We’re as appalled as the next person by the fact that former Collierville Mayor Linda Kerley was kicked out of a meeting by anti-consolidation forces in a Shelby County elementary school, but while the news media concentrated on whether it was indeed a public meeting, our question is more fundamental:
Since when are campaign meetings allowed in schools in the first place?
We know there’s a policy against this at Memphis City Schools, and we suspect that there is a similar policy at Shelby County Schools. It’s certainly the position taken in rulings issued by former Shelby County Attorney Brian Kuhn from time to time over the years as county politicians tried to blur the lines.
Blurring the Lines Again
That the line was blurred at Riverdale Elementary School Monday afternoon says a lot about how the line between political agenda and educational policy is regularly trampled at Shelby County Schools. That board chairman David Pickler was there should surprise no one familiar with his autocratic handling of school affairs and the sense of entitlement that has developed around him as his seemingly lifetime appointment as chairman continues on.
It’s the only explanation for why the very idea of using a school for a political campaign meeting shouldn’t have sent off alarm bells in everyone’s heads. But we presume that a school board that barely lets parents speak at its meetings shouldn’t feel bad about kicking Mrs. Kerley out of a building she’s paying for as a taxpayer.
Perhaps, it’s only natural that the controversy would play out in the news media by focusing on the personal dimensions of the problem – a former town mayor getting kicked out a meeting that included her former colleague, Germantown Mayor Sharon Goldsworthy. Of course, it speaks volumes about Mayor Goldsworthy’s attitude too that she was there violating the Sunshine Law with a member of the Germantown Mayor and Board of Aldermen, Mike Palazzolo.
Payback Time
Somehow, Mayor Goldsworthy has always managed to keep a straight face when talking about the lack of transparency and accountability in city and county governments. Now, even one close political ally said: “She is not being rational. She believes she has to oppose (consolidation) for her own political survival.” It’s no secret that the Germantown mayor seethes about the lack of respect she thinks she should receive from the two large urban governments in Shelby County, and from her point of view, this is payback time.
She now finds herself in the company of her former nemesis, former Memphis Mayor Willie W. Herenton, who seems also willing to say anything to get some attention and hang on to some semblance of a political base.
We guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Mrs. Goldsworthy, et al, should have seen no problem in using a public school for their political conspiring. After all, it was only a few days earlier, the City of Germantown was considering how to use $5,000 in public money to fund the anti-consolidation campaign (which places some Germantown residents supporting a new government in the position of subsidizing people to defeat them at the polls). It’s a slippery slope that can’t be seen any more by the fire in the eyes of the opponents.
Changing our Mind
It’s no question where we stand on creating a new and different government around here. For years, we could have – and have – argued against consolidation, but that all changed when we looked at 10 years of destructive trends here. We have no margin for error, so we are now firmly on the side of change. It’s hard to imagine how keeping things as they are now is going to result in any better results than it has in the past, and already, there are even signs that the most disturbing trends are quickening.
We’ve written about these trend lines often, so we won’t repeat them here, but there are times when you have to willing to do something different if you want different results. That’s where we are. There are those who have philosophical differences and see things another way from us, and that’s what makes democracy great. However, political discourse these days tends to skew to the extreme and lots of misinformation, if not lies, are circulated in the name of “winning.”
To give Mayor Goldsworthy and her colleagues in the other towns the benefit of the doubt, we’ll assume that the “facts” they have been putting out is misinformation and not lies, but the end result is the same. That’s why the new suggestion that the towns spend public money to send out the same misinformation that they have been spreading, much of it from Pat Hardy, an East Tennessee staffer for the Municipal Technical Assistance Service, who admitted in an appearance here earlier this year that he is “not an expert” on consolidation.
Public Political Funding
Previously, the “information” disseminated by the town mayors has included core mistakes. That’s why the vote by the Germantown Mayor and Board of Alderman to send out information is merely subterfuge to sidestep the direct use of funds that is so patently impermissible. While the Germantown elected officials are saying that their purpose is to “get the facts out,” they also say they will coordinate activities with an anti-opposition group. This fact alone acknowledges that their purpose is patently political and the public money is being spent for political purposes.
