all Leadership Germantown alumni (who would have received the newsletter), had several more weeks notice of this "Forum" than the challengers, who are not Leadership Germantown Alumni candidates.

Judge for yourselves.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Back to School Part 2-Transparency


The new GMSD Board has provided us with a plethora of transparency issues in its short history.   

As an example, in my last post, Part 1-History of the Start Time Issue, I referred to the minutes of a meeting in which a parent spoke of her frustration over the slow pace of the movement on start time changes. JAM covered it more accurately. 

Meeting Called with Little Notice 

One of the first controversies was a meeting in March of 2014 (minutes linked here) when a vote to charge tuition to students outside the district was reversed in an "emergency" meeting. Because this meeting was called at the last minute, the press complained that this was not adequate notice, which is required by the Sunshine LawTwo of the new Board members who had voted for the tuition increase--Mr. Dely and Mr. Hoover--did not attend the meeting.  From the Commercial Appeal (excerpt): 


The reason given for the emergency meeting was that Natalie Williams wanted to change her vote due to possible legal issues with charging tuition, and some of the Board members were going on a trip to Florida. I am not sure that this would qualify as an emergency, since there was no court action at the time about tuition, and  a revote could always be taken later.

Cameras in Meetings 

In September of 2015, in this Commercial Appeal article---Cameras in meeting bring up prickly access issues in Germantown-- Jane Roberts reports that Sheila Starkey Hahn's attempts to video the work sessions was met with Lisa Parker saying that she did not want the work sessions recorded. Mark Dely replied that the citizens have a right to see the Board work. Hahn was quoted that it would be preferable having the Board provide a video recording of the meetings, but, in the meantime, she would stay in the back with her camcorder until they summoned security to have her leave.      

JAM also reports on this, thusly: 

One possible discrepancy between the accounts of the Commercial Appeal and JAM is that the Commerical Appeal reported that it was Lisa Parker that did not want the work sessions recorded, while JAM reported that it was both Natalie Williams and Lisa Parker that did not want the work sessions recorded, and Linda Fisher's remarks were inaudible. 

I would have loved to compare this account with the minutes of the meeting, but then I remembered, there are no minutes of work sessions!  Thus, JAM and the Commercial Appeal are our only records of this. 

After pushback from the voters, at the next meeting the Board announced a new policy of recording the meetings. 

Germantown School Board Will Tape Meetings 

From JAM 

The Board now provides videos of both the work sessions and the meetings.

Are the Minutes Too Detailed? 

At the November 15, 2015 board meeting, the Board decided in a 4-1 vote (Ken Hoover dissenting) to donate $125,000 to the Germantown Arts and Education Foundation. Mr. Hoover explained that he recognized the Board's decision, but thought it should be structured as a challenge grant to the City, since the City had already passed the same proposal. At his request, this clarification was added to the minutes.  

"Board member Ken Hoover said that though he recognizes the Board's decision to contribute to the HHAAF, he is voting "NO" on the MOU because he believes that it should be structured as a challenge grant."

At the next board meeting on December 16  Natalie Williams moved to strike Mr. Hoover's clarification from the minutes of the prior meeting. That passed on a 3-2 vote, with only Mr. Dely and Mr. Hoover voting to keep it in the minutes. No reason was provided for striking this from the minutes. Having this explanation in the minutes would obviously have given the reader more context. Here is the account from JAM:  

The removal of Mr. Hoover's clarification from the minutes may have stemmed from something JAM also reported on the work session held that same day. From JAM

Natalie Williams began discussing a recent TSBA conference where she learned about school board minutes. And apparently, GMSD is not doing it right. After perusing websites for school boards throughout Tennessee, she wants to see a more streamlined version of minutes that would limit what is posted publicly. She stated that the minutes should only reflect the actions of the board as a whole. Minutes should only state what the board did – not what the board members said. Her rationale was that she did not want anything in the minutes that could be perceived as an individual’s personal belief statement. She also suggested that the minutes should not reflect the individual votes cast by board members. But said she was fine with that if it was the will of the board.

The new parliamentarian, Betsy Landers, who was sitting in the audience, then handed Chair Lisa Parker a book that appeared to be a version of Robert's Rules of Order for parliamentary procedure. Ms. Parker began reading sections of the book to the board. At one point, she said that Minutes are minutes, and not hours. But her recitation of the book did not cite any specific rule or law about how minutes should be written.  

JAM obviously needs to stay on top of the goings on at the School Board, because it looks like we may not get the full picture with "streamlined" minutes. At least if we have time now, we can watch the full videos of the work sessions and meetings. 

My next post in this series will be about work sessions.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Back to School--Part 1--History of the Start Time Issue

The health of our school system, Germantown Municipal School District  is directly tied to the health of our city. All of us are invested in the new school system, whether or not we have children in the public schools. Many families are moving to Germantown specifically because of our new school system. Our schools need to be excellent. 

