Resolution No. 2045 did not pass tonight.
Not because the board found its conscience. Because Mayor Sebourn forgot to add the second reading to the agenda.
The item was pulled. The vote was postponed. The resolution will be back.
But what happened after public comment is the story tonight.
She Came Out Swinging — At the Residents
When public comment closed, city attorney Brittany Hoskins did not stand to address the room.
She stayed in her seat and immediately turned on the people who had spoken.
She went after Daniel Berry by name. She went after other citizens who had commented. She accused residents of using fear tactics. She did not address the substance of what was said. She did not answer the questions that were asked. She dismissed the people who asked them — from her chair, in a room full of Tullahoma residents who had shown up to participate in their own government.
Seemingly unhinged, the city attorney for Tullahoma, Tennessee attacked citizens for reading a public document and asking questions about it.
And wrapped inside that attack was a legal argument she presented as obvious — as something any reasonable person would already know.
"Basic law 101," she said.
She was wrong.
The "May" Argument Does Not Hold Up
Hoskins argued that the statute's use of "may" gives the city a choice of instrument. The law says "may" — not "shall." So the city may use an ordinance, or it may use a resolution. The city has a choice. Anyone claiming otherwise is using fear tactics.
That is not what the statute says when you read the whole thing.
The sentence reads: "The county legislative body, by resolution, or the municipal legislative body by ordinance, may adopt the general regional plan."
Read it as the parallel structure it is. Two subjects. Two instruments. One permissive verb.
The county legislative body — by resolution — *may* adopt. The municipal legislative body — by ordinance — *may* adopt.
"May" tells you adoption is optional. The city does not have to adopt a comprehensive plan. But if it does, the instrument is already assigned. Counties get resolutions. Municipalities get ordinances. "May" grants permission to act. It does not open a menu of instruments.
If Hoskins were right — if "may" created a free choice of instrument — the words "by ordinance" would be meaningless. Legislatures do not include meaningless words. Every word in a statute is there for a reason.
But the statute does not leave room for that argument. One paragraph down, when the legislature describes the legal consequences of adoption, it repeats the same distinction: "if the legislative body adopts the general regional plan **in the form of an ordinance by the municipality** or a resolution by the county."
The legislature said it twice. Ordinance for municipalities. Resolution for counties. Both times.
If "may" gave the city a free choice of instrument, why would the legislature repeat the same assignment when describing what happens after adoption? Because there is no free choice. The instruments are fixed by entity type. The attorney knows this statute well enough to cite it by number. She read both sentences. She argued from one and ignored the other.
That is not basic law 101. That is a selective reading of a statute that does not support her position when read in full. Calling residents' concerns "fear tactics" does not change what the words say.
Decorum. Denied.
Alderman Bobbie Wilson had seen enough. She asked Hoskins to show some decorum.
Mayor Sebourn shut Wilson down.
Hoskins continued.
Let that land for a moment.
An alderman — an elected representative of the people in that room — asked the city's attorney to stop attacking residents and conduct herself professionally.
The mayor silenced the alderman.
The attorney kept going.
This is the same mayor who controls planning commission appointments. The same mayor who has stated publicly he will only appoint members who share his pro-growth agenda. The same mayor who pulled tonight's item not because the process was flawed — but because he forgot to add the second reading to the agenda.
The process was flawed. He just forgot that part of the flaw was on the agenda for everyone to see.
What Tonight Established
Resolution No. 2045 is coming back. The second reading will be noticed. The vote will happen.
But tonight put something on the record that will not go away.
The city attorney accused residents of fear tactics for citing a statute — then argued that statute by reading half of it. She attacked citizens by name from her seat while the mayor silenced the alderman who asked her to stop.
The residents in that room tonight did nothing wrong. They read a public document. They showed up. They asked questions.
What happened to them afterward is what this board looks like when it is not used to being challenged.
They will be challenged again.
The second reading is coming. Be there.