Someone is already considering a lawsuit to challenge the use of public funds to send out political pieces with city water bills, to sponsor political events to support their positions, and to prevent city employees from using the public’s time to engage in any anti-consolidation activities.
In recent years, the Germantown financial condition has worsened with reserves dramatically going down and debt dramatically going up. Instead of fighting for a fiefdom approach to government, Mayor Goldsworthy should take a page from one of the cities that’s included on the opposition’s list of cities doing perfectly well without consolidation – Minneapolis.
One key reason it’s doing well is because it has had a seven-county tax-sharing arrangement since 1971. Now that’s something that needs real town leadership.
All opposition to consolidation seems to be from various groups, both suburban and inner city, trying to protect some kind of fiefdom or self interest.
They tend to have one or two peeves that they concentrate on in justifying their opposition.
Practically everyone I’ve talked to that looks at the plan as a whole, supports it.
Consolidation proponents have, at various times on this site and others or in public, alleged that consolidation will solve poverty, racism, will result in the election of politicians who care only for the area, not their political careers, will result in new business flocking to the area, will retard the exit of residents from the county, will result in substantial, yet inconveniently imprecise, savings, work force reductions and “efficiencies”, among other things. At best, both sides of this argument are spreading misinformation. Witness the effort to rid this entire campaign of the word “consolidation”. That is unfortunately how things are done these days. People are even willing to make wild claims about, and personally attack, anyone who disagrees with them. Much like your column. I’m just impressed you restrained yourself from claiming that the Mayor “shrieked” or was “hysterical”, some of the best sexist chestnuts you’ve broken out recently about her.
Bottom line is that consolidation was a top down reform, started by the current city government before anyone bothered to ask whether it was wanted or needed by the actual voters, and has resulted in a proposal that won’t accomplish the lofty goals it set out to accomplish and which is, therefore, a waste of time. You cannot impose change on voters that don’t want it; democracy is funny that way. And the “we must do something”, or the “we can’t do nothing” argument is just insultingly stupid. Let’s have the discussion, and leave the hyperbole at home.
Anon 9:30 – you have no idea what you’re talking about. Read the whole plan and get back to us with real comments. BTW – your claims of sexist descriptions are laughable and so wrong. Maybe you should leave your hyperbole at home.
Anonymous 9:30: We agree that we should elect a new generation of leaders here, and in other places where this form of government was implemented, there was large-scale elections of new people with new ideas. In Louisville, 85% of the City Council was new people and more than 200 people ran for office that had never been involved in the political process before.
We’ve never said – nor have we heard any supporters of consolidation – say that it will solve poverty and racism (we seem to have a terminal case of the latter), but every business leader and former mayor of Nashville says it saved money, kept their tax rate 75% lower than ours and made them more competitive.
Of course, we’d rather wallow in our misery here and make excuses about why we can’t be like Nashville, but it’s just tiresome. And we must be stupid, because doing nothing and expecting different results is not only the definition of insanity. It is self-destructive here.
By the way, if you’ve been keeping up, we haven’t all of a sudden gotten critical about Goldsworthy’s seeming belief that she is mayor for life. She will be in office as long as Willie if she gets elected again. We’ve been critical for some time of her myopic view of government and her willingness to engage in lies to further her cause.
Finally, it was city and county governments whose legislative bodies voted overwhelmingly to appoint a charter commission, and it couldn’t have come too soon. Memphis tax rates, contrary to conventional wisdom, have been flat for a decade. It’s the rising county taxes that are killing our competitiveness.
If you want to live in a place that will always be on the bottom rungs of cities and counties, you’ll vote for the status quo and leave everything just like it is today. But along the way, you forfeit your right to complain anymore about how bad things are.
As for hyperbole, are you also referring to some of your comments.
hurry november 3rd.
the suspense is agonizing.
yawn.
what? oh yeah. consolidation. better luck next time.
It’s always entertaining to watch the do-nothing crowd ignore what you write about and go off on their tangents.
Interested observer:
And there will be a next time. We predict that Memphis will launch an aggressive annexation plan to take over 250 more square miles of county government, and it’s highly possible that the Memphis City Schools will move to give up its charter. There will be a growing understanding of what the consequences are, and like Nashville did, there could be another referendum a couple of years later with the new realities firmly fixed in voters’ heads about what the alternatives to consolidation area.
