As the old Sir Francis Bacon quote goes, “knowledge is power”. While that may be true, knowing something doesn’t necessarily give you the right to exploit it for personal financial or political gain. But people make choices, right or wrong, and there’s nothing you can really do, other than call them out when you disagree, knowing that it’s unlikely anything, other than the expression of some righteous indignation, will come of it.

That’s where I’m at today.

In this post yesterday the blog that bills itself as the home of controversy wrote that Memphis City Councilwoman Wanda Halbert would be fired from her job at FedEx.

Now certainly, if this happened it would be news. But to the best of my knowledge, it hasn’t happened, which makes it gossip.

Gossip needn’t be false to be evil – there’s a lot of truth that shouldn’t be passed around.

I don’t know if this is true or not, but I do know one thing, passing crap like this around is, if not evil, pretty damn rude and self-serving.

Sure, Wanda Halbert is a public official, but she’s also a person, with all the positives, negatives, trials and tribulations that we all, as people have. By running a rumor as inevitability, the author has ignored that humanity for the sake of self-promotion, and that’s just classless.

In the end, it doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with someone. Certainly, I have disagreed with Ms. Halbert on many occasions, and will likely do so again. What matters is that you, at least try to treat people with dignity and respect, regardless of your opinion of them, or their opinions.

I haven’t always done that, I know. We all slip from time to time. But in the end you have to ask the question, “What is the net impact of this information.” And if you’re the only one who benefits, then perhaps you should tuck it in your pocket and take a lap, or call the individual personally rather than using it as a platform for self-aggrandizement.

On Facebook Tuesday, Councilwoman Wanda Halbert reposted a note that she originally posted on August 18th. The note, entitled “The Truth Hurts” dealt with several things including the Metro Charter Resolution.

At the end of the note, Councilwoman Halbert states:

I may simply be interpreting the information I’ve read incorrectly (that’s usually not a problem for me).

In the interest of furthering the discussion, I’m happy to try and clear up some of the things that Councilwoman Halbert may have misinterpreted. This is not intended to be a beat down, or anything like that. This is an honest attempt to address the concerns expressed.

First, Councilwoman Halbert raises some questions about the how and why of the Metropolitan Government provisions in Tennessee Law:

a) While Memphis would give up its existence and government, smaller cities (Germantown, Millington, Bartlett, Collierville, Millington) their services and elected officials are not affected. While serving as part of the metro population they will maintain their cities and independant governments. (Slide 1 page 10)

State Law is fairly clear on this. TCA 7-2-101 states that

The commission may be created by the adoption of a consolidation resolution by the governing body of a county and by the adoption of a substantially similar resolution by the governing body of the principal city in the county;

Memphis, as the principal city in Shelby County, has to agree with the County to explore the option. Smaller cities in Shelby County CAN be involved in the process in accordance with TCA 7-2-107

After a charter commission has been created, any smaller city within the county may by action of its legislative body appoint a representative to consult with the charter commission concerning the terms upon which the functions of such smaller city may be included in the proposed consolidation. Any terms proposed by the charter commission with respect to the smaller city shall be filed and published separately as an appendix to the metropolitan charter proposed with respect to the principal city, and shall be submitted independently in a special referendum election for ratification or rejection by the voters of the smaller city and by the voters of the county outside the smaller city in a manner similar to that provided in §§ 7-2-105 and 7-2-106 with respect to the proposed metropolitan charter for the principal city.

Memphis is not giving up its existence. Just like the Nashville Metro/Davidson Co. government didn’t make Nashville go away, this won’t make Memphis go away. Government as we currently know it WILL be fundamentally changed, both in the City and the County. However, we don’t know what shape that government will take until a Charter Commission is empanelled and a determination is made on the roles and size of legislative bodies, executives, etc. At that point, if people don’t like it, they don’t have to vote for it.

b) While Memphis will not have a voice in government at the table in the small cities, they will have a seat at the table and a voice in decisions about new (our) government. (Slide 1 page 10)

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that Memphis should have a seat on Germantown’s legislative body, or Bartlett’s legislative body?

