Who voted for transparency and who voted to conceal the $8.9 price tag of the tax for tracks plan

On February 6,  the Metro Council voted to approve Mayor Barry's transit improvement program (Bill BL2017-1031 (as amended)), or as it is better known, "tax for tracks"  Included in the bill was a request for the Davidson County Election Commission to call a county-wide referendum regarding the increase in taxes to fund the plan.

In debating the bill some members made the argument that they were simply passing the bill to let the public decide the issue.  That is not the way it works. That is a weak rationalization for not having the guts to vote against it. That is like a member of the Senate voting for a bill and claiming he is voting to let the House of Representatives decide. Or, it is like a councilman voting to pass a bill in the Council and saying he is voting for it and the mayor can decide to sign it or not. As the minutes describe the bill it is , "An ordinance adopting a transit improvement program for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, approving a surcharge for the program, and requesting the Davidson County Election Commission to call a county-wide referendum election to be held on May 1, 2018, regarding the levying of the surcharge on certain taxes to fund the program." For more proof, read the bill. This was a vote by the Council to approve the plan and to approve the tax increase.

Originally the bill required language in the referendum to state that the cost of the program would be $5.3 billion. On the night of final passage, the bill was amended to reflect the true cost of $8.5 billion. This of course assumes no cost overruns and historically projects of this nature rarely come in on budgets. Cost overruns of 50% to 200% are not uncommon for projects like this. Following the amendment adoption, the following language is what will be in the referendum:

This transit program’s capital cost is estimated to have a present day value of $5,354,000,000 and the program is estimated to require $8,951,062,000 in revenue through 2032. Once construction is complete, the estimated present day value of recurring annual operating and maintenance costs is approximately $99,500,000.

The amendment to include the transparent language that reveals the $8.9 Billion price tag was hotly debated. It passed by a vote of YES: 21, NO: 16, ABSTAIN: 1 and NOT VOTING: 1

A "yes" vote on Amendment 2 was a vote for transparency. It was a vote to include the $8. 95 million plan price tag.

Here is a list of those who voted for the transparency amendment.

John Cooper, At-large           Erica Gilmore, At-large               Bob Mendes, At-Large
Sharon Hurt, At-large            Jim Shulman, At-large                DeCosta Hastings, District 2  
Brenda Haywood, District 3   Robert Swope, District 4            Doug Pardue, District 10    
Larry Hagar,  District 11         Steve Glover, District 12           Holly Huezo, District 13           
Keven Rhoten, District 14      Freddie O'Connell, District 19   Mary Carolyn Roberts, District 20
Sheri Weiner, District 22         Mina Johnson, District 26          Tanaka Vercher, District 29      
Jacobia Dowell, District 33     Angie Henderson, District 34     Dave Rosenberg District 35  

Here  is a list of those who voted against transparency, voting to hide the $8.9 Million price tag.

Scott Davis District 5,                    Bret Witters, District 6        Anthony Davis, District 7

Nancy VanReece, District 8           Bill Pridemore District 9      Jeff Syracuse, District 15


Mike Freeman, District 16              Colby Sledge, District 17     Burkley Allen, District 18
Kathleen Murphy, District 24          Russ Pulley. District 25       Jeremy Elrod, District 26
Karen Johnson, District 29            Jason Potts, District 30       Fabain Bedne, District 32
Antoinette Lee, District 33

Abstaining was Davette Blalock, District 27 and not voting was Ed Kindall, District 2

How they voted on the final bill

After the bill was amended to make it more transparent, it was then voted upon. In the final vote every member of the Council voted for it except for Robert Swope and Holly Huezo who voted "No" and Angie Henderson and Dave Rosenberg who abstained.

If you are unsure who your councilman is, you can use the look-up tool at this link.  Also, if you would like to put a face with the name, you can see what your councilman looks at at that link and you can contact them from that page should you wish to communicate with your council member.

Top Stories

Tonight! Totally Transparent Pizza Party and Liberty on the Rocks

From TnReports

A tasty night of training in how to slice away government secrecy!

Panel Includes Tennessee's Top Open Records Experts

• Kent Flanagan, Director of Tennessee Coalition for Open Government
• Trent Seibert, TNReport.com News Service
• Elisha Hodge, JD, Open Records Counsel, State of Tennessee

TNReport is thankful for our event cosponsor, the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government.

Additional sponsors include:

• The Beacon Center of Tennessee 
• Total Consulting Strategies

Wednesday, November 28, 2012 from 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM
Mafiaoza's 2400 12th Ave S
 Please contact Nicole Williams for more information, Nicole@tnreport.com.

