Tanaka Vercher plays the race card in responce to charges of failing to disclose a bankruptcy and more.

Tenaka Vercher

When all else fails, when you don't have the truth on your side and when one does not have ethics on your side, if you have it, you can still win an argument by playing the race card which can trump all other cards.  This week Tanaka Vercher  played the race card. 

Vercher is one of three candidates running for the 28th Council District seat being vacated by Duane Dominy. The other two candidates for that seat are Melissa Smithson and Daniel Lewis. Councilman Duane Dominy is supporting Melissa Smithson. 

On Sept. 15, 2006, Tanaka Vercher filed for bankruptcy and she failed to disclose that fact on a form filed with the Tennessee Ethics Commission. 

Much like divorce, bankruptcy is no longer considered a moral failing that should automatically disqualify one from seeking public office.  Everyone from Donald Trump to money management guru Dave Ramsey has had a bankruptcy and it has apparently not damaged their reputations. Still, I would prefer not entrusting my money or the public's money to someone who has had a bankruptcy.  My view is that if one can not manage their own finances, why should they be trusted with my money or the public's money.  In some profession one can not get or keep a license to practice their profession if they have had a bankruptcy.  In some professions, even if practicing the profession is not contingent upon having a state license, employers will not employ someone to work for them if they have had a bankruptcy.

Serving in the Metro Council involves making important decisions about what to do with public money.  Everyone must make the decision for themselves if they want to cast their vote for someone to serve on the Metro Council who has had a bankruptcy.  That may not be the only factor one uses in deciding who one will support for public office but it may be a factor.  It may be a factor if  one knows about it. 

On June 17th 2011 when Vercher filled out a disclosure form with the Tennessee Ethics Commission to run for public office she failed to disclose she had had a bankruptcy as required to do.  Vercher  was interviewed by News Channel 2 and she told them she was advised to answer "none" to the bankruptcy question by members of the ethics commission. Channel 2 contacted the ethics commissions and they said there is no way they would ever have told someone to falsify their ethics disclosure.

Vercher when questioned about her bankruptcy and failure to disclose it, said, “This is dirty politics,” and she said, “It’s a smear campaign.”  She could not deny it was true. She then accused Duane Dominy of being a racist. Dominy did not initiate the contract with channel 2 but was contracted by them for an interview. At first he declined but after he was attacked as being a racist by Vercher, he  agreed to speak to them about the information which was a matter of  public record.

The bankruptcy and failure to disclose it is is not the only ethical and legal problem in Ms Vercher's background. A 2006 judgement was rendered against Ms Vercher for selling a car to someone that had a lien on the title.  Ms Vercher did take the money management counseling required by law for someone getting a bankruptcy  but apparently did not learn much. There are several other judgements against Ms Vercher, filed since her bankruptcy including a judgement of $554 for failure to pay her homeowner's association dues.

You can watch the News Channel 2 report at this link: Allegations of bankruptcy discrepancies emerge in Nashville council race. 

Ok. I'm ready. Play the race card. 

Top Stories

(Update) Council strips flood wall, Jail, and Police Hdqrs from budget! This is a council meeting worth watching.

In a major set back to Mayor Karl Dean his three big proposed projects, building a $100 million flood wall to protect the downtown from the next thousand-year flood, the $23 million relocation of the police headquarters to Jefferson Street and the $110 million relocation of the jail to Antioch, were all amended out of the Capital Improvements Budget which is BILL NO. BL2015-1142. Funding to renovate the existing downtown jail is put in the CIB.

The amount of authorized bond obligation remains at $520 million. Other projects possibly could be funded instead and those three big projects. The Capital Improvements spending plan,  RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1500, is explained in this document.

To watch the discussion in the joint Budget and Finance and Planning and Zoning Committee where the real work of the council takes place see the video below.
 
While I am often disappointed in the council, in this case, the council did a great job. Duane Dominy makes an excellent presentation in opposing the jail relocation and makes several good points. One point is that the bus transportation from the proposed jail location to downtown is simply not adequate and given current bus routes it would be extremely difficult for released inmates to go from the jail to downtown. He also raises questions about the cost and difficulty of transporting prisoners while in custody from the new jail to downtown and back. He also questions what the city got for its $1.5 million jail master study.  Dominy is a termed-out councilman and could have just coasted out of office instead of taking a leadership roll in stopping this project. I commend his dedication and ability to articulate his argument and his passion in denouncing the spending of money without Council authorization.  To view his comments go to time stamp 6:34.

Several other council members do a good job asking probing questions and explaining their opposition on each of the projects, including Councilman Tim Garrett, Charlie Tygard and Jacobia Dowell.

Councilman Jerry Maynard does a good job of arguing to leave the relocation of he police department headquarters in the CIB. Frankly I do not understand the opposition from the community of this relocation of the jail. To me it seem like it would be an asset to a depressed part of town. It is a $24 million office building that will only employ 75 people, mostly civilians. Unlike the bad elements that will accompany the move of the jail, that would not be the case with the relocation of the police headquarters.While I think Maynard makes his case well, I oppose the project because this was a rushed proposal without proper community vetting, and I think all of these projects should be be on hold for the input of the next mayor and council. It may be that the best place for the jail and the police headquarters is downtown where they are now.  To see Councilman Maynard's comments go to time stamp 22:01.

It should be noted that as is explained in this meeting that if a project is taken out of the CIB, it can be put back in . To amend the CIB the mayor must recommend the project and it must be approved by 27 votes of the council.

