(Update) What happened at the Council on June 6: Public hearing on the budget, celebrating homosexuality, protecting privacy.

This is a long meeting. Despite being a long meeting, it is a kind of boring meeting. If you are going to watch it, you may want to watch the public hearing on the budget in double speed. If you don't know how to do that, follow this link and learn. If you are going to watch the meeting, you need an agenda, staff analysis of the agenda and you may find my analysis and commentary on the agenda beneficial. You can these at this link.



All mayoral nominees to boards and commissions were approved by voice vote with no dissentious, including the appointed of a candidate to the Human Relations Commission.  This is the department of Metro Government that bullies people into bowing down to political correctness and that promotes normalizing homosexual activity among the youth of our city. I am disappointed that not a single council member takes an opportunity to cast an opposing vote against this useless entity of government.

Public Hearing on the Budget
The public hearing on the operating budget starts at timestamp 10:15 and ends at timestamp 2:52:09. There is really no need to watch it. Nothing very interesting is said. Each person is allowed three minutes. Numerous speakers ask for more funding for General Hospital than what is proposed in the Mayor's budget; speakers speak against the proposed Hillwood location of the new planned high school and advocate that it be located in Bellevue, speakers advocate for more spending or approval of the proposed spending for mass transit, expanded bus service, sidewalks, green ways and bike ways; speakers advocate for the proposed employee pay raise; more spending for the arts; more for educations; several speak in favor of additional funding for the program "in full motion," which helps at-risk students with additions resources; and speakers advocate for more spending for affordable housing and homeless services. Many of the speakers were employees of General Hospital and member of the SEIU Union.

No one advocates for less spending for anything, nor advocates for a tax cut, nor expresses concern about metro's growing debt liability or pension liability, nor speaks out in favor of reducing waste and inefficiency. That is the way it almost always is; those who want more government advocate all the time while those who do not only show up when a tax increase is proposed. The mayor's Operating budget is approved on second reading with no opposing votes cast. The Capital Improvements budget is also approved on Second Reading. Both the Operation Budget and the Capital Improvements budget are amendable on Third Reading.

Resolutions. Most are passed on the consent agenda which means they are not discussed and are lumped together and pass by a single vote. RESOLUTION NO. RS2017-682   which adopts the certified tax rate, as well as several other resolutions that relate to the budget are deferred to track with the budget. There are several resolutions settling lawsuits against the city and they all pass on Consent as they should. The only issue in settling a lawsuit should be is it in the city's best interest to settle rather than litigate.  Here is a resolutions of interest:

RESOLUTION NO. RS2017-744 is a resolution recognizing Thursday, June 1 to

Friday, June, 30, 2017 as “Nashville Pride Month," celebrating the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender communities and their "enormous contributions to the quality of life in Nashville and Davidson County." This passed on the Consent agenda. I do not think we should honor a segment of the society for engaging in unnatural sex practices.  Instead of being celebrated, I think ones sexual orientation, deviancy, or fetishes should be ignored.  I am very disappointed in some who I thought may vote against this. There are several Republicans in the Council such as Robert Swope, Davette Blalock, and Sheri Weiner, and they all voted for this.  There are several others who I suspect may be Republican or I suspect they think of themselves as conservative and they all voted for it. I do not think homosexuals should be discriminated against or mistreated but being a sexual deviant is not something to honor and celebrate.  

Bills on First Reading
There are 48 bills on first reading.  All bills on First Reading are lumped together and passed by a single vote, as is the norm. There are some interesting bill on First Reading this time. One would ban party vehicles, which I assume would include pedal taverns but I don't know for sure.  One would prohibit renting any room for lodging for less than a ten hour period. For a city that honors sexual deviancy, it seems a little puritanical to prohibit one from renting a hotel room by the hour. BILL NO. BL2017-739 is on First Reading which may or may not make Nashville a "sanctuary city."  While I think I oppose some of these bills, if I were in the Council, I would honor Council tradition and not vote against any of them on First Reading.