I will use this blog to shine a light on tiny slices of the brief history of our Board of Education. I would not be able to do this without the wonderful parents who serve as watchdogs of that organization. Many of them post to this closed Facebook group (just ask to join)--Germantown Municipal Schools Discussion Group. As an example, one of these watchdogs maintains a spreadsheet tracking every single vote of the Board, by Board member, since its inception in 2014.  


One particular group that deserves special consideration is JAM in Germantown (Just a Mom in Germantown), a group of mothers who attend each meeting, take extensive notes, and post to a blog. The first of JAM's posts that I would like to highlight is one I have been waiting for since September 4, when I discussed the candidates seeking to replace Mark Dely on the Board of Education. Look for JAM's September 8, 2016 entry here--Filling Mark Dely's Shoes. While the rest of us were either sleeping in, drinking coffee, or off to work, these Moms showed up for the interviews of the candidates by the Mayor and aldermen that took place the preceding day, took notes, and reported back to us. They are definitely not part of what I have called the “Snickers” crowd (those of us who, like me, would rather eat Snickers bars than attend meetings.)   

The next week, on September 12, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen met and voted on Mr. Dely’s replacement.  It was announced that Betsy Landers will be "filling Mark Dely's shoes." 

Here is the take on this vote by Clay Bailey of the Commercial Appeal.  

During the pre-vote discussion, almost all of the aldermen invoked the names of Landers, Adam Underwood and Trent Fleming as the best of the interviews conducted with finalists last Wednesday. 

After discussing the trio favored by the bulk of the board, Landers' name was presented as the first nominee. And, the five aldermen unanimously approved Landers, with only a small delay by Vice Mayor Forrest Owens before casting his vote. 

The whole process moved smoothly just as if everything was choreographed before the meeting. 

Of course we all know that would never happen."


The upcoming election pits two of the incumbent Board of Education members against newcomers. There is a third race in which no incumbent is running. You can get links to all the candidates' websites from  this post.   

An understanding of some of the Board’s actions to date will, I hope, inform your voting decisions. Using JAM, the spreadsheet, and my own observations from the GMSD Facebook group, I will discuss three different issues: Start Times, Transparency, and Work Sessions. In Part 1 I will be discussing start times. Parts 2 and 3 will be posted at a later date.  


Because various candidates for the Board of Education are highlighting their own roles in getting the start times of the schools changed, it is useful to look at some history. It is clear from the evidence that the impetus for the start time changes was due to the persistent efforts of parents rather than the advocacy of any particular Board members.

From the beginning of the formation of GMSD, a large group of parents strongly advocated that the Houston High 7:00 am start time be changed. These parents argued, appropriately, in my view, that Houston High's start time should be brought in line with research showing that an adolescent’s school performance and health improve with later start times. For more information on that see the American Academy of Physician recommendations

Now that we have our own school district, effecting this change should have been easy. But, that was not the case. As it turned out, we shared a bus system with the Collierville schools, and our contract called for penalties to be paid to Collierville if we changed start times. Also, in order to get the system started smoothly, it made sense to maintain the status quo the first year.  

At a June 2, 2014 Board of Education meeting, a number of parents addressed the start time issue during the open mikes portion of the meeting. The minutes of that meeting are here. Because of this group's strong and well organized showing (the result of tireless effort), the board, in a unanimous vote, made an "executive decision to move to less than three bell times and age appropriate start times as soon as possible." 

Parents Who Spoke at the June 2, 2014 School Board Meeting

The interested parents took that to mean they probably would have to wait a year (2015) for healthier start times for their kids. 
In the article Parents Unite for Later School Start Times Jennifer Pignolet interviews Laura Meanwell, and she describes the efforts and frustrations of the parents, and the effect the early start time has on her family.  

Start time changes for 2015 were turned down by the Board on February 24, 2015. The vote was 3-2 against changing start times, with Mark Dely and Ken Hoover dissenting, and the meeting was described in Push to Change Germantown School Start Times Fails 

In the following March 27 meeting, Mr. Hoover brought forth a plan for a "budget neutral" plan to move start times. However, in the middle of the discussion, some other Board members did not seem willing to discuss it.  Please see JAM for their account of it in their 3-27-2015 post, and also in the screen shot below. 

Start times were addressed again the June 3, 2015 work session. There are no minutes of work sessions, but thankfully JAM was there to report to us. Scroll down to the June 4, 2015 entry on this page. Superintendent Jason Manuel announced at this work session that he was excited to have found the $300,000 needed to change start times, and that it was his number one priority. But then he added the kicker-- the change would not begin until 2016. Two of the Board members, Mr. Dely and Mr. Hoover, expressed disappointment that the start time changes would not be implemented in 2015. All of the Board members, nonetheless, applauded Superintendent Manuel's efforts to make the change eventually.  