Here is the Council meeting of last night:




Other than the Capital Improvements Budget, there is not much else of interest on this agenda with is an adjourned meeting from June 2. For your on copy of the agenda, follow this link.  This is an adjourned meeting from June 2nd meeting and staff analysis of bills on this agenda and related documents can be found at this link. The Council discussion of the Capital Improvements Budget starts at time stamp 7:06.

What follows is almost two hours of discussion of the three projects which Budget and Finance has already recommended be removed from the Capitol Improvements Budget and the outcome is already known. Still, it is good to see some of the council member vent their frustration. They vent that money was spend before being authorized both for the flood wall and for the jail in Antioch. Charlie Tygard does an especially good job at time stamp 21:07.

Council member and mayoral candidate Megan Barry argues against removing the flood wall from the Capital Improvements budget. Councilman Hager and Council member Karen Johnson vent their frustration that we are protecting downtown from a flood and not doing anything more for flood protection in the neighborhoods that were hit hard by the 2010 flood. Councilman Carter Todd, Councilman Duane Dominy and Council member Jacobia Dowell are other council members who make good speeches. Many of the council members seem genuinely angry at the way these projects were handled and especially angered that millions of dollars were spend on these projects before they were approved. Councilman Dominy makes one of the best speeches I have even seen given from the Council floor starting at time stamp 1:23:07 and again makes a great speech at time stamp 1:49:06.

Council members like Dominy and Tygard will be missed from the Council. I wish they were both serving another term or were running at-large. To read The Tennessean's take on the meeting follow this link: Nashville flood wall, jail plan, police HQ move rejected.


At the mayoral forum at First Tuesday yesterday featuring David Fox and Howard Gentry, both candidates said they would support taking the projects out of the capital improvements plan and were critical of the process that did not involve the community.  Howard Gentry who is the current Criminal Court Clerk, said the relocation of the jail would effect the logistics of his office and how they would serve the inmate population but said he was not consulting or informed of the project until the public announcement. Both pledged that if elected they would have a different approach to advancing projects of this nature and would seek support prior to proposing funding for the projects. Mayoral candidate Jeremy Kane issued a statement following last nights vote in which he condemned the way these projects were handled by the mayor.

Once the minutes of this meeting are available, I will post the votes showing who voted for and against the three projects. 

Top Stories

Temper flare, Councilmembers fight back over relocation of jail

On Wednesday night Council members from southeast Davidson County showed some spunk. They put Sheriff Daron Hall on the hot seat about the proposed relocation of the county jail to a new $110 million facility to be build in southeast Davidson County.  This new facility would combine all of the jail facilities into one location on Harding Place. This was announced by the mayor recently, catching members of the council and the public by surprise. There had been no neighborhood meetings on the issue and council member had not been briefed prior to the public announcement.

Councilman Duane Dominy ask if all of the facilities are fully accredited and getting an answer in the affirmative he then ask if facilities were fully accredited last year, how did we get to the place that  we need new facilities now. He says last year the city paid $1.5 million for a study of the correction facility and a master plan and he probes as to what we got for our money. He can not get straight answers. Things get a little testy (see time stamp 19:25).

Council member Jacobia Dowell gets recognized and ask how the conclusion of the study that recommended relocating the jail to Harding Place was reached. Budget and Finance chair Pridemore tries to shut her up, saying she needs to restrict her questions to the 2015-2016 budget. She argues that it is relevant to the budget and ask what would be wrong with putting off the decision to build a new jail and letting the council evaluate the study. Sheriff Hall gets defensive and goes on the offence saying, "I think you are doing a disservice to this city."  In my view, he is insulting. He says the opposition is politically motivated due to pending elections.

Councilmember Karen Johnson then begins questioning, echoing the line of questioning of Councilmember Dowell. She says when the council funded the study we were told we would be involved and consulted along the way and that has not happened. Councilmember Johnson is very calm and polite and Hall goes into attack mode. When Johnson makes a comparison of putting the jail in Southeast Nashville to dumping all of the cities garbage in Boudreaux for many years, the B&F chairman says her remarks are inappropriate and ask her to restrict her remarks to something new concerning the budget. Things get real testy and Pridemore cuts her off her mic. Bedne comes to her defense and she is allowed to continue.  Tempers flare. (see time stamp 34:26 to end)

It is refreshing to see Councilmembers get riled. I commend Councilman Dominy, Johnson, Dowell and Bedne for showing some backbone and fighting back. Too often the council just rolls over and plays dead. Unfortunately we have a weak council. Part of that is because of the go-along, get-along hiding-in the herd mentality of the current council, but part of it is structural. One of the few powers the council has is to modify the budget presented by the mayor. The council can cut budgets and can shift money within the budget. That can get the attention of department heads.

The office of Sheriff is a little different than other departments, because the Sheriff is elected by the people and while his budget must be approved by the Council, he must stand for election and this gives him more power and prestige than other department heads such as the chief of police or fire chief. Duran Hall has been a popular sheriff but if he continues this heavy handed approach of forcing this jail relocation on Antioch then he may be open to a challenge next election.

I hope the members of the Council unite and vote to take the appropriation for the new jail out of the capital spending plan. I know the downtown property where the jail sits is valuable property, but I think the jail should stay right where it is. Also, I am very skeptical of the claim that it is cheaper to tear down the existing building and build a new building rather than perform maintenance on the current building. One thing I have learned, and maybe it sounds skeptical, but consultants are often paid to tell you what you want to here.