Everyone in Memphis, Bartlett, Millington, Collierville, and Germantown is a resident of Shelby County. Currently, there are members of the Shelby County Commission that represent these areas, even though all of these municipalities have their own legislative bodies. I have 4 City Council members that represent me in city government (my district, and 3 Super-district members), and 3 County Commission members that represent me in the County.

Memphis will have a seat (in fact, probably a majority of the seats) at the table of the resulting government, just as we do in the County Commission now (citizens of Memphis currently serve on the body). But the resulting County government can no more demand a seat in Germantown’s government, any more than Bartlett could demand a seat on Memphis City Council.

I would invite you to clarify this in the comments or via email using the form here

c) Because there is clearly a desire by some to keep schools separated, in an effort to move forward with consolidation, they (school boards) are elected by the people, they will remain in place and decide if districts merge, i.e. the schools will stay separated.

Merging the schools is a poison pill that would likely kill the draft charter. Because this is such a fundamental change for all the citizens of Shelby County, it is reasonable to expect that individuals who live in the “General Services District” may wish to maintain control of their schools. This doesn’t mean it won’t happen eventually.

Most importantly, while lots of folks have said that the schools are off the table, until the Charter Commission is empanelled, NOTHING is off the table. I think the phrase “Off the table” functionally means “a bad idea politically”, or at least, that’s my interpretation of the use of the phrase.

Finally, the last section of the note:

For some reason, it appears a decision may have already been made to support the first – county mayor “appointing” 10 members to the charter commission and the city mayor (possibly pro-tem) will appoint 5 members. The county representatives must live outside Memphis territory, city representatives “who are county residents” cannot live outside its territory.

So – - – - the county residents with a little more than 200,000 residents will have 10 votes and the city residents with a little more than 600,000 residents will have 5 votes. Gulp! .

Umm, no. As I said before, citizens of Memphis, Bartlett, Collierville, Millington and Germantown, as well as people that live in unincorporated areas of the County are all County residents. The County Mayor has the power to appoint people from ANYWHERE within his jurisdiction, which includes all of the areas I mentioned above.

Thinking this through to its final conclusion, it is reasonable to expect that between the County and City Mayor’s appointments there will be more people from Memphis on the panel.

That said, some on the County Commission, particularly Commissioner Bunker, have argued that the County’s appointments should include MORE people from outlying areas. Commissioner Bunker is within his rights to hold that opinion, and can vote against people at will in the confirmation process, but ultimately, it’s up to the County Mayor to nominate individuals to fill the 10 seats, and as a result, up to him, with the advice and consent of the County Commission, to determine the appropriate mix of individuals in those 10 seats between the urban, sub-urban, and rural areas of the county.

In conclusion, I hope this is, at the very least, some food for thought in the upcoming discussion of the Metro Charter Resolution. Additionally, I hope you take this post in the spirit of which it is written, as an honest attempt to address the concerns raised.

Thank you for your service to the people of the 4th Council district. I look forward to a spirited debate going forward.

Tonight marked the first debate for the office of Mayor of Memphis. This was, quite simply 90 minutes of some of the most bizarre TV ever. The candidates present were required to have filed their petitions, which cut the field to nine. The candidates present were; Charles Carpenter, Carol Chumney, Wanda Halbert, Robert “Mongo” Hodges, Jerry Lawler, Myron Lowery, Kenneth Whalum, AC Wharton, and Sharon Webb.

Like I said, this was highly entertaining, if you take some time to suspend the reality that there is a possibility of a very strange outcome in the Mayoral race. There were some winners, and losers, and people that really had no business being there, or in public life for that matter. Here’s my rundown.

Winners

Myron Lowery – Myron totally exceeded my expectations earning him the top spot in my “Winners” column. There was nothing flashy about Myron’s presentation. His answers, for the most part, were concise and to the point. He tooted his own horn, but more to show that even as a “Mayor Pro Tem” he was taking the job seriously. Myron’s answers served to dispel some of the criticism levied on him by former Mayor Willie Herenton. He was sharp, that’s all there is to it.

