Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Mayoral Residency: What’s at Stake

Between the 18th of this month, a Thursday, and the 22nd, a Monday, there will fall one business day and a weekend. Within that brief period, the political history of Memphis for at least four years — and maybe longer — could well be determined.

The 22nd is the first date on which candidate petitions for the October 5th city election will be made available by the Shelby County Election Commission. The 18th, four days prior, shapes up as a day of judgment for candidate eligibility. On that date, the long-festering issue of residency requirements for mayor will be resolved, one way or the other, in the courtroom of Shelby County Chancellor JoeDae Jenkins.

So indicated His Honor on Monday. His fateful announcement, made at the close of a hearing on the residency matter, followed an equally eventful one from Memphis city attorney Jennifer Sink, rendered in Jenkins’ courtroom by Michael Fletcher, a lawyer for the city. In essence, Sink said via Fletcher that an opinion she had requested weeks ago from attorney Robert Meyers reflected city policy, reversing a statement she made last month in which she declined to go that far.

The Meyers opinion had cited language in an 1895 city charter mandating a prior residency in Memphis for a period of five years for candidates for mayor. That opinion, published on the Shelby County Commission website, generated significant turmoil, including litigation from two announced candidates — Sheriff Floyd Bonner and NAACP president Van Turner — challenging such a mandate.

Bonner and Turner, whose suits were later combined, insist that Memphis voters approved a superseding referendum in 1996 that did away with a prior-residency requirement for both mayoral candidates and candidates for the city council, and that several city elections had been held since under the new standard. (Indeed, several current members of the council could not have passed a five-year requirement for prior residency.)

As for Sink’s apparent change of mind, lawyers for the litigants point out that the city doesn’t administer elections; the Election Commission does, which had meanwhile dropped Meyers’ opinion from its website.

In danger of invalidation, Bonner and Turner, who until recently lived just outside the city, are joined by former Mayor Willie Herenton, a sometime resident of Collierville in recent years. Ironically, all three were basically tied for the lead in the only mayoral poll made public so far.

One clear beneficiary of their ouster (though he has steered clear of the controversy) would be Downtown Memphis Commission CEO Paul Young, who by a wide margin would lead the rest of the declared field in fundraising. Two other mayoral hopefuls, businessman J.W. Gibson and School Board member Michelle McKissack, have declared themselves in favor of the Meyers opinion.

In the wake of Monday’s events, Bonner issued a ringing statement which said in part: “The voters of Memphis voted in 1996 to do away with a dated residency requirement from the 1800s, and we are fighting to make sure the people’s voice is heard.” Turner also responded: “It is unfortunate that some group of insiders are trying to decide the election instead of letting the will of the voters play out. … [W]e will continue to prepare for our day in Court on May 18, and we will continue to campaign on the issues and not the distractions.”

Categories
News News Blog

Police, Fire Residency Question to Remain on November Ballot

Memphis Police Department/Facebook

Voters will get to decide if police and fire personnel should be able to live within 50 miles of the city.

The Memphis City Council voted 7-5 Tuesday to not rescind a decision made by the previous council to place the referendum question on the November ballot.

Ahead of the vote, Councilman Jeff Warren, who voted in favor of keeping the question on the ballot, encouraged council members to let the voters decide.

“We’ve heard from the police and fire chief,” Warren said. “There is wisdom in what they’ve said.”

Warren said there is also validity in the concerns from community leaders who are wary about having police officers not living in Memphis police their community. But, Warren said he is ”counting on the police academy to weed people out who don’t need to be here.”

Also voting in favor of the referendum was Councilman J. Ford Canale, who addressed another concern voiced by council members throughout the month-long conversation — how much money would the city lose if the employees in question could live outside of the city?

Canale said that the estimated $7.3 million loss in property tax that would result from all 4,000 public safety employees moving out of the city is much lower than the combined $39.5 million that the police and fire departments estimate spending in overtime this year.

Council Chairwoman Patrice Robinson told officials that the departments and the council need to work together to remove other barriers that stymie recruitment, such as grooming policies. She suggested forming an ad hoc committee led by Councilwoman Jamita Swearengen to come up with recommendations for the departments to remove other barriers.

[pullquote-1]

“Even after we vote on this and allow citizens to vote on it or not have it, we still have that same issue,” Robinson said. “How do we make this a more attractive position in the community?”

The issue of reforming the departments’ grooming policies was first brought up by Councilman Martavious Jones and echoed by Councilman JB Smiley Jr., who said in order to hire more officers, the police department should consider changing it’s grooming requirements related to tattoos and facial hair. He said it’s “something we need to start talking about sooner than later.”


“Our generation makes up a large bulk of the population,” Smiley said. “If we truly want to have new officers willing to serve, it’s almost apparent that we have to make ways for that group of people to feel comfortable.”

To that, Michael Rallings, Memphis Police Department director, told the council that he will “make a deal with you. I’ll allow facial hair and tattoos if you let the voters vote on residency.”

Rallings said the department is currently working on drafting a new grooming policy, but that is it a process.

Rallings also added that the department isn’t “able to pick and choose what we do. I think we need to do all of it,” naming a take-home-car program, the residency requirement, and grooming policies as just a few examples of ways the department can increase recruitment.

After the vote, Swearengen said she will move forward with forming a task force to access other ways to reduce barriers for potential hires.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Shelby County Commission’s Last Go-Round

The final meeting of the version of the county commission that was elected four years ago began on Monday with a show of harmony, with mutual compliments, and some last commemorative poetry by limerick-writing Commissioner Steve Mulroy, and expired with a last sputter of disputation. In between, it advanced on two fronts and retreated on another.

