Tag: Allan Wade

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Memphis Sued on Gun Control Measures

Photo: Gun Owners of America on YouTube

As promised, Guns Owners of America (GOA) and others sued the city of Memphis to block from ever becoming law gun-control referenda items passed by an overwhelming majority of voters. 

The gun rights groups promised a lawsuit on the ballot referenda before the election. It filed the lawsuit in Circuit Court in Memphis on Wednesday. 

The suit’s core argument is that the Memphis City Council, who put the questions on the November ballot, did so “in blatant contravention of Tennessee’s preemption law.” With this, the measures are “invalid and void.”

FILED-Memphis-ComplaintDownload

The GOA joined the suit with Memphian Ty Timmerman, the Gun Owners Foundation, and the Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA). Timmerman is a member of the GOA and the TFA. The suit says he carries a handgun for protection in the city and in his vehicle with no permit, which is legal under the state’s permitless carry law. He also owns a number of semiautomatic rifles, especially noting he owns an AR-15. 

Timmerman, the suit says, wants to keep carrying his handguns and collect more semiautomatic rifles. The GOA argues Timmerman will be “adversely affected” by the city’s proposed gun-control rules.

“Tennessee has one of the strongest preemption laws in the nation, and the very reason it exists is to prevent radical anti-gun cities from enacting the very sort of draconian policies Memphis just ‘adopted,’” said Erich Pratt, GOA’s senior vice president. “We are hopeful that Tennessee courts will quickly block this insubordinate violation of state law.” 

City council chairman JB Smiley Jr. said none of the agencies who sued are from Memphis, called the lawsuit “short-sighted and “ill-conceived,” and said it is “not against the city of Memphis, but against the people who call it home.” At best, the GOA’s opposition is based on “flawed” logic, he said. At worst, the suit could lead to “record-breaking homicides.”

“Opposition to gun reform, and consequently this lawsuit, is deadly, dangerous, and disrespectful to the people of Memphis, whom this will directly impact long after these out-of-state entities leave,” Smiley said in a statement posted to X Thursday. “But, here’s what I know — when you come against the people of the 901 and when you try to silence our voice, we stand up and defend our neighbors and our values every single time. We must continue [to] take a stand against anything that would stand in our way of achieving that.” 

Along with the suit, the GOA posted a YouTube video titled, “We’re Suing Memphis.” It shows Smiley saying that should the body be sued, “in the words of our attorney [Allan] Wade, ‘Tell them to bring it on. We’ll fight about it in court.’” The video then shows a photo of Memphis Police Department Chief Cerelyn Davis set to funky music, and video of Bill Hader dancing and making faces cut from a Saturday Night Live sketch.

“Memphis voters overwhelmingly chose to strip their fellow citizens of their fundamental rights, and now city officials, knowing full well these ordinances will patently violate Tennessee law, are planning to implement them,” said Chris Stone, GOA’s director of state and local affairs. “This is unacceptable, and we are eager to fight back.” 

The suit seeks the blocking of enforcement of the ordinances, a statement making the rules invalid, and damages, court costs, and legal fees.   

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Memphis City Council: Circumventing the People’s Will

On a preceding page of this issue, law professor Steve Mulroy, who paid his political dues as a two-term member of the Shelby County Commission, exhorts the candidates in this year’s city election to attend to certain overdue tasks.

One of those is that of reviving the efforts, sabotaged at two governmental levels, including by the current Memphis City Council, to institute Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in local elections. One of the scandals of the year just passed has been a successful joint effort by the aforesaid incumbent council members and the office of the Tennessee Secretary of State to suppress what had already been planned as a trial of RCV during the now ongoing Memphis municipal election.

Their efforts included, on the council side, the patently illegal use of taxpayer funds to compensate city lobbyists in Nashville for supporting legislation to ban RCV (also known as Instant Runoff Voting) in all state elections. The council further authorized the use of more public money to pay a public relations agency for advertisements advocating a “No” vote on a citywide referendum last year to uphold previous voter support of RCV.

