Categories
Cover Feature News

Inside the MPD

In the wake of the killing of Tyre Nichols by members of the Memphis Police Department’s SCORPION Unit in January 2023, the Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated an investigation of the MPD to determine if officers regularly violated citizens’ rights. After 18 months of reviewing case files and video, interviewing Memphians, riding along with officers, and observing the inner workings of the MPD, the DOJ released its findings on December 4th. The 70-page report concludes, “After an extensive investigation, the Department of Justice has reasonable cause to believe that the MPD and the city engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights under the Constitution and federal law.”

“Don’t Kill Me!” 

The DOJ investigators highlighted four key findings: 1. MPD uses excessive force. 2. MPD conducts unlawful stops, searches, and arrests. 3. MPD unlawfully discriminates against Black people in its enforcement activities. 4. The city and MPD unlawfully discriminate in their response to people with behavioral health disabilities. To support these findings, investigators cited numerous instances of violence by MPD officers against the citizens of Memphis. “Excessive force is routine in MPD,” DOJ investigators write. “Officers use force as a first resort, demand unquestioning obedience, and exact punishment if they do not receive it.”

Nine police cars and 12 officers responded to a call where a mentally ill man stole a $2 soft drink from a convenience store. After he put his hands up to surrender, he was beaten. He screamed, “Don’t kill me!” and tried to run away. He was subdued and repeatedly tased while face-down on the ground, then served two days in jail for disorderly conduct and theft. 

In another case, three officers tackled a man who had littered in a public park. “The man had done nothing wrong, but was ‘talking all this shit,’ according to one officer, and would not tell the officers his name. When the man dropped his drink while leaving the park, four officers surrounded him. … While handcuffed in the patrol car later, the man told a lieutenant that he was trying to follow the officers’ directions, but they had already decided to charge him: ‘I even offered to pick the can up.’”

The DOJ report finds fatal flaws in the MPD’s frontline strategy. “Memphis has relied on traffic stops to address violent crime. The police department has encouraged officers in specialized units, task forces, and patrol to prioritize street enforcement. Officers and community members have described this approach as ‘saturation,’ or flooding neighborhoods with traffic stops. This strategy involves frequent contact with the public and gives wide discretion to officers, which requires close supervision and clear rules to direct officers’ activity. But MPD does not ensure that officers conduct themselves in a lawful manner.” 

In two instances cited in the report, officers followed drivers to their destinations and confronted them for traffic violations. One woman was standing on the porch of a relative’s house. After she didn’t produce ID and told the police they were “not welcome on the property,” officers cuffed her, roughed her up, and threatened to pepper spray her. The report states, “After locking her in a police car, one officer asked, ‘So what did we see her do?’ When an officer suggested the woman’s car had improperly tinted windows, another officer responded, ‘All this for a tint?’ The officer shook his head and gestured with his hand that the woman talked too much.”

In another incident, officers forced their way into the home of a woman accused of driving with expired tags and failing to stop at a stop sign. “No exigent circumstances demanded they enter the woman’s home, and the officers had no justification to use force to push their way inside for a nonviolent traffic infraction,” reads the report. After arresting the woman in front of her crying child, “… one officer reflected, ‘In the grand scheme of things, this does not seem like it was worth it.’” 

Officers frequently use potentially deadly neck restraints, similar to the one Minneapolis Police Department members applied fatally to George Floyd when he was killed in 2020. In Memphis, an intoxicated man was repeatedly choked into submission until he urinated on himself. “He was not charged with any crime.” 

After offering a ride home to a man suffering a mental health crisis, the police uncovered an outstanding warrant for theft. The officer pulled the man from the police car, saying, “You’re fixing to get your ass whupped.” When the man tried to flee, the officer beat him and put him in a neck restraint. 

Officers were frequently observed beating, tasing, and pepper spraying people who were already restrained and posed no threat. “One officer hit a handcuffed man in the face and torso with a baton eight times.” 

In addition, “Officers repeatedly permitted police dogs to bite or continue to bite people, including children, who were nonresistant and attempting to surrender.” 

In one incident, an officer investigating a stolen vehicle report “fired at a car at least eight times at a fast food drive-thru in the middle of the day, jeopardizing other officers and bystanders. … MPD’s investigation improperly found that this use of deadly force was justified.” 

In a sidebar titled “Sick of his fucking mouth,” the DOJ investigators write, “MPD officers escalate incidents involving minor offensives by responding to perceived insults, disrespect, or ‘verbal resistance’ with unconstitutional force. … Some MPD officers seem to believe that questioning their authority justifies force — as one supervisor told us, ‘If someone says, “I ain’t under arrest,” that’s resisting arrest right there.’” 

Children were not spared the MPD’s methods. When one 16-year-old girl called police to report that she had been assaulted, she ended up in handcuffs. “After three hours, officers removed the handcuffs to reposition them. As she complained that her hands were hurt and swollen and tried to move her wrists, the officers grabbed her and pushed her face down onto the ground to handcuff her again. The girl was then arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.”

When officers were dispersing a crowd after a fight at a high school football game, one officer singled out a “relatively small-statured teen girl trying to leave the premises, yelling ‘Bye! Bye!’ at her. The officer’s taunts provoked the girl, who talked back. In response, the officer shoved the girl, yelling, ‘Get out this motherfuckin’ lot.’ The girl pushed back, and two other officers approached the girl from behind and threw her on the ground. The officers then lifted the girl in the air and slammed her face down into the pavement. The officer who started the altercation told her to ‘Get your dumb ass up,’ and called her a ‘stupid bitch’ as the girl was led away in handcuffs.”

