Author: Jim Strickland

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Big Three

Like most big cities in the country, Memphis has challenges. Our number-one problem is the loss of population.

According to the census, Memphis lost 48,000 to 50,000 residents between 2000 and 2010. These losses were offset by annexations that forced over 30,000 people to live in the city. This trend is certainly a problem, especially considering that there will be no big annexations over the next decade. It appears clear to me that people are voting with their taillights on three big issues: crime, schools, and, to a lesser degree, our relatively high property tax rate.

As with prior years, the city council should review Mayor Wharton’s proposed budget with a focus on how we can improve on the Big Three issues. Because the city is no longer funding schools, we can deal solely with crime and the property tax rate.

One of the most effective means adopted by local government to combat crime was the development and use of Blue Crush. Blue Crush is, in part, the use of crime data to determine the increased allocation of police resources to the time and place of spikes in crime.

For about 16 months in late 2011 and 2012, the city administration reduced Blue Crush overtime, and the details were cut by 60 to 70 percent. As a result, serious crime increased by 10 percent. In 2013, Blue Crush details have been reinstated, and crime is again decreasing.

With respect to our property tax rate, Memphians pay the highest rates by far of any Tennesseans. When our city and county tax rates are combined, our rate is about 50 percent higher than Nashville.

Since 2008, the city council has been able to reduce the city’s property tax rate from $3.43 to $3.11, largely due to the termination of the school-funding obligation. This 10 percent decrease is a good starting point.

The mayor’s proposed budget increases the city’s operating budget from $597 million to $622 million and increases the property tax rate from $3.11 to $3.39. Over the next six weeks, the council will conduct hearings on the budget and hear from the administration, labor leaders, and the public. As my colleague Shea Flinn has touched upon in this space, there are a few budget myths that must be shared so that we operate with the same factual information.

First, there has been a lot of discussion about privatization or outsourcing of sanitation services. Sanitation operations are run by a fund completely separate from the city’s operating fund. Memphians pay for garbage collection through a fee on our MLGW bill. Therefore, any reduction in expenses in the sanitation department will not be reflected in lower property taxes.

Second, the pension system is underfunded. The city contributes $25 million to $30 million to the system, when our advisers recommend we move to double that amount. None of the reforms proposed would decrease the yearly contribution below our current level. Therefore, any savings achieved with reforms, such as moving to a 401(k)-type system, would not result in a lower tax rate.

Third, a huge decrease in the 400 appointed positions in city government would certainly lower expenses, but it would also result in closing all the libraries and operating city government without a legal office.

There may be several appointed positions that can be eliminated. In past budget cycles, I have tried to do so, and I will probably try again. But the savings to be achieved are not nearly enough by themselves to avoid a tax increase.

Lastly, the millions of dollars spent on capital projects cannot, under the law, be redirected and spent on operating expenses. Examples of capital projects are the purchase of police cars or fire trucks, repaving streets, building water detention facilities, and the construction of the Overton Square garage.

These capital projects are funded by issuing bonds, which is the equivalent of borrowing money. The effect of these projects on the operating budget and the property tax rate is the payment of debt service, the equivalent of a monthly mortgage payment. The ratio is: $1 million in a capital project equals $80,000 in operating expenses.

This is certainly a relevant consideration, but we must realize that cutting a $10 million capital project does not equal filling a $10 million gap in the operating budget; it equals an $800,000 operating expense.

In conclusion, the council must review each expense with an eye on providing quality service to our taxpayers and a focus on addressing the Big Three issues.

Jim Strickland, chairman of the city council’s budget committee, is in his second term serving District 5.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Abusing Liberty

Like doctors, government should abide by the phrase primum non nocere, which means, “First, do no harm.” Our governments must not actively harm us or inhibit our rights. In fact, there are certain freedoms and rights of the people that are so essential to the public good government should actively encourage them.

But there have been recent actions by our state and county governments that, at best, discourage our neighbors from exercising long-held American freedoms and, at worst, violate constitutional rights or established principles.

