Update on the 11/13/12 Council Meeting: Lifetime health care for Council members approved, EPA endorsement, fairgrounds ...

Here is my summary of the council meeting.

There were no lengthy hearings on any of the bills on public hearing.

No resolutions were pulled from the consent agenda. The consent agenda consist of non-controversial resolutions, including memorializing resolutions. The council votes on the consent agenda has a group and passes all of the bills on that agenda by a single vote. Any council member may have a bill pulled from the consent agenda. If a bill is not pulled, then it is deemed that all of the items on the consent agenda have passed unanimously.

 I am dismayed that RESOLUTION NO. RS2012-478 was not pulled from the consent agenda. It puts the council on record as “supporting the reduction of greenhouse gas pollution under the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act” and says that “climate change is not an abstract problem for the future or one that will only affect far-distant places, but rather climate change is happening now, we are contributing to it, and the longer we wait to act, the more we lose and the more difficult the problem will be to solve” and it urges “the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa P. Jackson, and President Barack Obama to move swiftly to fully employ and enforce the Clean Air Act to do our part to reduce carbon in our atmosphere to no more than 350 parts per million.”

 I, unlike some conservatives, accept the majority scientific opinion that global warming is a reality and that human activity is a contributing factor. I do not think that Al Gore cooked up global warming and that there is a grand worldwide conspiracy in the scientific community to perpetuate a scam. However, this resolution is a case of local government weighing in on an issue that the US Congress should be debating.

There is no end to issue the Council could express there will about if they want to start doing so. What about Agenda 21, the Benghazi policy failure and cover up, the decision of the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply $40 billion dollars a month, immigration policy, the Supreme Courts Citizen United case, the looming fiscal Cliff, the issue of healthcare exchanges and any other number of federal and state issue? If the council is going to start going on record about national issues, there is no end to what they could opine about.

Why should we go on record that 350 parts per million is the correct level of CO2, why not 325 or 375 parts per million? With China building a coal-fired energy facility a month, does our minor curtailment of CO2 in the Nashville region make any significant dent in the problem.

Also, when Congress passed the Clean Air act, they never intended to declare the stuff we exhale as a pollutant. The Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA has the right to regulate. This is a complicated issue. Metro Government should not have passed it. Metro Council should stick to local issues. I know we are locally affected by global warming, but we are also effected by issues of war and peace, a $16 trillion dollar debt and socialization of healthcare. If members of council members want to weigh in on those issues they should run for Congress or blog.

Next time you see one of your council members, especially one of the conservative council members, ask him why he voted for that pro-EPA resolution. He did.

Other Resolution, not on the consent agenda also passes without discussion

Bills on First Reading:

Usually all bills on First Reading are considered as a group and they pass unanimously. First Reading is simply allowing bill to move forward. Bills do not go to committee until after first reading.

Duane Dominy's bill, (BL2012-293) which would require the Fair Board to issue a Request for Proposals for private operators to lease and operate the fairgrounds while upgrading the site and maintaining current uses was objected to by Council Member Moore, which means it had to be voted on separately. (See 28:35)

Sandra Moore moved to defer “by rule,” the rule being rule 8 of the council which says that if a bill only effects one council district and the district council member is not a sponsor of the bill then if the district council member objects to the consideration of the bill on first reading , then the bill must be deferred one meeting. Council member Duvall raised a point of order and argued that the fairground is not an issue that effects only one district but is his overruled by Council staff. This bill will be back on the agenda on first reading on November 20.

This skids are being greased  to kill the fairgrounds and the advocates of doing so are going to pull out all of the stops.  Unless fairground proponents rally to save the fairgrounds, then it is a done deal. Call your council member and ask him to support Dominy's bill.


Bills on Second Reading

The bill that transfers the Transportation Licensing Commission to the Public works department (BILL NO. BL2012-281) passes by voice vote without discussion. While this does nothing to curtail Metro’s price and supply fixing of transportation services, it is still a good bill in that it will most likely end the bullying and abusive practices of the TLC, such as the inspectors illegally exercising police powers, carrying weapons and imitating police officers and intimidating taxi and limo drivers.

The speed cushions bill by Councilman Standley (BILL NO. BL2012-284) which was discussed quite a bit in the B & F committee was deferred to the second meeting in December and referred to Traffic and Parking Commission (see 37:40 for Standley’s explanation of his deferral)

Bills on third reading

The bill sponsored by Council Member Claiborne that would eliminate lifetime subsidized health insurance benefits for Members of Council after they leave office failed to pass. (See the discussion at 50:34 to 1:04:09) Emily Evans makes the point that this benefit is so expensive due to the turnover of the council. due to term limits. However, she urges her colleagues to vote against the bill and saying this bill does not really address the problem, which is term limits.

 Here is how members voted on the bill: 

“Ayes” : Barry, Steine, Garrett, Tygard, Banks, Jernigan, Stites, Claiborne, Weiner, McGuire, Blalock, Duvall, Todd, Mitchell (14)

Noes” : Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Stanley, Tenpenny, Moore, Allen, Baker, Langster, Evans, Holleman, Dominy, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell (23)

This is a disappointing vote. Some of the people we think of as conservatives voted against it. For full disclosure, I receive this benefit, however, if I were serving in the Council, I would have voted for this bill. With the advent of term limits and a growing number of former council members, this is an expense the city cannot afford.

Top Stories