Seriously not too serious

A fair enough question:

Except that CM Evans apparently takes Twitter seriously enough to organize her expressions by discipline. It's not yet decimal classification, but apparently her intent is to steer her audience to a relative index of ideas that are clearly (or not so clearly) "finance" (vs. "local politics," which is the subject of a separate Twitter feed). If the audience strays outside the Belle Meade council member's classification system, they may get a scolding:

If CM Evans really wants "@EmilyNEvans" to scream "finance" rather than "politics," she might consider changing her account header photo of a TEP poster promoting political equality to something with dollar signs on it; just so that we understand the clear, unyielding structure of her various Twitter accounts. And I have to say, her "politics" account describes itself as, "I am the Metro Nashville Council Representative for the 23rd District." I want to avoid "taking Twitter too seriously," but that sure sounds more like a feed dedicated to her district rather than to general discussions on local politics. We may need clearer user instructions on CM Evans's various accounts.

Otherwise, she might consider not taking herself so seriously when someone responds to her tweets outside the lines (or inside the lines; who really knows?), thus upsetting the order of things.


UPDATE: Who's she calling "some blogger"? I didn't used to be persona non grata back when I was pinning spurious attacks to the mat and getting the word out. I guess we can chalk up the council member's indirect Twitter response to the lessons of the fealty of big shots and politicos as expressed by campaign operative Richard Jemmons in the film Primary Colors: "That's what these guys do. They love you and then stop lovin' you."


UPDATE: Just found this email excerpt from CM Evans to me dated almost exactly four years ago in which she writes a bio to be used in a panel for which she recommended me. Unlike other email correspondence from around that same time, she does not write that this was to be "off the record," so I'm assuming it is okay to quote her, especially since she is a public official. Aw, hell, what am I thinking? Of course, it is okay to quote her because these words went public in February 2011 anyway:

Mike Byrd is a resident of the Salemtown neighborhood in North Nashville. He writes one of the most prominent local blogs, Enclave, that covers neighborhood, local and regional issues. As an astute observer of Metro Government, Mike is responsible for breaking more than a few stories.

 I guess it wouldn't have sounded as good in 2011 if she recommended me as "some blogger."



UPDATE: I was working through and weeding out my direct messages on Twitter and I found another past exchange between CM Emily Evans and myself that once again defies her more recent treatment of me as a trivial bete noire in the local political sphere.

Our direct messages involved me asking for her advice on a panel discussion to which I had been invited in 2010, along with a couple of other local bloggers. I obscured the names and positions of other individuals we discussed because the point I want to make is not about them but about her supportive expressions of my use of social media. Here is a redacted screen shot of the exchange:

I was not always just "some blogger" in her eyes.

Everyone is entitled to change their opinions of others, but since Emily Evans is out there publicly making negative assessments of what I do in social media, I intend to continue to try and balance the record with her more positive, remarkably candid comments.

And yes, I understand that retweets do not necessarily mean endorsements

Do I really want to be integrated into a burning house?

-- James Baldwin

The masses .... They were in the majority. When the master got sick, they prayed that he'd die. If his house caught on fire, they'd pray for a wind to come along and fan the breeze.

-- Malcolm X

I have not checked with them about their motives, but I'll hazard the guess that council members Emily Evans and Carter Todd retweeted the following because they plan to vote against regulating predatory lenders in less affluent neighborhoods as supported by other council members:

Check the bottom for the diminutive council member retweets.

Interesting to see that a couple of council members may support the idea of hiring African American women to bolster the income line of a company that charges a disproportionately minority, working-class clientele 600% interest. The legacy of usury is littered with the lives of people locked into cycles of debt and poverty worse than when they entered thanks to the paternalistic opportunism of lenders who claim they are providing the masses with options.

In many places it is like a house ablaze:

Of the consumers who frequented the payday store fronts, most were women. People who were divorced or separated were 103% more likely to use the loans, while African-Americans were also 103% more likely to take out the often predatory loans.

“Based on the location of these lenders, it is clear they target minority and low-to-middle income groups, mostly in highly diverse populated areas,” the report states. “If this trend continues, these areas will no doubt be pushed into poverty.”

So, do CM Evans and CM Todd support the idea of barring obstacles to a wealthy lending corporation hiring women of color to help it push other women of color into poverty? The creation of jobs in a business that preys on widespread dislocation (Nashville's poverty level is a crushing 19%) seems like integration into a burning house. And it takes the pressure off the predominately white business elite, who perpetuate a cruel and pitiless finance system, while marketing Nashville as an attractive "it city" on the make.

What about the claims that predatory lenders are doing African American women favors by hiring them? Do we have any stories of Nashvillians, deeply in payday lender debt, who were able to climb out of it after being hired by payday lenders on the salaries at the work hours they pay? Does the news media bother to talk to former employees of payday lenders to get relevant information?

Meanwhile, regulation or not, the lenders will weather whatever comes. They will live to continue to set blazes to peoples' lives and stay free from crushing risk themselves. The absence of meaningful federal, state and, yes, local regulations on lending constitutes wide latitude to for high-interest, self-serving loans that inundate good people made desperate by an unforgiving economy.

The stick in Advance Financial 24/7's craw is the ding their "24/7" brand is going to take by limiting their perpetual operating hours. That is it. The only thing at risk is their marketing brand. This is not a fight over people. It is a company defending their brand.

Otherwise, if they authentically cared about African American women, as their founder shamelessly claims, why not offer them low-interest loans to begin with?

Why not? Because if they did, they could not make huge campaign donations to Tennessee politicians, including some who come through the Metro Council.

Why not? Because if they did, then they would risk engulfing their own houses in financial risks in an unforgiving market. And, on their way down, they might not get too much pity from people they once used on their way up.


UPDATE: Yesterday the lobbyists at the Nashville Chamber of Commerce started flexing their muscle in support of predatory lending companies. Here is part of the letter they sent to the entire Metro Council:

The Chamber opposes this bill [to limit the operating hours of payday lenders] because it is an excessive over-regulation of business .... Regardless of the function of the business, we believe that this type of legislation sets a worrying precedent in restricting the hours in which any business can operate. Furthermore, this becomes even more ominous when legislation appears to target one specific company that operates 24/7. Our members include businesses in this industry; we would not recommend hour be restricted for any of them.

This is another thinly veiled attempt on the Chamber's part to leverage the least amount of resistance to do whatever in the world their members want to do. The majority of Nashvillians who are not members can go to hell as far as the Chamber is concerned.