Bills on Second Reading. There is some dissolution of a bill to approve the building of a new high school at the Hillwood location but no motions or debate.  A lot of people from Bellevue want it build in Bellevue. Below are the bills of interest:

BILL NO. BL2017-645  would allow passengers in horse-drawn carriages to drink and ride as long as the beverage was in a plastic or foam cup. This sounds reasonable to me. It passes.

BILL NO. BL2017-687 establishes a process and procedure for naming public buildings, structures and spaces of the Metropolitan Government.  I like this.  I think usually you should have to be dead before you get something named after you. This was deferred from May 2nd and is deferred again at the request of the sponsor to the first meeting in August.

BILL NO. BL2017-705  would establish an incentive program for neighborhoods that are in full compliance with codes.  A neighborhood could be awarded $5000.  Under this plan, if a neighbor has an overgrown lot, codes could review the violation but not impose penalties and the neighborhood could exert pressure on the offender to come into compliance. I do not like this. I do not want to give more power to neighborhood leaders who may have been elected by a tiny fraction of the neighborhood.  Neighborhood organizations have no official status and no legal authority I don't want to give them power. This program could cost up to $875K per year and is not in the FY18 budget. It was deferred from the May 16 Council meeting to this meeting and is deferred again to July 6th.

BILL NO. BL2017-707  would allow Metro to purchase internet and telecom service at specific facilities without submitting those services to a competitive bidding process. It is withdrawn.

BILL NO. BL2017-723 is a bill establishing the tax levy for 2018 for the Urban Services District. Since the mayor has not proposed a tax increase, this tax levy will be the same as the certified tax rate discussed above. This is bill is amended but I do not know what changes. This passes and is amendable on Third Reading.

BILL NO. BL2017-724 establishes the low-income elderly tax relief program for 2018. This is a continuation of a program that has been in place for many year. The State provides a certain amount for tax relief for the low-income elderly and this program is Metro's expansion of the program to provide more tax relief than the State. The income limit to be eligible is $29,180 and applicants must be over the age of 65. This cost Metro $3.9 million. I support this program. It passes.

BILL NO. BL2017-725  establishes a Greenways Commission and a Conservation Assistance Grant Fund and appropriates $500K to the fund.  The purpose of this is to preserve properties having great natural, cultural, and environmental importance. From what I know about it, I support this. As we grow, it becomes important to preserve certain features of our community that make Nashville livable and enjoyable. The commission could not appropriate any funds without coming back to the Council. This passes.

BILL NO. BL2017-726 would require the Finance Department to maintain a written debt management policy for the metropolitan government. This is a good step in getting control of Metro's increasing indebtedness. It is deferred.

BILL NO. BL2017-728 would place restrictions on who can "boot" or unboot a vehicle. It would require criminal background check of those who apply for this job.  I have reservations about this. It is hard enough for ex-cons to get a job without imposing additional restrictions on what jobs they may do. This passes.

Bills on Third Reading. There are 16 bills on Third Reading. Here is one of interest:

BILL NO. BL2016-498   requires approval by the Metropolitan Council for obstructions or excavations which close or occupy any portion of the public right of way for a period in excess of one (1) year. I support this. We should accommodate construction but a sidewalk or street should not be closed to public use for over a year without a plan to accommodate the public. The Chamber of Commerce and the construction industry opposes this bill. The sponsor withdraws it and explains why. He explains that other reform in regards to this are in the works and he plans other legislation.  To see his comments see timestamp 3:51:07.

BILL NO. BL2017-646   would prohibit a company from installing surveillance

equipment, such as cameras and 16 other types of technology that captured activity on a public sidewalk or street without prior Council approval. It also would prohibit the police from using license plate recording technology and restrict the stockpiling of certain date. This is a good bill.