Antioch, about twenty years ago was the booming, thriving part of town but now it is becoming the poor part of town. With the once thriving Hickory Hollow mall mostly abandoned and low-income people forced out of downtown and relocating to Antioch and with the Antioch zip code being the fifth worst state zip code hit by the housing crisis and still not yet fully recovered, this part of town does not deserve to be the dumping ground for all of our county prisoners. This will lead to a proliferation of pawn shop, pay day lenders and bail bondsmen.  Also, when released from jail some inmates will remain in the area.  A new mayor may have an emphasis on spreading the wealth and lifting up all parts of the county and may have a different vision for Nashville. This decision should be put off until after the next election and the decision should not be rushed.

Top Stories

The Council Meeting of Feb. 24th, 2015: The Dog-chain meeting.

At only 50 minutes long this is a short meeting. This meeting was originally scheduled for February 17th but was delayed until last night due to the bad weather.

To get your own copy of my commentary, the staff analysis and the agenda, follow this link.

There are six appointments to Boards and Commissions on the agenda for Council confirmation and they all pass with no dissenting votes.

This is a short agenda with not much on the agenda of a controversial nature. There are seven resolutions on the agenda and all end up on the consent agenda except RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1389. Those still on consent all pass without any being pulled. Bills on consent are passed by one single vote rather than each resolution being considered individually.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1389 is interesting. It involves the settlement of a lawsuit brought  by an employee who sued the city when fired. It is somewhat complex.  The fired former employee was a Metro Parks Police officer with the Parks Department who is a lesbian and one of the first females hired by the Parks Department for a Parks police position with the department. The department fired her for inefficient performance of duties, insubordination toward a supervisor, violation of written rules and dishonesty. She claims she was discriminated against. This resolution would settle the suit for $295,000. I understand those who may not want to settle this suit, but my view is that the Council should settle lawsuits when defending them would be more costly than settling and when there is serious doubt if we would win  if it went to trial. I tend to trust the legal department when they propose settling a suit. This resolution is deferred one meeting. Why, I don't know.

All bills on Second Reading pass.

Bills on Third Reading:

SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2014-909 and BILL NO. BL2014-951  regulate peer-to-peer vacation rentals such as AIRBnB. These bills which haves been worked on for months and both  pass by a vote of 30 in favor, 2 against, and no abstentions. The "no" votes were Jason Holleman and Robert Duvall. I would have supported this bill, if I were in the Council. The regulations are not onerous. There is one provision I do not like but that would not have kept me from supporting the bills.  There is some talk of dedicating part of the tax revenue that taxing these facilities will generate to the Barnes Fund, which is a fund sit up to develop affordable housing, but that was not part of this bill.

BILL NO. BL2014-948  amends the Five Points redevelopment plan, changing some permitted uses and it would provide and additional $670,000 in Tax Increment Financing. TIF lets the taxes from a project first go to pay for improvements in the area of the project before any tax from the project goes to the general fund of the city. I am not opposed to TIF but think it must be used cautiously . If TIF causes a project to be built that most likely would not be built then it makes sense. If however, it is just a giveaway in a popular area where development would occur anyway then it is a misguided policy in my view. I would like to know how much money has been diverted from the general fund over the past few years due to TIF and if this development tool is being overused. This bill is deferred one meeting at the request of the sponsor.

 BILL NO. BL2015-1002 rezones 361 acres to a use that prohibits duplexes from a current use that permits them.  I personally do not like this type downzoning and think it unwise to downzone property for less density. To make mass transit more viable and to combat urban sprawl we do not need to be codifying lesser density. It passes on a voice vote.

BILL NO. BL2015-1008 regulates how one could tether their dog such as how long the cable must be and how heavy and also prohibits keeping a dog tethered when it is too hot or too cold and prohibits tethering a dog with a chain. If the dog has water and shade I do not see that a heat index of 90 is excessive. Also some dogs, such as Alaskan Huskies, can tolerate being outside in a well-strawed dog house at 20° below for up to 8 hours (link). Some dogs are bred for cold weather. This bill treats all dogs the same, and they simply are not. I do not want to see any dog mistreated but I am not sure why a light-weight chain is banned. What is wrong with a chain?

Councilman Karen Bennett, the lead sponsor of the bill ,makes a pitch for her bill. Councilman  Duane Dominy gets recognized and ask for a suspension of the rules in order to offer an amendment of the bill. On third reading council rules prohibit amendments to bills, but the council may suspend the rules in order to entertain a proposed amendment. There was an objection and Duane was unable to offer an amendment.  He then spoke on the bills itself. Councilman Dominy says his 40 pound dog Lucy has chewed through four cables, one rated for a 250 pound dog. Dominy has the chains and holds them up and shows them. He says as currently drafted the bill endangers animals. Dominy asks for the bill to be deferred but does not make that in the form of a motion.  In a wise, seldom used  parliamentary move, Dominy voted in favor of the bill, then moved to reconsider. He got five people who supported him in that request, so the bill will be back on third reading next Tuesday.  To see the floor action on this bill see time tamp 36:48 - 45:56.

To see the Tennessean's report on this meeting, follow this link: Council OKs dog-chaining ban then decides to reconsider it

Top Stories

How the Council voted on same-sex Metro benefits & who simply did not vote.

On July 3rd the Metro Council passed a bill on second reading that would extend metro benefits to the domestic partner of same-sex couples.  The measure is estimated to cost between $400,000 and $900,000 a year.  While the cost is reason enough to oppose the measure, in my view a more compelling reason is that we should not be normalizing what is a perverted life style.  We should not treat as if married, two homosexuals who live together.  If we wanted to say that any two people who share a household and have financial entanglement could be treated the same as a married couple, then I would have less problem with the bill.  I am sure that among Metro's employees, there is a son caring for his elderly mother who lives with him, or there is a mother carrying for her disabled son who lives wither her, or there are two "old maids" who share expenses but do not share sex. If we want to extend this service to people who may be dependent on each other, why is it contingent that they have a sexual relationship?

