Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Commission Overrides Harris Natatorium Funding Veto

Despite some wishful advance indications that the county government’s division over funding the University of Memphis swimming facility (“natatorium,” in officialese) would end in some de facto kumbaya, the resolution of things on Monday — with the expected near-unanimous override by the Shelby County Commission of Mayor Lee Harris‘ veto — left some nagging questions on all sides.

The university got the $1 million county contribution that would keep the natatorium on course to completion, and former Commissioner George Chism made a case for the advantages of the facility for needy youngsters in Shelby County without current access to a pool.

But the university — as evidenced in the testimony Monday of Ted Townsend, its chief for economic development and government relations — was no closer to having a definitive target date for a $15-an-hour minimum wage for all its employees than it was at the time of the veto that the mayor imposed two weekends ago at the behest of various union and activist groups.

Jackson Baker

Union rep Webster: “To this day nobody has seen a time frame:”

Townsend, affirming that “we are all focused on attaining a living wage,” contended that a fixed date for imposing a universal $15-an-hour standard was difficult because future state contributions to the university were unpredictable, as were enrollment figures. He made a case that the existence of employee benefits could equate to a de facto $16.82 income package.

Jayanni Webster of United Campus Workers, to whom Harris deferred in lieu of remarks of his own, would have none of Townsend’s arguments. She pointed out that women and blacks constituted a disproportionate segment of the 300-odd employees paid less than the $15 hourly figure and said the workers’ “seven-and-a-half years of fighting for a living wage” had been ignored by the university. “You cannot eat benefits or pay your light bill with benefits,” she said, noting, apropos the university’s claimed intentions, “To this day, nobody has seen a time frame.”

Similar arguments were made by Democratic Commissioner Tami Sawyer, a candidate for Memphis mayor, who turned out to be the sole defender of Harris’ veto. She pointed out the discrepancy between University President M. David Rudd‘s $200,000 annual salary and the wages of the university employees making less than $15 an hour. Sawyer was scornful of the university’s promises that “maybe in four to six to eight years” their pay situation would be remedied.

Other Democratic commission members made it clear that their sympathies lay with the workers but suggested that other factors led to their inability to uphold Harris’ veto. Eddie Jones said, “I’ve never voted against unions, but in this instance there was another way to do this before we get to a veto.” Alluding to former County Mayor Mark Luttrell‘s several vetoes of commission actions, all of which were subject to overrides, Jones said, “The last mayor tried it, and it didn’t work so well for him. I would prefer to see if we could work this thing out.”

Commissioner Reginald Milton spoke of “a cast of characters with well-meaning intentions,” including in that definition “the mayor,  the county commission, and the university.” Calling for continued dialogue between the various parties, he said, “I will vote to override but will make sure that promises will be fulfilled.”

Commission chairman Van Turner foresaw a period of continued negotiation that would end in agreement with the university. Hopeful for change, Turner cited the memory of his father, who had been among the first African-American students to desegregate the university back in the early 1960s, a time, said Turner, when communication between whites and blacks was at a minimum.

Harris, who had largely left discussion to others, re-entered the debate to say that, while he had always enjoyed good communication with the commission, things were “not so good” with the university.

They were not exactly perfect with the commission, either. Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr., a persistent foe, released copies of a letter he had directed to Assistant County Attorney Marcy Ingram, asking for a ruling on whether Harris had, as university President Rudd suggested two weeks ago, committed an ethical breach by appearing to bargain with Rudd on the basis of a quid pro quo.

In the end, the 12-1 veto override vote spoke for itself.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Mayor Lee Harris’ Recent Actions Cause a Stir

Even as most local attention begins to focus on the ongoing city election campaigns, including a multi-candidate race for Memphis mayor, another mayor, namely Lee Harris of Shelby County, is suddenly generating public attention — and controversy.

As the work week began, two actions taken by Harris were front and center in the public discourse. The first was the mayor’s announced decision to veto a budget appropriation of $1 million to the University of Memphis for renovation of the university’s swimming facilities, the Michael Rose Natatorium.

Reprising a debate that was held by Shelby County commissioners during budget deliberations and reinforcing his own call for a $15-an-hour minimum wage for public employees, Harris noted that the university still maintains a top minimum of $11.01-an-hour for some 330 employees.

Justin Fox Burks

County Mayor Lee Harris

“I believe issues of poverty that continue to persist in our community are interconnected to decisions like this one,” Harris wrote in a letter announcing his decision. “Most of the University of Memphis employees in question are women and most are African-American. Many of these workers, no doubt, have children and families who rely on their work.”