It passes on  roll call vote of 25 form, 2 against, 3 abstaining and 9 not voting. To "abstain is to push the button that records one as abstaining. Why nine simply did not vote, I don't know. This is near the end of the agenda of a long meeting and some members may have skipped out early. If so, shame on them. There are several empty seats in the chamber. Some may have been absent or in the bathroom or distracted, or they may have just sit on their hands. To hide out in the bathroom or sit on your hands is a cowardly action, the way I see it.  Council members should have the courage to cast a vote. Nine not voting is a lot. It the sponsor would have lost five more votes the bill would have died.  On final reading a bill must pass by a "a majority vote of all the members to which the council is entitled." Even if there are vacancies in the Council, a bill on final reading must still get 21 votes. I will post the roll call tally in another post and list the names of those not voting. To see the discussion see timestamp 3:57:05.

Top Stories

State Senator Mae Beavers wants to block police from cell phone tracking

WBIR Staff -  A recent study by USA Today and Gannett found that found 1 in 4 state and local police agencies are using new technologies to tap into cell phone data. At this point, we've not been able to determine that any agencies in Knoxville, Knox County, or Nashville are doing this, but a state lawmaker wants to make sure they don't.

The investigation found at least 25 police agencies use tower dumps, a way for them to get thousands of phone records from cell phone towers near crime scenes.

Police have also used a Stingray, a portable device that fools cell phones into thinking it is a real cell tower.

Both methods help police gather cell phone data without a search warrant and without people ever knowing. Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers is trying to change that. She announced Monday she will introduce a bill next session that, if passed, will require local and state police to get a search warrant before collecting data. (read more)

Top Stories

Blackburn Fights to Protect Tennesseans from Government Intimidation

Congressman Marsha Blackburn speaks out against government abuse and the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS during remarks delivered on the House floor. (November 18, 2013)

Top Stories

Can you track me now?

Top Stories

Corker Seeks Explanation From White House For NSA’s Sweeping Collection Of U.S. Phone Records

 

The Chattanoogan.com, Thursday, June 06, 2013 - In a letter to President Barack Obama on Thursday, Senator Bob Corker, (R-Tn.), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, sought an explanation regarding reports of the National Security Agency’s collection of U.S. phone records on Verizon’s network of 121 million customers. A court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court compelled Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over records for all calls placed within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries. (To read more and read the letter, follow this link)

Top Stories

Thinking about the guns in trunks issue again

GOP Leaders Seek To Avoid Repeat Of Gun Law Fight
Leaders in the Tennessee Statehouse are hoping for what they call a reasonable solution to a legislative fight over a bill seeking to guarantee employees the ability to store firearms in cars parked at work. more

GOP leaders seek to avoid repeat of gun law fight  

...Frank Niceley, a Strawberry Plains Republican who moved from the House to the Senate in this month’s elections. Niceley said he’s hesitant to go along with Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey’s call to quickly pass a compromise on the gun bill and move on to other issues.

“If we allow them to come in here and pass a bill right off the bat, we’re telling the other lobbyists the way to get things done is through fear and intimidation,” he said.

 Niceley said he would allow employees to store weapons in their cars if he owned a factory, but that such decisions should be left to each business.

“If a property owner tells someone you can’t bring a yo-yo on your property —much less a gun — you can’t bring it on that property,” he said.  

My Commentary

I agree with Nicely.

After the defeat of Debra Maggart at the hands of the NRA, the gun lobby has shown that no one is safe if they dare cross them. Still, the legislature should not buckle to the radical fringe on a matter of principle . At some point in the past, the NRA stood for the constitutional right to bear arms. No more. Now, they want gun owners to have rights that are not protected by the constitution. Now, they want to impose their will on others and trample the property rights of others.