The vote to approve the bill was 25 in favor, 6 opposed, and 3 voting to abstain.

 BILL NO. BL2014-779

An ordinance amending Title 3 of the Metropolitan Code to provide domestic partner benefits for Metropolitan Government employees. The bill was approved by the Budget and Finance Committee and Personnel-Public Information-Human Resources-Housing Committees. Mr. Westerholm moved to pass the bill on second reading, which motion was seconded and adopted by a the following roll call vote: “Ayes” Barry, Steine, Garrett, Tygard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Stanley, Moore, Allen, Gilmore, Baker, Evans, Holleman, McGuire, Harmon, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Todd, Mitchell (25); “Noes” Pridemore, Pardue, Glover, Stites, Claiborne, Dominy (6); “Abstaining” Bennett, Blalock, Dowell (3).

Bill Pridemore
voted NO

Doug Pardue
voted NO

I am extremely proud of those six who voted "No" and want to put a picture with the face.  I am especially proud of the stand and comments made by Josh Sites.

Josh Stites
voted NO

Steve Glover
voted NO

Phil Clairborne
voted NO

Duane Dominy
voted NO

Three Council members voted to abstain. I do not understand a vote to abstain.  I think on controversial issues one should get off the fence and state how they stand.  Sometimes one votes to abstain when they have a conflict of interest. If a council member works for a company that is seeking a zone change, then a vote to abstain is appropriate, or if one has some other conflict of interest. On a bill like these there is no logic to a vote to abstain. Of the three abstentions  Karen Bennett and Davette Blalock who are both Republicans are very disappointing. I am not familiar enough with Jacobia Dowell to know how she would have voted, had she voted. I emailed Karen Bennett and Davette Blalock to give them a chance to tell me why they abstained, but I did not hear from either of them.

 Here are the pictures of those who chose to not take a stand and voted to abstain. 

Jacobia Dowell
Abstained

Karen Bennett
Abstained

Davette Blalock
Abstained

Twenty-five of the Council members voted "yes."  Many of them are obviously liberals and I am not surprised. Some of them I don't know well enough to have guessed how they would have voted. Some of them however disappoint me in how they voted. Maybe my evaluation of them was wrong, but these are the Councilman who disappointment. I am especially disappointing in Charlie Tygerd, and Carter Todd both of whom are Republicans.  

Here are the "yes" votes that either surprised me or disappointed me.

Charlie Tygard
voted YES

Emily Evans
voted YES

Carter Todd
voted YES

Tim Garrett
voted YES

There is one vacancy in the Council and Council Member Edith Langster was absent for the whole meeting. Other Council Member who did not vote at all and were present at least for part of the meeting were Jerry Maynard, Tony Tenpenny, Sheri Weiner and Robert Duvall. I do not know if Mr. Maynard was present for this vote or not. This vote was near the end of agenda and the meeting was almost five hours long, so he may have not been present and had a legitimate reason.  I did speak to Councilman Tenpenny, Sheri Weiner, and Robert Duvall. They all had left the meeting early with very legitimate reason. Council member Sheri Weiner had a health issue and Councilman Robert Duvall and Councilman Tony Tenpenny had family emergencies. I won't go into details but they all did what they needed to do by leaving early. All three told me that had they been there they would have been "no" votes and that they will continue to oppose this effort.

As disappointing as I am in those who I expected to be "no's" who voted yes and those who abstained, I am disappointed in the Christian community and those who advocate traditional values. The Social Conservatives were AWOL on this issue. Had the three who abstained voted "no" and the two of the four disappointing "yes's" voted "no" and Weiner, Tenpenny and Duvall been present, the vote would have been to 23 to 14. If there would have been a campaign from advocates of traditional values to stop this, I believe five more votes could have been switched and it could have been killed. An outpouring of opposition could still stop this between now and June 17th.

If anyone, I mentioned in this blog post would like to explain your vote or your abstention, please feel free to leave a comment, or email me and I will post your explanation.

Top Stories

Do you like the new EPA regs that will raise your electric bill and cost jobs? If so, thank your councilman.

Do you approve of the new EPA regulations, that were not authorized by Congress, that applies to existing power plants, that will drive up electric bills, cost the economy about 200,000 jobs and do virtually nothing to curtail global warming? If you do, then give a big shout-out to your locally elected Council member.

On November 12, 2012, the Metro Council unanimously passed RESOLUTION NO. RS2012-478, which put the Council on record:

• "as supporting the reduction of greenhouse gas pollution under the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act," 
• " as noting that climate change is not an abstract problem for the future or one that will only affect far-distant places, but rather climate change is happening now, we are contributing to it, and the longer we wait to act, the more we lose and the more difficult the problem will be to solve." and, 
• urging "the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa P. Jackson, and President Barack Obama to move swiftly to fully employ and enforce the Clean Air Act to do our part to reduce carbon in our atmosphere to no more than 350 parts per million." 

This was not a contentious piece of legislation that barely passed the council. Every member present voted for it. Robert Duvall voted for it. Duane Dominy voted for it. Carter Todd voted for it. Davette Blalock not only voted for it, she co-sponsored it. Charlie Tygard voted for it. Phil Clairborne voted for it. Karen Bennett voted for it. Tony Tennpenny voted for it.

