Some interesting little threads regarding this election

Apparently, there's a debate as to whether new Commissioners elected in August must/should take office immediately, or wait until the traditional September swearing-in.

see the latter part of the comments at: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/public-hears-from-hopefuls/

My particular response on the site:

I'm going to go against my better judgment and go out on a limb here (as a candidate).

Yes, in normal election cycles, the swearing in is September. Why? That allows for a normal transition of an Agenda/Committee/General Meeting cycle, as well as some time for some transition for the new Commissioners. It makes sense.

Yes, since this is an election to fill in an unexpired term, it's a slightly different animal. I can see the case being made for immediately taking office...

BUT....

Given the former rationale, I don't think it's a good idea. Politics aside, I think it would be good to 'follow transition' in order to allow for a more reasonable transition time and not to disrupt the August meeting cycle. Heck, what would it mean to sit in a meeting voting on a bill that no longer has a sponsor sitting on Commission?

If the law director (current? former?) tells me waiting until September is illegal, obviously I have no choice. But I would want the law director to say without reservation that's the case before accepting an August swear-in. It's just too disruptive to the process. That 'tradition' is there for a good reason.