Archived Story

City has no record of money collection

Published 10:07am Wednesday, December 5, 2012


FRANKLIN—The City of Franklin does not keep records that allows it to collect up to $1,000 from drivers who were drunk, driving recklessly, or driving without a license when they had an accident.

“The response is nobody keeps the record that he is requesting,” Franklin City Attorney Taylor Williams said about retired police Sgt. Ronnie McClenny’s wishes to find out whether or not the money has been collected in the last four years.

“I did check with the clerk of the Franklin District Court, and the court does not keep such a record that he was requesting either,” Taylor said.

McClenny, who retired in 2009, on Nov. 16 asked the city for a record of how much money had been collected under an ordinance.

“It is not up to the clerk of the court,” McClenny said. “It is up to a designee. They have to apply for the money; it is not just going to come to them.”

Williams said there could be cases in which the reimbursement was ordered, but was not been paid, therefore there is no record of money collected.

McClenny in 2008 researched the ordinance, for which City Council recognized him.

“My recollection is when the ordinance was initially passed by City Council that it would only apply to a few instances,” Williams said. “There might not be more than one or two of those kinds of cases per year that would require additional emergency personnel that deal with this ordinance.”

Williams noted just because the court ordered the reimbursement does not mean the defendant has paid.


  • Makalani

    RE: “… they cannot admit their own failures…”

    We are in 10,000% again!

    About the only way we taxpayers can hold politicians accountable is voting them out. Most of the time they listen to us whine in public meetings — then do as they damn well please.

    I doubt very seriously if any ex-Councilpersons/mayors have lost any sleep over the shenanigans/backroom deals they cut while in office. I don’t think many incumbents lose a lot of sleep either! lol

    With downtown bureaucrats — there is very little accountability to the taxpayers and probably very little to their superiors/political bosses unless they screw up royally. Usually — one hand washes the other and we taxpayers get to supply the soap!

    Notice that the City Attorney never said that he would get to the bottom of the situation and try to rectify it. He basely blew it off with obfuscating language.

    Why bother chasing after a few thousand? If some unscrupulous City Employee is pocketing the money — as one commentator has suggested — “No big deal!”

    Suggest Removal

  • itsalwayssomething

    If the city has NO RECORD of the money, who’s to say that someone isn’t POCKETING the money that IS collected? When that money is paid, to whom are they paying it, how is it recorded, and where does the money ultimately go?

    “Williams said there could be cases in which the reimbursement was ordered, but was not been paid, therefore there is no record of money collected.”

    citing the above statement is in direct conflict with the first and second paragraph. Mr. Faison states there “are no records”, and Mr. Williams states that reimbursement was ordered, but was not paid.

    I want to know WHO ordered it, WHY it WOULDN’T be paid, when it WAS paid, to whom was it paid, and WHERE is the accountability for the money?????? I believe Mr. McClenny asked a good question that deserves a better answer than the Texas Two Step answer Mr. Williams gave.

    Suggest Removal

    • simplifyingit

      they cannot admit their own failures, its like a umpire in a baseball game making an obviously bad call. When they make mistakes they tell why you are wrong and how you shouldn’t care, meanwhile they are making another mistake trying to fix the first. I.E.—-$1 and a gun versus the proposed 30yr battle and continued embarrassment. Nothing will stop the retired officer now except a resignation. The city knows the chief , to put it politely, “mishandled” the whole gun thing but now they have to continue to do that texas two step instead of conceding their mistake.

      Suggest Removal

  • Second Opinion

    it is not clear here as to why these fees are charged to the driver. Now if it is a fee charged at the time of the ruling it would seem that the record would show how the amount was determined by 1. a flat rate schedule that the judge uses or 2. the bill from the emergency service attaching claim to the case BEFORE trail. This seems logical because of the statement that the fee is variable up to $1,000.00. Now it is odd that this court ordered FINE has no collection record when the court will pursue you over unpaid parking tickets.

    it is felt that the author of this artical needs to update the facts that pretain to it for clarity.

    The retired disgrunted (alleged)employee does in this case shed some light on dysfunction in the system which in the long run would make the system better. This person also has the right to spend their retirement time as they so wish. This is really not a matter to be bought before the court in a lawsuit when all the answers and solutions can be found among the parties with civil discussions not along the lines of “Gotcha” as a motive.

    Suggest Removal

  • Liberty With Responsibility

    He’s still a tax-paying citizen . . . . .right?

    Suggest Removal

  • ron0435

    I don’t understand why this retired officer can not enjoy his retirement instead of continuing to beat a dead horse. First, it was because he did not get to buy his gun when he retired for a dollar, now it is that the city is not collecting money from a state law he researched. He has probably cost the city more money then they would have ever collected by taking the police chief to court and filing freedom of information request.
    Get a hobby and move on you are retired!

    Suggest Removal

    • SandMan

      Sgt McClenny should have been able to buy the weapon for a dollar ONE DOLLAR!! And you say he’s cost the CITY money? Who’s fooling who? Remember…it would have been solved for ONE DOLLAR!!

      Suggest Removal

  • Makalani

    Why should the politicians and bureaucrats downtown go through all that rigamarole to shoot at/try to collect $$ from “moving targets/lawbreakers” when property owners are “sitting ducks” for tax increases?

    The City Attorney seems REAL concerned about the lost revenue! lol

    Suggest Removal

  • SandMan

    “There might not be more than one or two of those kinds of cases per year that would require additional emergency personnel that deal with this ordinance.”

    Seriously? It appears Mr. Williams is out of touch with the volume of calls FF&R handles each year.

    Suggest Removal

Editor's Picks