Where hell lies for many is on the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Chamber lobbyists posture as if their member companies are fighting poverty by providing jobs and services that people cannot get elsewhere. But for a group so dedicated to business models they fail miserably to count the actual costs of lending jobs that empower lenders to push Nashvillians farther into poverty. They don't want to discuss the poverty that is generated by the jobs provided. At best they remain willfully self-ignorant of Nashville poverty. At worst the Chamber is running a confidence game so their member companies can continue pimping poor people out of their cash flow.

Over-regulation of business? When has the Chamber championed any regulation of business?

The writers of the letter completely ignore the fact that certain businesses in Nashville are already regulated as to times and even days that they sell their products. There is a precedent already set in Nashville.

It is reasonable to assume that just like payday lenders have paid vast sums to finance political campaigns, they have likely donated a chunk to special interest lobby groups like the Nashville Chamber of Commerce. They're just continuing to fan the flames.


UPDATE: There is an online petition you can sign to tell Metro Council (which votes on February 3) that you support the ordinance limiting the hours of payday lenders. Jump to: http://www.limitpaydayloans.com/

It is interesting math that does not factor in the cumulative effect of trash

Every now and again, council member Emily Evans defies logic and lays a head scratcher on us that introduces new mathematics equations I am not familiar with. For instance, last June, while advocating shrinking Metro Council representation, she claimed merely popping out kids already shrinks a community's influence in government. Hence, have a nuclear family, give up power to influence. Subtraction by addition.

Also in June, in defense of the Tennessean littering our neighborhoods with unsolicited trash every Wednesday, she said this:

It's no more an inconvenience [to pick up rolls of the Tennessean littering yards, sidewalks, and streets] than taking the junk mail out of your mailbox and putting it in the trash.

Actually, if you stack the amount of Tennessean paper you have to throw away every week on top of the junk mail you discard every week it equals more garbage, more drag on your own time than if the Tennessean never darkened your door again. The extra burden is on someone else to clean the mess if the Tennessean will not do it themselves.

We now hear that the "newsroom of the future" is a more "metrics-based" project of meeting customer demand rather than reporting facts that might shed light on events readers might not otherwise discover. In other words the Tennessean is flipping itself to be an advertising circular rather than a news vehicle. So, we are more inconvenienced now by more junk mail, the main difference being that Tennessean junk mail is in plain sight, not hidden in our mailboxes.

I fail to understand how adding to the pile of unwanted junk somehow equals "no more" in Emily Evans' new math.

When it comes to council members, what is the "ideal number for proper governance"?

Belle Meade CM Emily Evans has taken to the Tennessean touting a phone poll that she says proves that she knows the "ideal number" of CMs needed to properly govern Nashville/Davidson County and that a majority of you out there agree with her that you should have less representation in Metro government in order to have the best representation.

If that's the case, good luck with that. I know less representation will please council members and their wealthy patrons. But if most of you registered voters really believe we can shrink representation to get some ideal number, it is a sad season for local democracy in Nashville.

Please help me understand what the ideal number of CMs is and what exactly makes that number "ideal" (which is like calling it "perfect"). The argument offered by supporters is that few other cities have such large legislative bodies. So, the justifying belief of most Nashvillians is that being like other cities would make us ideal? That is supposed to convince me to abdicate the already minuscule influence I have to scrape up responses from council members on matters that concern me?


UPDATE: while we wait for someone from the "majority" to demonstrate that small legislative bodies act in the broadest interest of constituents better than large legislative bodies do, I've posted a copy of a script of the phone poll CM Evans used (no, she did not send it to me herself when I asked for it) to conclude that a majority of you desire less representation:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uT069Wxzdq4nhqHglxui5wnGQrk8hrthdutj3lTs6T4/edit

She simply will not acknowledge that shrinkage is a wash: everyone has less of a challenge

CM Emily Evans continues to respond with specious claims in defense of the campaign she supports to shrink the Metro Council. Here's the stretch and the pitch:

If you are either the mayor or let’s say you are a special interest, you’re a lobbyist, and you’re lobbying on behalf of XYZ waste management company .... The lobbyist and the company are going to get whatever resources are necessary to make sure that they get passed what they need to get passed. They’re going to apply the resources necessary whether there are 100 council members or there are five council members. So the paid professional people are going to get what they need done because when you look at the cost of lobbying the council versus a large council that they may try to get approved, it’s inconsequential.

Now, let’s say you’re a neighborhood group and you are trying to get a conservation overlay group or you’re a neighborhood group that’s trying to stop bad development. You don’t have unlimited resources. You have very limited resources. So, to me, the balance in that situation doesn’t go to the lobbyist or the mayor with unlimited resources, it goes to the people with less resources. Because now suddenly, they have less of a challenge.

The prevailing fallacy, naturally, is that private enterprises like pro lobbyists have "unlimited resources" to burn through. Granted, they may have a lot more to burn through than neighborhood groups, but suggesting that shrinking the Metro Council will catch neighborhood groups up to the power of lobbyist to influence legislation is ridiculous.

Slashing the council to 27 members will be a net savings in the expense column for lobbying firms. They operate on an annual budget just like any other organization. The windfall they get from not having to lobby a dozen more CMs can be spent in other ways: lobbying the remaining CMs harder as community-based efforts ramp up, lobbying a host of other pieces of legislation that that can effectively undermine popular influence, sending lobbyists to the General Assembly to push for top-down legislation to impose on Metro government, etc. The human capital currently allocated to service a large council will be redistributed with a small council. Cash flow will be maximized.

To quote a shrinkage supporter: cutting the number of CMs would be "a slam dunk" in savings for lobbying firms. I have a hard time believing that lobbyists would be anything but delirious over the financial savings for their income-expense reports in having to leverage fewer votes.

But let's turn the tables on CM Evans. Is it really logical to believe that it would make no difference to a private firm, which has a bottom line and managers to keep costs down, whether there are 5 CMs or 500 CMs? We are supposed to believe that lobbying firms are willing to risk insolvency to lobby giant legislative bodies? This logic is supposed to persuade us? Really?


UPDATE: On second thought, my title above is not entirely correct. Not everyone will have less of a challenge. Individual voters will have less representation on the the council and they will have to compete with increasing numbers for constituents for council members' shrinking attention and action.