When officers chased two Black boys, aged 15 and 16, who were suspected of a curfew violation, one officer, who had dropped his mobile phone in the chase, said, “I am fucking these little kids up, man. … I am fucking you all up. I just wanted to let y’all know that.” 

In another incident, “One officer shot a teenager, and then another officer hit the teenager three times in the head with the butt of his handgun and at least 12 times with a closed fist. The teen was disarmed, seriously injured, and posed no threat at the time. Prosecutors later sent a letter to MPD stating that they ‘seriously considered recommending criminal charges’ against the officer because of the ‘more than one dozen closed fist punches to the face’ that the officer delivered. The prosecutors wrote, ‘We trust that you will handle this as an internal matter and leave it to your sound discretion.’ We saw no evidence that any further investigation took place or that any discipline was imposed. The officer remains employed at MPD.”

The report concludes, “Supervisors do not address these recurrent practices, and some at MPD defend these practices. As one field training officer told us, ‘We’re not excessive enough with these criminals. We baby them.’” 

Officers use force as a first resort; MPD treats Black people more harshly. (Photo: Department of Justice)

Black People Bear the Brunt

On page 37 of the report, DOJ investigators write, “MPD’s own data show that across a range of different law enforcement actions, MPD treats Black people more harshly than white people when they engage in similar conduct.” 

While 64 percent of Memphians are Black, 81 percent of the MPD’s traffic violations are issued to Black people. Officers issued 33.2 percent more moving violations in predominately Black neighborhoods than they did in predominately white neighborhoods. Black drivers were cited for equipment violations at 4.5 times the rate of white drivers; for improperly tinted windows, the rate was 9.8 times. Public health data indicates that both Black and white people use cannabis at the same rate, but MPD arrested Black people for marijuana possession at more than five times the rate of white people. 

The report found that the MPD stopped and cited one Black man 30 times in three years. In another case, “MPD stopped a Black man outside a dollar store ‘due to multiple robberies of dollar stores in the area,’ according to the police report. The officers had no reason to suspect that this particular man took part in the robberies, and the man told them he was just waiting for a friend. When he didn’t leave or produce ID, police handcuffed him, beat him with a baton, and pepper sprayed him. The officers had no reason to believe that the man engaged in criminal activity and lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. But they arrested him anyway, and he spent a night in jail. Prosecutors declined to pursue any charges stemming from the incident. After the incident, the man noted, ‘They had no reason to do this. And they’re out here doing this to people every day.’”

Mental Health Crisis

In 1988, after the MPD killed a mentally ill man who was cutting himself, the city founded the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT). Composed of officers who have specialized training in dealing with behavioral health issues, the CIT became a model other city’s police departments emulated. But the DOJ found “serious problems with the CIT program,” and that “officers often escalate behavioral encounters and use combative tactics almost immediately after arriving to behavioral health calls. … We observed CIT officers in Memphis belittle and mock people with behavioral health disabilities. In one incident, a CIT officer hit a man in the head and threatened him with a Taser while officers called him a ‘motherfucker,’ ‘bitch,’ and a ‘dumbass.’” One CIT officer earned the nickname “Taser Face.”

One 8-year-old Black boy with four behavioral health diagnoses encountered the MPD nine times between December 2021 and August 2023. He was threatened with tasing, handcuffed, and repeatedly thrown onto a couch. In one incident, when the boy stuck out his tongue, the CIT officer responded by bending his arm back and screaming, “I can break your arm with the snap of my wrist.” 

The report says that while 75 percent of 911 calls involving people with mental illness are nonviolent, “MPD’s training on behavioral health primes officers to approach people with behavioral health disabilities with force and aggression, and our review revealed they often do. For instance, a training given to all new officers erroneously teaches that people with bipolar disorder do not feel pain.” 

The City Responds

At a press conference on December 5, 2024, Mayor Paul Young responded to the DOJ’s findings — while repeatedly emphasizing that he had not read the report. “I believe that even one incident of mistreatment by the police is one too many. … The report the DOJ released last night is going to be difficult to read. Some of the incidents the DOJ report described are simply not acceptable, and our hearts go out to every person who has been impacted by those actions.”

In cities such as Seattle, New Orleans, and Chicago which have previously been the subject of DOJ investigations, city governments entered into consent decrees, negotiated with the DOJ, that outline the steps police departments must take to improve. At the press conference, Young ruled out signing such a decree. “We believe adjustments we’ve already begun making must continue, and that they must expand. It’s my job as mayor to fight for the best interests of our entire community. Every member. After carefully considering the information we received from DOJ, we didn’t believe that entering into any agreement in principle or consent decree right now, before even thoroughly reading the DOJ report, would be in the best interest of our community. It’s crucial that the city has the time to do a thorough review and respond to the findings before agreeing to anything that could become a long-term financial burden to our residents, and could, in fact, actually slow down our ongoing efforts to continuously improve our police department.” 