AC Wharton – AC was polished and had it totally together, but that just earns him a second place finish in my mind. I’m being a little unfair because as the frontrunner expectations are higher than they probably should be. Still, expectations are part of the game and as the front-runner, AC is in a position of defending his frontrunner status. I think he defended his position tonight, but I don’t feel that he gained any ground. This is AC’s challenge as the frontrunner, gaining ground to reach a mandate, and that didn’t happen tonight.

Charles Carpenter – Carpenter comes in a distant third. He’s a winner because he did something to distinguish himself both from the field and from the shadow of his former candidate. I don’t agree with some of his positions, but his ability to articulate them coherently, puts him in the top three.

Losers

Jerry Lawler – The candidate with the most name recognition in the race, Lawler’s answers were short on substance. He started out clumsily, as if he was not comfortable with the format, and then relied on right wing talking points to further his cause. I respect Lawler’s commitment to Memphis, and his desire to make things better, but it might behoove him to spend some time working IN the city, through non-profits, etc. before he tries this again.

Carol Chumney – As the second place finisher in the 2007 Mayoral election, Chumney’s expectations were high. Unfortunately, she came off as cold and combative early on, and continued that trend throughout the debate, including an exchange with County Mayor AC Wharton involving the performance of City and County employees after the last big storm. Chumney had the opportunity to shine in this thing, with a polite, but firm, “I told ya so” message, that she never got to. Between that, her virtual absence from the campaign in the past month, and her lightly populated, but nicely designed site that she pimped in the debate, she’s got a big hill to climb to win this thing.

Kenneth Whalum Jr. – The best of the losers, Whalum also started off combative, and then relied on initiatives that he’s led to prop up his platform. Really, his message wasn’t horrible, but the way he delivered it was reminiscent of our most recent former Mayor, which was a turn-off. Also, his unwillingness to clear the air about the incident at his church this weekend raises questions that CANNOT be answered until he addresses them.

Not Worth Mentioning

Halbert, Hodges and Webb were the sideshow. Halbert came closest to being a real candidate, but just about every time she spoke, I found myself wondering what the hell she just said.

Hodges (Mongo) had several lines of the night, including arming people with Uzi’s, flushing the political class down the toilet like turds, and putting comic books and video games in Libraries.

Webb was disjointed and confused, and at one point, couldn’t answer a question because she couldn’t stop laughing, which I can understand considering the dumb shit that was probably said right before her answer. Still, that’s no excuse, and she never really said much anyway.

Conclusion

The debate wasn’t a success or a failure, it was a sideshow. The inclusion of people that weren’t serious casts serious doubts on this part of the process. Still, it happened, and we have to live with it.

You can watch the debate here.

The date’s been set, and even though the filing deadline is over a month away, some 10 candidates have declared their interest to run.

Due to the abbreviated nature of the campaign, learning about the candidates for Mayor of Memphis is probably going to be a cram fest. In an effort to help people find information on the candidates I’ll be posting fairly regularly about ways candidates are reaching out to voters. Most of this will deal with the ways they are using the internet to attract support, but as time goes on other things may be covered also.

Because it’s so early in the campaign, not everyone is up to speed. The inclusion of candidates who aren’t “up to speed” on this list is not an attempt to besmirch them, but to keep the list as comprehensive as possible. As always, candidates are welcome to contact me with new information and resources as their campaigns ramp up.

Without further ado, here are your candidates so far:

Candidates are listed in the order of their internet presence strength first, then by electoral strength when there’s a tie

County Mayor AC Wharton – Wharton’s decision to jump in the race should come as no surprise. Since his early consideration back in the 2007 election, his name has consistently come up as the heir apparent. That his campaign also mobilized far more quickly than anyone else should also come as no surprise as he has been raising money for this run since just after the 2007 election.

His website is clean and professional looking, with shades of the Obama campaign website apparent. My only complaint about the website is the manner in which issues are discussed. Currently, this page is just a list of editorials and news clippings. Still, this is far and away more comprehensive than most announced candidates. The priorities page is less comprehensive, but gives a good overview of his positions.

Wharton has also been using social media very effectively. His twitter feed is by far the best use of the medium I’ve seen in a local election, and he also has a Facebook fan page is impressive. It’s interesting that his site currently doesn’t mention either. Oversight perhaps?