Mayor Dean's big, fat staff

We are going to be bombarded in lead-up to the the next local election by messages buoyed by funding from special interests who lust after a smaller, more pliable Metro Council to lobby. While there are segments of our community that are willing to seriously consider their bid to rewrite the Metro Charter in order to constrict popular representation at the Courthouse, I'm more worried about revenues Mayor Karl Dean dumps into a ballooning executive branch. This is a bloated staff:

Mind you, if the bid to reduce the size of the council is successful, district voters will only have 8 more people representing them than the Mayor has on a staff he pays to advance his pet projects. We're so busy pondering the question of whether a city Nashville's size needs one of the largest councils in the country that we're not bothering to ask harder questions about the financial drain of the Mayor's large staff. Here are three off the top of my head:

• Why does the Mayor need 2 (and in many cases 3) people to run his PR campaign? Janel Lacy had worked for Karl Dean for several years before former journalist Bonna Johnson was hired in 2011 as Press Secretary. Add to those two Courtney Wheeler, hired to direct the Mayor's Office of Neighborhoods, who seems to coordinate the Mayor's PR in the digital social media. The times I have seen Ms. Wheeler attend community meetings, she spent a lot of time talking to the news media rather than to neighbors. That's three people coordinating the Mayor's talking points. Why does he require that many? Why are public revenues spent on 3 people to broadcast messages?
• Why do we need an "Office of Innovation" when the Mayor's Office of Neighborhoods and Mayor's Office of Economic and Community Development have been charged before with the duties of the innovation office? This looks like a duplication of services, unless my past concerns about MOON have come to pass, and Courtney Wheeler is spending more time on pitching the Mayor's agenda and less time on coordinating service delivery to the neighborhoods. The other troubling aspect concerns the disruptive connotations of innovation, which Jill Lepore described this week in The New Yorker: the innovative culture advocates an "idea of progress jammed into a criticism-proof jack-in-the-box". Mayor Karl Dean is not tolerant of criticism and he rewards loyalty. For his administration to plug into disruptive innovation is both predictable and alarming. For all the good this office might do, how is it disruptive to those of us not in power?
• Speaking of loyalty: what in the world is a "Director of Financial Empowerment" and why does Erik Cole qualify for the position? Never mind. I just remembered why.

Our Mayor is an executive who every spring questions whether Metro departments could operate on less money than what they had received the year before. Watching the way his own staff grows, I have to wonder whether he brings the hard questions to bear on his own department.

If he won't, then we should; especially as we are being lobbied to vote to cut our representation on the Metro Council.

Council member defends reducing size of Metro Council: "You're less represented every time somebody is born in your district"

Today's Nashville Scene reports that CM Emily Evans is taking a presentation (this conservative one?) around to small groups in the community.

Parenthood ≠ power

The spin over at the Scene is that her proposal is not so much emphasizing shrinking the Metro Council as it is trading long-term CM term limits for shrinking the Metro Council. The newspaper's spin also casts the question of whether we might trade less representation for CMs being able to stick around longer (including the ones whom we find appalling).

Sound appealing? Less representation, less influence alongside longer term limits for bad and good apples? What will control freaks do when bad CMs stick around longer and feel emboldened to ignore constituents because they are insulated by higher numbers of them?

Oh, I forgot their leap of faith: a smaller Metro Council automatically attaches to quality leadership. Bad apples will not bob to the top. Voters in larger groups make better decisions. Or at least that rationalization is what supporters tell me when I ask for good reasons to back their cause.

As for the justifications for the grand bargain of Emily Evans, they continue to defy common sense:

"You're less represented every time somebody is born in your district and every time somebody new moves into your district," she tells the Scene

Wow. Did she really say that our newborns cause us to have less representation on the Metro Council? Is she really insinuating that voters who live in districts that grow have less representation, that those who live in districts people flee have more influence over the political process? Less representation is "natural"?! What?!!

There is defying common sense, then there is stripping and shaming it:

"The Metro model will always inherently favor the mayor, but she says a smaller council would have some more muscle."

The way to have more muscle is to become smaller? Does that muscle analogy apply to literal muscles, too? Smaller muscles have more muscle than larger muscles?

Before we agree to a referendum to rewrite the Metro Charter to reduce our representation, let's be more level-headed and plant our feet firmly on the ground, free of temptation to join these leaps in logic.

Flag this tweet for future reference

Context for this tweet: Nashville Scene reporter Steven Hale and I were debating whether District 23 CM Emily Evans should be consuming time working on resolutions to shrink the council as well as on a PR effort outside of the council to persuade neighborhoods to sign her petition on the question. After pointing out that I have read some constituents' concerns that this initiative is becoming a drain on time CM Evans might spend on their issues, I alluded to the possibility that a PR firm (like The Calvert Street Group) might be being paid to do the time-consuming campaign so that CM Evans might not have to. Steven Hale's reply to my speculation is the tweet posted above.

A PR firm describes what they do.

I'm just making note of his reply in case at some future time we find out that a PR firm is indeed being paid to shape public perceptions on CM Evans' wish to shrink the council.

One other point: it is cheaper for the lobbyists at any PR firm to have a smaller council to influence and leverage rather than a larger one like we have. If a PR firm is getting paid for working this campaign, it would be like double dipping to win it.



UPDATED: almost one year later CM Emily Evans concedes that her bid to shrink the council is getting help from the Calvert Street Group. Her exchange with Steven Hale in an April 9, 2015 interview:

[Hale] Is this just a one-woman show here? Are you getting people to help out, whether it's professionally or just volunteers? What's the campaign look like? ....

[Evans] The campaign part of it was what I'm laughing about. It's volunteers. We hope to pick up some endorsements, which will help as we move along. We're getting some help from [PR/lobbying firm] the Calvert Street Group. Darden [Copeland, managing director] is a friend, a personal friend, and he's ... being a personal friend [laughs].

"Metro Council @50" pleads case for smaller Metro Council before offering survey

I received a slide presentation that appears to be that of the supporters of the idea of making Metro Council a smaller body (link at the end of this post). Please note that I have not confirmed its source yet, so take it for what it is worth.

The slant of the presentation is definitely toward offering fodder for minimizing the Metro Council and particularly for slashing the council's expense line in the Metro budget. You will see that it initially provides a lot of historical and statistical data to get heads swimming, but don't get lost in the data. Follow how the data is interpreted, because that is what supporters are trying to get you to believe about details that can be interpreted in many ways.

Page 31 of the presentation is decisive. The presenters lay their cards on the table right before they ask people to fill out their survey (push poll?) on page 32. On page 31 the authors present

• a "savings analysis," arguing that a "smaller government" will save the Metro budget $312,650 per year or $3.5 million over 20 years
• an analogy of a smaller council to a smaller classroom
• the view that bigger districts provide larger pools from which to draw candidates
• the argument that the council would have "Broader City-wide perspective"

How is this presentation designed to appeal to progressives? None of us want to waste money, but let's be frank: open democracies where all people are fairly represented are typically the most expensive and most inefficient forms of government. If the primary interest in Nashville is to minimize cost of representative democracy, then centralizing more power with the executive to make decisions rubber-stamped by a minimal council may be the better course (assuming the Mayor doesn't blow Metro money on foolhardy projects). But democracies are messy and expensive. If the priority is making sure people have a voice in Metro government, then some level of inefficiency is going to naturally occur. The best deciders budget in leeway for the inefficiencies of democracy.