The NRA is not a pro-second amendment lobby anymore; they are a gun rights lobby. There is a difference. The second amendment protects our right to bear arms from government infringement. The second amendment is a protection against government, not your neighbor who does not want guns on his property. To argue that the right to carry a gun onto your employer's property is a second amendment issue is equivalent to arguing that to compel the Tennessean to publish your letter to the editor is a first amendment issue.

Nevertheless,  It seems that there should be some way around this issue, without trampling private property rights and extending gun rights beyond those protected by the constitution. I would like to see what Ramsey's compromise looks like. If your gun is concealed in the trunk of your car, how would an employer ever know? They are not going to do a detailed search of every car entering their parking lot. It is impractical.

Does one's employer have the right to search an employee's private vehicle when it is driven onto his parking lot. As a condition of employment, if one gives his employer the right to search his car such as by initialing a policy statement, then the employer may have the right to search an employee's car.  Otherwise it is questionable. The website Findlaw says, "If it's your personal car, then probably not. If your employer believes that you have dangerous or illegal materials in your car, they should call the police rather than searching the car themselves."

If an employer has that right, should he?  Should he be permitted to force you to give up an expectation of privacy as a condition of employment? I do recognize that rights may at times be in conflict and few rights are absolute.  I do not think that an employer should be allowed to force you to surrender all of your rights as a condition's of employment. I object to a policy that says you can be subject to random drug test by your employer. Maybe for school bus drivers or airline pilots or some professions engaged in dangerous work, that may be reasonable, but not for most people. Yet, many employers, as a condition of employment, have employees agree to a policy that says they are subject to random drug test. That seems more of an invasion of my privacy than a search of my vehicle.

Rather than expanding the right of gun owners to carry a gun onto the property of another, maybe we need to examine what expectation of privacy an employee should have. What right does an employer have to determine if you are or are not storing a gun in your car?  Could an employer not maintain the right to prohibit guns on his property, yet have some sort of don't ask-don't tell policy about who has a gun in his car.  And should not an employee have a reasonable expectation that his car is not subject to search by his employer? 

Top Stories

See this Amazing Picture

Here is a picture of thousands of people and you can keep clicking on the photo and get a clear image of the face of every single person captured in the picture. This is amazing! We may reach a point when it will no longer be possible to get lost in a crowd.

To see the photo, click here. 

With street security cameras everywhere and features like Google Map Street View where you can view and navigate within street-level imagery and so many public records on line and the ability to do a background check on a person for just a few dollars and cell phones that can reveal your location without you wanting it revealed and DNA that can reveal what illnesses you will probably get and cars with black boxes that tell how fast you were driving when you had an accident and your Kroger's card tracking your purchases and everyone sharing their life on facebook, anonymity and an expectation of privacy may be a thing of the past.

The same technology that can make life easier and make it much easier to catch the bad guys and protect us from terrorist can be used to exercise control and keep taps on dissidents and non-conformist. Technology may make it possible for Big Brother to be a reality. Things that just a few years ago were fiction are now a reality. A dictatorial government could control people the way the old Soviet Russia and Mao's China never could. I don't know what we can do about it, but it concerns me. While technology is a wonderful thing, it is more important than ever that limits be placed on government and safeguard be in place to protect us from government abuse. I hope a lot of smart people who value liberty are thinking about these things.

Top Stories

THE SNITCH LINE IS GONE!

White House disables e-tip box

ByMIKE ALLEN 8/17/09, Politico

Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan. (read more)

Comment! It is gone! We shut it down! There has been no official announcement. It is just gone. Let Freedom ring!

Top Stories

Be on the lookout for fishy rumors

Top Stories

Is Obama following the George W Bush foreign policy?

While I have been extremely disappointed in Obama's economic policies, I have, so far, been pleased by much of his management of foreign affairs. Candidate Obama never presented himself as the most pacifist and isolationist of the Democratic field of candidates. He was much more centrist than Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson, yet he was very critical of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and promised a change. We have seen some real change and some superficial change and much of the same.

