Lethal injection gets court’s OK in Tennessee
Tennessee successfully defended its lethal injection protocol against a a state court challenge, the state’s Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III announced on Aug. 26.
At issue was how effective the drug pentobarbital is and if it causes a painful and lingering death.
While legal challenges dragged on, the state has not executed any prisoners in more than five years.
In a prepared statement, Slatery said, “Today the Court ruled that Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol is constitutional. In doing so, every challenge raised by the plaintiffs was rejected. The State of Tennessee has worked very hard to make sure the protocol used is reliable and humane, today the Court recognized that.”
Sen. Alexander: Iran deal risks nuclear arms race
U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) announced his stance on the president’s nuclear agreement with Iran on Aug. 28.
“I will vote to disapprove the president’s nuclear agreement with Iran because it does not sufficiently restrict Iran’s nuclear program and makes no effort to put a brake on its other conduct as the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism,” Alexander said.
He continued, “The agreement puts some limits on Iran’s nuclear program, but it also legitimatizes it, thereby encouraging a nuclear arms race in the most unstable area of the world.”
An expert advised the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to increase pressure on Iran and use a broader-purposed, more effective diplomacy to force Iran to accept established norms of international conduct.
The advice came from Abraham D. Sofaer, former legal adviser to Secretaries of State George P. Shultz and James Baker.
Manufacturers decry decision on joint employment
Washington, D.C. – An official for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has declared an Aug. 27 decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) a big loss.
The 3-2 majority decision determined that a waste recycler (Browning Ferris) was a “joint employer” for workers employed by subcontractor Leadpoint.
The ruling means that, in some circumstances, a business might be pulled into its subcontractors’ labor disputes or negotiations.
A Wall Street Journal article opined that the decision “radically rewrites U.S. labor law and upends thousands of business relationships.”
NLRB Senior Vice President and General Counsel Linda Kelly said on Aug. 27, “Today’s decision is a loss for manufacturers, employers and employees who have become targets of the NLRB’s aggressive agenda.”
She continued, “The joint employer definition has worked for more than three decades with no split in the circuits on this standard and no evidence that workers have been denied their rights because of this standard. The decision to overturn is nothing more than political maneuvering aimed at disarming manufacturers and job creators throughout the United States. The NLRB’s actions challenge the way manufacturers are able to work in the United States, and we will continue to advocate and fight for manufacturers on this issue, including through further legal action.”
New fees to see public records draw criticism
The Tennessee Coalition for Open Government (TCOG) is putting up stiff resistance to new fees for viewing public records under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA).
TCOG has responded to five questions posed by the Office of Open Records Counsel (a state resource for issues related to Tennessee’s public records and open meetings laws) has posed five questions. See the full text at http://bit.ly/open-records-TCOG; following is a shortened version.
1. Should the TPRA permit record custodians to charge for inspection of public records?
No. New fees would choke off citizens’ and journalists’ access to a wide swath of public records.
2. If charges for inspection are permitted, should charges for inspection be governed in a manner similar to charges for duplication (Schedule of Reasonable Charges)? If not, why not?
Charges for inspection of public records should not be permitted. Per-hour labor fees for copies should be banned or severely limited.
3. If charges for inspection are permitted, should any public records such as meeting minutes, agendas, and audit reports be exempted from inspection charges? Why?
No. By allowing a governmental agency, such as the Open Records Counsel, to decide which documents should be “free,” you automatically and insidiously create a segment of public documents that are not free and that citizens can’t see because they can’t afford to pay the fees.
4. If charges for inspection are permitted, should the factors listed in Tenn. Code Ann. Section 8-4-604 related to charges for copies be considered for inspection? If not, why not?
No. We believe some of the principles listed in T.C.A. § 8-4-604 are not being implemented fully in local and state government, nor are they fully supported in the Schedule of Reasonable Fees or the FAQs on the Office of Open Records Counsel website.
5. What amendments or changes should be made to the current Schedule for Reasonable Charges related to duplication of records? Why?
The Schedule of Reasonable Charges for copies should be updated annually in a robust public process. Citizens should be allowed to make their own copies of public records and get electronic copies of records in their native format. It also should outlaw exhorbitant per-hour charges.
The public can comment online and in public hearings in Knoxville (Sept. 15), Nashville (Sept. 16) and Jackson (Sept. 17). Citizens can email thoughts to comments.open.records@cot.tn.gov and get information about the public hearings at the Office of Open Records Counsel website at https://www.comptroller.tn.gov/openrecords/.
