Commissioner John Gunn

In a bid to reduce costs during tough economic times, Dickson County Commissioner Gary Suggs of the third district introduced an idea to save on the county legal services. From there the debate began.

At the last county commission meeting, Commissioner John Gunn of the second district adamantly opposed the idea, believing unforeseen issues could arise. Commissioner Gunn agreed to talk with me to tell his thoughts on the matter.

Sean: Commissioner Gunn, would you tell me a little about yourself?

Gunn: I’m the Attendance Director for Dickson County Schools. My primary function is to ensure all students are in compliance with state law about compulsory attendance. Along with that, I do the policy and procedures for the school system. I’m kind of the unofficial legal adviser. I go find an attorney if there’s a legal question. I assist with the employee issues, human relations type of thing. I’m a member of the negotiating team for the school board. I’m the DHA, Disciplinary Hearing Authority Chairman. I’m also a Dickson County Commissioner for the second district. I was born in Dickson County and have spent the majority of my life in Dickson County.

S: How long have you been a commissioner?

G: I took office September 2006. So two years.

S: How long have you been at the Department of Education?

G: This is year three. Prior to that I was the principal at New Directions Academy for eight years. And prior to that I was a teacher for ten years.

S: What did you teach?

G: I was a special educator. I taught resource English, resource reading, resource math, multimedia, and social studies.

S: More onto the topic at hand, Commissioner Gary Suggs introduced idea to first consolidate legal services from four departments: Department of Education, County, Roads Department, and the Sheriff Department. Then he also wanted to do an annual bidding for the legal services. First how do you feel about the consolidation of the legal services?

G: It’s a good idea if it would work. Of course all the different department heads would have to agree to do it. They can choose who they wish. As a suggestion to see if we can combine them, I think that part is a good idea. I just don’t think it should be forced.

S: Overall do you think it would improve things if that could occur?

G: It could be a potential cost saving, yes.

S: Do you know of any negatives to the idea?

G: Just the mere fact that everyone might not be able to agree to use the same set of attorneys. I was primarily opposed to it for the other reason. I can’t go into the details; it’s [due] to something that is currently in the legal system right now. I think with the complexity it would far better for us to remain with the current attorneys.

S: In the last county commission meeting, you voted no stating issues with the the current litigation issues. Are there any other reasons why you oppose it?

G: That’s it. That’s the only reason.

S: If we got past that point with these issues, would you support it?

G: I wouldn’t mind looking into it at that point. I do think our current attorneys have done a very good job for us. So I’m really comfortable with that. I’m not convinced that there would be any cost saving. By no means is this my illustration. A couple of my fellow commissioners used it and I agree with the logic of it. To me it’s comparable like me going to you as a physician and I say want to contract out with you. I want to pay you $50,000 this year. Will you be my doctor? If you have any sense at all, you would say, “Well I can’t do that. I don’t know if you are going to have three or four bad colds or if you will come down with Leukemia.” You just don’t know. It’s not like building a house where you can control the cost. We don’t have any idea what’s going to come up legally in the course of a year.

S: I guess the biggest concern or questions is, what would be the harm looking into it?

G: No, no. There’s no harm at all. I’m just unconvinced though even if an attorney agreed. I’m unconvinced that they really could hold it.

S: So, you believe if we actually went that route and it appeared that there would be a savings initially, there would be problems in the future?

G: I just think it’s too good to be true. Usually when something is too good to be true, it is.

S: Do you have any other points to make on this?

G: That’s about it. I do appreciate Commissioner Suggs seeking ways to save money. In tight economic times I think that’s our responsibility. I just fundamentally disagree that it would be money saving. Because if things were to get awry with this lawsuit, it could potentially cost much, much more than the potential savings.

S: At the last commission meeting it was voted 5 – 4 and one abstained. It would appear it would have passed, however it didn’t. Could you explain why it didn’t?

G: We needed a three quarter vote. I’m not sure why. I need to do some research on that.

S: Do all things require a three quarter vote?

G: No, just some issues.

S: Is there anything exciting that’s coming up, that the county is working on?

G: Yes, sometime early October, we’re going to get back bids for the jail construction. Hopefully we are going to be making a decision on whether we are going to start on the new jail. That’s a pretty big issue.

S: That it is.