In their wisdom the Council declared that no more than 350 parts per million was the right amount of carbon the atmosphere could tolerate. Not 325 parts per million or 375 parts per million, but 350. We have some really smart councilman to figure that out. Also, the Council didn't ask for a cost benefit analysis to determine the incremental cost of hitting that magic number. The cost be damned; just do it. This bill was part of a nation wide effort to get local governments across the nation to push the Obama administration to impose the regulation that were just recently propagated. Locally it was promoted by Vanderbilt University environmental activist.

I hope that in the future we will elect some Republicans to the Council who are at least as conservative as Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. It would be nice if we had some conservatives on the Council.

Top Stories

Southeast Nashville Conservatives' Breakfast

Saturday, August 17 

 8:30 - 9:00 am (Social) 

9:00 - 10:00 am (Meeting) Shoney's (Antioch) 

Bell Road at Cane Ridge Road (I-24E - Bell Road Exit)

Speakers

Councilman Duane Dominy

Update on "Save our Fairgrounds"

Rick Williams
Update on "The AMP"

and 

Ms. Mick Dalton, Chair of Caring for America, will discuss the Nashville Republican Women's 2013 Annual Toy Drive for the Children of Tennessee Soldiers.

Top Stories

Duane Dominy talks about the fair gournds and racetrack with Joe Williams

Joe Williams, an auto racing sports journalist and announcer for over 30 years, recently interviewed Councilman Duane Dominy about the Tennessee State Fairgrounds and what exactly is happening with the property, master plans being presented, and how racing may or may not fit into the future. This interview can be found at this link: A Long Term Investment.

Click here: A Long Term Investment.

Would a racetrack be too loud? What can you do to protect the history? Why the great push either way to make a change to a piece of Nashville or, on the flipside, to save the fairgrounds? Listen in and find out!

Top Stories

Fairground Phase 2 presentation to the Council

This is the phase two report to the council on fairgrounds.  It shows options for getting rid of the fairgrounds and turning the site into a mixed use development with fountains and outdoor restaurants and smiling children and glamorous people.  I have not yet watched this meeting but have previously seen the presentation.   

The skids are being greased to destroy the fairgrounds. Many people think that because they voted in a referendum to save the fairgrounds and that the referendum passed, that the issue is settled and the future of the fair grounds is secure. It is not.

I was disappointed that their was so little Council participation last week at the presentation of the Phase one portion of the study.  I fear many council members do not really care about making an informed decision and are simply going to defer to the wishes of the mayor and use the consultant's report as cover.  I hope there was more participation at this meeting than at the meeting last week.

If presented with only the phase one choice and the phase two choice, the phase two choice seem much more attractive.  It looks to me like the consultants knew the outcome they wanted first and backed into the study.  I think consultants often do that.  Some of their numbers are very suspicious. I was at a function last night with Councilman Duane Dominy and talked to him about the issue and he told me the cost estimates for demolishing the racetrack in order to facilitate development of the site was grossly inadequate among other criticisms of the study.   He thinks there research is skewed to support the outcome that favors redevelopment of the fairgrounds.

The fair board needs to review Request for Information from parties interested in keeping the fair grounds but improving it and the council needs to have another hearing on the fairgrounds to see what a private developer will propose.

Top Stories

Update: analysis and summary of the 1/15/2012 Metro Council agenda. What to watch for.

 It is Monday evening and there still is no staff analysis posted.

You can get your own copy of the Metro council meeting agenda at this link: MetroCouncilAgenda. Council meetings can be really, really boring if you don't know what the Council is voting on. With an agenda and analysis, they are just really boring.  At this time the staff analysis is not yet posted. If it is posted on Monday, I will update this post with more analysis.

There are fourteen resolutions,  all of which are on the consent agenda at this time. A resolution is on the consent agenda if it passed the committees to which it was assigned unanimously.  Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters. Resolutions on the consent agenda are passed by a single voice vote of the Council rather than being considered individually.  If one is present and does not ask to be recorded voting "no" then they are assumed to have voted "aye."  Any member of the body may have a bill pulled off of the consent agenda. 

Below are resolutions that may prove controversial and I suspect will be pulled off of the consent agenda:

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2013-558 is the amendment to the Capital Improvement Budget that adds the improvement to the rear of Bridgestone Arena, which will be across the street from the front of the new Music City center, and to establish a new central police precinct which will be moved from its present location in the Bridgestone arena.

• RESOLUTION NO. RS2013-559  authorizes the city to issue general obligation bonds of $110,000,000 to fund  the construction of the new police precinct and the Bridgestone Arena improvements mentioned above and some other projects. I would expect someone to object to this  resolution and the one above and I would expect them to be pulled off of the consent agenda but I expect both to pass.  

• ·     RESOLUTION NO. RS2013-560 accepts a grant to fund a new financial literacy program in Nashville designed to help  low-income residents reduce debt and build assets.  This seems like a good program. However, the Mayor is hiring Eric Cole to run the program.  (Read the Tennessean story on this.)

Eric Cole is a former two-term councilmember who has been an enthusiastic supporter of the mayor and who headed the Dean-funded "grass roots" organization Moving Nashville Forward, which advocated for the Mayor's increase in property tax hike. Eric Cole's wife is also on the Metro payroll as head of the Metro Arts Commission.

This does not smell right. Why was the position not advertised and filled by a non political person? There are numerous agencies in town with experience administering similar programs such as Individual Development Account programs and programs teaching financial literacy. This money could have been given to United Way with instructions to issue a RFP's and let agencies already experienced doing this compete for the money .  Why should a program like this be administered out of the Mayor's office? Why was the position of program  administrator  not advertised?  How much salary will Eric Cole's position be paid? This looks like using money intended to help poor people being used to hire a political operative for the Mayor.