Some Republicans have criticized Obama’s recent making nice with Hugo Chavez. I don't. Reagan made nice with Gorbachev. Nixon made nice with Mao. FDR made nice with Joseph Stalin. There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic and friendly with your enemies. It may be beneficial to be on a first name basis with the bastards. Sometimes if is even necessary to ally ourselves with the most ruthless and despicable of people, as was the case in World War II. I am not so sure that Hitler was a lot worse than Joseph Stalin, but Germany was a threat and Russia was our ally and FDR had to make nice with Joseph Stalin. While Chavez may be irritating tin-horn dictator, he is hardly a Mao or Stalin.

Obama has also been criticized for changing our policy toward Cuba. Again, I think he is pursuing the correct policy and that our isolation of Cuba has been a mistake. I am glad to see us move toward normalization with that nation.

I am pleased that we are escalating the war in Afghanistan. I think Bush made a big mistake in going to go to war in Iraq and failing to pursue victory in Afghanistan. We cannot allow the Taliban to reestablish their rule in that country. I am pleased that we are pressuring and prevailing in persuading Pakistan to take a more aggressive role in suppressing the Taliban in that country. I am pleased that Obama has only tweaked the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and seems committed to exiting that conflict in an orderly fashion that will preserve the peace and stability and leave behind a sizable American presence. .

In the war on terror, which we no long call the “War on Terror,” Obama is essentially continuing the Bush policies. While Obama uses less bellicose language and does not have the cowboy swagger that irritated so many, there is very little to distinguish Obama from Bush. He sounds more moderate but his policies are the same. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said “talk softly and carry a big stick.” I am not displeased with the more moderate tone. I have mixed feelings about the continuation of some of Bush policies.

When Bush was president and prominent national conservatives formed the American Freedom Agenda, I cheered. I was concerned that the Federal Government was amassing unchecked power. I did not approve of the government claiming the authority for warrantless searches of Internet communications. I do not approve of torture. I did not approve of special rendition. I thought George W. Bush was exceeding his constitutional authority.

Many of the same policies that were continued or initiated by Bush are being continued under Obama. Special rendition is a policy that started in peace time under Bill Clinton. It is the practice of kidnapping suspected enemies and turning them over to other countries where they can be tortured. We are speaking of real torture not a gray area that may or may not constitute torture. By letting a third country do the dirty work we can claim to have clean hands and not have engaged in torture ourselves. George Bush expanded the rendition policy and Obama has not ended the practice.
.
One Obama proposal that should concern all civil libertarians is the Cyber-security Act of 2009, which is essentially the same as Bush’s Total Information Awareness but under a new name. It would grant the government authority to monitor and mine Internet traffic for patterns that indicate links to terrorist activity. My concern is that such authority will be misused. This seems to violate the constitutions prohibition against an unreasonalble search. The same people that were outraged about Total Awareness are very quite about Cyber Security.

Obama was very critical of the bush administration policy regarding prisoners held at Guantanamo. I do not think the issue of what to do with irregular forces captured on the field of battle is an easy riddle to solve, however I do not think that we should hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. Recently, when the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan, captured outside Afghanistan, had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo, the Obama administration argued they did not. Bagram is a less high profile prison than Guantanamo but the issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krathamer pointed out that on policy after policy the Obama administration is continuing the policy of the Bush administration. “The latest flip-flop,” writes Krathamer. “is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an ‘enormous failure.’ Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back.”

I admit I am conflicted. On the one hand, Obama’s policies seem to vindicate the policies of George W. Bush. I could conclude that George W. Bush was right all along and when faced with the enormous responsibility of keeping this country safe, that Obama came to a realization that the only prudent course to follow was that that was set by his predecessor. When one does not have the responsibility for our country’s security it is easy to snipe from the sidelines. Obama put aside partisanship and campaign promises and did the right thing.