This presentation's focus on the cost of Metro Council and on cutting their expense line in the budget is a conservative argument. The move to make the council smaller is a conservative move if this is the presentation to do so.

The other three arguments that presenters make expose, in my opinion, that supporters are advocating as much status quo as they are transformation. If the Metro Council is like a classroom, then the classroom needs a teacher. Who is most likely to be the teacher in a strong-executive form of government? The Mayor. Making a smaller council makes a strapping Mayor even stronger, which is fine if the Mayor truly represents everyone. And when he or she does not represent everyone? If the council is the class and the Mayor the teacher, where are constituents in the analogy?

Creating larger pools from which to draw candidates does nothing to guarantee that diverse interests will be represented any more than the current large council does. In fact, it may dilute the power previously exercised by better organized popular movements to elect and to influence their candidate of choice. Observers noted the power of African-American voters in the last judicial election. That GOTV power could be diluted during council elections if Nashville increases the size of districts.

You want to see an example of how well broader city-wide perspectives work in Metro Council? Look at the current crop of at-Large Council Members. Even those who are considered the most progressive time and again voted against organized community interests when the questions came down to the Mayor vs. the community. "Broader city-wide perspective" is a myth that the council and other politicos like to perpetuate, but it is rarely manifested. By way of analogy (better than the classroom analogy), a smaller council is more likely to vote with the Mayor and against actual community interests if that perspective is its priority.

Again, these are conservative arguments that endorse consolidating power with the Mayor and with the wealthy campaign donors who have more influence on local politics than voters do. The move to make the council smaller is a conservative move if this is the presentation to do so.

Regardless of what I believe or of what the presenters intend, don't let anyone tell you what the data says. Interpret it for yourself. But be sure to keep your eye on how they spin the data. Jump to the presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_l3GAtZila2SmRFQ1V4TXU3Vkk/edit?usp=sharing

The online fight over size between current and former council members continues

Again, I am not included in the list of people privileged enough to enjoy the war of words in the email blasts between current and former CMs on the question of a smaller legislative body for Metro, but former East Nasty CM Jamie Hollin has entered the fray. From my Inbox:

[To John Summers:] Are you going to educate the rest of us on why this is not a good idea? I feel if you put me on this list, you at least owe me more. Your email below is simply conclusory absent some fear tactic about developers, which also translates into "voters are dumb." This ain't DC--just ask whomever ran against Amy Frogge for school board.

You also state that your rarely disagree with CM Evans. She can tell you that I rarely agree with her on anything. EVER.

All amped up

However, she has made compelling arguments in support of reducing the council and has the support of the Charter Revision Committee, which illustrates the depth of her efforts. Notwithstanding my past and future disagreements with CM Evans, I know a good thing when I see one. This is one of those times and I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to demonstrate the same.

Besides, it is very, very difficult for a citizen to get involved in a process and attempt to influence the majority of a 40 member body on any matter. Reducing the number will increase the quality of the candidates because weak candidates--even those with campaign war chests--will lose. Moreover, the ubiquity of email, Facebook, twitter and traditional communication methods make contact with your CM easier.

I'll listen to your rationale to oppose as soon as you develop some. And, I earnestly hope you do because I want to learn why this shouldn't be a slam dunk. I know what it takes to beat the executive on the floor of the council and 40 members makes  the Mayor's job very easy. If you want a weak legislative body--like we have--keep the status quo. If you want a check on the executive, support CM Evans.

Between his PR work for the bus rapid transit project to benefit Downtown and West End businesses ("the Amp") and this diatribe against questioning the idea of a smaller council, Mr. Hollin seems to have moved away from his days as a firebrand populist on the council challenging a mayor over a Fairgrounds development plan that would have terminated inexpensive entertainment for Nashvillians who could not afford the Titans or TPAC.

Of course, the former council member does not give many good reasons for why voters should support a smaller council even as he accuses Mr. Summers of failing to give rationales.

• I've already dealt with the argument that a smaller council would be easier to influence: that's a wash because the rich and powerful class (including developers) would also have an easier time lavishing money and influence on CMs to legislate their bidding. It's not that voters are dumb, Mr. Hollin. It's that ordinary people don't have the resources or time that wealthy people have to influence the process. They don't lack the smarts. They lack the power. The size of the council won't change that.
• The disappointing quality of the current at-Large CMs is strong evidence against Mr. Hollin's claim that reducing the number of CMs increases the quality. To claim that a smaller group equals higher quality is wishful thinking with no basis in reality. At some level we're going to have to change the soul of Nashville's political culture rather than misplacing trust in rewriting the charter.
• I'd like to see Jamie Hollin sell his case for "the ubiquity of email, Facebook, twitter" to Nashville's working class who watch their walking-around money, their disposable income being diverted to pay utility bills, loan balances and medical charges instead of going to purchase computers and iPads, which allow access to such "ubiquity". This is the most anemic argument when it comes to convincing me that common folk will have greater influence over a smaller Metro Council.

As a private citizen, Jamie Hollin is entitled to his opinions, but he also invoked his service as CM, so I venture to say that this look is not good for him. He looked much better fighting the good fight for ordinary people as a council member.

In the end, calling a smaller council "a slam dunk" is hyperbole. Even if you believe there is a strong case for it--which I have yet to hear--there have to be risks. Let's talk about those, too.


UPDATE: Jamie Hollin ("@jrhollin") hides his tweets from public consumption, so I'm not sure what he said in this Twitter exchange about my blog post. I gather it was somewhat disapproving, given Justin Mundie's self-defense that he doesn't agree with it himself:

Wondering: why Master Hollin can't make an appearance here and comment his thoughts about my views below rather than shielding them in a private account? Maybe for the same reasons he does not include me in his email blasts?

Size matters?

One of the more unfortunate ideas to be recently advanced in Metro Council is that of amending the Metro Charter to cut the size of council simply because few other cities have a council this size.

Those who have made the case for a smaller council outside the council tend to refer to its hilarity rather than to explain carefully how decreasing the size of the legislative body won't just lead to more streamlined rubber-stamping of the strong executive (who will actually have to spend less time lobbying for votes) and to more abbreviated levels of comedy. All you have to do is look at the current Keystone crop of at-Larges and their pet projects and their obsequiousness to Hizzoner to have a good idea of how a smaller council would function. It would be 24 at-Larges who are just as jealous and territorial as the current crop. Changing the size does not guarantee a change in the dynamic. It just means less messy democracy.