What the anti-consolidation folks don’t get is that all the things that they are scared of – consolidating schools, increasing taxes, shifting costs, etc. — are easier under today’s governmental structure. As we’re about to see if you are right and consolidation is not passed.
Adrienne – I have read the whole plan, so the typical “you don’t know what you are talking about because you haven’t read the whole plan” argument your side uses will now need to shift to the next one your side goes to, in which you simply call me stupid. So goes the intelligent debate.
And SCM, please, I said nothing about wanting to live in a bottom rung city and that kind of argument is, with all due respect, well beneath you. The world will not come to an end if we do not consolidate and the city can thrive without it. Atlanta has, and many others have. That Memphis hasn’t thrived is the result of many factors, including the fact that the voters continually vote in complete idiots who don’t know how to lead. The new charter proposal can’t and won’t change that. We need to stop with the pie in the sky proposals and start doing the hard work of real reform. There might be a good way to consolidate, but this charter, full of half measures, poor compromises and protection for government workers, drafted as it was with no real substantive community involvement, is not it.
Do you guys not understand that much of the opposition isn’t scared of consolidation, it just doesn’t think consolidation, particularly as drafted, is the answer? We aren’t scared, we aren’t stupid, we aren’t racist, we aren’t happy to live in squalor or watch Memphis die. We just don’t agree that this is the answer.
Anonymous 10:42: Then what’s your suggestion. We’ve tried every other innovative government agreement, contract, tax sharing, etc., in the past 25 years, and our trend lines head south in a consistent way.
They don’t have any ideas. They just like to sit on the sidelines and complain about the people willing to get in the game and fight for Memphis. It’s just so sad, and it’s why I think I’ve got to move like most of the other young professionals I know.
Look this town has lots of problems that have nothing whatsoever to do with the form of its government. I for one believe that the city will always have a hand on the brake as long as race relations continue on as if its still 1970 and as long as there are people in this city, and I don’t see consolidation doing anything about that. But look, Wharton is a good mayor; the best this place has had in a real long time. He has made positive changes in his short time in office and the city counsel has, for all its done wrong, done a lot right. In other words, for about the last 10 years, this place had no leadership, and now it does, and things are getting better. Slowly, but its getting better. So what should we do? That’s a short question that requires a looong answer. But you say that memphis is headed down fast. But the consolidation won’t happen till 2014, and so real “reform” is a long way away. How much of an emergency can this be if we don’t get underway till 2014. There are no mechanisms by which large scale work force reductions can be made, so there are no mechanisms by which real cost savings can be achieved. Jack Sammons the other day admitted as much. If costs cant be lowered substantially, neither can taxes, which is the whole point of this. So why do it?
No one on the Charter Commission was happy that it’s implementation was moved to 2014, but one of the lawyers pulled an opinion out of a certain part of his anatomy that prevented them at the 11th hour from having a 2012 implementation date. That said, upon passage, there is a transition committee that is created that will immediately start identifying the changes that are needed and ways to make the government more efficient.
Here’s a statement from Jack Sammons about cost savings:
The present structure of government has produced the highest property taxes for Tennessee cities. If the past is the best predictor of the future, fighting to keep things as they are now is the riskiest choice for property tax owners in our community. The new charter is the vehicle to control taxes rather than allowing them to control us.
The charter has a three-year tax freeze that forces the new government to cut costs on its very first day, and there’s nothing like this in any city’s charter in our county. It includes a safeguard that’s in no other charter, requiring a supermajority of 3/4ths of the council for more than 5% increase. It eliminates costly duplication, particularly in support and general services, that is obvious in two bureaucracies that are mirror images of each other. It puts in place the toughest ethics laws in Tennessee to root out corruption and an inspector general to root out waste. It brings in millions more in formula funding from the federal government to address serious problems. It brings under one roof all services, like those for children, that are spread across two governments. It requires a two-year “think tank” to be assembled to launch the new government in motion. It sets out professional standards so people are hired on what they know rather than who they know.
In other words, the charter transforms the current structure that has done nothing as well as increasing taxes.