Parents, however, were upset. Another year of 7:00am start times was very disappointing. One frustrated parent, Amy Eoff, addressed the Board at the open mikes at the 6-11-15 Board meeting.  The relevant Board minutes are here.   From those Board minutes:

Contrast the Board’s minutes with JAM’s account, which may be found by scrolling down to the 6-11-15 meeting on this page  

These clashing views on Ms. Eoff's presentation speak volumes about the manner in which the Board purports to keep us "informed." JAM is providing transparency. It also demonstrates why video recording the meetings is crucial to our learning what actually transpires at the Board’s meetings.  
Over the ensuing months, there was a bit of pushback by some in the administration and others. Questions were raised about whether the $300,000 required for changing the start times could be better used for other purposes.  Also, it was feared that extracurricular activities would be affected by a later start time.  A few of the teachers did not like changing to later start times, because the earlier start times allowed them to schedule doctors' appointments in the afternoons.

Eventually, the administration called meetings of parents to hash out start time options. These options were put to an online vote by parents, and a consensus was reached. 

Thanks to the parents' subsequent diligent efforts, in 2016 Houston High's start time was moved to 7:45, and the start times at other schools were also changed. I should further note that the Houston's new start time is far from ideal according to experts, and therefore many of the parents thought that a 7:45 start time should not even have been up for consideration.  But ultimately credit needs to be given to the parents who never gave up their advocacy for earlier start times, and to the administration for its role in providing the eventual opportunity for all stakeholders to come together. Finally, Germantown Announces New School Starting Times

My next post in the Back to School series will discuss transparency issues at the Board of Education. 

Monday, September 12, 2016

Commercial Appeal Stories Return--Alderman Does Business With City

The Commercial Appeal has assigned a new reporter to Germantown.  
In this article, Daniel Connolly discusses the business that Rocky Janda does with the City through his company Pop Solutions. 

Since becoming an alderman in 2012, Mr. Janda has sold items to the city worth approximately $48,000. The largest purchase was by GPAC, for a Donor Board that cost $8,000. Additionally, there are emails showing that Mr. Janda solicited business from city employees.  

The City attorney approved this practice if his company was treated like any other vendor. Additionally, Mr. Janda said he made various donations to the City.

This editorial condemning the practice appeared the following day in the Commercial Appeal: 

Germantown Should End Sweet Deal with Alderman 

"Given the fact that this type of relationship is generally frowned upon when it comes to government ethics, it is baffling, as well as disappointing, that neither Janda, former Germantown city attorney Tom Cates nor City Administrator Patrick Lawton saw nothing wrong with the practice." 

Here is the second update for the day.  Breaking news-- 

Janda decides to give up City business 

More info here:   

Janda Gives Up Selling Products to City 

Upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, Janda is giving up selling products to the city.  He will continue making donations to various city related non-profits. 

Adding commentary: 

The Commercial Appeal editorial is right.  Baffling that none of them knew better.  Or did they?

Unfortunately for Mr. Janda, he received poor advice when he originally relied on the City Admnistrator and attorney. He was already doing business with the City prior to becoming an alderman, and it was natural that he wanted to continue. This should not have been allowed.  

The mayor was well aware of this practice as well, as he was the one writing the checks.

This lack of judgment on the part of the City is astonishing, and is another piece of evidence that City Hall has become an echo chamber, with everyone telling everyone else what they want to hear.  

Janda certainly has ultimate responsibility for his actions, and for participating in the culture at City Hall, where people seem to be able to do whatever they want, if they can get away with.

Fortunately, after talking with a new City attorney, Janda decided to quit this practice.  We commend Mr. Janda for seeking out the opinion of a professional and making the right choice.  

I would love for the new City attorney to provide some Ethics 101 courses for the administrators in Germantown.

I am sure that gifts to charities are very welcome.  However, that really isn't the issue here.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Germantown Candidate Websites

Please give all candidates in our wonderful city your full attention in this election   

Please do not make the mistake of voting for someone due to various affiliations with others or name recognition alone. Make yourself familiar with their platforms and vote accordingly.  An open and honest government is the best  government.  

And if they SAY they are for an open and honest government, do  they walk the walk? 

"There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy."   Joseph Pulitzer   

These races deserve your attention: 


See each candidate's website and Facebook Group, linked below, and be sure to be an informed voter by checking out the other posts in this blog, which are based on open records requests from the City of Germantown. The links are listed below the candidates' websites and in the archived blog posts.

Bookmark this page for future reference.  

Board of Education:

Position 1                              

Linda Fisher LF Facebook                            

Position 3          

Suzanne Jones  SJ Facebook                    

Position 5                  

Amy Eoff  AE Facebook                               

Mindy Fischer MF Facebook                         


Position 3 


Position 4                        

Forrest Owens  FO Facebook             

Position 5 

You may search these candidates' petitions or financial disclosures at this link.