Nonetheless, the council member sponsoring this bill, Emily Evans, is broadcasting herself as a champion of "the public", and she plans for a petition drive if the bill does not pass. I won't sign her petition until she convinces me that it is in my best interest to do so.

On top of that, she's engaged in email blast brawls with former CM John Summers, who opposes significant shrinkage.

I--like many of you--was not privy to this debate (the thread was forwarded to me by Mike Peden). I have been unwilling to give Summers or Evans passes on their mistakes in the past, so I can understand why they would not include me in their grandstanding. Why they might not include you is something you might ponder.

First, former CM John Summers writes:

It’s simple math, you make the Council districts larger, you increase the number of people one Council member has to represent, YOU get less representation.   You have more neighborhoods, farther apart lumped into fewer districts.

Larger districts will make campaign contributions more important.   That increases the influence of developers who are the primary donors that fund Council campaigns.   That means it will be harder for neighborhood friendly candidates to get elected.

I rarely disagree with Councilwoman Evans on issues, but on this one I very much disagree.   She believes to convince voters to change term limits, she has to offer them fewer districts.   And sbe believes longer terms will make the Council more independent of the mayor.  I served under two administrations (Fulton and Boner) without term limits and it made little difference.   Both of those Councils were dominated by the Mayor ....

In the abstract fewer Council members sounds good to many people. Everyone wanted to get rid of Luyde Wallace. But you’ll eliminate as many good Council members as you will not so good.

This is a bad idea. It’s bad for neighborhoods. I hope you will e-mail the Council and express your opposition to reducing the size of the Council.

I doubt Ludye Wallace would like to read that one. As much as I don't care for Mr. Summers, I'd judge his argument against Ms. Evans a strong one. I even agree with him about Mr. Wallace.

Next up, CM Emily Evans responds from the affluent 37205 zip. I did not see Mr. Summers listed among those in her blast audience, so I'm not entirely sure he got her message. Curious:

John has really jumped the gun on this one...and left out a few very important facts.

Shrinkage sponsor

First of all, John and I have never discussed this issue in any meaningful and in depth way so there is no way he can credibly tell you what I do or do not believe about the size of council and term limits. So, let me make a few points:

1. This amendment is designed to increase the term limit from 2 to 3. I strongly believe that term limits are detrimental to this city and its long term prosperity. Term limits makes it near impossible to address long term and difficult issues like mass transit and poverty. Why? because you need more than 8 years of work to solve these things. A total of 24 members. That's right, 60% of the council is term limited in 2015. Any issue, I don't care which one, will start at zero in September 2015 with a new council and a new Mayor. How can that be a good thing? PS: I am not running no matter what.
2. This Council action does nothing but put the question to the voters. John and anyone else on this list is welcome to vote no and convince others to do so.
3. This amendment was approved (a first I believe) by the Charter Revision Commission 5-1.  That Commission includes Dewey Branstetter, son of charter author Cecil Branstetter, long time Metro Law head, Jim Murphy, Hal Hardin, Susan Short Jones and Lorinda McLaughlin largely because they too recognized the damage such an onerous term limit does.
4. I am asking for a deferral tonight so I have time to get in front of community groups and neighborhood associations to discuss why I think it is important to let the voters consider this question.

Had John contacted me before sending the email below I am certain he would have produced a more thoughtful argument. So, instead of sending me your objections - which at this point are premature -could you please help me schedule a time to visit your group, Neighborhood Association, etc and make a presentation about this proposed amendment? I think I have a good case and would appreciate the courtesy of making it. If you disagree, so be it. But at least give me the chance John wishes to prevent.

It is worth noting that both Mr. Summers and Ms. Evans included a recently deceased neighborhood legend in their email blasts, Germantown's Ernest Campbell. I guess when one is really invested in a charter squabble, sensitivity is a casualty.

I would be curious to see how Ms. Evans herself can explain to associations how cutting their representation on Metro Council actually creates more democratic opportunities for them to influence council members from the grassroots.

It only makes sense to accept the argument that democratically organized groups would have stronger influence on a smaller council if one also accepts the argument that the organized money thrown at CMs by the wealthy would also have greater influence on a smaller council. A smaller council would be a wash for associations from that angle.

If neighborhood associations want greater influence with a smaller council, they are going to have to work on stronger relationships with like-minded associations. Otherwise, their influence will shrink with a smaller council. It stands to reason. It is the simplest explanation, barring the rationalizations of the smaller-is-better crowd. A charter change would mean even more groundwork for neighborhood organizers to task.

Meanwhile, there is still that nagging trump card: the Mayor would have an easier time executing his or her will over a smaller council than s/he does now. In the absence of a "neighborhoods Mayor" that is not good. I don't buy this bill of goods.


UPDATE: Over at her Facebook page, CM Evans is defending her support in the face of criticism from constituents. One comment that questioned whether she should be wasting her time on a charter amendment instead of representing her district stood out to me:

Our NA board and neighborhood advocates that I have heard from overwhelmingly advocate keeping the status quo as far as the number of district councilpersons in Metro. Emily, whether you are right or wrong, the combination that these neighborhood advocates are your root support group and the fact that votes for a smaller council have failed consistently over the years tells me that these efforts will fail, and will be a waste of your precious time that we have remaining with you on our Metro council. Our NA's 2 highest priorities are a downzoning for our neighborhood and the redevelopment of the 70/100 split. Other NA's also want to see this redevelopment. The very fact that we have not advanced as far as these issues is an ammunition in an argument against a larger council. Our fear is that in the next election we will get a pro business candidate who could care less about these issues. You have been a great councilperson and you can really achieve something with the 70/100 redo, but this council size thing will go down as one more failed attempt.

Why can't Emily Evans wait until she gets out of office and then organize people to lobby council to work on a referendum resolution?

The bridges they burn can light their way

So, Erica Gilmore is sponsoring this bill that would authorize a sumptuous new walking bridge (what walking bridge does not offer walkers terraced seating to take a luxurious break from walking?) for the "southern corridor" of her district, and other council members--who said they could not spring simple sidewalks in their neighborhood--slowed her roll this week. Her option to avoid a fight over money: defer the Mayor's gift to south Downtown. Jerry Maynard promised to bring the council foot-draggers along to CM Gilmore's way of seeing things.

During her comments on deferral, CM Gilmore said she did not want to get into "a north-south" lest it be "divisive" and "unproductive". Looking at the million-dollar baby she intends for south Downtown (a.k.a. "The Gulch") versus the existing pedestrian bridge (the only pedestrian bridge?) in North Nashville, I can understand why a comparison wouldn't be productive for her legislation:

The Gulch's proposed $16,000,000 pedestrian bridge

North Nashville's existing pedestrian bridge (near Hadley Park)

That is quite a divide in stylishness. I can understand why some in North Nashville might resent the special favors lavished downtown. So, let's not focus strictly on comparisons, since it would be "divisive".