Anonymous 10:39:
We agree with you that we need to start the work of real reform. That’s why we’re for the new charter and a new government. That’s not only reform. That’s revolutionary.
As for Atlanta, its city and county governments do not overlap and duplicate services. Atlanta is the whole county. It’s not as easy as picking cities that aren’t consolidated and acting like they prove the point that we don’t need modern government. Every consolidation is different. Every city structure is different.
You said:”Look this town has lots of problems that have nothing whatsoever to do with the form of its government. I for one believe that the city will always have a hand on the brake as long as race relations continue on as if its still 1970 and as long as there are people in this city, and I don’t see consolidation doing anything about that.”
You are right. As long as we have governments that contribute to the we versus they, city versus suburb mentality, nothing is going to change.
I agree; every city is different. So please stop touting Nashville, acting like it proves the point that we need consolidation. Its not that easy, as you say. Nashville’s success was the result of many factors entirely unrelated to consolidation. Let’s debate this proposal on its merits, period.
The big we v they is not city v suburb, my friend, its white v black. There are plenty of racists who live within the city limits. You can be racist and live right next door to someone of a different race. Consolidation won’t change that.
You’re fixed in time, my friend. The government setup here also exacerbates race issues too.
And Sammons is a bit imprecise. The form of government hasnt produced the tax rate. The leaders of those government structures have. This whole thing is like having a house that you have never painted or fixed up and saying one day it just needs to be knocked down. No, it doesnt, it just needs to be painted and fixed up. Just because the city councils of the past, which included Mr Sammons, and the mayors of the past didn’t lead, didn’t reform, didn’t apparently care about moving the city forward responsibily does not mean the whole structure has to be blown up. It just means we need to have leaders who will move the city forward responsibly.
And by the way, Sammons’ statement does not address the cost issue I mentioned in any concrete way.
Ask the former mayors of Nashville, ask Bredesen, ask the CEOs there what was the seminal reason for their blowing by us and becoming an economic giant. They all say the same thing: we fixed government.
Why do we always give ourselves excuses around here? We can be as good as Nashville. We were better until they changed government. If Nashville can do it with the same laws and taxes, we can do it. But not as long as we give ourselves an out on getting in the game and doing something to change things.
I cannot understand why individuals would defend a system that has managed to essentially fail them for 25 years. All comparisons aside, even if consolidation does not alter the current scene in an immediate and radical way where cost savings and service delivery are concerned, I am still willing to support the measure. It is simple- this entire region, not just the city, county or metropolitan area has been trending towards the negative by almost every category and method of analysis since the 1980s (if not before). Poverty, educational attainment, economic development, taxation, etc… Based on past performance- which actually predates the Herenton administration- there is no evidence to support the claim that the existing governmental structure will be able to correct this trajectory in a significant way over the next decade.
With that in mind, consolidation could be approached from different angles such as: Why not? One last chance. We have nothing to lose. That or annexation. There is no baby- they grew up went to college and are not coming back- so let’s throw out the bathwater. Because until the economy rebounds I cannot sell my home in order to move to a dynamic, thriving community. Take your pick.
Frank, how?
And buddy I am not “fixed in time” whatever that means, so stop the name calling. I left here and came back while still a “young professional”. I know what it means to live in a progressive city that has gotten over, for the most part, its racial problems and had real leaders and I was stunned when I came back here and heard some of the things I heard and saw some of the things I have seen. I have been involved since my return and am not a do nothing. I just don’t believe that a city that has ignored the hard work it has need to do to progress for years can solve all its problems with the magic bullet of consolidation.
What was the hard work that we needed to be doing?
What was the progressive city where you were living?
Isn’t the greatest risk of all in not doing anything and expecting things to change?
And we don’t believe that consolidation is a magic bullet. But it sets the framework that’s needed for a lot of other progressive things to happen.
1) running a decent school system, attracting businesses, keeping government efficient and taxes low, for starters. Maybe, you know, growing a decent sized middle class, particularly an african american one.
2) Atlanta
3) No one is talking about doing nothing. Doing something just to do something if we aren’t sure that something will do something is pretty silly too.
4) Progressive things can happen without consolidation too, ya know.