Though it might not have appeared so to those unversed in the habits and ways of the county legislative body, this culminating session of the Class of 2010 also offered a symbolic forecast of better times ahead economically. It was during the heyday of the housing boom that went bust in the late aughts — leaving the county, the state, and the nation in financial doldrums — that ace zoning lawyers Ron Harkavy and Homer “Scrappy” Brannan were omnipresent figures in the Vasco Smith County Administration Building.

It seemed like years, and probably was, when the two of them had last appeared at the same commission meeting, each serving as attorneys for clients seeking commissioners’ approval for ambitious building plans. But there they were on Monday, reprising their joint presence at last week’s committee meetings — Harkavy representing the Belz Investment Company on behalf of a new residential development in southeast Shelby County; Brannan representing the Bank of Bartlett in upholding another development further north.

Both were successful, and it was a reminder of old times — say, the early 2000s, when the building boom so dominated commission meetings that worried commissioners actually had to propose a moratorium to slow down the proliferation of sprawl.

The matter of residence was, in yet another way, a major focus of Monday’s meeting, in its overwhelming approval of a resolution on residency requirements for commission members proposed by Mulroy, a Democrat and the body’s leading liberal, and amended by Republican Commissioners Heidi Shafer and Terry Roland. The commission thereby wrote the final chapter of the Henri Brooks saga and set precedents for the future.

The resolution, which provides a checklist of items to satisfy the county charter’s existing residency requirements, was strongly resisted by senior Democrat Walter Bailey, who had been the commission’s major defender of Brooks in her successful effort to stave off legal eviction from the commission after the apparent discovery that she no longer lived in the district she was elected to serve.

Bailey, who has called the Brooks affair a “witch hunt,” has continued to maintain that the commission has no authority to impose or enforce such rules, citing a decision last month by Chancellor Kenny Armstrong upholding Brooks’ appeal of a finding by County Attorney Marcy Ingram that vacated Brooks’ seat in conformity with the county charter. Other commissioners pointed out that Armstrong had actually ruled that it was the commission, rather than the county attorney, that could decide on the matter, thereby affirming the body’s authority.

In any case, Bailey said the commission should operate on the principle of “good faith” and not pursue vendettas. He was backed up in that by Commissioner Sidney Chism, who went so far as to suggest that his colleagues were out to “kill” Brooks.

Most commissioners, though, clearly felt such thinking was over-protective and counter not only to the county charter but to the same traditions of residency enforcement that governs the placement of school children and the right to vote in a given precinct.

Moreover, they had just as clearly soured on Brooks. Commissioner Mark Billingsley said his constituents had concluded that some members of the commission were “not trustworthy.” And according to Mike Ritz, Brooks had “cheated” her constituents by not attending any commission meetings since her attorneys had managed to ensure that she could remain on the body until the end of her term this month. “She’s been cheating them for years,” he added. Shafer said pointedly that the rules up for adoption were meant to prevent efforts “to defraud the voters.”

Jackson Baker

Back on the scene Monday were zoning lawyers Ron Harkavy (top, with Commissioner Heidi Shafer), and “Scrappy” Branan (bottom, left, with Bank of Bartlett president Harold Byrd and Commissioner Terry Roland);

Essentially, the amended resolution provided 10 different items to determine a challenged commissioner’s residency — ranging from utility bills to drivers licenses to documents certifying public assistance or government benefits — and required that only three of them be produced. The resolution passed 8-to-3, though it was understood that it might be met down the line with court challenges.

The commission took another important concrete step in approving a third and final reading of an ordinance proposed by Commissioner Ritz raising the pay of Shelby County Schools board members to $15,000, with the board chairman to receive $16,000. Though that amount was roughly only half the compensation received by county commission members and should be regarded as a “stipend” rather than a salary, it was still a three-fold increase for school board members.

In evident agreement with Ritz that such an increase was overdue, particularly in a “post-controversy” (meaning post-merger) environment, the commission approved the ordinance by the lopsided margin of 10-to-1.

But if comity was to be had in most ways Monday, it fell short on the last item of the day — and of this commission’s tenure. Despite the presence of numerous citizens and clergy members testifying on its behalf, a resolution co-sponsored by Mulroy and Bailey “amending and clarifying the personnel policy of Shelby County regarding nondiscrimination,” fell short by one vote of the seven votes required for passage. 

The same resolution, which specifically added language safeguarding county government employment rights for gay and transgendered persons, had been given preliminary approval by the commission’s general government committee last week. A highlight of the often tempestuous debate on Monday was an angry exchange between Democrat Chism, a supporter of the resolution, and Millington Republican Roland, who opposed it.

The specific language of the resolution was needed in the same way that specific language had been needed in civil rights legislation to end discrimination against blacks, said Chism, an African American. Discrimination, said Chism, “happened to me all of my life. Nobody saw it until the law changed.” Roland shouted back that the resolution was but the vanguard of a homosexual agenda. “It’s an agenda!” he repeated.

In the aftermath of the resolution’s near-miss, a disappointed Mulroy, who had authored the original nondiscrimination resolution of 2009, noted that Brooks, had she been there, would likely have been the necessary seventh vote, and that Chairman James Harvey, who abstained from voting, had proclaimed on multiple occasions, in front of numerous witnesses, that the resolution should be passed but that he, Harvey, who aspires to run for Memphis mayor next year, might have to abstain for “political” reasons.

Another term-limited commissioner, Ritz, may be a principal in the city election, as well. The former commission chairman, who has moved from Germantown into Memphis, said he is eying a possible Memphis City Council race. There is, it would seem, life after county commission service.