Categories
Politics Politics Feature

The Departure of Jones and Tate; The Return of Harold Ford Jr.

On the whole, it was a bad week — or at least a sad one — for the political community of Memphis. The city lost two veterans of legislative service — via the deaths of former state Representative Rufus Jones and former state Senator Reginald Tate.

There was one redeeming high note — the return to town, for a much-appreciated visit, anyhow, of another former public official. That was former Memphis Congressman Harold Ford Jr., now a resident of New York and serving as chairman of RxSaver, a health-care company.

Ford, who represented the city’s 9th congressional district from 1996 to 2006, addressed a luncheon crowd on Tuesday at the Westin Hotel as part of the Rotary Halloran Speaker Series, a joint effort of the Rotary Club of Memphis and former Orpheum president Pat Halloran.

Jackson Baker

Harold Ford Jr. at Halloran Rotary Lunch

The essence of Ford’s speech was a catch-up on his (and his family’s) personal circumstances for the attendees, but he was willing to address political matters as well. He began with a courtesy nod to the Trump supporters in the audience, saying that if the president’s much-encumbered name happened not to be attached to many of his policy initiatives, some of them would appear to be, relatively speaking, “decent.”

But, asked about the current Syrian fiasco, caused by the president’s unexpected and abrupt withdrawal of an American tripwire force there, Ford opined that Trump’s action triggered a view of him in the world at large as “unpredictable” in a way that communicated an ominous sense of weakness.

• Even as members of Shelby County’s political community, Democrats and Republicans alike, were mourning the death on Sunday of Jones, a member of  the state House of Representatives from 1980 to 1996, they found themselves having to deal as well with the loss on Monday of former state Senator Tate, whose tenure in the state Senate ran from 2006 to 2018.

Both Jones and Tate served as Democrats — Jones during a period in which his party commanded a comfortable majority in his chamber and in the legislature at large, Tate during an era of Republican control of both the Senate and the General Assembly. Both Jones and Tate had business backgrounds, Jones as a member of a South Memphis family with grocery interests, Tate as president/CEO of an architectural firm.

Each of them was personally popular on both sides of the aisle, and each served during periods of political controversy that tested their commitment to pure partisanship. Jones’ case was less demanding in that regard. Along with a majority of other legislative Democrats, he found himself working in harmony with Republican Governor Don Sundquist in an effort, ultimately unsuccessful, to pass a state income tax.

Representative G.A. Hardaway, chair of the Legislative Black Caucus and often a Democratic spokesman at large, sized things up this way: “Rufus E. Jones served as a ready and willing source of reliable and sound advice for myself and other legislators. Our families were close, and that allowed me to personally witness and learn from an excellent exemplar of personal conduct, professional success, and civic leadership.”

Tate’s situation was different. Lacking any party background as such, he had the support of his neighbor Sidney Chism, an influential Democrat and sometime party chairman, when the county Democratic Committee had to find a substitute nominee in 2006 for the Senate seat vacated by incumbent Kathryn Bowers, who would be tried as a suspect in the FBI’s Tennessee Waltz corruption sting.

Tate was nominated and won. He entered the Senate during a time when control of that body was swinging from Democrats to Republicans, and he seems to have perceived his duty, both to himself and to his district, as that of maintaining good relations with the soon-to-be dominant GOP. Legislative Republicans, for their part, made sure to get him aboard key committees. Increasingly, he was seen by fellow Democrats to be overstepping political boundaries — even to the point of becoming a board member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing mill for ultra-conservative state legislation.

Matters came to a head in 2018, when Tate was up for re-election to a fourth four-year term. Not only had he aroused the ire of his party mates with his ever-increasing number of conservative votes, he was overheard on a hot microphone apparently uttering profane criticism of his fellow Democrats. It was less a judgment on his part than a sign of frustration as he saw one after another member of his party caucus side openly with his Democratic primary opponent in 2018, Katrina Robinson, an accomplished newcomer and proprietor of a nursing school.

It cost him; Tate would go down to defeat by a 2 to 1 margin, Robinson polling 14,140 votes to his 6,464, and she would go on to serve effectively as a member of the Senate Democratic minority.