•       RESOLUTION NO. RS2013-562. I would want to know what project this funds. Maybe the analysis will tell us.

The other  bills on the consent agenda appear routine and I would not expect any of them to be pulled or see any that I think need to be pulled.

Bills on First reading almost always pass. They are considered as a group and are seldom discussed. First reading is a formality that simply allows the bill to be considered. Bills are not assigned to committee or analyzed by council staff until after they have passed first reading. There are only two bills on first reading, neither very important nor controversial.

Bills on Second Reading. It is on Second reading, after bills have been to committee, that discussion usually takes place.  Below are bills of interest on second reading;

SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2012-283 is the new Metro Solicitation bill that would impose new regulations on commercial door-to-door solicitors. It  passed unanimously on second reading when previously on second reading and I expected it to sail on through third reading. However, legal staff had determined that the bill had a flaw that would prohibit it from withstanding a First Amendment challenge.  Legal said it would violate the First Amendment to prohibit solicitation for the "expressive arts."  Councilmember Clairborn asked for unanimous consent to amend the bill to address that issue.  To amend a bill on third reading however requires unanimous consent and there were objections so he successfully moved to rescind action on second reading and move the bill back to second reading.  That is why this bill is again on second reading. (Read more about this issue.)

• BILL NO. BL2012-292 is the bill would permit home recording studios in residential neighborhoods. It was on public hearing on 12/4/2012.  There were some in the music industry community who had problems with the bill and the sponsor said she would work with them to improve the bill. It will be interesting to see what they have come up with. Home recording studios are not uncommon in Nashville.

• ·     BILL NO. BL2013-338 by Tygard and Dominy looks very similar to a bill which Councilman Dominy recently unsuccessfully tried to pass. This bill says that "no sole source contract for the purchase of goods or services, including contracts for economic development initiatives and services, with a total contract amount in excess of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) may be entered into unless and until such contract has been approved by resolution duly adopted by the council by twenty-one affirmative votes.” 

I  don't know how this bill differs from the previous bill on the same subject, but I am glad to see Dominy is not giving up the fight. I am glad to see Councilman Tygard join as cosponsor. This is a good bill that needs to pass. One of the few sole source contracts that metro has is the city's contract with the Chamber of Commerce for the Partnership 2020 program. 

Partnership 2020 is a public-private partnership developed by the chamber whose purpose is to recruit new businesses to the Nashville area. Metro’s appropriation for this program in recent years has been $300,000 a year. While the program serves a ten county area, Metro funds a greater share of the program than the other nine counties combined. Many feel that Metro funds the program, yet the bulk of new relocations to the Nashville area go to surrounding counties. 

• BILLNO. BL2013-339 and BILL NO. BL2013-340 are more bribes incentives to private business to get them to expand in or relocate to Nashville. I would hope the Council would consider the wisdom of this policy. If this continues, every business of any size that could relocate will have a reason do so unless paid not to so. Councilman Stites has been the lone voice in the Council opposing these incentive deal. I expect to hear him ague against this deal. For more on this, see here. 

Bills on Third Reading: Third Reading is the final reading. If a bill passes third reading it becomes law unless it is vetoed by the Mayor, which has only rarely happened.  There are several zoning bills on third reading and some may interest neighbors of the proposed rezoning, but none of them appear to be of general interest. None of the other bills on third reading appear to be controversial. 

Memorializing Resolutions: There are no memorializing resolution on the agenda.  

Top Stories

Council meeting of 1/8/2013 with summary and notation

Council votes against Charter Schools, fair board to issue RFI, Council keeps lifetime healthcare benefit as it is.



This meeting is only 41 minutes long. Below are the highlights with notations of where to go in the video to see the good stuff. If you want to follow the action and relate it to the agenda, follow  Metro Council Agenda . From the agenda, you can link to the analysis.

Bills on public hearing: 

BILL NO. BL2012-264  by Josh Stites, amends the code by specifying that in regards to grandfather-in PUDs (planned unit developments which were approved prior to 1998 when the current code was adopted), “… when legislation modifying the planned unit development is approved by the metropolitan council that expressly includes provisions that are not consistent with the chapters of this code, such express provisions shall govern.”

While this may seem minor, this bill could keep someone from losing their property rights. With this bill, a property owner could develop according to a plan already approved, not the current code requirements. This applies to the development rights of the property, not building codes or fire codes. This passes unanimously without discussion. This is a good bill.

 BILL NO. BL2012-302 by Karen Johnson is an amendment to a portion of the Nashboro Village Planned Unit Development Overlay. I was never sure if this was a down zoning or not, but suspect it was. Anyway, if was deferred indefinitely. 

All of the other bills on public hearing were simple rezoning bills that would concern no one except the immediate neighbors. None of them seemed particularly controversial. 

Resolutions on the consent agenda including all memorializing resolutions pass and none are pulled off of the consent agenda. A resolution is on the consent agenda if it passed the committees to which it was assigned unanimously. Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters. Resolutions on the consent agenda are passed by a single voice vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. If one is present and does not ask to be recorded voting "no" then they are assumed to have voted "aye."  Any member of the body may have a bill pulled off of the consent agenda.

