University of Memphis Natatorium

Monday’s meeting of the Shelby County Commission was either an exercise in the art of democratic compromise at its best, or it was wishy-washy pretend legislation at its worst. It may have been both.

The centerpiece of the evening was a reprise of debate on the $1-million bounty promised to the University of Memphis to help in construction of its soon-to-be new swimming facility (oops, “natatorium”).

In the end, the commissioners got back to where they were in July, when a majority of them voted to override County Mayor Lee Harris‘ veto of the million-dollar county grant. Harris had decided to block the funding until and unless he could coax an agreement out of University President M. David Rudd to proceed on a fixed and deliberate course toward a $15-an-hour minimum wage for the university’s custodial workers, now working under an $11 hourly minimum.

Jackson Baker

UM’s Townsend inveighing against “undue political influence”

Meanwhile, former commission Chairman Van Turner, a Democrat who has tried to tie the bestowal of the grant to a specific commitment to the $15-an-hour minimum on the university’s part, presented a proposed revision of the original grant resolution that would do just that.

The substitute resolution contained four additional “whereas” clauses — the first three of which made reference to reputed public statements by President Rudd floating an “achievable … two-year plan to increase custodial wages to $15 per hour.”

A fourth “whereas” shied away from an outright mandate, instead putting the commission on record as favoring the “goal” of seeing “more working residents receiv[ing] a living wage of at least $15 per hour,” and further “encourag[ing] organizations, including its grant recipients, that are able to pay living wages to do so or, if they are unable to do so, to put forward a timeline to reach a living wage within a reasonable period.”

Tentative as that was, it was too much for several commissioners, who in the course of further discussion, got Turner to withdraw the first three “whereas” clauses making reference to Rudd. First-term Republican Brandon Morrison then objected to appending the words “of at least $15 an hour” to the term “living wage,” on the grounds that some of the commission’s grant recipients would never be able to pay their employees the $15 minimum and that the definition of “living wage” could rise or fall, depending on the number of dependents in an employee’s family.

In support of this key change, Chairman Mark Billingsley, also a Republican, underscored the fact that the amended document was merely “aspirational” in its language — an accurate formulation that he would repeat several times.

Ted Townsend, the U of M’s chief economic development official, insisted that the million-dollar matter should not be viewed as having to do with living-wage issues but merely in relation to the “valuable asset” that the new swimming facility would be for the greater community.

There was more see-saw commentary and parliamentary action. Amber Mills wondered if requiring “best efforts” from grant recipients was consistent with free-market principles. Edmund Ford thought the same standards should be applied to Shelby County Schools. Reginald Milton, noting that Rudd was forgoing a pay raise, said, “Sometimes good faith is good enough.”

The commission got involved in a lengthy sidetrack on the issue of whether the county’s contract with the university should be amended to be consistent with the resolution. Ultimately, after several votes in which amendments were themselves amended — Billingsley expressed himself against making the university a “crash-test dummy,” and Townsend cited an accrediting organization’s warning about “undue political influence” — only the original surviving “whereas” clause was retained, sans any reference to $15 an hour.

And there, in the final wash, the resolution stood, approved by all 12 of the members present. (Commissioner Tami Sawyer was absent.) The bottom line: The $1 million is real, but the living-wage goals remain “aspirational.”

Reminder: Early voting for District 1 and District 7 council seats ends on Saturday; Election Day is Thursday, Nov. 14th.

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

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

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

Jackson Baker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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