Taking note of the University’s incremental raises toward the $15-an-hour goal, Harris held out hope that it should and could be reached. “If we all work together, with level heads and open minds, I trust we can identify a plan and timeline to solve this issue. However, until then, I cannot endorse this budget allocation to the University of Memphis. I realize that my stance here may create some consternation, which is not my intent. I take this stance after deliberation, and I am trying as best I can to follow my conscience. I know that commissioners will, as always, do the same.”

The U of M president responded to Harris’ veto announcement with a letter of his own, addressed to Harris and made public, in which he recounted what he put forth as the University’s conscientious efforts over the years to raise employees’ hourly wages to the $15-an-hour level.

“We are implementing a plan to increase our hourly wage to $15/hour over the next several years,” Rudd said. “We’re doing so because we believe our employees deserve it, because it’s the right thing to do. Our employees are the foundation of our institution and the reason we’re succeeding. We are not doing it because you’ve vetoed $1M in support for the Michael Rose Natatorium. We will do so in a manner that doesn’t threaten the financial stability that we’ve worked so hard to attain, or result in dramatic tuition increases that threaten the success of our students and economic growth of the Memphis region.”

Opting to consider Harris’ letter as offering a quid pro quo fraught with “ethical” issues, Rudd concluded, “[W]e’ll continue with already implemented plans to increase our hourly pay scale, and we’ll do so in a manner that doesn’t raise questions about our compliance with accreditation standards. I appreciate your willingness to provide support for the Michael Rose Natatorium. Given the request to directly influence University policy in exchange for the funding, I will have to decline the support.”

Commissioner Van Turner, the County Commision chair, said the commission would have an opportunity to override the mayoral veto on July 22nd and predicted that the votes would be on hand to do so. But he foresaw conversations occurring in the meantime involving the university, the commission, and Harris that could result in a compromise solution.

“I think President Rudd has a plan to get to $15-an-hour that the mayor isn’t fully aware of, but I think he will come to be aware of it,” Turner said. “I think we can reach an agreement and be able to solve the veto matter amicably.”

Indeed, Rudd and Harris would later exchange messages indicating that they could agree on a new U of M initiative stepping up the university’s goal to reach the $15-an-hour plateau within the next two years.

That could obviate any head-on collision on July 22nd. Commission sentiment had been mixed in any case and contradicted any assumptions of a party-line vote providing an override. Commissioner Tami Sawyer, a Democrat and a candidate for city mayor, had said she was offended by Rudd’s manner and would vote to uphold Harris’ veto. Sawyer said the University head’s letter was “disrespectful” of county government prerogatives and of Harris’ position. “It was just this side of calling him [Harris] ‘uppity,'” she said.

Conversely, Mark Billingsley, a Republican, had said he intended to override the veto and had predicted that other Republicans would do as well.

A Bombshell Endorsement

Meanwhile, a number of commissioners expressed bewilderment privately at another surprise move on Harris’ part, his public endorsement over the weekend of District 6 City Council candidate Davin Clemons. The endorsement, accompanied by a $500 campaign donation, was made through the auspices of the Tennessee Voter Project, a PAC founded by Harris.

To begin with, it qualifies as something of a bombshell that the head of Shelby County government should intervene so directly in a city election. Secondly, Clemons, an openly gay police officer/minister who has served as the MPD’s liaison with the LGBTQ community while simultaneously filing a discrimination suit against the department, is not widely regarded as being competitive in the Distrct 6 race.

Most importantly, Harris’ endorsement of Clemons puts him in direct opposition to Edmund Ford Sr., the former holder of the District 6 seat who is the odds-on favorite to regain it, and who is supported by several members of the commission. The mayor’s action is sure to exacerbate his already strained relations with Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr., the council candidate’s son who succeeded his father for two council terms of his own. The junior Ford has been openly critical of several of the mayor’s actions and recently told Harris in open session, “I can’t respect you.”

That remark was in reaction to a quip made by Harris in a TV interview in which the mayor blamed his problems with Commissioner Ford on the fact that he had beaten two members of the extended Ford family in previous election contests. Harris’ support of Clemons against Edmund Ford Sr. is unlikely to defuse any hard feelings on the part of the Fords.

It is taken for granted by those who know Harris, who served abbreviated terms as a city councilman and state senator before his election as county mayor last year, that his ultimate ambition is to serve in Congress. He actively considered a Democratic primary race against 9th District Congressman Steve Cohen in 2016 before opting not to. The mayor’s current actions — and the response to them — could impact that race or any other potential political ambitions he may have in mind.