Why does your page look like this?

Is Gov. Phil Defying Public Records Law?

Faced with new scrutiny of the infamous Bredesen Bunker, your Tennessee governor's office is making the unlikely claim that emails transmitted on public computers and with state addresses are not necessarily public record, a mind-boggling stance that contradicts years of accepted practice here and throughout the country.

Late last year, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research asked Gov. Phil Bredesen's office for copies of all emails related to the ongoing renovation of the Executive Residence, a massive project that sparked controversy among Republicans and the first couple's immediate neighbors. But administration officials refused to turn over correspondence it regards as “personal,” even though state open records law makes no such distinction.

After the jump, we bust out some Tennessee Code Annotated for y'all:

Try and Try Again

It turns out the same district attorney who prosecuted Paul House for murder 23 years ago plans to retry him, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declared the death row inmate is likely innocent.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ordered the state to either release House or try him again for the murder of Carolyn Muncey. Given that post-conviction DNA evidence proved he didn’t rape the victim after all—essentially gutting the prosecution’s case—a retrial seemed unlikely, not to mention an utter waste of time and money.

But not so fast, says Paul Phillips, district attorney general for Tennessee’s 8th judicial district. Not only does Phillips foresee a retrial within 180 days, he plans once again to handle the prosecution personally.

In the meantime, the inmate—who suffers from advanced multiple sclerosis—will be released to the care of his mother. The state attorney general unsuccessfully fought his release, and at this point does not plan to appeal the matter further.

So what does the House camp think of all this?

“Feel free to try him again. We don’t care, because the next jury that hears this case is going to acquit him,” Stephen Kissinger, the inmate’s federal public defender, told the Scene last month.

Speaking of Hypocrisy....

Gaylord may be off the hook. This morning state Rep. Curry Todd, a Memphis Republican, made a statement on the House floor congratulating his hometown Memphis Tigers for signing Tyreke Evans to a scholarship. This would be the same Tyreke Evans who drove the SUV involved in a drive-by murder. From Sporting News:

Tyreke Evans was not charged in the case, but police complained that he did not talk to them until three weeks later—a few days before [his cousin] Jamar Evans was charged.

We realize this sort of meaningless boosterism and memorializing goes on at the state Capitol all the time, but could we please get back to congratulating Mrs. Smith's third-grade class for collecting pennies for charity? Using this public forum to honor someone who avoided by the hair of his chin being charged with accomplice to murder seems like a bad idea.

Too bad Philip Workman wasn't a star basketball player.

UPDATE: The video from this morning's session is now up. Todd's remarks come at about 18:30 or so.

A Former Adversary Says Don't Fear Gus Puryear

We're all about The City Paper today here at Pith. This AM the soon-to-be-former daily print product had a story about how a former legal adversary has endorsed controversial Bush nominee Gus Puryear in his bid to be a federal judge in Tennessee's Middle District. In the piece, attorney David Randolph Smith offered his support to Puryear, the corporate counsel for CCA, even though the two opposed each other in court. Randolph helped represent the estate of Estelle Richardson, the late CCA inmate who was found with a broken skull and four cracked ribs in a solitary cell on July 2004. Randolph even wrote a letter supporting Puryear to the members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, who were not exactly wowed by an unprepared Puryear when he came before them in February.

In the letter, Smith says that Puryear would make an “excellent judge.” Interestingly, Smith says that he wrote the letter to the judiciary committee after yours truly interviewed him and “gave me all of this criticism [of Puryear].” And, in turn, I never quoted Smith when he dutifully offered up praise about the Bush appointee. Well, that's all true. I repeated the criticism of Puryear coming from local attorneys in my interview with Smith, and he ably defended the judicial nominee. But I didn't quote him because I already had a number of people in my story singling out Puryear for his intelligence and good character. I simply didn't have room for Smith, much like I didn't take the space to quote the head of the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance for Justice, whose officials told me that Puryear is not fit to be a judge. In journalism, you typically don't quote everyone you interview. To its credit, The City Paper had me saying as much in its story.

Anyhow, as you might have expected, Alex Friedmann, the diligent activist who has helped rally nationwide opposition to Puryear's nomination, has an explanation for why Smith is supporting the CCA heavy, and it has nothing to do with the nominee's alleged competency. "He told me, twice, that he didn't want a 'right-wing religious nutjob' nominated for the position, and Puryear was the least objectionable,” Friedmann says.

UPDATE: David Randolph Smith responds, "I said 'I'm glad the Republicans didn't put up a right-wing religious nut job and that part of the reason why I want to support him is that he is definitely in the more moderate sphere. I did say that he was preferable to a right-wing nut job, but that's not why I'm supporting him. I like Gus. I think he's smart and honest."

UPDATE 2: Check out another take on our coverage of Puryear from a rather eloquent blogger. (And let's hope my wonderful parents don't Google search me anytime soon.)

'Chicken Man' Denies FBI Accusation

Not to defend a crooked politician, but you can't blame former Rep. Ronnie Davis for being a little miffed. An FBI agent went public yesterday with an allegation that cockfighters paid Davis $30,000 to help pass a law in 1990 to make their bloody sport a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

The agent, Thomas Farrow, said he learned of the bribes from a cockfighter. It apparently wasn't enough evidence for the FBI to charge Davis with any crime then because nothing was filed. But that didn't stop Farrow from making the accusation before the House Judiciary Committee where under the state constitution he enjoys immunity from slander claims. Farrow was speaking in support of legislation to make cockfighting a felony again.

Cockfighters knew Davis so well they referred to him as "chicken man," Farrow said.