Still, there was little rejoicing in party ranks at Tate’s defeat. Even those who were opposed to his politics remained personally fond of the man whose people skills were of the highest order. Karen Camper, the Democrats’ House Leader, was a particular friend, as was Democratic caucus chair Raumesh Akbari, who said, “No matter what the legislative issue was, he found a way to work with folks from both sides of the aisle and always thought of Memphis first. Senator Tate had a way of always making you smile, and I know he’s smiling down on all of us today.”

Shelby delegation chair Antonio Parkinson noted, “Senator Tate left an indelible mark on the state of Tennessee and its citizens through legislation that he sponsored and cosponsored over his many years at the Tennessee Legislature.”

Senator Sara Kyle, who had been an explicit critic of Tate, said, “Senator Tate did many good things for the citizens of Shelby County during his time in the General Assembly, and I was shocked and saddened to learn of his passing. We will all miss his smile and good sense of humor.” And Robinson, his electoral conqueror, also weighed in: “This is a sad day for Shelby County and our entire state. Thanks for 12 years of service to District 33.”

Funeral arrangements had not been announced at press time.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Memphis Suffers Loss of Two Former Legislators

Former State Rep. Jones

Even a

Former State Sen. Tate

s members of Shelby County’s political community, Democrats and Republicans alike, were mourning the death on Sunday of one former legislator, Rufus Jones, a member of the state House of Representatives from 1980 to 1996, they found themselves having to deal with the loss of another on Monday, former state Senator Reginald Tate, whose tenure in the state Senate ran from 2006 to 2018.

Both Jones and Tate served as Democrats — Jones during a period in which his party commanded a comfortable majority in his chamber and in the legislature at large, Tate during an era of Republican control of both the Senate and the General Assembly. Both Jones and Tate had business backgrounds, Jones as a member of a South Memphis family with grocery interests, Tate as president/CEO of an architectural firm.

Each of them was personally popular on both sides of the aisle, and each served during period of political controversy that tested their commitment to pure partisanship. Jones’ case was less demanding in that regard. Along with a majority of other legislative Democrats, he found himself working in harmony with Republican Governor Don Sundquist in an effort, ultimately unsuccessful, to pass a state income tax.

Representative G.A. Hardaway, chair of the Legislative Black Caucus and often a Democratic spokesman at large, sized things up this way: “Rufus E. Jones served as a ready and willing source of reliable and sound advice for myself and other legislators. Our families were close, and that allowed me to personally witness and learn from an excellent exemplar of personal conduct, professional success and civic leadership.”

Tate’s situation was different. Lacking any party background as such, he had the support of his neighbor Sidney Chism, an influential Democrat and sometime party chairman, when the county Democratic Committee had to find a substitute nominee in 2006 for the Senate seat vacated by incumbent Kathryn Bowers, who would be tried as a suspect in the FBI’s Tennessee Waltz corruption sting.

Tate was nominated and won. He entered the Senate during a time when control of that body was swinging from Democrats to Republicans, and he seems to have perceived his duty, both to himself and to his district, as that of maintaining good relations with the soon-to-be dominant GOP. Legislative Republicans, for their part, made sure to get him aboard key committees. Increasingly, he was seen by fellow Democrats to be over-stepping political boundaries — even to the point of becoming a board member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) a right-wing mill for ultra-conservative state legislation.

Matters came to a head in 2018, when Tate was up for reelection to a fourth four-year term. Not only had he aroused the ire of his party mates with his ever-increasing number of conservative votes, he was overheard on a hot microphone apparently uttering profane criticism of his fellow Democrats.It was less a judgment on his part than a sign of frustration as he saw one after another member of his party caucus side openly with his Democratic primary opponent in 2018, Katrina Robinson, an accomplished newcomer and proprietor of a nursing school.

It cost him; Tate would go down to defeat by a 2 to 1 margin, Robinson polling 14,140 votes to his 6,464, and she would go on to serve effectively as a member of the Senate Democratic minority.

Still, there was little rejoicing in party ranks at Tate’s defeat. Even those who were opposed to his politics remained personally fond of the man whose people skills were of the highest order. Karen Camper, the Democrats’ House Leader, was a particular friend, as was Democratic caucus chair Raumesh Akbari, who said, “No matter what the legislative issue was, he found a way to work with folks from both sides of the aisle and always thought of Memphis first. Senator Tate had a way of always making you smile and I know he’s smiling down on all of us today.”