Charles Carpenter – Carpenter, the former campaign manager for several Herenton campaigns, jumped out of the gate fast with his site. The design is relatively simple, but has plenty of meat to it. The issues page is hardly comprehensive, but gives the reader a good idea of his positions. I find it interesting that he worked with Herenton all those years, but opposes a metro government, for instance.

Carpenter also has a twitter feed, which I coincidentally found on his front page, as well as a link to facebook that actually takes you to his personal friend page.

Jerry Lawler – Lawler’s site is sparse, though it has some potential. His Letter to the People of Memphis is the closest thing I’ve found to an issues page. I’m sure some of this will change over time. He also is using twitter and facebook though I hate the way the facebook link works on the page.

Mayor Pro Tem Myron Lowery – Lowery’s internet presence is far less impressive. He lacks a campaign website, though you can find him both at his city page and on twitter.

Lowery’s use of twitter, so far, has been sparse but instructive. He consistently posts interesting things about what’s going on in the city. That’s great and all, but if he expects to win the election he’s going to have to mobilize to a far greater extent.

Former City Councilwoman Carol Chumney – Chumney, who placed second in the 2007 Mayoral election, currently has no internet presence aside from a twitter page that has but one entry. I have it on good authority that a web page is in the works, though it will not appear at her former site due to a cyber squatter. Once the page is live I’ll be sure to link it either here, or in a future post.

School Board Member Rev. Kenneth Whalum Jr. – Whalum, a member of the Memphis City School Board and pastor at The New Olivet Baptist Church is perhaps one of the most colorful characters in the race, besides Prince Mongo. Outspoken and often controversial (his church once had a sign out front that used the word ass), he has his own ideas, as evidenced by this video. Whalum also has a twitter feed that’s just getting started.

City Councilwoman Wanda Halbert – Halber, who just announced her intention to run on Monday is also a little behind the curve. This is to be expected considering how recently she announced. She does have a twitter account though this may be a personal one, and is currently protected. Perhaps in the future she will have something more campaign oriented.

Commisioner James Harvey – To the best of my knowledge, Harvey has no real internet presence, with the exception of his page on the Shelby Co. Government site. You may remember this nifty sign I saw at the Chism Picnic. Other than that, not much else has been seen or heard from Commissioner Harvey.

Sharon Webb – A former member of the Memphis Charter Commision, Webb has also been pretty quiet in the mix. We’ll see.

Prince Mongo – Newscoma’s favorite candidate. He hasn’t been able to ride the space beanie to victory yet, and aside from news articles and a very old website, there’s not much out there…but him.

I probably shouldn’t gloat, but apparently I was right about at least one thing. From the Memphis Daily News:

But Halbert told reporters Thursday that it was an inquiry on whether or not Lowery could vote to set a special election date in July since Lowery stood to become acting mayor. She and several other council members said it might be a conflict of interest.

“While I personally may not have classified my inquiry as an investigation, I noted, it very well may have been just that to the legal department,” Halbert wrote in an email the day after Jefferson made his claim in court. Jefferson refused to say what his investigation is about on the advice of his attorney, Ricky E. Wilkins.

Halbert may have a “bugaboo about ethical conduct” as Bob suggests in the comments of yesterday’s post, but she wouldn’t know an ethical dilemma if it stood beside her and offered to buy her lunch.

Lowery’s right in the MDN article, it was his “responsibility” to vote on the matter. That Lowery and Halbert were on opposing sides of the issue has NOTHING to do with the ethical nature of his vote, or ability to vote. That we’re still debating his prior ability to vote on a Council matter says a lot about the people who are working to undermine him.

In the meantime, City Attorney Elbert Jefferson, as the “chief ethical officer” of the city, is asserting his “privilege” over the very Executive he serves. That’s an interesting proposition. Of course, there’s a lot about this whole business with Jefferson that’s interesting.