However, there is also a divide between rational and irrational choices of costs versus benefits.

According to the council's own documents, the requested $16,000,000 would be taken from the capital improvements fund that includes "a general $20 million designation for the maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of bridges for fiscal year 2014." So, the conditions of existing bridges in CM Gilmore's district and in other districts are so good that we can spend most of this year's bridge funds on building an opulent new pedestrian bridge for 2,000 Gulch residents (most of whom CM Gilmore described as "carless Millennials")?

Terraced seating for the Millennial Generation!

You can sit on the stairs if you really want to.

In fairness, North Nashville's only pedestrian bridge is not in CM Gilmore's district and my guess is that it was not paid for by Metro (was it?). But the blight is symbolic of the privileges accorded to downtown development that are strictly rationed at points outside of downtown. The imbalance can be worse in districts whose council members have failed to copy the knack for ingratiating themselves to Mayor Karl Dean.

CM Emily Evans responded to CM Gilmore's bill by pointing out that she cannot even get sidewalks funded for school kids who have grown up waiting for them in her district, so she cannot vote for a $16,000,000 sidewalk for a bunch of Millennials who could and do use the Demonbreun viaduct when they want to go downtown. You go, Emily Evans:

Until I see the priorities of sidewalks in this city shifted to things like [installing them where kids need them to walk to schools], I'm never going to vote for something like this. So, you can defer it indefinitely. I appreciate the effort, but I think this is one of the most outrageous proposals I've seen.

For myself, I don't oppose the idea of building a pedestrian bridge in the Gulch. Goodness knows we would not want the Millennials walking an extra block to cross over at Demonbreun. But guzzling millions in bridge funds to air brush the Mayor's capital projects resume when a cheaper Gulch project would allow us to repair and renovate less sexy bridges across Davidson County? Or when it would allow us to move the money to needed sidewalk projects? Well, that's just foolish and wasteful.

By the way, CM Gilmore responded to my complaints about the double standards of capital spending with the reply "northern corridor got Sulphur Dell Ballpark." Never mind that the ballpark favor she handed out primarily serves team owner and real estate developer, Frank Ward. That's not really the point. The point is that Erica Gilmore may resist "a north-south" argument with fellow council members, but she seems to be willing to wade right into one with her constituents.

Belle Meade council member appears to have itchy trigger finger

(Full disclosure: I have been openly one of the strongest supporters of Emily Evans many times on this blog, which makes this post a difficult one for me to write.)

During an online discussion tonight on the possibility of a parent trigger Metro Council member Emily Evans tweeted:

Note that she did not include teachers in the trigger equation of being "driven bw district and parents". That exclusion seems par for the ambivalent course that trigger fans seem to tee off on. Triggers channel parent anger not in democratic or progressive ways, but in ways that promote privatization of public education and increase public subsidies for private enterprise. The trigger is a deliberate wedge between organized parents and organized teachers, both of whom can usually be brought together to act for the greater good of public school kids. It is divide and conquer, and the conquerors are partisan politicians angling for influence and wealthy corporations drooling at tax revenues. So, Ms. Evans' omission of teachers is not inconsequential in my opinion.

And then there is that unabashedly curious and deliciously contradictory claim she makes that "this acrimony" (by which I assume she means the controversy engendered at every stop around the country by the parent trigger tour) is not of Nashville itself. The parent trigger is an unrealized project that started in California by charter school leadership shortly after former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger passed education reform legislation. The group founded by a charter school leadership to promote it, Parent Revolution, is not even located east of the Rockies, let alone east of Little Rock.

The parent trigger "movement" itself is astroturf alien to Nashville, and yet, the kumbaya that Emily Evans predicts can happen with a trigger inspired from the outside is somehow indigenous and home-grown? Maybe she is doubling down that certain voices in Karl Dean's Nashville will be ignored or yelled down and that the debate will not turn against her bid to bring charter schools to wealthy Belle Meade. Otherwise, her minimizing of local opposition to the parent trigger (which is as honestly found as her chosen hard sell) seems to me at my most charitable moment utterly passive-aggressive.

I'm originally from Texas, so I guess I am ultimately an out-of-towner. I have lived in Nashville half of my life (since 1989), but maybe I still don't qualify as local. However, I do have two daughters both of whom were born in Nashville. My daughters attended or are attending Metro public schools. So, perhaps being the parent of these two MNPS daughters should qualify me to take issue with Ms. Evans' latest pet project without the insinuation that my dissent, that our dissent is not authentically Nashville.

I have skin in this game and I am a Nashvillian. No degree of gainsaying by charter promoters will change the fact that I am here and I will speak out prompted by nobody from the outside.

CM Evans has gone from being one the bolder mavericks on Metro Council to one of the most risk-averse members in my book. She struck me as an uncritical advocate of charter schools back when the Great Hearts project started taking flight. I've not been this disappointed in her since she voted for Eric Crafton's English Only. It seems her tenure on council, which for a couple of years roared like a lion on funding the new convention center, is ending about as gritty as a lamb.

Pushing through a parent trigger in Nashville is not going to give parents more power simply by flipping a bona fide school (in Evans' district the average school would not be facing challenges of serving working class or impoverished families) to a privately-run charter school. This needs to be heard going away: the parents may end up left out of the equation after the trigger is squeezed. And there are devils they do not know lying in wait. If this is to be a fair debate on parent trigger it cannot be stacked in favor of the promoters to the exclusion of the critics or of the risks involved. Emily Evans at least owes the public debate more than trying to sway it from her position of influence with prejudiced outsider/insider spin.


UPDATE:  In a tweet earlier tonight from the Nashville screening of the parent trigger promotional flick, "Won't Back Down," Nashville City Paper reporter Joey Garrison tweeted:

This film paints teachers' unions as out-of-touch with the wrong priorities, and characterizes school districts as bureaucratic wrecks.

His observation is consistent with what I wrote earlier about the ill will trigger proponents tend to bear toward unions.

Metro Council votes to urge Jesse Register to return to previous terms with service workers

The council passed a memorializing resolution earlier this evening, 25-9, encouraging Nashville schools Director Jesse Register to return to its previous practice of negotiating with the unions representing service workers and bus drivers. A month ago Mr. Register appeared to move on from the previous memorandum of understanding with the unions, encouraging employees to break from the unions and thus settle for a distinct disadvantage to the school district, which is not vested with protecting service workers' best interests ahead of those of district executives and corporate patrons of the district.