Asked about Farrow's comments, Davis said, "I would tell him to his face that he is a … bald-faced, ignorant liar."

Voters tossed Davis, a nine-term Republican from Newport, out of office in 2002 while he was under indictment in a swindling scheme. He pleaded guilty in 2004 to federal fraud, extortion and drug charges and went to prison for two years.

Gus Puryear on Belle Meade Country Club's Lady Problem

If you want to be a judge, you should think about being as honest as possible. But this week Gus Puryear, who was nominated by President Bush to be a judge in Tennessee's Middle District and now faces vigilant opposition, is being purposefully vague, if not flat-out dishonest, in his correspondence to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the topic of whether the Belle Meade Country Club discriminates against women. The short and plain answer is that it does—but Puryear refuses to concede that point. In fairness, he's placed himself in a tough situation. If he admits that the club does not allow women to vote on club matters or hold official leadership positions, then he outs himself as a member of an antiquated, backward institution. But if he says anything else, well, he’s lying—or all but.

After his unimpressive hearing before the judiciary committee, Puryear fielded a series of written questions from several senators, including Ted Kennedy, one of the three of four most powerful legislators in the country. Now turning his gaze on a 39-year-old Nashville attorney, Kennedy flat-out asked Puryear the following question:

“Is it true that the Belle Meade Country Club does not permit female club members to vote?”

My answer: Yes, it is true that the club does not allow women to vote. In fact, women have their own class of membership—they're called “lady members”—and lady members can't vote or hold office, even Martha Ingram, who is listed on the club's membership rolls. The only people who can vote are the club's resident members and, lo and behold, all of them are men. The club's “constitution,” which Puryear, as a judicial candidate essentially completing a take-home test, must have reviewed before answering Kennedy's questions, notes the following about resident members: “They alone, to the exclusion of all other classes of membership, shall have the right to control, manage, vote and hold office in the club.” So that means that non-resident members, associate resident members (younger members like Puryear) and, of course, lady members can't have any say in the governance of the club.

Of course, if Puryear used this (my) answer in his response to Kennedy's question, it would have opened him up to further scrutiny. Here, instead, is his Clintonesque response:

“I understand that the only category that may vote is the ‘Resident Member’ category. (I am not a Resident Member, so I may not vote, either, nor may I propose new members. I am also not permitted to be involved in the governance of the club.) At present, there are no women who are in this membership category; however, I understand that the bylaws of the club do not restrict eligibility for the ‘Resident Member’ category except by age (18 years and older) and geography (within 100 miles of Nashville). Thus, I do not believe there is a policy to restrict a woman from being proposed as a ‘Resident Member.’ I am not aware, nor have I been made aware, that any woman has been proposed or has sought to be proposed as a ‘Resident Member.’ ”

Do you understand any of that? I don't. I think my answer above, in addition to being coherent, had the additional advantage of being honest. Then again, I don't have to defend my membership in a discriminatory institution before the Senate Judiciary Committee. So it's a little easier for me to be so scrupulous.

More after the jump.

Beggars Beware

As we predicted last week in “Outlawing Poverty,” Mayor Karl Dean has let the anti-panhandling ordinance become law without his signature. Even though his law department reported that the measure is probably unconstitutional, the mayor failed to muster either the courage or common sense to veto it. Remind me why we elected this guy?

Henceforth, if anyone asks for help after dark anywhere in the city, he or she will be subject to a $50 fine. In the winter, the cutoff is around 5:30 or 6 at night. At other times of the year, it’s different. Our best advice is to check the sky to tell whether it’s OK to ask for help without breaking the law. We’re certain that this ordinance will be applied equally, not just against those who look a little down on their luck.

Harassing the Homeless

Nashville’s homeless community is justifiably outraged by this YouTube video in which some chucklehead cruelly mocks a couple of street people. Charles Strobel, founder of the Room in the Inn shelters, brought the video to the attention of Pith. “The homeless showed it to us and our staff here is upset about it,” Strobel says. “It needs to be exposed because of the bigotry that’s there and the ridicule of people in an unfortunate condition.”

One homeless man, who asks not to be named, tells Pith, “This is exploitation of the downtrodden. I guess you can video anything you want and you can hate anyone you want, but that doesn’t make it right.”

This video surfaces at a time when Nashville is about to crack down on panhandling because beggars are bothering downtown tourists and residents. Isn't that ironic?

Hanging with AG Cooper

A heads up to Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper: You might want to consider using the rear entrance at work tomorrow.

Protestors are planning an 11:30 a.m. rally outside Cooper’s downtown office in response to his latest appeal in the case of Paul House, who remains on death row despite exonerating DNA evidence and the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination that he’s likely innocent. A story in this week’s Scene delves into the latest development in the capital case and what it could mean for 46-year-old House, who is suffering from advanced multiple sclerosis.

Speakers at tomorrow’s event (sponsored by the Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing) will include the inmate’s mother, Joyce House, Rep. Mike Turner, a Democrat from Old Hickory who believes House is innocent, as well as a few local musicians. The group will gather in front of the John Sevier Building at 425 5th Avenue North.

Bredesen's Blemish

Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper takes the brunt of the blame in this week's story about efforts to keep an ailing and likely innocent man on death row, although the governor certainly hasn’t been spared from criticism for refusing to free Paul House.

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2006 that no reasonable juror would convict House given the exculpatory DNA evidence now available, Gov. Phil Bredesen has refused to use his exclusive authority to end the ongoing legal battle and pardon the inmate, who has advanced multiple sclerosis and can no longer walk or feed himself.