The first such public referendum vote occurred in 2008 and was lopsidedly in favor of RCV. A second referendum in 2018 should have been unnecessary, but, once held, at council direction, it, too, passed overwhelmingly. As we noted editorially at the time, our own elected city council was using our own taxpayer money in an effort to cancel out what had been our duly authorized vote in favor of Ranked Choice Voting.

Nor has the council majority ceased in its efforts to strike down a public initiative. Council attorney Allan Wade has been directed by the incumbent council members to seek further legal “remedies” to counteract the people’s will.

Allan Wade

Meanwhile, the state Election Coordinator, which is a part of the publicly endowed Secretary of State’s office, issued a ruling, citing a hodge-podge of questionable reasons, why it regarded the RCV process as “illegal” and imposed a directive on the Shelby County Election Coordinator, Linda Phillips, not to follow through on this year’s or any other future implementation of RCV.

Ranked Choice Voting, it will be remembered, calls upon voters to rank their preferred choices, usually in a 1-2-3 sequence. Should there be no majority winner for an election position, the votes of runner-up candidates would be given appropriate weight and reassigned to the top two finishers in accordance with the preferences established in voters’ rankings. Eventually a majority winner would be declared thereby.

The method saves time, money, and effort, and makes unnecessary follow-up runoff elections that, in the case of the October 3rd council district elections, would be scheduled for late November, at a time when the interests of the voting public would have shifted elsewhere, resulting in miniscule turnouts with inevitably misleading final results.

It would seem to be a small thing to ask — that our elected officials observe the people’s will in such matters as public referenda. The fact that they have not and that they have pursued under-handed means of counteracting those expressions of the democratic process is an embarrassment and an outrage.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Allan Wade: Fast Man With a Phrase

Allan Wade, the veteran lawyer who represents the Memphis City Council, among other clients, is a glib talker, both in the courtroom and out, as he indicated once again in a hearing Tuesday in the courtroom of Chancellor Jim Kyle and afterward.

Allan Wade

The hearing concerned a request by several plaintiffs attempting to halt the council’s proposed use of city funds to launch a “public information” campaign in favor of three referenda on the November 6th ballot. Wade argued vigorously against the suit and was gratified when the Chancellor went on to rule that the issue was not “ripe” for judgment.

Wade was explaining as much to a reporter in the hallway of the Courthouse after the hearing when John Marek, also a lawyer and one of the plaintiffs, passed by, muttering something about “corruption.” Wade instantly shifted gears, responding “Kiss my ass,” and then continuing with his exegesis of what he saw as the relevant legal issues in the case.

The outburst was a reminder of another reported incident in the council chambers when, after a meeting, several attendees expressed criticism of an action taken by Wade in his role as attorney for the council. One of them, Theron Bond, said Wade responded with a profane threat, and another, Carlos Ochoa, who was attempting to make a video of the exchange, said Wade called him a “punk.”

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Termite Inspection

When you’re scanning the sky for incoming artillery, you don’t always notice the termites chewing away at the beams in your basement.

That’s another way of saying, when you’re obsessed with the latest episodes of King Don Un’s reality show up in D.C., you sometimes forget to pay attention to what’s happening in your old home town. Specifically, what’s going on with the Memphis City Council and with certain members who are running for other offices to be decided in the upcoming August 2nd election.

I’m generally in favor of term limits, as are most local voters, judging from the fact that they’ve voted in two-term limits for most county offices and for the Shelby County Commission and, in 2008, voted by a three-to-one margin to limit the Memphis City Council to two terms. In that same election, Memphians voted by a similar margin to institute Instant Runoff Voting, which allows voters to rank their choices and by so doing, eliminate expensive runoff elections.