Young cited recent statistics which show a 13 percent drop in crime overall, and a 19 percent drop in violent crimes. Police Chief C.J. Davis echoed the mayor’s position that the department is on the right track. “In some of the areas that have been outlined in the report, we have made significant changes aligned with the Department of Justice, getting their support with some of the training that has been ongoing, not just this year, but in previous years.” 

In response to the sections of the report regarding the MPD’s treatment of children, Davis said, “We spend a lot of time with our children in our community. We graduated over a thousand children from our D.A.R.E./G.R.E.A.T. program, and work consistently to try to improve those relationships. We’re going to look through the report to ensure that we’re not missing anything.”

Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy has studied the full report. “I think it’s very concerning and shouldn’t be dismissed. I still think the vast majority of folks on the force are people of good faith. They have a hard job, having to make quick decisions in stressful, sometimes dangerous situations. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be systemic issues of culture, training, and supervision that cry out for reform.”

When Shahidah Jones of the Official Black Lives Matter Memphis Chapter read the report, she recalls thinking, “Not to be cynical, but it was just like, ‘Duh.’ We didn’t choose to target police because we didn’t have anything else to do or we were looking at these one-off instances. A very large part of organizing is for us to learn history and do our political study. … This is not something new. This is the way police have been taught to operate.” 

Josh Spickler, executive director of criminal justice-reform nonprofit Just City, agrees. “I’m not particularly surprised by the report. I recognize some of these stories, some of the examples from media reports. Many of these things are well-documented and well-known incidents. And the findings are bad and awful, and as even Mayor Young said, hard to read, but they are not surprising.”

For Amber Sherman, who lobbied the city council for reform in the wake of the Tyre Nichols killing, the report felt like vindication. “My immediate action really was that it just corroborated everything that, you know, we as organizers here in Memphis have been saying for so long, especially with Decarcerate Memphis, where we’ve been really pressing the issue about pretextual stops and how dangerous they are.”

Decarcerate Memphis’ Alex Hensley, who drafted the reform ordinances which were passed by the city council in reduced forms after the Tyre Nichols killing, says she, too, feels vindicated by the report. “Activists and organizers have been saying all of these things for years on end, and then to have the DOJ — which is a policing entity, by the way — to say that, yeah, we need to not prioritize these low-level violations.” 

DA Mulroy says, “We need to rethink about using specialized units for routine enforcement. And distinguish between traffic stops that actually affect safety or real crime, like moving violations and drive-out tag fraud violations, which make sense. But some of these minor equipment violations, the data shows the hit rate on those is very low — you’re talking like 2 to 3 percent of the time do you find weapons or drugs or somebody that’s wanted on a serious charge. But the data also show those are precisely the types of offenses that are associated with racial profiling. You really have to think about what kind of a bang you’re getting for your buck. You’re potentially alienating the community that you most want to cooperate with law enforcement because they’re the ones who see the crime.” 

City council member Dr. Jeff Warren said he had not yet read the report. “If you remember, around the time that Black Lives Matter occurred after the George Floyd killing, the council began a process where we were involved with the police department, trying to initiate reforms. Some of the reforms that we actually initiated were negated by the state legislature. … I think we’ve been in the process of reform since this current police chief came on board; we’re doing that right now. That’s one of the reasons I don’t really think that the city needs to be entering into a consent decree that will cost taxpayers multiple millions of dollars, when it’s something we’re already trying to do.”

When asked about the DOJ’s finding that MPD recruits are taught that people with bipolar disorder cannot feel pain, Warren, a family physician, responded, “I don’t know where they got that from. Just because it’s written in a report doesn’t mean that’s the truth.”

The treatment of what the MPD calls “mental consumers” is one issue where there may be consensus on reform. The DOJ report cites multiple high-ranking MPD officers, as well as Memphis Fire Department officials and 911 call-takers, who believe that a new department specializing in mental health situations is needed to shift the burden from the MPD. 

“We should listen to them on that,” says Hensley. “If this city is so pro-police, listen to them on this subject. Clearly, there are a lot of mental health calls and a lot of mental health issues within our community that I think tie back to these issues of poverty, lack of housing, lack of investments in basic necessities. We have to come up with something different.” 

Spickler says, “There’s data that shows that most interactions with people in mental health crises are not violent. There are ways of responding that wouldn’t lead you to have to tell people falsely that people with bipolar don’t feel pain. One of the great suggestions of this report is that we don’t have to send an armed person to some of the things that we send them to, like a stranded motorist, traffic accidents, and mental health calls. These are all things that can be handled with someone who has safety and resolution as their mission and not what we have in this police department — and most police departments, frankly — and that is a warrior mentality. There’s an arrogance to it, and there’s an offensiveness to it. 

“There’s nothing about policing that should be offensive. It’s ‘to protect and serve,’ right? Many police departments across America have tried to shift to a guardian model, which is how policing, I think, is most effective. But throughout that report, you see very clear evidence that that is not the case at the Memphis Police Department. There is no guardian mentality. It’s not taught; it’s not modeled. It’s really not expected. What is expected is that you get what you want by whatever means necessary.” 

Will Anything Change?

The election of Donald Trump, who has promised a “brutal approach” to law enforcement, has brought the next steps into question. Whether a future DOJ would sue to impose a settlement with the city is an open question.

“I’m not gonna speculate about their motivations, but I think it’s obvious to anybody that there’s a very good chance that a lot of this will be dropped or, at a minimum, they’ll be less aggressive about enforcing it with the new administration,” says DA Mulroy. “We’ve seen that before with the prior Trump administration. That could be anyone’s calculus in dealing with the aftermath of November 5th.”