On the other hand, I could conclude that Obama is an opportunist who did a complete flip-flop. He would say anything to get elected but he is a power hungry opportunist who cannot turn down the occasion to amass more power. I don’t know which view is correct.

What I cannot understand is how civil libertarians and pacifist of the left, who loathed George W. Bush, are letting Obama get by with continuing the same policies they professed to hate. If these policies were wrong when enacted by George W. Bush, are they still not wrong?

Top Stories

Congress may give Obama power to shut down the Internet, ignore privacy laws

By Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor Washington Examiner. 4/8/09 11:02 PM

Civil libertarians were aghast when news leaked in 2002 of a Pentagon research program designed to give national security officials advance warning of terrorists attacks by analyzing trillions of bytes of computer data in search of tell-tale activities in everyday life. [full article]

Commentary

The Defence Department's scary sounding Total Information Awareness (TIA) program proposed under President Bush in 2002, following the terrorist attack of 9/11, would have mined internet data to look for patterns that would alert the goverment to possible terrorist threats. The public's alarm over the civil liberties implications of such a program led Congress to kill it in 2002. Now it is back and renamed the Cyber-security Act of 2009.

Civil libertarian who were alarmed and outraged about this program when it was proposed while George W Bush was president are as quiet as a church mouse now that the same program is being proposed but Barack Obama is President. To be fair, I am also hearing a lot more concern about this program from those on the right than I did when the same program was proposed by the Bush administration.

This program is scary no matter who is President. Do you really believe that if government has the authority to monitor and mine Internet traffic for patterns that indicate links to terrorist activity, that they will not use it for other purposes? The temptation to track down pedophiles, drug dealers, counterfeiters and tax cheats will be too great to resist. Then who is going to say that it is inappropriate to use it to monitor "hate groups" or "domestic terrorist." Handing over this kind of power to the government is scary indeed. The government should not be able to read my email, or open my U. S. mail, tap my phone, or search my house without a court order and it doesn't matter if the President is named Bush or Obama.

Top Stories

Congress Trashes your Privacy

By Bob Barr
For the Journal-Constitution Published on: 08/22/07

It's been a little over two weeks since Congress, rushing to get out of town for its August recess, greatly expanded the power of the Bush administration to conduct surreptitious surveillance of Americans' international calls and e-mails.

While we have no idea how many such transmissions have in fact been monitored, the universe of such communications is vast, as is the government's ability —- and now its legal authority —- to intercept, gather and retain such data. Given the administration's propensity to gather as much information on as many people as possible and sort it out later, it is reasonable and prudent to conclude the number of communications already gathered and retained is extremely large.

It therefore appears timely for Americans to understand just a little bit about how extensive this new power granted the administration really is. (To continue: Congress Trashes ...)

Bob Barr Gets it. Where is the Democrat Majority?
Bob Barr explains in this article that the old law did indeed need to be updated due to changing technology, but this new law goes way beyond what was necessary and gives the President broad new powers to spy on Americans. This new law makes virtually all international calls and emails subject to monitoring without any court oversight. This is a shedding of the 4th Amendment! The good news is that the law must be reviewed again in six months.

I am proud of those handful of "movement conservatives" such as Barr who are standing by conservative principals of distrust of government and standing for Constitutional governance. Bob Barr is one of the four conservative founders of the American Freedom Agenda, which is described as "a coalition established to restore checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the executive branch."

While I do not approve of those Republicans who supported this bill and think one should always put country above party, I can understand party loyalty and understand why the majority of Republican sided with the President and gave him the benefit of the doubt. I do not understand, however, why the Democratic majority are rolling over and playing dead. Is not one of the benefits of divided government, that the "loyal opposition" will provide greater scrutiny of the administration than when the administration and legislative are of the same party? The bill passed the house with a forty vote margin and passed the Senate by a whopping 60 to 28. While the President has a job approval rating of about 30% the Congress has an even lower approval rating of 24%. They have earned it.

Top Stories