Before I review the substance of these actions, it is important to note that we do not need to disparage the motives of the legislators mentioned. We need to be able to disagree without attacking the other side. This fosters a more civil debate, and it better enables each side to work together on potential compromises.

President Kennedy aptly said, “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.” Too often in political dialogue, especially on the national level, we criticize people with opposing views as dishonest, unethical, deceitful scoundrels. And then we wonder why nothing seems to get accomplished in Washington, D.C.

Our state legislature passed a law requiring all voters to present a picture identification card issued by the state or federal government prior to being allowed to vote. Examples of acceptable forms of ID are state-issued driver’s licenses, a U.S. passport, or U.S. military ID.

For those people without any ID that fits the requirements, the Department of Safety and Homeland Security will provide them with a photo ID at no charge at 48 driver service centers across the state. There are five centers in Shelby County, but only two are in Memphis west of Ridgeway Road.

The purpose of this new law, as stated, was to combat “voter fraud.” While it is laudable to combat voter fraud, the state law does not possess the means to do that; instead, it discourages people from exercising their right to vote. There are many poor and elderly in our city who do not have great access to transportation to get to one of the two state facilities in the inner city. And, as President Johnson observed, “A man without a vote is a man without protection.”

If both parties want to ensure integrity at the polls and to encourage voter participation, the law should be amended. Cities and counties, abiding by traditional state voter requirements, could use their many facilities to provide certified voter IDs, making the acquisition of such IDs more convenient for the public. There are 17 library branches and nine police precincts in Memphis. If we want to safeguard the right and the sanctity of the vote, we should avail ourselves of these obvious, trusted outlets.

The Shelby County Commission has also used its power in a way that, in my opinion, will discourage people from exercising their rights. The commission has authorized its attorney to subpoena records from The Commercial Appeal that would identify those persons who have posted anonymous comments about certain articles since the school merger issue has arisen.

The United States Constitution protects the freedom of expression from government interference. Government should not act to discourage free speech, because it would have a chilling effect on all our rights to freedom of speech.

The fact that the county commission and its lawyers could identify persons who have criticized the commissioners or their positions would discourage people in the future from expressing their opinions.

While I certainly do not think all of the persons who regularly post comments on the web sites of media outlets are well-informed citizens who possess reasonable opinions, I do believe that they have the right to share those opinions with others without interference from government.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedom, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”: These words from President Lincoln still ring true today.

Our government should encourage citizens to exercise our cherished rights and privileges. The people who represent us on the state and county legislative bodies are good people, but they should amend their actions and work for higher voter turnout and more vigorous public debates.

Attorney Jim Strickland is a two-term city council member and this year’s budget chairman.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The City’s Way Out

First of all, how did we get in this mess?

Approximately two years ago, then-Mayor Willie Herenton presented his first budget to the then new Memphis City Council. The proposal involved large increases in the city’s budget and a 17 percent tax increase.

A majority of the council voted to cut funding to the Memphis City Schools by $57 million and to use most of these savings to fund the increases Herenton requested in the city budget. This resulted in the city’s budget increasing by $44 million or 7.6 percent. The remaining savings were used to reduce the tax rate by 18 cents.

But then, Memphis City Schools filed suit against the city, arguing that state law requires the city to maintain its funding via a “maintenance of effort” formula. The court ruled for Memphis City Schools, and the Court of Appeals agreed. Several months ago, the city filed a petition with the Tennessee Supreme Court asking it to review this dispute. Last year, however, the Supreme Court agreed to review less than 7 percent of the cases presented to it.

Because two courts had ruled for Memphis City Schools, the city needed to fund the schools in the current budget (2010), but there was nowhere near $50 million available. The money cut from schools had been spent on city government.

As a result, the city’s reserves (rainy day fund) had to be used, and some cuts in the city’s budget were made.