Tonight's resolution passed overwhelmingly. CM Emily Evans voted for it, calling Mr. Register's break with previous union arrangements "needless" and the breach between the district and the unions a "gratuitous fight". She described the MNPS decision to discard unions one "without any documented benefits for students". Council conservatives--who rarely stand with workers--were predictably cool toward the motion urging the school district to reengage the unions. Duane Dominy bemoaned the strained relationship between the district and its workers, but he based his opposition to the bill on the unfounded conjecture that it would cause greater strain.

SEIU photo of former MNPS board member
& current CM Karen Johnson
meeting with union members

However, there is not much more the council can do with a non-binding, toothless resolution to drive a wedge between the workers and Jesse Register than he has not already done himself. Mr. Register seems more engaging of  "CEO Champions" for his new "academies" than of the workers at the base of the MNPS pyramid:

Register ... [and] the school board’s “executive staff” decided to discontinue the MOUs entirely by deleting the school system’s Labor Negotiations Policy.

Register referenced Tennessee’s Professional Educators Collaborative Conferencing Act, which was passed by the state legislature last year and replaced teachers’ collective bargaining rights with “collaborative conferencing” ....

“In recognition of state law regarding teachers’ unions, and the non-binding nature of any MOU with support unions, my executive staff has met and voted to rescind HR 5.129, the Labor Negotiations Policy.”

The move didn’t go over well with SEIU Local 205 president Doug Collier.

“Dr. Register is now trying to use those laws — which do not apply to school support employees — as an excuse to overreach his authority and silence the voices of thousands of loyal city employees who voted to form a union,” Collier said in a press release.

The USW and SEIU sent complaint letters to Metro Board of Education Chairwoman Gracie Porter earlier this month.

Gracie Porter never replied publicly. At least there is no indication in online news searches that she did. I received tips a couple of years ago that Ms. Porter cast the deciding vote for Mr. Register's plan to privatize the service workers' jobs in exchange for the position of board chair. And no good deed goes unpunished, as SEIU had already canvassed for Ms. Porter during her campaign for office four years before that. I can understand how speaking out publicly on Mr. Register's rejection of unions might put Ms. Porter in an awkward position.

Given the district's terse reply to the media tonight, Jesse Register does not appear too receptive to the council's resolution. I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

The Metro Charter already set the Fairgrounds specifically apart from other public property

CM Emily Evans responds to constituent questions about the Fairgrounds referendum at her blog:

Some have raised the rather specious argument that the question of the Fairgrounds does not rise to a level of importance necessary for inclusion in the Metro Charter. They are, of course, ignoring the fact that the reason we have a State Fair in the first place is because we are directed to do so by the Metro Charter.

Compare this to a quote that Dean supporter and McNeely Pigott & Fox spinmeister Katy Varney attributed to the son of a Metro Charter architect:

The charter was not set up to address specific issues, but rather it is the overarching instrument that sets forth the process by which decisions are made by our elected officials ....

Regardless of how we feel about the future of the fairgrounds, it is a mistake to change the charter to apply rules to one place that are not in place for any other Metro property.

Given that the Metro Charter as drafted already made specific exceptions for the Fairgrounds that it does not make for other Metro property, how is it inconsistent with the Metro Charter to amend further exceptions for the Fairgrounds into the charter? Distracting us from the merits of the Fairground referendum with a logical fallacy like an argument from authority is not just bad form, but Varney's appeal is also undermined by her own authority's argument, which is itself inaccurate at best, deceptive at worst.

Righting a past wrong and helping pay for environmental impact of growth

Two independent council members are bringing back up an initiative this Metro budget cycle that Mayor Karl Dean and his council marionettes fought the last time stormwater rates were considered:

Photo credit: EPA Smart Growth

Two Metro council members are working to help small businsses.

Emily Evans and Jason Holleman are working to restructure or remove a cap from storm water run-off fees that some businesses claim is hurting their bottom line. The fee covers the environmental concerns for disturbing nature by building.

There is currently a $400 cap for building above a certain size, which small business owners say is unfair, because it gives bigger businesses a break.

CM Evans already made an elegant case at her blog for why fair stormwater fees are good for all. Nonetheless "progressive" CMs like Megan Barry, Ronnie Steine, and Erik Cole voted against fairness and with Karl Dean on this. We will see if an election year and less than satisfactory budget conditions cause the Dean Machine to back off giving big business water big breaks and saddling the rest of us with carrying a larger portion of the weight for water treatment.

This issue proved to be somewhat of an embarrassment for Megan Barry. Will she risk that again or incline toward a greater sense of justice?

It took a while but balanced minority opposition to the Mayor finally formed

Back in 2008 when it seemed like the only council member willing to take on Karl Dean publicly and assertively was Mike Jameson, I openly wondered whether this submissive Metro Council was even worse than the conservative-dominated previous council that battled former Mayor Bill Purcell at every turn. Then came the Dean plan (supersaturated with donor influence) for a convention center, which was not exactly popular, and more CMs stuck their necks out to oppose the Mayor. The Fairgrounds debacle, and the botched handling of it, finally made opposing Mayor Dean permissible and the council's minority opposition wing of liberals and conservatives solidified.

This morning's Tennessean ponders the unlikely coalition as it stands:

Hollin and Craddock are at the heart of a coalition of progressive and conservative council members who have regularly opposed Dean’s agenda on high-profile issues. It brings together pro-neighborhood, pro-environment council members like Emily Evans, Jason Holleman and Mike Jameson with social and fiscal conservatives like Eric Crafton, Jim Gotto and Robert Duvall, forming a vocal minority.

Evans said the pairing isn’t that surprising.

“The convention center (debate) was really about fiscal responsibility,” she said. “Being a fiscally responsible government tends to be a hallmark of both progressives and conservatives. I put myself in both categories. It’s just a common theme.”

The progressives Michael Cass lists in the story have generally been the ethical cream of the council bunch over time, even as unsubstantiated mud was slung at them in the print/online news media by the Courthouse innuendo hounds every time they dared to criticize a Dean plan. Cass also inventories the coalition--including the "progressives"--that appease and buckle to the Mayor's Office on every initiative that I can remember. Jerry Maynard and Ronnie Steine have had their ethical stumbles in the past and I'm not exactly inspired by the quality of their leadership even as the dogs of Dean give them a pass on any criticism.

