Can Holleman Have it Both Ways?
Nashvillians know Jason Holleman as a Metro Council member who represents the 24th District, which includes the Sylvan Park neighborhood. He’s also an accomplished attorney who specializes in local government issues and has, in his words, represented “neighborhood groups and small communities.”
In Mt. Juliet they know him by another title: city attorney.
While no one on this side of the Davidson County line seems to care that Holleman serves two masters, some folks in Wilson County see conflict on the horizon. From Radio Free Mt. Juliet:
If there’s a fight over commuter rail funding, whose side will the City Attorney/Nashville City Councilman be on?If there’s a fight over the rates Nashville charges Mt. Juliet for sewer treatment, whose side will the City Attorney/Nashville City Councilman be on?
If the City Commission and City Manager need legal advice in negotiating a legal contract with the City of Nashville, whose side will the City Attorney/Nashville City Councilman be on?
If Nashville and Mt. Juliet get into a fight over where the Central Pike interchange will be located, whose side will the City Attorney/Nashville City Councilman be on?
Wilson County insiders that I’ve spoken with have very nice things to say about Holleman, but are genuinely concerned about the above issues.
Are these concerns well founded or is his role in Metro government limited enough to render them moot?
Comments
Could you also vett what other council members might have conflicting relationships come up in the future so as to put this in perspective? Have others had similar situations before and what happened?
Posted 02/15/2008 at 04:35:48 PMWhen I hire an attorney to do a job for me I expect his or her full attention on what is in "my" best interests...not the other guy's best interests.
When I elect a public official to serve in an elected position I expect his or her full attention on what is in "my" best interests and on maintaining adherence to established laws, ordinances, resolutions, and policy.
When (and it is only a matter of time) an issue comes up under which this city attorney/metro councilman has to represent the City of Mt. Juliet as its city attorney, and at the same time deal with the same issue as a Metro Councilman, how will he be able to fulfill both; How can he provide his full attention to being my City Attorney "and" focus his full attention to being his district's Metro Councilman?
One might suggest that he could simply recuse himself from the matter, but from which side would he recuse himself? Would he recuse himself as our city attorney or would he recuse himself as metro councilman?
Regardless of whether or not he recused himself from one side or the other, or even both sides, he will one day be faced with the decision of where his loyalty lies. That is the heart of the matter; "where does his loyalty lie?"
I want an attorney working for this city to be looking out for my interests under the law...not another city's interests. We pay Mr. Holleman to function as our attorney, which to me would mean that he should be developing a strategy for handling issues that come before this city and presenting the best legal advice on how to handle such issues. Developing an effective strategy requires involvement behind the scenes long before an issue becomes a hot public topic. A good attorney must be able to intuitively perceive potential threats and begin working on a strategy before the threat becomes real. The best legal strategy often requires having a strong offense rather than simply relying on a good defense. So what are we to do in Mt. Juliet, hire another city attorney to handle all legal matters that could potentially become a conflict of interest for Mr. Holleman?
Now from a political perspective. If my commissioner were also the city attorney for Nashville I would be equally concerned. Were my city commissioner serving as Nashville's city attorney, and as a result his loyalty were with Nashville (His full-time bread-and-butter), every disadvantage I were to suffer as a result of that arrangement would cost me in some form or fashion.
Although, as this articles states, there isn't anyone on Nashville's side of the fence having a problem with this arrangement, there should be. If Mr. Holleman does the job for me as my City Attorney that I expect him to do it puts the City of Nashville at a disadvantage. I want my attorney to have very long, sharp teeth and a penchant for sinking those teeth right into the backside of my opponent whenever necessary...considering Mr. Holleman is a councilman for the city of Nashville, in a situation under which we need him to go to bat for us against Nashville and perform his duty to us in Mt. Juliet, he would have to be able to bite his own backside...I don't think that is going to happen.
Now from a legal perspective. If Mr. Holleman were to use the knowledge he gains from one position to advantage himself in the other position it could potentially cause a conflict of interest and could potentially violate other state laws.
It simply is a bad idea to have a City Attorney who is also a councilman of a neighboring government and it is equally as bad an idea to have a councilman who is city attorney for a neighboring city.