The council has just completed its current budget review, increasing a budget from $577 million in 2008, the year before school funding became an issue, to $623 million for 2011, an 8 percent increase. But these figures did not include school funding. There were not enough reserves to use without risking the city’s bond rating. The Wharton administration suggested refinancing the city’s debt, resulting in a $41 million cut. That much, plus cuts of $9 million in the city’s budget, would yield enough to pay Memphis City Schools, since decreasing enrollment had lowered the city’s obligation to MCS to $50 million.

Several of us on the council have repeatedly tried to reduce spending in the city’s budget but have been unsuccessful for the most part. The refinancing avoided a crisis this year, but the day of reckoning will come soon — no later than 2013, when the margin for ad hoc financing will be long gone.

So, where do we go from here? On the revenue side, we have challenges. The recession has resulted in less sales tax revenue. Memphis is one of two large cities in the country that has lost population during the past decade. (Detroit is the other.) Our economic base has been static. For the first time in history, MLGW has fewer customers this year than it had last year.

On the expense side, the size and scope of city government have expanded. For two years, the city has applied financial Band-Aids — short-term fixes — to MCS.

To address these long-term issues, Mayor Wharton has created the Strategic Business Model Assessment Committee to review city government and determine where savings can be achieved. Several helpful ideas have already resulted.

I have some additional suggestions for the administration, the committee, and the council:

1) Last year, we outsourced four community centers to nonprofit organizations. We should put all of the centers out for bid and see if these or other nonprofits can save the city money and provide better service to the public.

2) We can be creative with city assets while maintaining service. For instance, the Poplar-White Station library sits on highly valued land. We should explore selling the property and either require the purchaser to include a library in the development or move the branch to a nearby, more cost-efficient location. All profits achieved from the transaction should be placed in a trust fund for the library system.

3) We should implement a system of reserve code enforcement officers like the one for reserve police officers. For a salary of $1 per year, the city could benefit from a large number of well-qualified persons to help in our struggle with blight.

We have some long-term challenges with the city-government budget. Meanwhile, I remain hopeful that Mayor Wharton’s assessment committee will provide guidance and challenge us to make the changes needed to survive without increasing taxes.

Jim Strickland is a member of the Memphis City Council.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Time for the Knife

“The legislative power of the city shall be vested in the Council
which shall have all legislative powers heretofore exercised by the
Board of Commissioners, including but not limited to, the right to fix
the tax rate and to approve and adopt all budgets.” This authority over
the city’s purse strings, granted by the Memphis City Charter (Article
5, Section 16), is the most important power granted to the City
Council.

In fact, the council has line-item authority over the budget —
though this authority has rarely been used by past councils. The
current council has, however, broken with tradition on other issues and
hopefully will decide this month to flex its authority over the
proposed budget.

In Article 6, Section 40.1, the charter provides some details: “The
operations and capital fund budgets of the City … shall be prepared
and submitted by the mayor with the assistance of the directors, and
presented to the council, which shall approve or amend any and all
budgets prior to the adoption of a tax rate as now provided, and said
budgets as approved or as amended shall be the duly established
budgets. The comptroller shall under no circumstances make
disbursements not specifically provided for in any of the aforesaid
budgets as finally approved by the council.”

Again: The mayor may propose budgets, but it is the council
that approves — or has the right to approve — “the duly
established budgets.” Consistent with the council’s line-item
authority, the administration cannot change any appropriation after the
council establishes the budget. Traditionally, as we know, the council
has waived this authority.

It is no secret that the world is in a recession. Most governments,
businesses, and families in our country have less income than they did
two or three years ago.

Last year, FedEx reduced the salaries of its highest earners.
Earlier this year, it laid off thousands of workers. Last week,
Governor Bredesen proposed 1,051 state layoffs, and Metro Nashville
reduced the hours of its libraries and community centers.

By contrast, some two months ago, Mayor Herenton announced what he
described as a balanced budget with no layoffs and a 3 percent raise
for all city employees. In reality, this “balanced budget” ignored a
court ruling to provide additional funding to the city schools next
year up to $57 million.

Like the rest of the country, Memphis must make drastic reductions
in spending. Many of us on the council refuse to raise taxes; our
combined city and county property tax rate is already twice as high as
that of Nashville, which has the state’s second highest tax rate.