I am appalled that  RESOLUTION NO. RS2013-556 by Councilman Glover was not pulled off of the consent agenda and defeated. It opposes the creation of  a state charter school authorizer.  With the recent history of the School Board's refusal to approve Great Hearts Academy and Nashville losing a quality charter school and a major investment in education in our community, I think it is time to approve a State charter school authorizer. It is hard to believe that given the sorry state of education in Nashville, that there is not a single supporter of charter schools on our Metro Council! I am disgruntled and disgusted!

All Bills on First reading pass except for one which the sponsor withdraws. 

Bills on Second reading:

• BILL NO. BL2012-293 by Dominy and others would require the fair board to "issue a request for information (RFI) to gauge interest from the private sector regarding the future operation of the fairgrounds property. The RFI is to assist the fair board in the identification of potential options to partner with the private sector to make significant capital improvements to the fairgrounds property in exchange for a long term lease of at least twenty-five years with a portion of the revenue generated on the property to be shared with the Metropolitan Government. The RFI should specify that the existing property uses (fair, expo center, flea market, race track and livestock exhibitions) are to remain, and should seek interest from the private sector for the long-term operation of each of these functions.”

Councilman Dominy moves for indefinite deferral, explaining that the fair board was willing to issue the RFI without this legislation and the bill was no longer necessary.  This is good news.  (See his explanation at 23"26.)

Bills on Third Reading:

SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2012-283 is the new Metro Solicitation bill that would impose new regulations on commercial door-to-door solicitors. It  passed unanimously on second reading so thought would sail on through third reading. However, it does not. Not saying what the problem with the bill is, it is stated that there are "possible constitutional ramifications" with the bill. The sponsor tries to suspend the rules so the bill can be amended on third reading to address the issue, but there are objections to the rule suspension, so the bill cannot be amended. The sponsor successfully moves to rescind the passage on second reading and move the bill back to second reading. (To see this action go to 27:54)

BILL NO. BL2012-320 by councilman Phil Claiborne would have reduced the health insurance subsidy for future former councilmember's. Previously Councilman Claiborne had attempted to completely abolish the benefit but failed. This benefit currently costs Metro approximately $300,000 per year. Due to term limits, there are a growing number of former metro council members and former council members are younger than they were when this benefit was first awarded to Council members. This cost of this benefit is going to continue to increase. Councilman Claiborne explains that the present value of the current program is between $9 and $10 million dollars! 

Council Bedne moves to defer the bill indefinitely which effectively kills the bill. This deferral motion passes on a voice vote.  (See the discussion at 32:56) The proponents of this bill should have demanded a roll call, so we would know who was for it and who was not. (We do know how they voted on second reading however.) Councilman Claiborne did a great job in making his case.  Unfortunately, there are not enough council members who agree with him. He is to be commending for trying. If you listen to the discussion, you will see that there still may be a hope that this issue will be revisited.

Top Stories

Summary of the Council Agneda for 1/8/2013. What to watch for.

You can get your own copy of the Metro council meeting agenda at this link: Metro CouncilAgenda. From the agenda you can usually link to the analysis, but for some reason you can’t this time. You can find the analysis at this link: Metro Council Agenda Analysis.

Council meetings can be really, really boring if you don't know what the Council is voting on. With an agenda and analysis, they are just really boring.

There are eight bills on public hearing. All are zoning bills except for one.  I am listing those that might have broader interest than just affected neighbors.

• BILL NO. BL2012-264  by Josh Stites, amends the code by specifying that in regards to grandfather-in PUDs (planned unit developments which were approved prior to 1998 when the current code was adopted), “… when legislation modifying the planned unit development is approved by the metropolitan council that expressly includes provisions that are not consistent with the chapters of this code, such express provisions shall govern.”

While this may seem minor, this bill could keep someone from losing their property rights. With this bill, a property owner could develop according to a plan already approved, not the current code requirements. This applies to the development rights of the property, not building codes or fire codes. This will probably not be controversial. It was unanimously approved by the planning commission. This is a good bill.

• BILL NO. BL2012-302 by Karen Johnson is an amendment to a portion of the Nashboro Village Planned Unit Development Overlay. I don’t know what is wrong with this bill.  There is no analysis of it. I am listing this as a bill to watch however, because last month Councilman Johnson tried to down-zone a piece of property in Hillsboro village against the wishes of the owner and because this bill was deferred indefinitely by a 9-0 vote of the Planning Commission. 

There are twelve resolutions, all of which are on the consent agenda at this time. A resolution is on the consent agenda if it passed the committees to which it was assigned unanimously. Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters. Resolutions on the consent agenda are passed by a single voice vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. If one is present and does not ask to be recorded voting "no" then they are assumed to have voted "aye."  Any member of the body may have a bill pulled off of the consent agenda.

All of the bills on the consent agenda appear routine and I would not expect any of them to be pulled or see any that I think need to be pulled.

Bills on First reading almost always pass. They are considered as a group and are seldom discussed. First reading is a formality that simply allows the bill to be considered. Bills are not assigned to committee or analyzed by council staff until after they have passed first reading. There are eighteen bills on first reading.

Here are bills of interests on first reading:

• BILL NO. BL2013-338 by Tygard and Dominy looks very similar to a bill which Councilman Dominy recently unsuccessfully tried to pass. This bill says that "no sole source contract for the purchase of goods or services, including contracts for economic development initiatives and services, with a total contract amount in excess of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) may be entered into unless and until such contract has been approved by resolution duly adopted by the council by twenty-one affirmative votes.” 

I don't know how this bill differs from the previous bill on the same subject, but I am glad to see Dominy is not giving up the fight. I am glad to see Councilman Tygard join as cosponsor. This is a good bill that needs to pass. One of the few sole source contracts that metro has is the city's contract with the Chamber of Commerce for the Partnership 2020 program. 