Liberty on the Rocks meeting to follow
Immediately following the Transparency seminar, there will be a  Liberty on the Rocks meeting. LOR is social opportunity to meet and talk with other conservatives and libertarians. There is no program. It is just a chance to drink and socialize with like-minded people. We have some pretty good conversations.

Top Stories

Support "Read the Bill"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Smith, Michael Steel
July 22, 2010
(202) 220-0202
Permalink
Hoyer Dismisses Americans’ Call for “Read the Bill” Reform as “Unreasonable,” “Not Relevant”
Posted by Kevin Boland on July 22, 2010

In a jarring reminder of the out-of-touch arrogance of the Democratic majority in Washington, the second most powerful Democrat in the House, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), today publicly mocked suggestions that reforms should be adopted in Congress that would prohibit the House from considering any bill that has not been publicly available on the Internet for at least three days, calling the idea “unreasonable” and “not relevant.”

The idea was posted on AmericaSpeakingOut.com today by House Republicans in response to calls from millions of Americans for such reform in Congress. Americans can go to the link, vote on the idea, make comments, and post ideas of their own for reforming Congress.

The Hill has the details about Majority Leader Hoyer’s curt dismissal of the idea: “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) ridiculed on Thursday an effort pushed by Republicans to allow lawmakers more time to read legislation. Hoyer dismissed a proposal by House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and other Republicans to require 72 hours to read legislation before a final vote on it is scheduled.

Boehner launched a ‘read the bill’ effort on Thursday to promote the GOP's proposed reform, which the minority leader has said would be a key reform he'd make should he become speaker of the House.“‘His hypothetical is so unreasonable ... that it doesn’t bear commenting on,’ Hoyer said, mocking Republicans' chances of taking back the House in this fall's elections, a development which would make Boehner speaker. ‘This is beating a drum that's not relevant,’ the second-ranking House Democrat said.

”Most Americans would beg to differ with Leader Hoyer’s assessment. In fact, a Sunlight Foundation petition endorsing a “72 hour rule” has received support from groups which represent both ends of the political spectrum. As House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said today, “One of the reasons why Americans have such little confidence in Congress is because of the practice of rushing massive, expensive bills to a vote without giving lawmakers or the American people time to read them. This is the people’s House: ‘read the bill’ should not be just an afterthought – it should be the first and only thought.

”NOTE: “Read the bill” reform is the first plank of the congressional transparency initiative House Republicans released last fall. In September, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) filed a discharge petition to force a floor vote on bipartisan three-day public review legislation authored by Reps. John Culberson (R-TX) and Brian Baird (D-WA). To date, the petition has garnered 182 signatures – including five rank-and-file Democrats – 36 short of the 218 needed to secure a vote on the floor. Leader Boehner, a co-sponsor of the Culberson-Baird measure, has called on Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader

Top Stories

Obama: "These negotiations will be on C-span."

"Not negotiating behind closed doors..."

"..but these negotiations will be on C-span."

"It will be on C-span."

"We will have the negotiations on C-span; it will be televised."

Is President Obama truth-challenged? Did Obama misspeak? Does anyone care?

Would it be impolite to say President Obama is a liar?

Top Stories

Editorial Boards Weigh in on Democrats’ Decision to Break the President’s “C-SPAN Pledge”

by Kevin Boland on January 6th, 2010

Reports that President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have cut a deal to skip a formal Conference on their health care legislation - a flat violation of the President’s promise that such negations would be broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see - has provoked outrage across America.

Today, editorial boards from coast to coast weighed in, and - to say the least - they disagree with Speaker Pelosi’s assertion that “There has never been a more open process.”

A roundup of newspaper editorials from this morning’s papers follows:

Boston Herald: “Let Public in the Room”

"This administration - and Democratic leaders - talk a good game about transparency in government. Now they have an opportunity to practice it. If they’re going to throw the legislative rulebook out the window, at the very least they could give congressional Republicans a chance to watch the process on TV."


Investor’s Business Daily: “Let the Sun Shine”

"House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has called the Democrats’ plan to bypass a conference committee a “shady backroom deal.” An overstatement? Hardly. One House Democratic aide told a blogger that “this process cuts out the Republicans.” The Democrats fear that if they follow the traditional route, the GOP could use the Senate filibuster rule to shut down the process of organizing the committee.

"Bypassing a conference committee also cuts out a public that will suffer losses from whatever monstrosity is produced by the cover of darkness. Americans stand to lose their power of choice over health care decisions and be stripped of a significant portion of their earnings to pay for a plan most don’t want. They deserve to see in an open forum what is being done to them. Instead, they’re likely to get whatever the Democrats want to force on them."