Besides the recent recession and the court’s order on school funding
(which has been appealed), Memphis is also challenged with a long-term
population decrease and an economy that, even pre-recession, was
static.

The City Council has been reviewing the mayor’s proposed budget for
six weeks and must make a decision by June 30th. The debate has ranged
from a couple of council members pushing for no spending reductions to
others, including me, trying to eliminate the raises and employment
positions added in the last three years.

The majority of the budget committee has consistently rejected the
notion of rolling back the raises. They argue that raises were withheld
several years ago when the city administration grossly overestimated
revenue, thereby creating a budgetary crisis.

Our current economic realities require drastic change. To date, the
budget committee has reviewed about two-thirds of the proposed budget
but has only reduced spending by about $6 million. We must do more.

Remembering that about 70 percent of the budget is personnel, we
must reduce administrative staff. Eliminating the 3 percent raise would
by itself save no less than $11 million. We can also eliminate most
“company cars” and even address the issue of employment benefits.

Perhaps some city services can stand to be altered, but —
importantly — no cuts must be made to public safety.

All we have to do to meet the challenges of this budget —
while maintaining essential city services and avoiding a tax increase
— is to make the kinds of tough decisions that most businesses
and families have already made.

Lawyer Jim Strickland is a first-term member of the Memphis City
Council.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

VIEWPOINT: Rethinking Power

CREDIT: jb

On January 1, 2008, nine rookies and four veterans will
be sworn in as Memphis City Council members. It is the largest number of
first-termers since the original council in 1968.

Since the elections, the nine of us have been undergoing
an extensive educational process on the substance of city government and the
procedure of the council. Fulfilling our campaign promises will be more
difficult than making them and depends on relationships with council members
and the administration and the merits of our positions.

The most interesting area of my education has been the
opportunity to review the city charter. Among the things I – and we – have
learned: The 1966 Home Rule Amendment changed much of the 1930’s-era charter,
but many of the articles of the older charter are still in effect because the
newer charter did not revoke them.

Enter Dr. Stephen Wirls, a Rhodes College professor who
has studied the charters exhaustively and led our review of them. Dr. Wirls
disputed the widespread public understanding that the charters provide for a
“strong Mayor” form of government. On the contrary, he opined that, in some
ways, the Home Rule Amendment Charter (“HRA”) gives more power to the Council
than the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress.

The HRA provides that the Mayor “shall be responsible to
the Council for the administration of all units of the City government under
his jurisdiction and for carrying out policies adopted by the Council.” The
Council “shall have full power [my italics], as now provided, to pass,
for the government of the City, any ordinance not in conflict with the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or the State of Tennessee, within
the specific limitations set forth herein below….”

Further, the Council has approval power of the
appointment and removal of division directors, the President of MLG&W, and
members of all boards and commissions. The Council has
Athe right…to
approve and adopt all budgets.”

Of special interest: :[T]he Council shall be vested
with all other powers of the City not specifically vested in some other
officer or officers of the City.” This catch-all provision appears to
give the Council a great deal of unexpected authority. (One problem: no one on
hand for the orientation could identify any “powers of the City not
specifically vested” in some other office.)

Just think of the implications of the first proviso
quoted above: The Mayor shall be responsible for carrying out policies adopted
by the Council. On the face of things, it would appear that the Council could
adopt “policies” and the Mayor would have to follow them.

Ay, but there’s a rub. “The Council shall not, however,
exercise executive or administrative powers nor interfere in the operation of
the administrative divisions.” On one hand, the HRA gives the Council the
power to set “policies,” but on the other hand, the charter prohibits
intrusion into “executive or administrative powers.”

The HRA also gives the Mayor the power to contract and
prohibits council members from “suggesting or promoting the making of
particular…contracts with any specific organization.”

It is not hard to imagine that a Council’s definition of
a “policy” interfering with a Mayor’s definition of an “administrative
power.” At the orientation, we discussed a scenario whereby the Council might
pass an ordinance mandating that every public school have a police officer
assigned to it full-time. Dr. Wirls opined that the Council had such power,
but warned that a Mayor could dispute it as an intrusion on administrative
decision making.