Mr. Holleman may be a very nice man, and he may have great intentions, but if he is as good an attorney as he is being made out to be, he should be able to realize that the negatives of this situation far outweigh the positives.
Posted 02/16/2008 at 07:58:21 AMAnonymous pegged it the first time, while PJ Tobia continues to distinguish herself as a raker of nonexistent muck.
If there were a story here at all, it would be to look into questions of conflicting interests throughout the Metro Council. Instead, Tobia settles for a drive-by shot. Nor is there any acknowledgment that the compensation received for serving on the Council doesn't exactly allow one to quit his day job.
Notice how all of Tobia's questions about conflicts by Jason Holleman all start with word "If."
If there's a fight over commuter rail funding...
If Nashville and Mt. Juliet get into a fight over the Central Pike interchange...
If any of scenarios come to pass, then it would be worthwhile to watch how Mr. Holleman handles himself.
Until such time, it is no more appropriate to accuse Mr. Holleman of having a conflict than it would be to accuse the Scene of being unable to cover Metro government honestly simply because its editor happens to be married to someone who serves in that government.
Posted 02/16/2008 at 09:32:58 AMTwo quick points:
First of all, PJ was merely reporting the fact that Mt. Juliet residents rightly have questions about their new city attorney's potential conflict of interest. He wasn't definitively saying there was one--only that there is concern about whether Holleman will ever be in a position to choose between his two masters. Considering how different cities often compete for grant money and relocating companies, to say nothing of conflicts over infrastructure, PJ was certainly right in at least recognizing that this may one day be in an issue.
Second, to address Mr. Wilson's silly characterization of PJ as a raker of non-existent muck, you obviously haven't been reading the Scene the last two years during which time PJ has exposed systematic discrimination against Hispanic immigrants in a series of stories that have often resulted in immediate changes for the better. He's one of the best reporters in town and I'm lucky to work with him.
Posted 02/16/2008 at 01:24:54 PMTo say nothing of exposing a crooked, sexually assaulting, gun-wielding doctor, shedding light on the significant failures our city has perpetuated against special-needs students and reporting about the unintentional dragnet the Sheriff's Office 287G has become.
Mr. Wilson no doubt has an axe to grind but is unwilling to put his name beside whatever it is, instead happily hiding behind a handle.
Posted 02/16/2008 at 01:47:39 PMAlso, it's one thing to defend Holleman, who, I should note, is as ethical as the day is long. We'd do well to have more members like him on the council. It's another to attack the messenger, who was simply pointing out some chatter from Mt. Juliet.
If a conflict arises, I have no doubt Holleman will create an appropriate remedy.
Posted 02/16/2008 at 02:43:25 PMWow, that obviously hit a nerve, judging by the rush to Tobia's defense.
My only axe to grind is with what appears to be some shallow reporting.
Did Jason Holleman's employers have a problem with his decision to run for Metro Council? Did anyone bother to ask them? Did anyone ask them what they would do in the case of a potential conflict of interest? Did anyone ask Jason Holleman, for that matter?
And, back to Anonymous' original post, did anyone bother to examine what other (and possibly much less theoretical) conflicts of interest might be lurking out there among our Council members?
I realize this is merely a blog, but I would hope we can expect more from journalism than simply "pointing out the chatter.
The headline of this piece, by the way, does a little more than just report what some residents of Mt. Juliet are saying. Otherwise, it should have read something like "Mt. Juliet residents express concerns about Holleman's role." As it stands now, the headline suggests that the writer agrees that Holleman has a clear conflict of interest, not merely a potential one.
Posted 02/16/2008 at 05:07:01 PMOf course it hit a nerve! The Scene is journalistic perfection! Just look at how they do hit pieces on the City Paper and Tennessean virtually on a weekly basis.
Posted 02/16/2008 at 05:19:46 PMSeems to me the Scene is more than happy to criticize others, but not so comfortable when the crosshairs are facing the other direction. How lame. Pulle used the reverse ad hominem defense: PJ can do no wrong, because he's done great things in the past. That makes a ton of sense!
And Mr. Wilson is right! The headline suggests Holleman HAS a conflict of interest.
The headline )and tone of the blog) should have been: Mt Juliet is worried about a potential conflict of interest with Holleman.