One perhaps unforseen result of term limits has been the ongoing recycling of various office-holders from one county job to another. Term-limited out of the county clerk’s office? Just run for county assessor or Juvenile Court clerk or trustee or register of deeds. Anyone can register a deed, right? The roles change, but the cast of characters remains the same. It’s a hassle to have to find a new public office to run for every eight years. Such a drag.

This year, three city council members — Edmund Ford, Bill Morrison, and Janis Fullilove — are candidates for the county commission, Probate Court clerk, and Juvenile Court clerk, respectively. If any or all of the three wins their prospective new offices, a pivotal question arises: How long will they will hold on to their council seats before resigning them? By law, they can wait 90 days. If they do, it complicates an already complicated matter.

Memphis City Ordinance #1852 reads, “on any vacancy occurring in the Council … a successor shall be elected to fill out the remainder of the term. … That special municipal election shall be held on the date of the next August or November election.” If any these council members are elected to another office on August 2nd and hold onto their council seat for 90 days, a November election for those seats becomes nearly impossible.

Further muddying the water is the fact that city council Chairman Berlin Boyd and council Attorney Allan Wade have cited an as-yet-unseen (and perhaps nonexistent?) legal memo that states that the next council election can’t be held until next August. If that decision prevails, then any vacant council seats would be filled via appointment by the current council, thereby depriving those represented by said councilmembers the right to decide who represents them.

The sad fact is, this city council seems quite willing to ignore the will of Memphis voters. In January, council members voted to put a referendum on the November ballot to allow voters to give them three terms instead of two. They have also managed to avoid implementing the Instant Runoff System approved by city voters in 2008 and have put a couple of confusing IRV referendums on the November ballot to thwart or reverse that decision.

Bottom line, if the council gets its way: Citizens in the three possibly affected districts won’t get to vote on who represents them for more than a year. But, as a consolation prize, this November, we will all get a chance to give them three terms instead of two. Tough call.

Frankly, I think it’s time we go to the basement and check the beams. Something’s chewing away down there.

Editor’s note: The house pictured on last week’s cover was not the house being objected to by the Cooper-Young couple quoted in the cover story. Thanks to gracious home-owner Monica Braun, who pointed out the possibly misleading image.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Activist Group Wants to See Text of “Mystery Memo”

UNDER CHALLENGE — Wade (left) and Boyd

Final voting for the county general election ballot is still four weeks away, on Thursday, August 2nd, but a serious battle is raging about the possible aftermath, as it affects three Memphis City Council seats.

Those are the seats now held by council members Edmund Ford, Bill Morrison, and Janis Fullilove, candidates for Position 9 on the County Commission, Probate Court Clerk, and Juvenile Court Clerk, respectively. If any or all of the three win should win, the question then becomes one of how long the winning members will hold on to their council seats before resigning them.

Activists involved in the struggle to defeat a council-mandated referendum that would call off a scheduled trial of Ranked Choice Voting (aka Instant Runoff Voting) in the 2019 city election are taking on this issue as well: They want the three mentioned candidates to declare in advance their intent to vacate their council seats fairly immediately should they win their races.

The activists, all members of Save IRV Memphis, fear that whichever seats are held onto by the winning council members for the full 90 days permitted by law before a resignation would then have to be replaced via appointment from the remaining members of the council.

That, as Save IRV Memphis sees it, would prevent a possible vote to fill the seat or seats on this year’s regular November election ballot.

An ambivalence on the point by the three council members in question is one problem confronting the activists seeking an early-resignation pledge by the three candidates; another problem has been the insistence by council chair Berlin Boyd, backed by council attorney Allan Wade, that scheduling a vote on any vacant council seat in November is precluded by the city charter, that such a vote would instead have to be held during the next regularly scheduled August election.

In effect, the Boyd/Wade formula would require any council seat made vacant as a result of this year’s county election to be filled by the aforementioned option of council appointment and to be voted on only during the regular city election of 2019. As the Save IRV Memphis activists see it, that would circumvent the people’s will and further overload the council with new members appointed by, and loyal to, a dominant council faction already too answerable to the Memphis Chamber of Commerce and the city’s business elite.