At his press conference, Mayor Young said, “We would have the same position regardless of the outcome of the presidential election.” 

A consent decree with the DOJ would result in federal monitors being assigned to the MPD in order to ensure that they do not violate citizens’ constitutional rights. In his regular Friday email on December 6th, Young wrote, “Instead of a broad and potentially prolonged federal oversight via a consent decree — which could impose millions in costs on our residents — we believe by taking a holistic, community-focused approach we can move further and faster toward the change we need with less cost to our community.”

These costs must be weighed against the costs of not acting, says Hensley. “I think they’re going to pay for it one way or another. First of all, they’re bloating the costs. We’ve looked at other cities, some of them have been high, but it’s spread out over time. There are just all these other elements that are being left out to make it seem like we’re going to go bankrupt next year. That’s disingenuous. Tyre Nichols’ family is suing them for $500 million — and that’s just one person. I’m not their chief financial officer, but you can look at that clearly and see the costs are going to be far worse if they don’t sign the consent decree, or if they don’t do these reforms.” 

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Showdown!

It is no accident that many savants in the legal/political universe regard the 1962 Baker v. Carr decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to be second to none among landmark judicial decisions.

This decision was brought on by a suit from Charles Baker, chairman of what was then the Shelby County Court, precursor of the present Shelby County Commission. On behalf of Shelby County, rapidly urbanizing at the time, as was the nation as a whole, Baker sought relief from un-democratic districting guidelines imposed by the state of Tennessee that unduly favored the state’s rural population.

The court held in essence that the Fourteenth Amendment required that the principle of one person-one vote be applied in the determination of legislative district lines.

While the decision had immediate and lasting repercussions on determining matters of voter eligibility, both in Tennessee and elsewhere in the nation, it has by no means eliminated gerrymandering based on partisan politics (e.g. witness the Republican legislative supermajority’s strip-mining away of Democratic Party rights in Nashville’s Fifth Congressional District), nor has it much diminished the edgy relationship between urban and rural interests in policy-making.

The latter issue has flared up again in the quarrel over whether Memphis voters should be allowed to vote their preference on several gun-control measures embedded in a referendum proposed by the city council but now endangered by the action of the county Election Commission in removing it from the November ballot.

In so acting, the Election Commission — dominated 3-2 by GOP members according to state mandate — has clearly responded to overt threats from the state’s Republican leadership to withhold from the city some $78 million in state revenues, if the referendum should go through as scheduled.

This was some of the “stiff resistance” promised by House Speaker Cameron Sexton, who articulated things this way: “Local governments who want to be progressive and evade state laws will lose shared sales tax funding.” The speaker likened the city’s referendum plans to “subversive attempts to adopt sanctuary cities [and] allow boys in girls’ sports.” 

Some Memphians were expressing concern that the state’s retribution could also be visited on various large local projects dependent on previously pledged state subsidies, like those involving the zoo, FedExForum, and Simmons Bank Liberty Stadium.

It is worth recalling the actual import of the endangered referendum, authorized earlier by the council’s unanimous vote. In the words of its chief sponsor Councilman Jeff Warren, “Memphis voters will be asked whether they approve amending the city’s charter to require a handgun permit, restrict the storage of guns in vehicles in many cases, ban assault weapons sales after January 1, 2025, and enact extreme risk protection orders, sometimes called Red Flag Laws.”

All the referendum would do is solicit voter opinion, it would seem. Sexton chooses to see it otherwise, as a direct challenge to state authority.

Whichever interpretation is correct, the ongoing confrontation between city and state over a host of policy matters, of which gun safety is only one, is rising to fever pitch, as evidenced the rhetoric employed last week by Council Chair JB Smiley and various supportive council members, who announced their intent to sue the Election Commission to reinstate the ballot measure.

“Memphis has been shot and is bleeding out,” said Councilwoman Jerri Green. “We won’t back down, and we damn sure won’t be bullied,” proclaimed Smiley.

Memphis Mayor Paul Young meanwhile seemed to be trying to position himself at the nonexistent calm center, saying he understood the council’s “frustration” but expressing the view that the referendum ultimately would be “futile.” 

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Purgatory

The forced reaction of Mayor Paul Young in his interim appointment of Memphis Police Chief CJ Davis, coupled with the city council’s action this past Tuesday to defer action on reappointing Public Works Director Robert Knecht, suggests an emergent balkanization of power in the affairs of the newly installed city government.

Council chair JB Smiley has made it clear that he intends to position the council — and himself — as a counterbalance to mayoral authority. Smiley, who had taken the lead in the first deferral of action on Davis three weeks ago, reinforced his assertiveness last Tuesday in dressing down Knecht for “attitude” and alleged insularity and leading the council to postpone a vote on Knecht’s reappointment for two more weeks.

“Make sure you respond when we come calling on you,” was the thrust of Smiley’s message to Knecht. The contrast between Smiley’s firmness and Knecht’s docility was instructive.

And individual council members have their own axes to grind.

Councilman Jeff Warren, sponsor of the imminent council resolution that Young had to preempt and emulate in his interim appointment of Davis, has affirmed his position at the nexus of authority. Newcomer Jerri Green’s strong questioning of Davis underscored her determination to be a voice to reckon with.