Partnership 2020 is a public-private partnership developed by the chamber whose purpose is to recruit new businesses to the Nashville area. Metro’s appropriation for this program in recent years has been $300,000 a year. While the program serves a ten county area, Metro funds a greater share of the program than the other nine counties combined. Many feel that Metro funds the program, yet the bulk of new relocations to the Nashville area go to surrounding counties. 

•  BILL NO. BL2013-339 and BILL NO. BL2013-340 are more bribes incentives to private business to get them to expand in or relocate to Nashville. I would hope the Council would consider the wisdom of this policy. If this continues, every business of any size that could relocate will have a reason do so unless paid not to so. For more on this, see here. 

• BILL NO. BL2013-354 deletes “Historic Home Events” as a use and to adds “Special Events Center” as a new use to be permitted in certain zoning districts and permitted with conditions in certain zoning districts. I really don't know what this does, it just got my attention. There are certain large historically significant home which are permitted to serve as bed and breakfasts or banquet facilities or places for wedding in residential neighborhoods. They operate under a conditional use. There are always some neighbors who want to drive them out of business. I don't know that this is what this change is all about but it caught my attention. This may amount to nothing significant, but it is worth watching.

Bills on Second Reading. It is on Second reading, after bills have been to committee, that discussion usually takes place. Below are bills of interest on second reading. 

• BILL NO. BL2012-293 by Dominy and others would require the fair board to "issue a request for information (RFI) to gauge interest from the private sector regarding the future operation of the fairgrounds property. The RFI is to assist the fair board in the identification of potential options to partner with the private sector to make significant capital improvements to the fairgrounds property in exchange for a long term lease of at least twenty-five years with a portion of the revenue generated on the property to be shared with the Metropolitan Government. The RFI should specify that the existing property uses (fair, expo center, flea market, race track and livestock exhibitions) are to remain, and should seek interest from the private sector for the long-term operation of each of these functions.”

This bill was recently deferred by Dominy to give the fair board an opportunity to do this, which they could do, without being mandated to do it. Apparently they would not do this voluntarily. The skids are being greased to get rid of the fair grounds. If you think that the referendum on the fairgrounds last year protected the fairgrounds from being sold, you are wrong; it only made it a little more difficult. To read more about this see here and here.

I know for a fact that a private interest would like a long term lease on the fairgrounds and in return they agree to greatly improve the site and maintain all of the current uses and they plan to create an additional tourist attraction that could enhance the local economy.  This bill needs to pass.

Bills on Third Reading: Third Reading is the final reading. If a bill passes third reading it becomes law unless it is vetoed by the Mayor, which has only rarely happened. Below are the bills of interest on third reading.

• SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2012-283 is the new Metro Solicitation bill that would impose new regulations on commercial door-to-door solicitors. It  passed unanimously on second reading so I expect it to sail on through third reading. While this bill is not a bad bill and while I know aggressive sales people can be an annoyance and while I know some are unscrupulous, I do not think I could support this bill. We are grownups. We do not need to look to government to remove every annoyance from our life. I am disappointed there was no debate on this bill on second reading.

• BILL NO. BL2012-320 by councilman Phil Claiborne would reduce the health insurance subsidy for future former councilmember's. Previously Councilman Claiborne had attempted to completely abolish the benefit but failed. This benefit currently costs Metro approximately $300,000 per year. Due to term limits, there are a growing number of former metro council members and former council members are younger than they were when this benefit was first awarded to Council members. This cost of this benefit is going to continue to increase.

On second reading this bill passed by a vote of 25 to 13. so if five council members sit on their hand or switch their vote, this bill could fail. I was disappointed that some of the "good" councilman opposed this bill. Here is how members voted on second reading:

“Ayes”  Barry, Steine, Garrett, Tygard, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Pridemore, Jernigan, Glover, Stites, Stanley, Claiborne, Tenpenny, Allen, Baker, Langster, Weiner, Holleman, McGuire, Harmon, Blalock, Dominy, Todd, Mitchell (25);

“Noes” Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Bennett, Pardue, Moore, Gilmore, Evans, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell (13).

Memorializing Resolutions: There are ten memorializing resolution on the agenda.  Unless someone opposes a memorializing resolution in committee, memorizing resolutions become part of the consent agenda.  However, any councilmember may have a resolution pulled off of the consent agenda and have his vote recorded.

Memorializing resolutions do not have the force of law and are often not taken very seriously and most often they do nothing more than congratulate a sports team for a victory or a person for being honored or congratulate a person on their retirement. The Council staff does not even analyze memorial resolutions. However, memorializing resolutions do represent the will of the Council and when they advocate a policy position they should be taken very seriously.

A few month ago, the Council passed a resolution praising the EPA and urging strict enforcement of clean air standards including the job-killing regulation of co2 which Congress never authorized. The Council played into the hands of a left-wing organization that was pushing this same resolution nation-wide. (For more on this see here, here and here.)

A couple years ago, the Council passed a memorializing resolution praising students for their pro-gay agenda activism. Somehow, memorializing resolutions taking a conservative position never come before the council but liberal memorializing resolutions always pass unanimously. 

There is one memorializing that needs to be defeated:

 RESOLUTION NO. RS2013-556 by Councilman Glover opposes the creation of  a state charter school authorizer.  With the recent history of the School Board's refusal to approve Great Hearts Academy and Nashville losing a quality charter school and a major investment in education in our community, I think it is time to approve a State charter school authorizer. 

Top Stories