As Monday’s meeting of the Clark County Quorum Court drew to a close, District 7 Justice of the Peace Jenna Scott took issue with county Judge Troy Tucker over the fact the meetings are not yet being live-streamed, nearly a year after the county’s legislative body OK’d an ordinance establishing the service.
It wouldn’t be the first time a justice argued with Tucker about the service — during the court’s July 2023 meeting the judge went back and forth with District 2 Justice Michael Ankton, who initially proposed the idea soon after he took a seat on the court.
Scott and Tucker argued for three minutes. The following is dialogue between the two soon after Scott brought up the issue:
Scott: So who are we looking for? Someone to do it? I thought we had someone.
Tucker: That person has to work for someone, and no one has stepped forward and said they would accept that responsibility.
Scott: So does the Quorum Court need to pass another ordinance saying who needs to be responsible for that? Because I’m having lots of people asking me why we haven’t followed through on that.
Tucker: That’s odd, I have not had one person ask me.
Scott: [inaudible]
Tucker: Do that. In fact, you can pass all the ordinances you want. I mean, it doesn’t, you’re certainly …
Scott: Our job is to legislate, and your job is to manage, correct?
Tucker: I don’t know how you would define manage.
Scott: Well, you’re responsible for taking care of the day-to-day business of the county.
Tucker: That’s correct.
Scott: We’re supposed to legislate. We’re supposed to set the rules.
Tucker: That’s correct.
Scott: So there was interest in this, and because the people asked for it, we did the legislative part. We need to accept the responsibility for making it happen.
Tucker: You’re exactly right.
Scott: I’ll send them your way.
Tucker: Thank you.
Scott: And I hope other people will, too. There’s a lot of interest in it.
Tucker: There’s no problem doing it. I’m not opposed to doing it. You’ve never heard me say I was opposed to doing it.
Scott: But you don’t want to be the person who does it. Somebody needs to …
Tucker: Yeah, but I don’t have time to sit here and do this, and I don’t want to be responsible for the person that is doing it. Because there will be problems with that down the road and I don’t want that responsibility.
Scott: I get that. I’m just saying there’s a lot of interest.
Tucker, leaning into his microphone: But you’ve never heard me once say that I’m opposed to livestream.
Scott: I know, I know. But there is a lot of interest, and so we would like to see it move forward.
Tucker: Then we need to find someone that’s willing to be responsible for that, follow up with the FOI requests, and all that other stuff that’s going to come with that. And when that person doesn’t show up for a meeting, who is going to be responsible for that then? Those things need to be worked out before you initiate a livestream.
Scott: No, the intent was to try to do that.
[District 3 Justice Vanilla Hannah’s hand is raised]
Tucker: Ms. Hannah?
Hannah, to Tucker: Are you saying that one of the county officers need to be responsible for being over that livestream?
Tucker: Someone has to be responsible. Because the Quorum Court does not have employees.
Hannah: So one of the officers within the county?
Tucker: That’s correct.
[pause of a few seconds]
Tucker: Any other questions?
The court then voted to adjourn the meeting.
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