New York Daily News: “Ready for Prime Time”

"Candidate Barack Obama made a straightforward health care reform promise on the campaign trail in 2008: ‘We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.’ At the time, he hit all the right notes. Populism. Transparency. Good government. But today, President Obama is not quite with the program."


Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Broken Promise”

"What Americans don’t know — and what they won’t get to see — is how far Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi will go to get what they want. Taxpaying voters will be cut off from the decisive debate on a monstrous increase in consumer costs and federal authority. Can senators and representatives defend the economically impossible concepts they embrace — more health care, lower costs — in spontaneous, free-flowing discussions? Or will they simply push forward a slip of paper with the dollar amount needed to secure their support, as Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., already has?"


New York Post: “Dems Against Democracy”

"As DC Democrats slink behind closed doors to craft a final health-care bill — thousands of pages long and sure to sap the nation’s economic future — Americans need to ask: Just what are Dems so ashamed of? ‘We will do what is necessary to pass the bill,’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted, as she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved to forgo a panel to finalize legislation. Instead, they’ll build their Frankenstein’s monster of a bill in secret, mocking democratic principles all the way."


The Wall Street Journal: “The Tom DeLay Democrats”

"Evading conference has become standard operating procedure in this Congress, though you might think they’d allow for the more open and thoughtful process on what Mr. Obama has called ‘the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s and the most important reform of our health-care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s’…Apparently this Congress knows no shame."

Comment
In my last post I said an intemperate thing when I condemned the "sanctimonious main stream press" for their failure to condemn the disgraceful backroom deal making and lack of transparency in the health care refrom legislation negotiations. I should not paint all of the press with the same brush. They are not "phonies, one and all." There are still some elements of the press that have integrity and believe in good government and democracy.

Top Stories

Open the Health Care Negotiations!

The Democrats are proving they are the party of the backroom deal, the party of special interest, kickbacks and bought votes. Did a candidate named Obama once say something about "transparency?" Why are Democrats afraid of making law in the light of day? Where are all of the so-called good-government types like Common Cause and League of Women Voters and the idealistic youth of America and most of the sanctimonious main stream press? Damn phonies, one and all! The new Democratic Party would make Mayor Daley proud. The Democrats are still the party of the corrupt political machine.

C-SPAN asks Dems to televise negotiations for health reform bill
By Eric Zimmermann - 01/05/10 09:29 AM ET, The Hill

Democratic leaders have reportedly decided to skip formal conference and instead talk behind closed doors to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills.

C-SPAN, which would normally televise a conference committee, especially on such a hot topic, wants the negotiations to be public.

"Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation


Boehner backs move to open health care talks to media
Posted: January 5th, 2010 04:34 PM ET, CNN Politics

Washington (CNN) - The top Republican in the House of Representatives is backing a move by C-SPAN to allow television coverage of House-Senate health care reform negotiations.
In a December 30 letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leadership, C-SPAN Chairman Brian Lamb requested that they "open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage."

Top Stories

Behind Closed Doors

Oh, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.

A Reuters news story today reports that President Obama's push for health care reform suffered a set back when Senate leaders announced a bill would not be passed before the month-long summer recess. That is by now old news. This is the part of the story that I found interesting:

The reform package under construction in both chambers of Congress has been besieged from all sides by criticism of its more than $1 trillion price tag and
its scope, with debates behind closed doors over how to pay for the program and
rein in healthcare costs.(link)

And then this:

In the Senate, a bipartisan group of Finance Committee members continued their
closed-door meetings to work through policy options on the bill.

I guess I have been under the impression that the people's business was to be conducted in public. I thought that only matters involving classified national security issues could be deliberated in secret. Apparently I was mistaken and that is not true.

I know in Tennessee that we have a very strict "Sunshine Law" and it not only applies to the State Legislature but all rule making bodies such as boards and commission and all units of local government. Two council members can not meet for lunch and discuss pending legislation. The press is vigilant in ensuring that the sunshine law is not violated. Years ago, when I first began serving in the Metro Council the Budget and Finance Committee would meet in secret to hammer out a budget every year. I did not approve of the process. I know it is easier to negotiate and horse trade without the public looking over your shoulder, but I think public business should be conducted in public. By the time I left the Council, the Council had abandoned the practice.

I know the presidential campaign, and before that the congressional campaign, was a long time ago but it seems I recall that candidate Obama and Democratic congressional candidates talked about changing the way things were done in Washington. It seems like I recall they said they would be more open and less secretive. Did they not say something about "transparency?" Nah, I must of dreamed that.

Top Stories