But look, we can bat this around all day long. Problem is, your side has to sell this to county and city voters. I think we both know you have a tall order in the county, and I’ve heard some not insubstantial city opposition. How are you going to sell this to enough people to win? How are you going to convince county voters that they should go for this? And shouldn’t we have checked to see if this thing had a snowball’s chance in nashville with the voters generally before we went to all this trouble?
Thanks, that’s very helpful. We agree with all your indicators and the fact that every one of the ones you cited are headed in the wrong direction and have been for 10 years is what spurs our sense of urgency.
We’re not doing something to just be doing something. We’re doing something because this city is in ICU and no one seems to know it. We work in a lot of cities, including Atlanta, and they are all complaining about schools and crime, and we can streamline government so that more money can be spent on direct services intead of the bureaucracy. Progressive things can happen without consolidation, but what in our past encourages you to believe that they will happen.
Polling we’ve seen would encourage anyone involved in politics that this is a campaign that can be won. We see a lot of cities coming to grips with the changes that need to be made in their government structure. More than 100 are looking at consolidation right now. We’re in a deeper hole than any of the top 51 cities except for about four. We have to fundamentally change things.
Interesting- since this debate began, we’ve heard numerous individuals and representatives from the public and private sector decribe the difficulty involved in “attracting businesses” under our existing dual system of governance.
What is going to happen if consolidation doesn’t pass? I’ll be voting for it but I think the reality of the situation is that it probably won’t pass. What do we do then? Are people on this blog going to go into an anti-Memphis rant b/c they didn’t get their way? I hope not. I think if consolidation doesn’t pass it won’t be all doom and gloom for the county like some people are making it out to be. I’ve heard Wharton and Luttrell both talk about how they would like to form some type of consolidated economic board to make it easier for companies to do business here. I also see them consolidating certain departments that
overlap.
Mtown,
I am voting for it too but I am about as optimistic as you. It’s very easy to pick two or three things out of the plan that you don’t like without looking at the overall benefits.
If it does not pass, I hope that the two mayors will continue on a path of piecemeal consolidation of services, possibly starting with the planned consolidation of Fire services that was cut short by former interim Mayor Ford’s veto. A joint economic board would also be a priority.
Eventually, as SCM points out from time to time, consdolidation may be achieved anyway.
If consolidation doesn’t pass, we need to begin a government reform program that has no peer in the U.S. But the more likely scenario is that Memphis will continue to annex until it controls 5/7ths of Shelby County, county government shrinks to irrelevancy, Memphis taxes go up, and we have one dominant government which will be at City Hall.
We’re for facing the cold hard facts about Memphis, and we’ve presented them for five and a half years on this blog. We don’t see any reason to change that now, but we’ve never engaged in an anti-Memphis rant because we love this city too much to ever do that.
Luttrell and Wharton are talking about a new public/private economic development organization, but it will not eliminate the fact that there will still be two governments with two layers of approvals that will be needed.
We do a lot of comparisons of trends of cities in our work, and Mayor Wharton is right: We absolutely have no margin for error. That’s why he’s for changing government and why we are to.
The consolidation that you are talking about is functional consolidation. We’ve been doing that for 25 years and they don’t solve the basic problem because the person headed up the consolidated agency still has to please two different political leaders, two different political agendas, etc.
Anti-Memphis rant? No, but the more I see this city, its citizens and its leaders make narrow minded choices based on ignorance and fear, the less I am likely to allow my love of this city prevent me from enjoying the fruits of living in a different city (again) that “gets it”. That is not to say I will lose my passion for Memphis, I will just have to regulate my time to occasional weekends, holidays, and whatever TV show TNT has cooked up.
Top Five Pro Consolidation Talking Points (in no particular order)
– You are a racist if you do not like consolidation.
– You never read the charter if you do not like consolidation.
– Nashville is better than us, because of consolidation.
– Government will be more efficient because of consolidation.