Another new council member, previously seen as an unknown quantity, is Yolanda Cooper-Sutton, who has made a point of her intention to base her votes on her own independent researches. Yet another first-termed, Pearl Eva Walker, has to be regarded as a potential exponent of an abundant number of activist causes, including a reexamination of Memphis’ issues with TVA.

And so forth and so on. As the old saw goes: All have won, and all must have prizes. Young, who has yet to get his legs fully down, will be hard put to maintain the strong-mayor authority the city charter entitles him to — especially given a belated air of pushback against the relatively free hand enjoyed by former mayor Jim Strickland.

Not to be ignored, either, is the likely enhancement of self-interested power groups in the community. A key moment in the (temporary) resolution of the Davis matter was a come-to-Jesus meeting between Mayor Young and members of the Memphis Police Association on the Monday before the last council session.

The gathered police folk made it clear that they wanted more attention to their concerns that they had been used to in law-enforcement matters.

The bottom line is that rosy rhetoric does not apply to Davis’ case. Nor to her boss’. One noted pundit has hailed the interim appointment as a salvific opportunity for all the sides to get together in constructive kumbaya. The fact is, to employ the right existential terminology, Davis is in a form of purgatory and has, at best, an opportunity to expurgate herself. Meanwhile, she has to bear the ill-defined stigmata of public doubt. And so, sadly, must the mayor, as he still struggles to launch his mayoralty.

Some are already suggesting that Chief Davis might make her best contribution to the city’s welfare — and to her boss’ and to her own — by arranging for a graceful, voluntary withdrawal.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Council Resolution Forced Young’s Hand

The backstory of Mayor Paul Young’s last-minute appointment of Cerelyn “C.J.” Davis to remain as interim police chief: He acted preemptively to stave off a council resolution that would have mandated a similar outcome.

The council resolution, prepared by member Jeff Warren, called for a five-month pause during which the council would measure Davis’ performance in office according to a scale of “metrics,” the nature of which had yet to be devised.

Reportedly, eight council members had committed to the resolution, more than enough for passage.

Confronted with the fact of the resolution’s imminent introduction on Tuesday, Mayor Young made the impromptu decision, with minutes to spare, to make the interim appointment of Davis.

It is understood that the council still has authority to assert its will on Davis’ tenure and, in reaching an ultimate judgment, will avail itself of the aforementioned package of still-to-be-arrived-at metrics. The council will vote again on Davis’ status in June, as called for in the resolution.

The resolution read as follows:

WHEREAS, in the wake of a new Administration, the Memphis City Council received presentations from Mayor Young’s prospective appointees to head each division of the City of Memphis; and

WHEREAS, in anticipation of the vote to reappoint Police Services Chief Davis, the Council has received numerous messages from its constituents, expressing their concerns about the state of crime in Memphis, and the need for effective leadership to reduce it; and

WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that the City of Memphis’s public safety is of the utmost importance, and, as such, understands the importance of appointing or reappointing the individual who will be tasked with ensuring the safety of our communities; and

WHEREAS, during the January 9th Council meeting, both Council Members and Chief Davis shed light on some internal issues amongst Police Services, in addition to external issues that have contributed to an increase in crime in our city; and

WHEREAS, to address these issues, it is the intent of the Council to gather further data as to the effectiveness of Chief Davis, and to determine the needs of the Memphis Police Department that will best aid them in their goal to reduce crime before voting on Chief Davis reappointment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Memphis City Council hereby postpones the vote on the reappointment of MPD Chief C.J. Davis until the second Council meeting in June of 2024. In the interim, the Chairman of the Memphis City Council shall appoint a Council Member to confer with the Administration and other stakeholders to compile a list of expectations and metrics for the next 5 months to assess Chief Davis’ ability to address internal MPD issues and to reduce crime: these expectations and metrics shall be shared with the Members of the Memphis City Council and the public in advance of the reappointment.

Sponsor:

Dr. Jeff Warren

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Poll: Tennesseans  Support  Gun Laws, Abortion, LGBTQ Rights

In the wake of  local gun incidents that have prompted potential emergency action from the Memphis city council, a Vanderbilt University survey demonstrates a favorable attitude statewide for new firearms legislation.

The semiannual Vanderbilt Poll, released on Wednesday, finds “significant bipartisan support” for government action on gun control. The poll also indicates support for “basic protections for abortion” and for provision of health care options for the LGBTQ community.

Though Governor Bill Lee has said he intends to call a special session of the General Assembly to consider new gun laws, the legislature adjourned its 2023 session last week without considering such legislation. Meanwhile, the Memphis city council may test the resolve of the Assembly’s Republican supermajority against new laws by passing its own gun ordinances. 

The council’s action, signaled by Councilman Jeff Warren, is in response to the shooting of two people on Beale Street over the weekend, followed by a disturbed young gunman’s firing a round on Tuesday into the studio space of Fox-13  television.

The council will apparently consider action for a red-flag law, for banning assault weapons locally, and to require gun-carry permits. If it does so, it will challenge state government’s increasing emphasis on curtailing local options.

However the state might respond officially, its citizens would find such action agreeable, according to the Vanderbilt Poll.

The survey, conducted April 19-23 among 1,003 registered Tennessee voters, shows that 82 percent of those polled support Gov. Lee’s  recent executive order on gun background checks, and that three-quarters of them desire “red flag” laws to that end.

