LaCroix: ‘It was on me’
Campaign ad mistake draws public response
“Yesterday [July 22], I had a meeting with Town administrator David Smoak in which he addressed an email that he received in regard to me using the Town of Farragut seal in my campaign ads,” LaCroix said. “What I didn’t know was that was not allowed.
“He asked me to remove that from my campaign ads,” the alderman said. “Immediately, I went home and removed the seal from any further ads that I’ll be using.
“On top of that, there was an email that came in this morning,” he said. “I would like to respond to that email.”
Because medical appointments prevented him from emailing the person directly, LaCroix said he decided, “in the interest of transparency and accountability,” to address the email at the meeting.
“Yes, I did recognize that it was the Town seal,” he said. “I did use it in my campaign ads. I didn’t know that was not allowed.
“I didn’t even think of the perception of using the seal in my own ads as if that was an endorsement by the Town,” LaCroix said. “The Town had no idea I was doing that, and they did not endorse me. This was something I did on my own.”
Regarding campaign financial disclosures, he said, “If anybody has any questions about how those ads were purchased, they can contact the executive director of the Tennessee Registry of Campaign Finance and Chris Davis [Knox County Election Office administrator of elections], both of whom were included in emails that went back and forth in regards to how those ads were paid and how they were done.
“That’s a public records request,” LaCroix said. “They will give you all that information.”
LaCroix also gave his phone number, which is on his website.
On the ads, LaCroix said, “Who created, submitted and approved each one of my advertisements? I did. I created them all. It was on me.
“How was the Town seal obtained? Who put it in? Did any Town employees, files, equipment, email accounts or other public resources assist? The answer to that is I pulled that seal from a Google doc,” the alderman said. “I went out to Google, did a Google search and pulled it straight off the Internet and used it.
“No Town employee, no files, no equipment, no email accounts and no other public resources were used in that,” he said. “I did that all on my own, at my home, as I was building my campaign ads.
“Were the campaign funds reported properly? Yes,” LaCroix said. “This was an unauthorized use of the Town’s seal. I won’t do it again.”
During a subsequent citizen comments portion of the meeting, Kimberlie Parks addressed LaCroix.
“You have acknowledged tonight that using the Town seal was wrong,” Parks said. “I want to say that it’s sincerely appreciated.
“Owning a mistake matters; an apology matters, and I believe people should be given credit when they stand up publicly and admit they are wrong,” she said. “But Joe, your own words also matter. When you stood at this podium, asking the Board to censure two other aldermen, you specifically said that you did not believe he intended to violate the law.
“Yet, you still said, ‘If I ever violate the law, I would own it, admit it and seek whatever remedy is available,’” she recalled. “And then you said something even more important. ‘They must be censured to preserve the integrity of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.’
“So tonight, I’m not asking for this Board to punish an apology or an admission, I’m asking you to honor the standard that Joe himself asked this community to accept,” Parks said.
While she accepted LaCroix’s admission, she asked that he be censured.
“Apology addresses the words and accountability addresses the actions,” she added.
Yet, in a Monday, July 27 interview, Town attorney Tom Hale said, “I don’t think it was a violation of any law.”
He said it was an unauthorized use, as the seal is Town property and LaCroix did not obtain permission to use it.
Hale supplied a municipal law section that deals with the seal that “prohibits misleading endorsements." However, he added, “Here there was not even a suggestion of an endorsement by the Town in the ad; and from a legal standpoint, in my opinion, one viewing the ad would not concludes that an endorsement was being made simply because the seal of the Town was in the ad,” he said. “My guess is that hardly any of our citizens even know that what appeared in the ad was the official seal of the Town.”
The law states: Any municipality has the exclusive right to use: the full corporate name of the municipality … any seal, insignia, flag, coat of arms, emblem, sign, logo or visual image that has been formally adopted by the municipality … a municipality may file a civil action against a party who, without the consent of the municipality, uses” the visual image “for the purpose of trade or commerce, to induce the sale of any goods or services or promote any public exhibition, performance, competition or similar activity … tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive or to falsely suggest a connection with or endorsement by the municipality.
“In the event that the actions of any person give rise to a cause of action … the municipality may seek to enjoin the manufacture, use, display or sale of a protected name or image,” the law stated. Further, it states the Town may seek an injunction to restrain the use.
Attorney John Neal also addressed LaCroix’s admission.
"Mr. Hale and I were able to talk about it on Sunday. Mr. Hale talked to Mr. Smoak. Mr. Smoak talked to Mr. LaCroix, and Mr. LaCroix, I appreciate your prompt handling of this matter. I appreciate your candor. As far as I’m concerned, the matter’s closed,” Neal said.
In other action, the Board approved:
n Ordinance 26-16 on first reading, amending the fiscal year 2025-26 Capital Investment Program Fund budget to allow for additional expenses associated with the Anchor Green public restroom project in the Biddle Farms development. The original budget totaled $400,000.
“To date, there have been previous expenditures amounting to $29,912,” said Chris Sheffield, director of public services.
He added the lowest bid for construction services exceeded the original budget by $8,150. Since money already had been spent, “We are recommending allowing for a small contingency reserve of $11,850,” Sheffield said.
To cover all costs, staff recommended a budget amendment moving $49,912 from CIP reserves to CIP expenditures for the project.
Ordinance 26-14 on second reading to amend and update the ordinance regarding administrative purchasing regulations, clarifying approval authority for lower-dollar purchases and adding a formal protest procedure for competitive sealed bids and proposals.
The purchase of Microsoft 365 software licenses to upgrade the Town’s existing licenses through Sourcewell Technology Products & Solutions for up to $31,899.08.