Shelby delegation chair Antonio Parkinson noted, “Senator Tate left an indelible mark on the state of Tennessee and its citizens through legislation that he sponsored and cosponsored over his many years at the Tennessee Legislature.”

Senator Sara Kyle, who had been an explicit critic of Tate, said “Senator Tate did many good things for the citizens of Shelby County during his time in the General Assembly and I was shocked and saddened to learn of his passing. We will all miss his smile and good sense of humor.” And Robinson, his electoral conqueror, also weighed in: “This is a sad day for Shelby County and our entire state. Thanks for 12 years of service to District 33.”

Funeral arrangements had not been announced at press time.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

UPDATE: De-annexation Bill Killed for Session

NASHVILLE — In a surprise action, the state Senate’s State and Local Committee has voted 5-3-1 (with chairman Ken Yager voting aye) to approve a motion by Senator Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro) sending the controversial de-annexation bill (HB 779/SB 749) to summer study.



Voting in the minority on the motion were the bill’s Senate sponsor, Bo Watson (R-Hixson) and Senator Mark Green (R-Clarksville), a key co-sponsor. It was Green’s absence on Tuesday that had postponed a vote until Wednesday’s reconvening of the committee.



The action means that all possible action on the bill is over with until, at earliest, the legislative session that begins in January 2017.



“We really had no idea this was going to happen. But it was the best possible result, obviously. This is really a victory for the entire state,” said Phil Trenary, the Greater Memphis Area Chamber of Commerce head who had been in Nashville last week and this week opposing the bill.

Though the suddenness of the committee’s action took Trenary and other onlookers by surprise, it had become obvious that the bill was in for rough sledding once it hit the Senate committee, where chairman Yager (R-Kingston) supervised a systematic vetting of its contents and numerous witnesses had criticized it in detail.

Some indication of what was to come was the fact that numerous amendments weakening the bill’s force were passed in committee on Tuesday by lopsided votes.

Though six witnesses on Tuesday testified to the commmittee in favor of the bill, it had become obvious from previous testimony of bill opponents last week that resistance to it was serious, influential, and in depth.

Not only Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland but the mayors of two other affected cities, Chattanooga and Knoxville, had warned of the bill’s potentially ruinous effects, fiscal and otherwise, on targeted cities. Representatives of the state’s business community, including Pitt Hyde of AutoZone, and two ranking officers of First Tennessee Bank, seconded that point of view.

Even senators considered friendly to the idea of allowing urban de-annexation procedures had visibly cooled to the provisions of the de-annexation measure sent over from the House after swift ands lopsided passage there.

Those provisions had limited the bill’s effects to only five urban areas which had pursued state law in annexations that the bill, in a provision whose constitutionality was in doubt, considered “egregious.”

Other objectionable provisions included the bill’s allowance of a low ceiling — 10 percent of an annexed area’s population on a petition — to call a de-annexation referendum.

PREVIOUSLY (3-29-16): The ongoing debate in the General Assembly on a bill to allow de-annexation by areas of Memphis and other Tennessee cities that were annexed since the passage of Public Law 1101 in 1998, was renewed Tuesday in the state Senate’s State and Local Committee.

Two amendments to the House bill were approved last week by the Senate committee — one clarifying certain issues of debt obllgations remaining for any de-annexed residents and another expanding the reach of the bill to all municipalities statewide, not just Memphis and the four other urban areas alleged to have pursued “egregious” annexations since the 1998 date.

Both those amendments were regarded as concessions to the delegation that testified in the committee against the bill last week — which included Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland, Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke, and Knoxville Mayor Madeline Rogero, as well as AutoZone founder Pitt Hyde and two officials of First Tennessee Bank.

Jackson Baker

Phil Trenary

Last week’s testifiers made the point that the de-annexation bill received by the House was overly punitive and potentially financially ruinous to the cities affected. (Strickland testified that de-annexation by all the areas annexed by Memphis since 1998 could cost the already cash-strapped city the loss of property tax revenues ranging from $27 at minimum to a maximum of $78 million.)