– If you do not consolidate, we will annex you anyways
Top Five Anti Consolidation Talking Points (in no particular order)
– We would like to see a detailed plan as to how consolidation will save money, you have not
– While schools are not consolidated at the beginning, in short order they will be or a federal judge will make it happen
– Life in the burbs is good, schools are good and taxes are low, why do we want to change that we moved here to leave Memphis
– Fed Ex, International Paper, and ServiceMaster are all outside the Perimeter (hint, hint)
– Memphis has problems that are much bigger than consolidation, fix your own house before you come after mine
where is the money coming from to suppor the increased infrastructre costs associated (by law) with annexation?
there are few industries or commercial areas in the ‘memphis reserve’ area and residential density is lower than most areas of the county-meaning that tax revenues to extend the required services (and buy parkland and fire stations and…) won’t cover the costs involved.
Annexation is as moot a point as consolidation.
Interested observer: There aren’t any serious infrastructure costs that would be obstacles and major schools have been built in cooperation with MCS and SCS. Believe me, if nothing is done with the present structure of government, City of Memphis will look at its old reliable – annexation – and there is already talk in City Hall to trigger the process.
Annexation is never moot, as history has repeatedly proven.
To Fellow Citizens of Unincorporated Shelby County:
Consolidation will keep us from being annexed by Memphis (urban services district after consolidation) unless we vote for annexation (see Section 7.202, A of the Metro Charter)
The annexation reserve areas for the smaller municipalities will continue to exist (see Section 7.202, B of Metro Charter).
This is the best news I’ve heard in a long time because I don’t think my neighbors will vote to pay Memphis taxes. Without consolidation Memphis will surely annex us when the economy starts building houses again. This is the main reason to vote for consolidation because nothing much will change under other provisions of the Charter.
finegold:
if you bought a home in Memphis’ annexation reserve area, (cordova, eads, s.e shelby co. Mostly) you may be fair game at some point. However, I bet it ain’t gonna be soon:
Courts have required cities to provide ‘equal services’ to annexed areas usually within a defined time frame (well, except for boxtown: which still lacks some services, I hear 35+ years after annexation).
parks, street lights, fire services (at the same level as the general municipality), libraries, community centers, sanitation service, yadda yadda yadda.
Low density residential doesn’t pay it’s own way. and the clownsul is pondering laying off 1 in 4 city workers to ease the current crisis of their own making. Not much left for snatching new territory, regardless of what door SCM has had his ear to..
Dear Interested:
Low density residential hasn’t stopped Memphis from annexing in the past; and I’m not worried (as you suggest) about the near future with the housing bust and city budget issues. My concern is when the economy starts booming again like it did after the recession/housing bubble in the early 1980s. This led to big Hickory Hill annexation.
Memphis will allow development and then look to annex the Grey’s Creek basin unless consolidation charter is approved, which will give us a vote to reject annexation.
Besides we will have 4 metro council members to represent our interests along with 3 additional members each from Bartlett, Germantown and Collierville who are likely sympathetic to our interests.
Finegold, annexation in whatever is left in the city reserve is a done deal. It is just a matter of time, and the consolidation charter is irrelevant to this point.
big hickory hill annexation was tied up in court for 12+ years. long enough to allow property values to either stagnate or outright free fall. New development slowed to a crawl in the ‘annexed-but in court’ area and only the Winchester law firm profited by duping desperate homeowners into believing they had a chance in court and drawing out the legal proceedings for over a decade.
new version of the same city clownsul under the consolidation banner, with a majority of votes-can over rule the suburban minority on virtually any issue.
once consolidation passes in both venues, of course. 🙂
To 10:12 and 9:45:
Both of you are wrong. New government will not be able to annex unless approved by voters of area being annexed, and there is plenty of land to be developed in Memphis’ (urban services district) annexation reserve area. However, this will not happen in next 4 years due to housing economy. Memphis will be hard pressed to annex vacant or non-urban land prior to new government becoming operational and then I’m safe from Memphis taxes and my kids can go to Shelby County schools
There will be no opportunity for drawn out court case unless it involves one of the small municipalities and its reserve area, which will be continue as currently drawn.
To 9:45: Currently the Memphians on the County Commission can over rule the suburban minority. Under new Charter, suburban minority will have a greater voice.
The turf war. Tisk tisk.
“Isn’t the greatest risk of all in not doing anything (different) and expecting things to change?”
That is the definition of insanity.