Double Dipping in Roane County: Why Lance Duff’s Dual Roles Don’t Add Up

Image Credit : Brian Stansberry / CC & roaneschools.com

Submitted by Tony Adams [Constitutional Liberties Commission of TN] –

When it comes to public service, there’s a reason we don’t allow one person to play both umpire and batter in the same game.

Unfortunately, in Roane County, we’re seeing something strikingly similar happen with Lance Duff, who holds two key public roles—Roane County Commissioner and Roane County Schools Supervisor. This situation raises serious legal, ethical, and governance concerns—issues that strike at the very heart of fairness, transparency, and integrity in local government.

**Conflict of Interest: Who Is Duff Really Serving?**  

As a county commissioner, Duff has the authority to make budget decisions, set tax rates, and approve policies that directly impact the school system where he is also employed as a supervisor. This overlap is a textbook conflict of interest. Tennessee law (TCA § 5-5-102) exists to prevent public officials from using their roles for personal gain. Yet, by wearing two hats, Duff is in a position to influence decisions that could directly benefit his employment status, department budget, or even his salary. This dual role doesn’t just look bad; it undermines the integrity of our local government and invites justified public skepticism.

**The Incompatibility of Offices**  

The concept of “incompatible offices” is simple: no one should hold two public roles if the duties conflict or create divided loyalties. As a commissioner, Duff oversees decisions on school funding and policy—issues that directly affect his job as a school supervisor. Imagine being asked to cut your own department’s budget in one role while advocating for resources in another. This is the kind of impossible situation Duff faces, one that inevitably leads to conflicting interests and undermines his ability to serve impartially.

**Blurring the Lines Between Powers**  

Tennessee’s County Powers Act establishes clear boundaries: the county commission approves funding and manages finances, while the school board and supervisors run the educational system. By taking on both roles, Duff is blurring the lines between these distinct powers, jeopardizing the separation of duties that ensures accountability in government. The checks and balances intended to provide independent oversight over our schools are essentially nullified when one person sits on both sides of the table.

**Ethical Concerns and Public Trust**  

Legal arguments aside, there’s an ethical dimension to consider. Public officials are expected to serve their community without favoring personal or professional interests. When Duff makes decisions that could impact school funding, the public has every reason to question whether he is acting in the best interest of students, teachers, and taxpayers, or in his own interest as a school supervisor. The perception of bias alone is enough to damage public trust—a commodity already in short supply in many communities. We should not accept a governance model where our representatives’ impartiality is even remotely in doubt.

**A History of Failed Double-Dipping**  

Across Tennessee and beyond, legal precedent shows us that courts have repeatedly ruled against dual office-holding when there is an overlap in duties or interests. The reasoning is sound: public officials cannot effectively serve two masters when the responsibilities conflict. If Duff’s case were brought to court, it is likely that these roles would be ruled as incompatible, setting yet another precedent that public service requires clear boundaries to function effectively.

**A Call for Integrity and Transparency**  

Lance Duff’s situation is more than a quirky case of political double-dipping—it’s a real threat to the integrity of both the county commission and our public school system. The conflict of interest is clear, the violation of the incompatibility of offices doctrine is unmistakable, and the need for transparency and public trust is more critical now than ever. Holding both roles compromises his ability to serve effectively and fairly in either position.

The solution is simple: public offices that have inherently conflicting responsibilities should not be held by the same person. Roane County deserves public officials who are committed to acting solely in the interest of their constituents without divided loyalties. By separating these roles, we can ensure the checks and balances that make for effective governance are preserved, and that our leaders are truly serving the public good—nothing more, and certainly nothing less.