In a press release circulated Thursday by Save IRV Memphis, Carlos Ochoa sums up the fate of a public records request made by the group under the Freedom of Information Act for what they call a “Secret Mystery Memo.”

“On June 19th, 2018, Chairman Boyd referred to a legal memo purporting to prove that City Council vacancy elections can only be held in August. A public records request was filed for a copy of this memo. Since then, the city has twice hinted that such a memo might not exist and finally stated that the memo was protected by attorney-client privilege:

“The attorney referenced is city council attorney, Allan Wade. And Chairman Boyd hides behind this secret, possibly nonexistent legal memo, written by the city council attorney. The city council attorney won’t acknowledge whether the memo exists, but claims that at any rate it’s secret. The city attorney and administration say they can’t get involved to give an answer because it’s a city council matter….”

The organization, which so far has not been the fount of a groundswell, hopes to become one. It urges:

“Save IRV Memphis is calling on all Memphians to contact their city council representatives and the mayor’s office to demand that Allan Wade and the city council confirm the existence of Boyd’s legal memo and to release its content to the public. We also call on Chairman Boyd to provide a copy of the memo.

“If the City will not provide the secret memo then they should provide a straight answer to whether a November election can be used to fill a council vacancy. If not, they should explain why not, given the unambiguous language of Ordinance No. 1852
[the mechanism by which the city council and its electoral means were enacted].”

Section 1 of that ordinance reads: “… on any vacancy occurring in the Council … a successor shall be elected to fill out the remainder of the term … in the same manner as now provided for filling vacancies on the Board of Commissioners, except that such special municipal election shall be held on the date of the next August or November election.”

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Instant Runoff Advocate Reacts to Council Vote for Anti-Runoff Referendum

The following is an exchange between Allan Wade, counsel for the Memphis City Council, and Steve Mulroy, a University of Memphis law professor, former Shelby County Commissioner, and leading advocate of instant runoff voting for local elections. The exchange relates to an ordinance — passed 11-2 by the Council on Tuesday — establishing a referendum that could eliminate all runoff voting in city elections. Mulroy’s reference to being “out of the country” refers to a sabbatical law fellowship of his, now ongoing in Canberra, Australia.

From: Allan Wade
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 11:07:27 AM
To: Steven John Mulroy (smulroy); Boyd, Berlin; Bibbs, Carlos; jim.strickland@memphistn.gov; Alan Crone
Cc: Edmund.Fordjr@memphistn.gov
Subject: RE: Text Of Ballot For IRV
Good morning—I have been requested to inquire whether your organization, Fair Vote, has a position on the referendum ordinance eliminating run-offs in Council district races? And, if Fair Vote is supportive will it contribute to an information campaign for that Item?

Mr. Wade:

Steve Mulroy

I’m out of the country. It was early morning when I first saw your email. I decided to wait til I got to my office and pen a proper response on a desktop rather than try to use my iPhone. I was unaware from your message that this was time sensitive, or that the Council was actively debating the plurality measure as you wrote.

I’ve since been told that you informed the Council that I was unresponsive to your email, or gave you the cold shoulder, or the like. If this is so, this is an unfair characterization, and I hope that you will convey this response to the Council before they vote. Since the sponsor asked for my position, it is only fair that you timely and accurately convey it.

My organization is not Fairvote. It is Save Instant Runoff Memphis, made up of scores of Memphis residents who favor IRV for the unique conditions of Memphis. Fairvote is a national organization that we consult with, just as Councilman Ford consulted extensively with a California-based national opponent of IRV (who often prefers to remain anonymous).
I very much appreciate Councilwoman Swearengen inquiring as to our position and inviting us to participate in a public education campaign. Please thank her for that courtesy.
Respectfully, though, we oppose the plurality ordinance. The reasons were spelled out in “Respect the Voters,” a guest editorial I published in the Memphis Flyer last month.