That brings me to Dean spokesperson Janel Lacy's purported declination to "publicly criticize" the council's minority coalition. The Dean administration does not publicly criticize his critics because it does not have to. On just about every major policy initiative (the convention center being the most obvious), it has hired consultants and anonymous trolls to do the attacking for them. With a generally compliant news media, Karl Dean can take the high road and let the hatchet men do the dirty work. While the thugs and mercenaries have taken some below-the-belt shots at the council's independent progressives like Hollin, Jameson, Holleman, and Evans, the mud simply will not stick.

If the Metro Council had been more progressive on stormwater fees 2 years ago, how many projects would be done now?

I wonder how those self-styled progressive council members, Megan Barry, Erik Cole, and Ronnie Steine feel about their vote 2 years ago this month against a real progressive attempt to remove Mayor Karl Dean's arbitrary stormwater fee cap on businesses. I wonder what they think about the fact that less than 250 stormwater projects have been completed in 2 years. I wonder how many of the 3,200+ undone stormwater projects might be completed now had they opposed the regressive Dean fees and helped Jason Holleman and Emily Evans drum up more votes to draw the demands on paved-over businesses equal to less-paved residences:

Two years ago, Councilman Jason Holleman proposed a fee structure that would have charged commercial landowners in direct proportion to the amount of impervious surface they own.

While the current system caps the monthly fee at $400 for landowners with 1 million square feet of paved surface, Holleman's proposal would have removed the cap.

"Put simply, the more you pave, the more you pay," Holleman said, adding that his proposal would also reduce the monthly fee for owners of small and midsize commercial properties ....

"Obviously we need to do more, and the May flood highlighted how much infrastructure work there is to do to meet the backlogs and meet the needs of our citizens," Holleman said.

Finally, I wonder why the news media won't hold CMs who vote with the Mayor accountable for unrealized expectations.

Metro Legal dismisses Fairgrounds opponent's complaint against CM Emily Evans

Two weeks ago I blogged that I would be shocked and suspicious if Metro Legal found anything of merit in Nancy McCune's bizarre complaints against CM Emily Evans.

Earlier tonight Tennessean reporter Michael Cass reported on Twitter that the law department dismissed McCune's complaint.

That confirms what I already suspected: the only wrong here has been done by the accuser against a council member who has a spotless and honorable record of service.


UPDATE: From Metro Legal's evaluation.

Underscore that "if true" part.

Another spurious attack on CM Emily Evans

The day after Tennessean columnist Gail Kerr raged against CM Emily Evans for being uppity and doing what she was elected to do--ask critical questions on policies affecting voters--a supporter of Mayor Karl Dean's Fairgrounds redevelopment plan, Nancy McCune responded emphatically unimpressed with an outpouring of support for Evans on the Nashville neighborhood leaders elist. Ms. McCune insisted in no uncertain terms that she had "plural" interactions with CM Evans in the past and that she believes that CM Evans is "egocentric, close-minded and extremely negative."

Today Ms. McCune took her opinion of the District 23 Metro Council Member to a new level. She herself appears in a Tennessean story on her filed formal complaint to the Metro Clerk that she heard CM Evans tell Bells Bend supporter of race track demolition, Sumter Camp, that she did not want him to speak at last Tuesday's public hearing on proposed demolition. Ms. McCune told reporter Michael Cass:

“I was sim­ply appalled by the audac­ity that this woman would step through the door and say what she did,” McCune said. “Her tone was threatening.”

It is fairly clear from Ms. McCune's December elist comments that her opinions of Emily Evans were formed and conclusive before the Tuesday night meeting, so it is entirely reasonable to ask whether her strong opinions that CM Evans is close-minded and negative might have influenced her interpretation of a threat to Mr. Camp.

Evans at West Meade community mtg.
(credit: www.sharoncharney.com)

And an affirmative answer to that question becomes plausible given that Mr. Camp himself denied those allegations in an interview with Cass:

Camp said Evans “was just sur­prised to see me there.”

“She said, ‘What are you doing in this line?’ ” Camp said. “Since we hadn’t talked, she wasn’t sure where I was com­ing from. … It cer­tainly wasn’t any­thing that was going to dissuade me from speak­ing or that I took offense at. Emily’s very bright and she’s very pas­sion­ate, and that’s usu­ally a good thing.”

Is a charge of intimidation plausible when the alleged victim expresses seeming warmth and no fear? It may be anecdotal for me to say it, but in no instance have I ever witnessed CM Evans act in the way that Ms. McCune describes, and like her I have observed the CM on "plural" occasions. I would honestly be shocked and a little suspicious if Metro Legal finds anything to make of this complaint, given Mr. Camp's comments.

One other thing to consider before taking this formal complaint as gospel is that Ms. McCune has made troubling statements about others before. She got into a tit-for-tat with Fairgrounds preservationist Lisa Leeds on a June 30, 2010 City Paper comment board, during which she referred to those who opposed demolition of the Fairgrounds as "knuckle-draggers." Consequently, the administrator of the neighborhoods elist informed members that he had "moderated" her, meaning that he temporarily blocked her comments for review before posting so to prevent the same personal attacks on the list (he revealed that Ms. Leeds had previously been so "moderated").

The upshot to that drama: the elist administrator told the membership that his concern was affirmed after Ms. McCune's husband sent her previously blocked comment that judged preservationists "myopic" to the elist anyway.

Finally, take a look at the recently released Metro e-mails on the Fairgrounds. An August 2010 e-mail from Ms. McCune to the Mayor's Office accuses Fairgrounds preservationists of "accosting" her (p. 24). The State Fair Director replied to the Mayor's Office that vendors were allowed to invite the preservationists and later that--under observation by Fairgrounds staff--the preservationists were found to be breaking no rules in asking people to sign petitions.

Am I the only person who sees a pattern of statements against demolition opponents that are exaggerated and overwrought? Shouldn't they give us pause before taking seriously the already tenuous and rather improbable charges that Ms. McCune leveled at CM Evans?

If anyone is willing to put their actual identity by their comments has any experience with CM Evans to substantiate Ms. McCune's allegations, then by all means comment away. But I will be strictly screening anonymous comments on this post, because some influential sources around town, whom the news media will not name, seem out to cut the council member off at her knees. I would not put it past them to make hay out of these wild accusations.


UPDATE: a commenter at the Tennessean claims to have been present for the exchange and corroborates Sumter Camp's denial to the paper that the exchange was unfriendly:

As it turns out, McCune has no idea what she’s talk­ing about. I was just out­side the council cham­bers when Emily Evans walked through. I didn’t pay any atten­tion to what she said to Mr. Camp, but from the way he responded to her, it seemed that he was a friend of hers. It doesn’t surprise me that McCune would make accu­sa­tions with­out know­ing what she was tak­ing about. It’s nice that that Mr. Camp was so easy to find, and explained what the con­ver­sa­tion was about.