First of all, in the lawsuit against Lowery, Jefferson sued Lowery personally, not in his capacity as Mayor. Why? Because Ricky Wilkins, Jefferson’s Attorney, works for the city too, and could not sue the executive he serves. That’s a conflict of interest. Also, Jefferson probably wanted to delegitimize Lowery, the Mayor, in the process. Personally, I think the judge should have thrown the damn thing out saying that Lowery, the man, hadn’t done ANYTHING to Jefferson, and that if Jefferson had a gripe, he needed to sue the City.

That’s not what happened. The judge ruled that the Mayor could not dismiss a Director without Council approval, which he conceded at the City Council meeting on Tuesday. We knew this. Why didn’t Lowery just concede defeat and move on? Because Jefferson is also seeking monetary damages against Lowery, the man, not the office of Mayor.

Then there’s the whole ethics thing. The article talks about the Ethics Commission, which DOES NOT EXIST in any tangible way. From the article

But the city’s ethics commission has never been established. Its members have yet to be selected because city council members have had difficulty finding one member who is a retired jurist, one of the requirements for the commission.

So in the absence of an “Ethics Commission”, how does the “Chief Ethical Officer” address ethical concerns independently? Does he even address them independently, or can he use his position as a personal political witch-hunt for whatever purpose he deems necessary? One would think an independent council that required City Council approval would be the least biased way to address concerns, in the absence of a Commision. Who knows?

Nobody does. Not one single freakin’ person I’ve talked to knows shit about anything. The Ethics rules adopted are a start, but without the Commission, what does it matter? If the City Attorney is the “Chief Ethical Officer”, who does he report to? A mythical commission? Leprechauns? Unicorns? Ed. Note: This Morning’s CA reports that Jefferson is sending the ethics matters to outside legal Counsel.

The charter is vague on a lot of things, but one thing that is crystal clear is that the Mayor, whomever that is, appoints division heads with the consent of the City Council as affirmed by Judge Evans’ decision.

Sec. 35. Chief executive officer; appointment and supervision of all divisions, boards, employees and city officers; to devote entire time to office.
The Chief Executive Officer of the City of Memphis shall be the mayor, who shall be vested with and exercise the executive and administrative power of the City, shall be authorized to administer, supervise and control all divisions, boards, agencies, offices and employees of the City and shall see that the ordinances and provisions of the Charter are observed, except as otherwise specifically provided. Such administration shall be conducted by and through divisional directors under the supervision and control of the mayor, as provided herein. He shall devote his entire time and attention to the duties of his office.

Subject to provisions of the Charter including civil service regulations thereof, and ordinances, the Mayor shall appoint and when he deems it necessary for the good of the people, may suspend or remove any employees of the City of Memphis, including any appointive officers or department heads provided for by or under the Charter. The Mayor may delegate to any appointive administrative officer the power to appoint, suspend or remove subordinates in that officer’s division, department, office or agency subject to such conditions and limitations as he may prescribe.

The Mayor shall appoint the members of all boards and commissions, said appointments to be made with the approval of a majority of the Council; the removal of all members of boards and commissions shall be effected in the same manner and subject to the same procedures provided for directors. Members of Boards and Commissions shall continue in office until their successors have been appointed and approved.

That said, some reports have noted that Evans instructed the Lowery, the man (because remember, neither the Mayor NOR the City was being sued) that Jefferson couldn’t be suspended without “a serious infraction or incident.”, which is clearly contrary to the section listed above (though the CA report says state law has supremacy here).

So what’s the solution? Lowery has to get enough votes on the Council to get rid of Jefferson, which is about as likely as me winning the lottery and moving to a tropical island with a bunch of hot models or something. Or he can drop it, and let the next Mayor deal with it. If he does that, he needs to be ready to do nothing more than cut ribbons, because there’s no way in hell he’ll bridge the gap to win the election.

So what’s this all about? Money probably, power likely, but I can’t prove either. Money starts wars and fights and lawsuits, so it stands to reason that it would be, at the very least, part of the reason. Power is one of those things that everyone wants, or thinks they have until they find out they don’t.

In short, this shit is dirty, one way or the other, and Myron Lowery isn’t the one suffering (though he might disagree on that point), but the citizens of Memphis and the office of Mayor, who Jefferson is SUPPOSED to serve. What is his agenda? How many more agendas will emerge?

We’ve got 70 days before the election to find out.