Chairman Yager began the renewed hearing on Tuesday before a standing-room-only audience, noting that the witnesses against the bill last Wednesday had been opposed to it and professing a desire “to be fair-minded on an issue this polarizing,” then announcing that six new witnesses favoring the bill would be heard.

The first was Patricia Possel of South Cordova, who said, “The city of Memphis tried to silence us,” and went on to note that her area had been annexed July 1, 2012, more than four years before the next scheduled election in South Cordova.

She called the situation “taxation without representation,” and spoke, in a trembling voice, of the murder of a neighbor, Susan McDonald, in 2015 — clearly, an indication to her that crime had followed upon her neighborhood’s annexation by the city as something of a direct consequence.

Finally, she said, there had been “no disclosure” of any kind to her or other homeowners, at the time of their purchasing property, that they were located within one of Memphis’ annexation preserves, about to lose its independence.

Next up was Terry Roland, the chairman of the Shelby County Commission, who announced that he had heard “bad numbers” being testified to by representatives of the city last week and wanted to present “the straight skinny.” According to his own figures, the de-annexation from Memphis of South Cordova and Windyke-Southwind, the last two areas annexed, would result in a financial gain to Memphis of $3 million — not, as had been claimed, a deficit of $13 million.

Roland also spoke, as he has for years, of the constant departure of citizens from Memphis because of high and unreasonable property taxes. He said that 68,000 people had left Shelby county for DeSoto County, Mississippi in the years 2001-2010.

Roland did concede that if all 10 areas annexed by Memphis since 1998 were able to de-annex themselves (as the original House bill provided), the city would end up the loser, financially, but he made it clear he considered that prospect far-fetched.

The two Shelby County witnesses were followed by John Emerson of Alamo (who had been introduced by Yager earlier as “the father of de-annexation” and who pronounced it absurd that representatives of cities habitually spoke as if there a law of nature that urban municipalities could only expand and never contract.

Three residents of Chattanooga suburbs that had been annexed followed, with variations on some of the themes already addressed. (One of them announced that he did not turn on TV to watch “baseball, football, or Dancing With the Stars,” but was a regular watcher of congressional hearings and stayed up late to watch them. He had determined from that practice that public political debates and processes were essentially shams.)

From that point, the stream of amendments that was interrupted by the close of last Wednesday’s hearing ensued again — the first of them authorized by chairman Yager himself and directly addressing the complaint that Strickland had made of the original House bill — that, while it did require newly de-annexed citizens to continue paying their share of the city’s general obligation debt on a pro rata basis, it did not stipulate anything regarding residual pension and OPEB obligation on the part of those residents.

The Yager amendment would include pensions and OPEB obligations on a pro-rated basis.

Senator Bo Watson of Hixson, a suburb of Chattanooga, and a sponsor of the de-annexation bill, challenged the logic of including those debts, which Watson suggested were “pay-as-you-go” by their nature and that ex post facto assessments would be improperly doubling up on charges to the residents.

He was backed up on those allegations by Senator Todd Gardenhire, another Chattanoogan, who testified from his point of view as a former member of a U.S. Department of Labor committee on pension obligations. In the course of seconding Watson’s assertions that including the new assessments would be double-billing de-annexed residents, Gardenhire got off a series of negative observations regarding the past fiscal performance of the city of Memphis.

Most of those observatios recapitulated criticisms made by state comptroller Justin Wilson about city bookkeeping practices during the administration of former Mayor A C Wharton. “The city of Memphis was not run like a business,” Gardenhire said.
Even so, the amendment was passed by the committee 6-1. It began to seem possible that the optimism for a favorable resolution expressed last week by Strickland and Chamber of Commerce president Phil Trenary might be justified.

That sense was furthered somewhat by discussion later of other new amendments, notably including one by chairman Yager that would raise from 10 to 20 percent the percentage of residents necessary to validate a petition for a de-annexation referendum. This one ultimately passed 7-0, and among those committee members agreeing with Yager that “the bar should be raised” on requirements for a de-annexation petition was state Senator Mark Norris (R-Collierville), a nominal supporter of the bill’s intent.