Support for the governor’s executive order, issued in response to the recent Covenant School shootings in Nashville, which killed six people, was 81 percent among self-described non-MAGA Republicans, 91 percent among Democrats, and 78 percent among independents.

The survey indicates that gun control ranked as the third-most important issue on the minds of Tennesseans, just two percentage points behind education and three points behind the economy. 

On abortion, 82 percent of those surveyed supported the right of abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother.

Further, says a summary of poll results, “At a rate of 3 to 1, Tennesseans oppose the idea that a person should be charged with a crime if they help a Tennessee citizen get an abortion in another state. Opposition to this idea is again bipartisan, with 93 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Independents, 62 percent of non-MAGA Republicans and 53 percent of MAGA Republicans.”

And, though the survey indicates sentiment to control sexually suggestive entertainments in public, apparently including drag shows, “most voters oppose legislation that would restrict transgender individuals’ access to health care.” Such restrictions were opposed by 66 percent of those surveyed.

“It’s hopeful that while 58 percent of respondents view Tennesseans as divided, there is a fairly strong agreement on basic next steps in our most politically divisive issues,” said John Geer, co-director of the Vanderbilt Poll and Ginny and Conner Searcy Dean of the College of Arts and Science and professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. “At the same time, 74 percent of registered voters say they’d prefer their elected leaders compromise across the aisle rather than strictly pursue their own values and priorities.”

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Report: No Cancer Clusters Found Around Sterilization Services

No clusters of major cancers were found in a government investigation of the area around Sterilization Services in South Memphis after health alerts were raised on emissions from the company last year.

The company uses ethylene oxide (EtO) in its Florida Street facility to sterilize medical equipment. The gas is odorless and colorless and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wasn’t aware emissions could raise cancer rates until 2016.

Now, the EPA says EtO emissions from the facility could pose a risk to those living in the neighborhood around it. The agency held public meetings in Memphis last year to warn the residents but said there was little they could do. 

Since that meeting, officials with the Shelby County Health Department (SCHD) and the Tennessee Department of Health (TDH) reviewed areas around the company’s facility. Specifically, they were looking for heightened cases of leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, stomach cancer, and breast cancer.  

”This cancer cluster investigation did not provide evidence of increased amounts of leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, stomach, or breast cancers clustered near the Sterilization Services of Tennessee facility compared to a group of residents away from the facility,” reads the report. “Just because we cannot find evidence of increased rates of cancer that are associated with EtO does not mean there may not be increased risk.”

For the study, health officials compared the area around Sterilization Services to another area far from the facility, basically from Cordova to Eads in eastern Shelby County. To get a better context of any population shifts that may have happened, they also compared data from 2000-2009 and from 2010-2019. 

SCHD officials announced the findings of the study this week in a public meeting. SCHD director Dr. Michelle Taylor fielded questions from the a audience and from those watching a live-stream of the meeting. Taylor said the company has been “very cooperative” during the investigation process.  

“We’ve never had a problem with them, with our inspectors going in, asking questions, getting information for from them, none of that,” Taylor said. “So, really it is about finding out what the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] is expecting in the way of additional controls and then figuring out and negotiating how quickly that can happen.” 

The company has used EtO here since the 1970s. The SCHD has permitted the facility since 1985. The EPA did not begin regulating emissions of EtO until 1994. 

The company is now in compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations on emissions. The EPA is working on some rule changes to limit EtO emissions at places like Sterilization Services. 

Until then, the company can only be asked to make changes voluntarily, which is what the Memphis City Council asked them to do in a resolution in January. At the time, council member Dr. Jeff Warren said Sterilization Services has facilities across the U.S. and has already enacted emission interventions at some of them. 

Citizens asked Taylor this week if the health department could intervene and demand the company to act, even to get them to move. 

“If we learned anything from Covid, we know that our authority is limited at the health department,” Taylor said. “Industry is not just regulated by us, it’s regulated by code enforcement, it’s regulated by zoning, it’s regulated by many other divisions that are not the health department. So, when you’re talking about asking an industry to move somewhere else, the short answer is, we as a health department, as a single entity — we just cannot do that alone.” 

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Council Wants Regional One’s Help In Violence Intervention Program

An intervention program aimed at curbing violence in Memphis by speaking to shooting victims and their families encountered resistance from one of Memphis’ largest hospitals, prompting city officials to intervene. 

On Tuesday, Memphis City Council members voted to pass a resolution requesting the Shelby County government help facilitate an agreement between Regional One Health Hospital and the city-funded Group Violence Intervention Program (GVIP). Memphis launched the program in 2020 with $2.4 million in funding. 

Members of the GVIP team visit trauma units at hospitals to provide intervention to juveniles and their families who have been affected by gun violence. The program has partnered with the Methodist Le Bonheur trauma department, but efforts to connect with Regional One have been denied, citing HIPAA concerns.  

“I’m sorry but whoever is in charge of Regional One needs to wake up and let our people in,” said City Council member Dr. Jeff Warren, who helped launch the program.

GVIP is an alternative to policing by collaborating with the Memphis Police Department and examining weekly shootings to identify the shooters as well as their victims who may retaliate and promote further violence.  

