County attorney: Ethics complaint found to have ‘no merit’

An ethics complaint filed in early April has been found to have no merit.

The complaint, filed on April 3 (Good Friday) by Trenton Strode, centers on the “King of Kings” event that took place April 12 on the courthouse grounds.

Strode, who is currently on the ballot for three offices, said the key issue centers around whether government authority is being used, directly or indirectly, to support or align with a specific religious activity in coordination with a political organization. 

He requested four things from the ethics committee:

“I have reviewed the complaint and there are three components to take into consideration,” county attorney Jeff Jones said. “Procedural, factual and legal.”

In looking at the procedural component, Jones referred to the code of ethics that was approved in 2007. 

“Complaints shall be in writing and signed by the person making the complaint and shall set forth in reasonable detail the facts upon which the complaint is based,” Jones said. 

This complaint was emailed and not signed, which should have disqualified it due to him not following procedures, but Jones went on to document his findings.

“I believe Mr. Strode was incorrect when he stated that the ethics committee is empowered to investigate any credible complaint,” Jones told the commission members. “This is inaccurate. The code of ethics says the committee shall investigate any credible complaint against an official or employee charging a violation of this Code of Ethics.”

Violations listed in the code of ethics include disclosure of personal interest in voting matters, disclosure of personal interest in non-voting matters and acceptance of gifts and other things of value. 

“This is in line with state law,” Jones said. “There’s been no allegation of acceptance of gifts. The committee has a lack of authority to address this.”

In looking at the factual component, Jones went on to document what was told to him by those involved.

“Mayor Porter did in fact speak with the organizer,” Jones said. “The event was planned by the Putnam County Young Republicans group. He (Porter) wasn’t the organizer, promoter or planner. A representative of the Young Republicans approached Mayor Porter about using the courthouse grounds. They spoke about schedule, traffic and Mayor Porter suggested that he talk to the city about necessary permits.”

An employee in the mayor’s office overheard and corroborated the statements, as did the leader of the Putnam County Young Republicans. 

“Strode misinterpreted statements made by Mayor Porter,” Jones said.

The legal component looks at the rulings of the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that expression of religion in a public forum does not violate any laws,” Jones said. “A governmental entity cannot discriminate against any group using the area outside the courthouse. That would violate the first amendment.”

Access to courthouses, sidewalks, plazas are all public forums where access is neutral.

“In summary, I believe this complaint has no merit,” Jones said.

COMPLAINT TEXT IN ITS ENTIRETY:

This complaint concerns the planned “King of Kings” event scheduled for April 12, 2026, at the Putnam County Courthouse, reportedly organized by the Putnam County Young Republicans and publicly encouraged by Putnam County Mayor Randy Porter at a mayoral candidate debate hosted by the Highlands Insider at the Veteran(s) Memorial Building located at 90 E. Spring Street in Cookeville, TN. The mayoral debate was held April 2, 2026, and was livestreamed. Video recording is available via the Highlands Insider.

Based on individual attendance at the debate event, publicly available statements and promotional material, this proposed event raises concerns regarding the improper intersection of religion, political organization and government authority, potentially violating constitutional and state-level requirements for religious neutrality in government.

Under Article 1, Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution:

“No preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.”

 The use of a government building, in coordination with a political organization and with encouragement from a public official, for a specifically Christian event raises concern that government may be giving preference to a particular religious expression.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits government actions that establish or endorse religion.

 Relevant legal standards include:

 In this case, the combination of:

 Political sponsorship

 Government location

 Public statements by an elected official

 Raises the question of whether a reasonable observer would perceive government endorsement or alignment with a specific religious message.

While religious groups may use public spaces under certain conditions (Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette), such use must be:

 Viewpoint neutral

 Equally accessible to all groups

 Free from government sponsorship or endorsement

If a government official is actively encouraging or coordinating the event, or if the event is uniquely tied to political actors, this may exceed the bounds of a neutral public forum.

Public officials have a duty to avoid:

The appearance of favoritism toward specific groups

The use of public office to advance private, political or religious interests

 Public statements indicating that a sitting mayor encouraged or initiated this event raise concerns about:

This matter is not about restricting religious expression. Rather, it concerns whether government authority is being used, directly or indirectly, to support or align with a specific religious activity in coordination with a political organization.

I respectfully request that the ethics committee:

Taken together, the supporting exhibits and timeline establish a clear and consistent pattern that cannot reasonably be dismissed as incidental or coincidental. 

A political organization is hosting an explicitly religious event at a government building. A sitting county mayor publicly acknowledged initiating or encouraging the concept of that event. The event itself arose in direct response to a civic, nonpartisan demonstration concerning government power. These are not speculative claims. They are drawn from public statements, promotional materials and the record itself.

Under Putnam County’s Code of Ethics, the committee is not required to determine intent or resolve every legal question. The governing standard is whether a reasonable person would perceive improper influence, favoritism or the misuse of public authority. This complaint meets that threshold.

To evaluate that standard, the committee need only ask:

If these questions cannot be answered clearly in favor of neutrality and consistency, then the appearance of ethical concern is already established.

This complaint does not challenge private faith, lawful assembly or religious expression in public life. It addresses the intersection of government authority, political organization and religious activity and whether that intersection has crossed the line into endorsement, influence or preferential treatment.

If such coordination is deemed acceptable, then there is no meaningful boundary preventing government-aligned actors from repeatedly using public institutions to advance specific religious expressions. That outcome is precisely what both constitutional safeguards and local ethics rules are designed to prevent.

Accordingly, the facts presented are sufficient to constitute a credible complaint under the Code of Ethics, and warrant formal review, clarification of boundaries and, if necessary, corrective action to preserve both constitutional neutrality and public confidence in the integrity of county government.

“The interpretation that a reasonable person in the circumstances would apply shall be used in interpreting and enforcing this code of ethics.”

A reasonable person would understand something was intended to influence “official action or judgment…in executing county business.”