Not everything was roses. An amendment from state Senator Reginald Tate (D-Memphis) limited the Memphis areas eligible for de-annexation to South Cordova and Southwind-Windyke failed for lack of a second. And another, contemplated by Yager, requiring 66 percent, rather than a simple majority, for passage of a de-annexation referendum, was withdrawn by the chairman.

Asked afterward to assess Tuesday’s actions on the bill, the Trenary said the amendments made the bill “more realistic” but said he still continued to oppose it and was hopeful that the legislature as a whole ultimately would.

Roland’s reaction was one of satisfaction also, and he expressed the hope that the effect of the bill might still be limited to the two recently annexed areas of South Cordova and Southwind-Windyke. “They’re the only ones that are organized,” he pointed out.

An ultimate vote by the committee on the amended bill was delayed out of courtesy to the bill’s main sponsor, state Senator Mark Green of Clarksville, who was absent. (It was Green who last week compared the alleged “egregious” annexations by Memphis and other cities to a Russian occupation of Poland, and Norris wondered somewhat archly on Tuesday how the residents who moved to “Poland” in recent years should be counted in determining the right ceiling for a referendum petition.)

It is hard to imagine Green being altogether favorable to the amendments accepted Tuesday, but, in any case, whatever his opinion or the committee’s vote on the bill, the bill is not likely to be headed to the floor of either House or Senate anytime soon.

Categories
News The Fly-By

Knocked Up and Locked Up?

As they are currently written, two bills in the state legislature could lead to assault or criminal homicide charges for pregnant women who use illegal drugs.

But the sponsor of one of these bills (HB1519), Rep. John DeBerry (D-Memphis), vowed this week to work on his bill’s language so that there’s “no room or intent to simply incarcerate people rather than getting them the help they desperately need.”

The other bill, SB1391, is sponsored by Sen. Reginald Tate (D-Memphis), and it’s on the calendar to be heard in committee this week. Tate did not return calls to the Flyer for comment.

Critics of both bills, as they are written now, say they’re seeking to criminalize pregnant women and that the bills could have a negative effect on the care the baby receives.

“These women need supportive programs. Punitive measures will only make women not seek prenatal care. They will lie to their doctors [about their drug use], and it could lead to unwanted abortions by women who are afraid of getting prosecuted and convicted,” said Allison Glass, the statewide organizer for Healthy and Free Tennessee, which promotes reproductive health and sexual freedom.

It’s concerns like these that convinced DeBerry to give the bill another look. After meeting with Glass and hearing from others, he’s considering removing language that allows assault and criminal homicide charges. The bill was recommended to DeBerry by the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference, but DeBerry said he doesn’t believe the district attorneys’ goal is to prosecute women.

“If those are the red flags in the bill for a lot of these women’s groups, then I’ll either take that out or I’ll take the bill off notice,” DeBerry said.

Last week, he rolled the bill. And now he says he’ll roll it again until the language is reworked.

“My sole intent is to save these women’s lives and those of their unborn children,” DeBerry said. “There is absolutely no intent on simply trying to incarcerate them. But some women’s groups were afraid, even with the drug court’s record, that someone will use this as some kind of stick against pregnant women.”

As it is written, DeBerry’s bill does allow a woman to avoid prosecution by attending and completing a long-term addiction recovery program either before the child is born or after delivery. He said drug court programs in most counties would be able to help women who could not afford to pay for drug treatment.

“This bill is seeking to protect the woman and the child,” DeBerry said. “It’s for when you have a person who obviously has emotional and psychological issues to the extent that they’re poisoning their own body and their child’s with these drugs.”

But Glass questions the effectiveness of drug treatment for women who are essentially forced into rehab.

“People who are familiar with addiction know that the addict has to make the choice to want to get help,” Glass said. “There’s a big question of how effective it is if you are forcing a person to go through a program.”

A change.org petition against both bills has garnered several hundred signatures as of press time. Karen D’Apolito of Nashville, vice-president of programs for the National Parinatal Association, opposes the bills as written and hopes to see more emphasis on treatment rather than criminal charges. She also said, despite popular belief, babies cannot be “born addicted.”

“If a baby has withdrawal, we can treat that,” D’Apolito said. “But babies cannot be born addicted. They’re exposed but not addicted.”