“Today’s victims could be tomorrow’s suspect,” said Jimmie Johnson, GVIP spokesperson. “If my friend got shot yesterday, he might go and retaliate against the person who shot him, or my friend’s group could go retaliate.”

An intervention team of 50 trained members — including police liaisons — who know the dynamics of gangs and cliques are tasked with connecting with individuals and mediating “beefs” to discourage retaliation and encouraging positive community response. GVIP liaisons also offer services to at-risk individuals, such as paths to employment, in the hopes of reducing recidivism. 

“Right now, in our time and society, police officers get such a negative viewpoint from citizens, but now these individuals being contacted by law enforcement see them in a different light. They see them as a hand of redemption. ‘We’re trying to help you before we get to the point of having to arrest you and prosecute you,’” said Johnson.

The program has seen mild initial success. Due to COVID delays, the program began operating only in recent months despite receiving funding before the pandemic. As of September, 126 individuals were identified, 122 contacted, 29 accepted communications and 12 have been referred to services. Most of the identified individuals were between the ages of 16 to 25.  

In November, GVIP will begin call-ins to offer paths to employment and other services to those on active probation. Parolees will also be informed about the risk of death and prosecution should they or their associates continue to engage in violence.

“The violence must stop. The community is tired of it. We’re tired of it, but instead of just locking you away, we’re going to give you an alternative to change your behavior instead of incarcerating them,” said Johnson.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Last Word: The Truth About Extending Term Limits

I can understand why term limits are an attractive sell to the many Americans who are frustrated with the state of American politics. However, the data and research do not support these frustrations.

According to political science research, term limits have had little to no impact on diversity, more distributive fiscal policies, or incentivizing legislators to be more responsive to constituents. In an article for the Brookings Institution, Casey Burgat, assistant professor at George Washington University, writes, “Term limits — despite their broad appeal to a politically dejected public — simply don’t provide the benefits advocates promise.”

The broad consensus amongst political scientists is that term limits are not only gravely overestimated in their effectiveness but also come with a heap of unintended consequences.

The most devastating unintended consequence is the loss of qualified, committed, and experienced elected officials whom voters can no longer return to office. Experience handling emergency situations is an important point to consider as our world continues to deal with the immediate and long-term fallout of the pandemic. Facing inflation, a looming recession, and political instability overseas, I believe we will need the steady hand of leadership shown by Mayor Jim Strickland and my colleagues on the council.

Continuity and enough time in office is important for the city to continue to maintain the momentum we have worked so hard to achieve. Neither the mayor nor the city council have shied away from tackling ambitious projects during their time in office. However, short term limits threaten innovative public policy just the same.

The administration and council have shown excellent partnership and cooperation by collaborating on the creation and funding for the Group Violence Intervention Program, a new and holistic approach to combating gun violence in our city. Started in 2021, violence interventionists are out in our communities working with individuals who are at risk of committing violent acts, and they are also immediately on the scene after an act of gun violence is committed, to help reduce the likelihood of retaliation and get victims on the path to healing. This program is just starting to get off the ground but is showing immediate promise in reducing gun violence in our city. New policy approaches such as this are vulnerable without continuity of leadership.

In the winter of 2021, the city council approved Mayor Strickland’s Accelerate Memphis plan that made a historic $200 million investment in Memphis parks, community centers, libraries, roads, and pedestrian safety. Continuity of city leadership is important to make sure these important projects get done.

The lack of experience in municipal government caused by too short terms is another adverse impact. In fact, research shows that term limits are more likely to empower outside actors, such as lobbyists and bureaucrats, as newly elected politicians struggle to fill the knowledge and policy gaps. This lack of knowledge is not just related to the large bureaucracy at Memphis City Hall but also applies to the state of Tennessee and the federal government as well. So often our city is left out or behind on economic development, education funding, public works projects, and other investments. City leaders with intergovernmental affairs knowledge are crucial to advocating for our city getting the resources and respect it deserves from Nashville and Washington.

Opponents of extending term limits focus on apparent benefits that scholarly research tells us are overestimated at best. Because the research so clearly favors lax term limits, the public debate has become personal. Arguments against extending term limits are more about why certain officials should not be reelected. I feel this line of thinking jumps the gun as extending term limits does not bestow a mandate to anyone to run. Mayor Strickland and several of my colleagues on the city council would have to make their case to voters once more next year.

The term of any elected official ends with the next election; if constituents want change, they will vote change in. We saw during Atlanta’s city council elections last November six new officials unseat incumbents while, at the same time, long-serving and returning members retained seats. The different outcomes signal voters prioritize results over time in office. I hope Memphians will vote “yes” on the referendum to extend term limits, so we may have the opportunity to vote for civil servants and their experience and expertise.

Dr. Jeff Warren is a physician and a member of the Memphis City Council.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Viewpoint: A Referendum on Arrogance

Over the last few weeks, we’ve heard a few grumblings of support for the Memphis City Council’s referendum seeking to extend its own term limits from two to three terms. Unfortunately for the council, those grumblings appear to be coming only from its own members and their cronies. Nevertheless, they continue unabated in their effort to rally support for this mistaken attempt to supplant the will of residents.

Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland has abandoned his previous promise not to seek a third term in office if term limits were extended. Now, showing a little mayoral leg to entice his voting bloc, Mayor Strickland said if the referendum passes, he will be more than happy to flip-flop his position to keep himself in office.