In a nutshell, plurality creates the “spoiler” effect—i.e., if too many candidates representing the majority view enter the race, their vote is split, and a candidate squeaks by with 39% of the vote who actually is the LEAST-PREFERRED candidate of the majority. This is how Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in 2016, even though most Republican primary voters ranked him pretty far down the list. Plurality is fraught with problems from a minority vote dilution perspective in a city or district with a black majority. Plurality also is subject to manipulation; an established candidate can recruit another candidate to enter the race and split the vote of the other side. We have all seen examples of both phenomena in Memphis elections in the last few decades.
IRV eliminates both these problems, and ensures the majority’s will in a given district, while also avoiding the problems of 5% participation, minority vote dilution, and disadvantage to lesser-funded candidates present with regular runoffs in Memphis—arguments familiar to those who listened to the December debate on Councilman Ford’s ordinance.
Most important, Memphis voters voted for IRV at a 71% rate in 2008, and only obstructionism by those in power has prevented its implementation. IRV should be given a chance to succeed or fail before we consider replacing it with a plurality for all system.
Finally, it should be noted that the plurality ordinance directly conflicts with Councilman Ford’s ordinance. Having both on the November referendum ballot will cause voter confusion. If both were to pass in November, there would be legal uncertainty. At a minimum, the Council should decide on one or the other and stick with one in November.
Again, we appreciate the Council seeking our views. If the plurality ordinance gets on the ballot, Save Instant Runoff Voting Memphis will urge the public to vote “NO,” just as it will with Councilman Ford’s December ordinance.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Busting Some Moves

CREDIT: Jackson Baker

Jackson Baker

Craig Fitzhugh addresses a Collierville crowd.

Shelby County Democrats are continuing with their efforts to spread their party’s influence. The most recent instance was a fund-raising dinner Sunday night at the 148 North Restaurant in Collierville featuring several speakers — including state Representative Craig Fitzhugh, the state House minority leader and currently a candidate for governor; James Mackler, candidate for U.S. Senator; Floyd Bonner, candidate for sheriff; state Senator Lee Harris, now running for Shelby County mayor; John Boatner Jr., candidate for the District 8 congressional seat; and Sanjeev Memula, candidate for state House District 95.

• Another local gathering attracting a sizeable number of political figures was the Christmas party of the Tennessee Nurses Association, held Monday night at Coletta’s in Cordova. A good mix of Republicans and Democrats was on hand, including District 33 state Senator Reginald Tate, an inner-city Democrat who confided that he had felt compelled to resign his longstanding affiliation with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a national organization, largely funded by conservative donors, which grinds out sample bills and disseminates them to state legislatures.

Tate, who had been listed as a member of ALEC’s Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force, told the Flyer he had been pressured by fellow Democrats to sunder his ties with the organization, for which he expressed no particular ideological affinity.

• The confrontation between a Shelby County Commission majority and County Mayor Mark Luttrell over the circumstances of proposed litigation against distributors of opioids went up another notch on Monday. 

An eight-member commission majority — Republicans Heidi Shafer (the current commission chair) and Terry Roland, and Democrats Van Turner, Willie Brooks, Justin Ford, Reginald Milton, Melvin Burgess, and Eddie Jones — are supporting a Shafer initiative to force Luttrell’s hand on proposed litigation by the county against an extensive network of physicians, pharmacists, and others involved, both legally and illegally, in distribution of opioids, which, in the estimation of Shafer and the commission, have resulted in damaging levels of addiction in Shelby County.

Chancellor Jim Kyle recently ruled that Luttrell, who sued to block Shafer’s unilateral engaging of a law firm, had rightful authority over litigation by the county but declined to intervene in the lawsuit itself, now in limbo in Circuit Court. The chancellor suggested that the suit was in the public interest but recommended mediation between the commission and the mayor.