Many issues may fit into this grey area, and both sides
would appear to have a good faith basis for their respective positions. As
one of our facilitators suggested, conflict is not so bad if it involves a
serious and respectful disagreement as to public policy.

However, such conflict, and the resulting court battle,
should be avoided if possible with the council and the administration working
together. The mayor and each member of his administration with whom I have met
has expressed the desire to work with the new council.

At this early stage, I do not have an opinion as to the
correct interpretation of the charter, but I am optimistic that we can avoid the
conflict and come together for the betterment of our city.

(Jim
Strickland, a lawyer and former Democratic chairman, will represent the city’s 5th
District.)

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Rethinking Power

On January 1st, nine rookies (including me) and four veterans will be sworn in as Memphis City Council members. It is the largest number of first-termers since the original council in 1968.

Since the November election, the nine of us have been undergoing an extensive educational process on the substance of city government and the procedure of the council. Fulfilling our campaign promises will be more difficult than making them. How well we do depends on our relationships with other council members and the administration and the merits of our positions.

The most interesting area of my education has been the opportunity to review the city charter. Among the things we have learned: The 1966 Home Rule Amendment (HRA) changed much of the 1930s-era charter, but many of the articles of the older charter are still in effect because the newer charter did not revoke them.

Enter Stephen Wirls, a Rhodes College professor who has studied the charters exhaustively and led our review of them. Wirls disputed the widespread public understanding that the charters provide for a “strong mayor” form of government. On the contrary, he opined that, in some ways, the HRA gives more power to the council than the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress.

The HRA provides that the mayor “shall be responsible to the council for the administration of all units of the city government under his jurisdiction and for carrying out policies adopted by the council.” The council “shall have full power [my italics], as now provided, to pass, for the government of the city, any ordinance not in conflict with the Constitution or laws of the United States, or the State of Tennessee, within the specific limitations set forth herein below.”

Further, the council has approval power of the appointment and removal of division directors, the president of MLGW, and members of all boards and commissions. The council has the right “to approve and adopt all budgets.”

Of special interest: “[T]he council shall be vested with all other powers of the city not specifically vested in some other officer or officers of the city.” This catch-all provision appears to give the council a great deal of unexpected authority. (One problem: No one on hand for the orientation could identify any “powers of the city not specifically vested” in some other office.)

Just think of the implications of the first proviso quoted above: “The mayor shall be responsible for carrying out policies adopted by the council.” On the face of things, it would appear that the council could adopt “policies,” and the mayor would have to follow them.

Ay, but there’s a rub. “The council shall not, however, exercise executive or administrative powers nor interfere in the operation of the administrative divisions.” On one hand, the HRA gives the City Council the power to set “policies,” but on the other hand, the charter prohibits intrusion into “executive or administrative powers.”

The HRA also gives the mayor the power to contract and prohibits council members from “suggesting or promoting the making of particular … contracts with any specific organization.”

It is not hard to imagine a council’s definition of a “policy” interfering with a mayor’s definition of an “administrative power.” At the orientation, we discussed a scenario whereby the council might pass an ordinance mandating that every public school have a police officer assigned to it full-time. Wirls said he thought that the council had such power but warned that a mayor could dispute it as an intrusion on administrative decision-making.

Many issues may fit into this gray area, and both sides would appear to have a good faith basis for their respective positions. As one of our facilitators suggested, conflict is not so bad if it involves a serious and respectful disagreement as to public policy.

However, such conflict, and the resulting court battle, should be avoided if possible, with the council and the administration working together. The mayor and each member of his administration with whom I have met has expressed the desire to work with the new council.

At this early stage, I do not have an opinion as to the correct interpretation of the charter, but I am optimistic that we can avoid the conflict and come together for the betterment of our city.

Jim Strickland, a lawyer and former Democratic chairman, will represent the city’s 5th District.