Meanwhile, Councilman Dr. Jeff Warren — the referendum’s most vocal supporter — seeks to garner votes in his quixotic quest to remain in power.

I’ve said this before: I like Jeff Warren. I appreciate his service. I appreciate his efforts to protect Overton Park. Although I’ve never voted for Mayor Strickland, he offered strong leadership through the pandemic and has offered a welcome, tempering voice as the city council unwisely sought to hop into bed with the Carlisle group and have the city carry far too much financial risk in the One Beale project.

I have strong disagreements with these men on a number of other issues, but even if I didn’t, their cynical efforts in backing the term limit referendum demonstrate a disappointing amount of hubris and/or frightening misunderstanding of the goals of public service.

Strickland and Warren have primarily argued in favor of the referendum because there is still work to be done. Well, of course, there is, but that’s not a good reason to extend term limits. There will always be work to do, challenges to overcome, and improvements to make. Extending term limits to three terms or eliminating them altogether will not change that fact.

Public service and governing should be about making as great a contribution as you can while you have the opportunity. Democracy is about making long-term, incremental progress, and a good public servant should work to make those contributions and that progress, but with an eye on developing young leaders to follow behind him or her and continue that work. That’s Strickland and Warren’s first mistake — contending that the work can ever be finished. Their second mistake and the much more troubling one is believing that only they are capable of doing that work.

Look around Memphis. We have so many talented, energetic, and creative people working to make the city better. Whether it is in business, nonprofits, or advocacy, Memphis’ greatest resource is our sheer abundance of smart and caring individuals working to build a more just and equitable city. Working to build a stronger education system. Fighting to ensure that as we develop, we do so in an environmentally sustainable way.

Instead of wasting their energy and spending political capital on keeping themselves in power, Mayor Strickland and Councilman Warren would be better off identifying young leaders who are already contributing to our city and encouraging them to bring their energy to public service.

Let’s bring this debate to a close on August 4th. What is on the ballot is not a referendum on term limits but one on the arrogance of a few. For the third time in 14 years, vote against this cynical referendum. Once that’s done, we can focus on what really matters, continuing the work of improving the lives of all Memphians.

Bryce W. Ashby is an attorney with Donati Law, PLLC.

Categories
Politics Beat Blog

Mulroy Alleges Blacks Under-Represented in Shelby D.A.’s Office

“Racial equity” in the D.A. ‘s office was the subject of a press conference held by Democratic candidate Steve Mulroy outside the Shelby County office building Tuesday afternoon, and he got boosting on the point from three key supporters, two of them African-American notables.

Flanked by the Reverend LaSimba Gray and Memphis City Council members Patrice Robinson and Jeff Warren, Mulroy cited figures which, he said, showed that, under incumbent Republican D.A. Amy Weirich,  “we have a district attorney’s office that is 90 percent white, roughly in attorneys, and 90 percent white in supervising attorneys. This is unacceptable. It has been unacceptable for years, and it needs to change.”

Mulroy added, “African Americans in Shelby County are disproportionately the victims of violent crime. And they’re disproportionately the victims of systemic discrimination in our criminal justice system. Therefore, it’s especially important that we have diversity among the actual prosecutors that make the charging decisions.”

Backing up Mulroy, Robinson said, “It is so important to know that you are represented by your community in a like manner. What he’s saying to us today is that currently, we do not have the representation for African-American people in the district attorney’s office, in that most of the people who are being prosecuted don’t have people to represent them ….”

Said Warren: “ I had no idea those numbers were as dramatic. And I think I am certain that Steve Mulroy will make the changes necessary to make our district attorney office look much more like our city in general, like it should.”

Rev. Gray, who in the past has made a point of backing African Americans in primaries where both blacks and whites were candidates, explained why he was supporting Mulroy against two African-American opponents in the Democratic primary:”Obviously, he’s a better candidate. See, in this race, you’re talking about experience. You got some running with no prosecutorial experience. And they are saying that all around the campaign trail.” 

Asked about an accusation by state Senator Raumesh Akbari, in a TV campaign commercial, that Weirich’s office was practicing “racial profiling,” Mulroy  said, “In a 30-second commercial, that was shorthand for the fact that we have disproportionate charging of African Americans, disproportionate treatment of African Americans with respect to pretrial detention, with respect to adult transfer from juvenile court to criminal court, with respect to sentences that are meted out.”

Mulroy contrasted the amount of blacks participating in the Shelby D.A.’s office with the number of those in the D.A.’s office of Davidson County  (Nashville), which has far fewer African Americans in its population. “I can tell you the raw number of African-American attorneys, not just the percentage, but the raw absolute number is higher in Davidson County, even though their total attorney complement is 75 compared to our 115.” 

Responding to the Mulroy press conference, Weirich issued this statement:

“The data Professor Mulroy provided is not accurate but that’s not surprising since his entire campaign is based on false data and dangerous ideas like releasing more criminals from jail.  The percentage is 31 and I have 223 employees – not 148 as he stated. 

“As the first female District Attorney in Shelby County, I have worked hard to hire people who best reflect the community and I’m proud to have increased the percentage of minorities in the office since I was elected.  More minorities hold supervisory positions than any other time in the history of our office.  It is indeed hypocritical that Professor Mulroy, a white male who chose to run against three women, is  making diversity his platform. Electing him alone sends a disturbing message that women shouldn’t be in leadership roles.”