Meanwhile, Luttrell, who has floated the alternative idea of deferring to a statewide legal action against the opioid network, is still in formal (if suspended) litigation in Chancery Court against the commission. The eight-member coalition at odds with the mayor on the matter voted Monday to hire Allan Wade, who represents the Memphis City Council, as its “special legal counsel” in the matter.

That action carried, but it aroused opposition among a five-member commission minority consisting of Democrat Walter Bailey and Republicans Mark Billingsley, George Chism, Steve Basar, and David Reaves.

Typical of this group’s sentiments were Billingsley’s complaints that outside attorneys were enriching themselves at county expense and that the proposed ongoing action against the alleged opioid-distribution network was too extensive, involving well-established name-brand companies like Johnson & Johnson.

Roland, among others, responded that the proposed legal actions against opioid distributors were pro bono and would cost the county nothing, while Luttrell’s action did in fact “cost the county.”

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Attorney Wade Joins Commission Team in Battle with County Mayor

CREDIT: JB

JB

Wade at Commission on Monday

The war between a Shelby County Commission majority and County M ayor Mark Luttrell acquired a new front and a new warrior on Monday — the latter being Allan Wade, who was hired by a Commission majority to represent the body in its various legal responses to Luttrell on the still-festering matter of proposed litigation against opioid distributors.

(Wade, who functions as the City Council’s attorney, is much in the spotlight these days, having been a point man a day later in the Council’s controversial decision on Tuesday to call for a second referendum on the the use of IRV — instant-runoff-voting — procedures in the forthcoming 2019 city election.)

Meanwhile, the newest confrontation in the Commission-Luttrell battle concerned a technically unrelated matter of take-home pay. And it was the proverbial case of adding insult to injury.

Actually, the latest controversy was an outgrowth of sorts from the existing one. Early in Monday’s regular meeting, Commissioner David Reaves requested the opportunity to reconsider a vote, taken during the previous Commission meeting, on an item to raise the pay of both the Sheriff and the Mayor.

Two weeks ago, the item was defeated, but Reaves, who had been on the prevailing side then, said he had felt constrained to change his vote because of his increasing awareness of the severity of the opioid crisis and the burden of combatting it that would fall upon the Sheriff’s office. Reaves said he’d also come to realize that the Sheriff might be under-paid relative to counterparts elsewhere in the state.

So he wanted, after all, to raise the Sheriff’s pay, from its existing level of $116,000. But he wanted to do so in a way that didn’t automatically raise the pay level of the Mayor, which is proportionally linked to the Sheriff’s by the county charter.

After a fair amount of debate and back-and-forth with County Attorney Kathryn Pascover, the Commission availed itself of a loophole that allowed it to raise the Sheriff’s pay to 95 percent of the Mayor’s pay, leaving the latter at his current level but boosting the Sheriff to $35,575.

In fairness, Reaves is not a full-time member of the coalition arrayed against Luttrell, and his motive in holding down an equivalent pay increase for the Mayor was probably unrelated to the ongoing power struggle. It was doubtless otherwise with the eight members of the aforesaid coalition: Republicans Heidi Shafer (the current Commission chair) and Terry Roland, and Democrats Van Turner, Willie Brooks, Justin Ford, Reginald Milton, Melvin Burgess, and Eddie Jones.

Those eight Commissioners are the ones supporting chairman Shafer in her initiative to force Luttrell’s hand on proposed litigation by the County against an extensive network of physicians, pharmacists, and others involved, both legally and illegally, in distribution of opioids, which, in the estimation of Shafer et al., have proliferated to dangerous and damaging levels in Shelby County

Chancellor Jim Kyle recently ruled that Luttrell, who sued to block Shafer’s unilateral engaging of a law firm, had rightful authority over litigation by the county but declined to intervene in the lawsuit itself, now in limbo in Circuit Court .

The Chancellor, who suggested that the suit was in the public interest, recommended mediation between the Commission and the Mayor, going forward.

Meanwhile, Mayor Luttrell, who has floated the alternative dea of deferring to a statewide legal action against the opioid network, is still in formal (if suspended) litigation in Chancery Court against the Commission, and the eight-member coalition at odds with the Mayor on the matter, voted Monday to hire Wade as its “special legal counsel” in the matter.

That action would carry, but it aroused intense opposition among a five-member Commission minority consisting of Democrat Walter Bailey and Republicans Mark Bilingsley, George Chism, Steve Basar, and Reaves.

Typical of this group’s sentiments were Billingsley’s complaints that outside attorneys were enriching themselves at county expense and that the proposed ongoing action against the alleged opioid-distribution network was too extensive, involving well-established name-brand companies like Johnson and Johnson.

Roland, among others, responded to the effect that “we’re the ones getting sued” and that the proposed legal actions against opioid distributors were pro bono and would cost the county nothing, while Luttrell’s action did in fact “cost the county.”

Categories
News The Fly-By

Government Officials Saying Bad Things

“Asshole.” “Kiss my butt.” “I could care less.” “Don’t flatter yourself.”

These are comments lawmakers and a government attorney recently said or wrote directly to taxpayers.

• Tennessee state Sen. Todd Gardenhire, who infamously called a Tennessee taxpayer an “asshole” last year during the Insure Tennessee debate, had terse words last week for Memphian Steve Levine.

Sen. Todd Gardenshire

During a debate on Gardenhire’s bill that would prohibit the use of state gas tax funds for bike lanes, a fellow lawmaker told Gardenhire that he’d received numerous emails about the bill. Gardenhire joked that that was “what the delete button” was for.

Levine wrote Gardenhire an email calling his sentiment “glib” and a “slap in the face” to his constituents. Gardenhire responded, noting “The day you start receiving 350 to 400 emails a day, call me so I can sit and watch you read every one of them.” Levine wrote him back to say “I don’t feel sorry for you” because responding to constituents is “part of the job” and that he was glad that his email somehow rose above the others.

“Don’t flatter yourself,” Gardenhire wrote from his official state email address. “Not only will I delete this email after I send it, but you will be blocked. You made my day.”

Gardenhire had not responded for comment by press time.

“It was absolutely an inappropriate response coming from an elected official,” Levine said. “My opinion and hope is that someone in a public service position would accept that others will disagree and that correspondence is part of the job.”

• Memphis City Council attorney Allan Wade apparently did not mince words with a Memphis taxpayer three weeks ago, as the Greensward-Memphis Zoo parking debate raged at Memphis City Hall.

Kathy Ake wrote a post on Nextdoor titled “me and Allan Wade” in which she told Wade “you should be ashamed” for allegedly colluding with Memphis Zoo leadership. Ake confirmed the incident with the Flyer.

“He stopped, backed up and said ‘Are you talking to me?'” Ake wrote. “I said yes. He looked at me and said ‘You should kiss my butt.'”

Ake said she has heard nothing from city council members or Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland since the incident.

Wade would not confirm that the situation happened.

“I have no comment on any private conversations that I may or may not have had with someone ‘who made a comment to me’ outside of the public meeting context,” Wade said in an email to the Flyer. “I hear a lot of ‘comments’ that cannot be repeated in polite company.”

• Last week, a Mississippi state legislator told a taxpayer she should move out of the state.

According to a story from Jackson’s The Clarion-Ledger, freshman Rep. Karl Oliver told a resident in an email that she and he have “different political views,” and he noted that she wasn’t a Mississippi native.

“I appreciate you going to the trouble to share [your opinion] with me, but quite frankly, and with all due respect, I could care less,” Oliver said in an email. “I would, however, recommend that there are a rather large number of like-minded citizens in Illinois that would love to see you return.”