The big Belmont mayoral debate. Who won?

Last night was the night of the big mayoral debate at Belmont University sponsored by The Tennessean and WSMV-TV Channel 4.  Unfortunately I was unable to watch the debate. It was live-streamed but I was otherwise occupied. Fortunately, it is achieved on YouTube. Here it is.


The format of this debate is such that not each candidate gets to answer each question but any candidate can give a quick rebuttal to what another candidate says. With seven candidates in the race, there  is no way to have a real debate unless it lasted hours and hours then no one would watch it, so this is probably about as good of a format as one could have. Also, since most of the candidates are saying the same thing, there is no point to hearing seven candidates say the same thing but just saying it a little differently. Here are some highlights:

Transit and the AMP: Megan Barry says she would chase federal dollars to get transit funding and that sidewalks would go some where. Bone did not say anything much different and said we need a local transit plan and a regional transit plan. David Fox said we must find ways to have the private sector meet some of our transit needs.

The Education Gap between the good schools and the bad schools. David Freeman Howard Gentry get asked this question and neither one answer it. Freeman says the Mayor cannot do much about our schools except be a cheerleader and he says our teachers are not getting a fair shake by all the criticism of our public schools. Gentry doesn't say anything of importance either.  Kane, Fox, Bone and Barry give a rebuttal but one can't say much in one minuet. Fox says the mayor can be very important in influencing school policy.  Megan Barry calls for universal pre-K which confirms why I think she is the worst choice for Mayor. Young children from two-parent middle class or privileged families who have parents that read to their children, give them experiences and engage them, do not need pre-K while kids living in the projects may benefit. Why make pre-K universal rather than focus on where it may actually do some good?

The move of the jail and police headquarters to Antioch and Jefferson St..  Kane and Rebrovick are asked how they would have handled this. Kane says we should start from the neighborhood up and not impose things on neighborhoods. Rebrovick gives a lame answer not addressing the question.

How much would you invest and how would you pay for mass transit: Fox says he cannot come up with a dollar amount and say lets spend that amount. He says we need to come up with a plan, see what we need, what we can afford and sequence that. He again says he would seek private sector partners. I like his answer. Gentry gives a lame answer and says he would seek regional funding. Kane says, "whatever it takes."  Rebrovick offers a rebuttal and says we need to use smart technology.

I am discontinuing my question-by-question report. You can watch the debate for yourself. To save time you can watch it in double time and not lose content, if you know how to do that. Here are some highlights and impression:

• Megan Barry says she would put more money into the office of neighborhoods and gives an endorsement of NashvilleNext.
• Howard Gentry in addressing the proposed $100 Million flood wall ask a question I have wondered about. He says the water diverted from flooding downtown by the wall has to go somewhere else and he would want to know who would be negatively impacted by protecting downtown from a flood. He says the flood wall needs more study.
• Freeman says he is frustrated that the first he knew of the flood wall proposal was when he read it in the newspaper. He says there needs to be discussion and debate before something like this happens. 
• Freeman says we need to pay our police, fireman and city workers more, especially the police.
• Gentry says what happened in Baltimore could happen in Nashville and we need to address inequality.
• Are we investing too much too quickly and should the public be concerned? No, says Gentry; Kane says we must invest in education and transit but does not answer the question; Bone says keep the momentum going and quotes the Bible as he often does; and Barry says we need to take the growth all of the way to the county line.
• Megan says everybody should have transit to get them wherever they want to go.
• Rebrovick keeps pushing synchronized traffic lights.
• Fox is the only candidate who expresses concern about our city's debt obligations.

All of the candidates are personable and seem like friendly, likable people. Charles bone is quick on his feet with zingers and is quick to quote the Bible. Just judging the candidates on performance as a campaign speaker, I think Bone is probably the best one to play the role of a mayoral candidate. Freeman seems like the closest to a good ole boy, backslapping politician and someone you might want to have a beer with.

Fox makes fewer bold and visionary statements and is a little less charismatic than some of the other candidates. When asked to name a song that would make a statement about their campaign, Fox could not come up with anything. I am not sure I could either on the spur of the moment, but anything would have been better than just passing on the question. It is a shame that debate moderators ask such stupid questions. These forums should be about who can best manage the city and what political values a candidate subscribes to rather than questions of the "boxer or briefs" category.  Fox seems the most thoughtful and cautious of the candidates but in a day of massive attention deficit disorder where campaigns more closely resemble a Miss America Beauty contest, Fox's thoughtfulness and intellect may not be an advantage.

Having watched this debate and several others forums and having read the position papers of the candidates and visited the websites of the candidates and knowing something of their record, I have come to the conclusion that Megan Barry would be the least desirable of the candidates to have as mayor, and David Fox would be the best.  The other candidates are kind of lumped together somewhere between.

Fox seems the candidate most concerned that we may be overextending our indebtedness, the most open to seeking private sector solutions to problems, and the only candidate to express respect for private property rights and concern about the abuse of eminent domain. For sometime my support for Fox has been growing but I have been reluctant to reach a conclusion that he was the candidate I would vote for until I knew more about all of the candidates. I met one-on-one with Fox recently and talked with him for a little over an hour and am convinced that he is the best candidate and is absolutely genuine and has deeply held believes about the proper function of government and how the city should be managed. He would not be the mayor that would offer shiny new projects as much as a mayor who would protect our bond rating, use common sense to solve problems, and repair our crumbling infrastructure.

To read the Tennessean report on the debate, if you can get behind their pay wall, follow this link and another Tennessean report at this link. To see The WSMV Chanel 4 report follow this link.

Top Stories

Final NashvilleNext draft is online for public review and comment

The Metropolitan Planning Department of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, has prepared a draft of a proposed long-range General Plan which would guide growth, development, and preservation through 2040.

All elements of the draft plan are online for public review at www.nashvillenext.net.

Planning Commission public hearing on NashvilleNext set for June 15

Prior to adoption of NashvilleNext, a public hearing discussing NashvilleNext will be held as part of a special called Planning Commission meeting at 3 pm Monday, June 15, 2015 in the Sonny West Conference Center in Metro’s Howard Office Building at 700 Second Avenue South, Nashville, Tennessee.

After that hearing is completed and closed, the meeting will adjourn temporarily and resume in the same location at 1 pm on Monday, June 22, 2015; Commissioners will continue their discussion on NashvilleNext and may vote on the Plan at that time.

Questions and comments about the draft plan may be directed to Planning Department staff at 615/862-6398, by email at in...@nashvillenext.net, and by postal mail at 800 Second Avenue South, PO Box 196300, Nashville, Tennessee, 37219.

My Comment: I have not studies the hundreds of pages in NashvilleNext. Following political campaigns and other public affairs, I have simply not had the time. No one except the authors of the plan really know what is in it and this plan will have tremendous impact for the next 25 years. Current sub-area plans were developed with the input of people looking at their particular neighborhood.  Those sub-area plans are being replaced without the same level of citizen involvement. To properly understand what is being proposed in NashvilleNext one would have to devote full time to the endeavor for some weeks. Once adopted by the planning commission, NashvilleNext will be the city's official planning document. New development must comply with the General Plan.  To pass something not in conformity with the General Plan takes a two-thirds vote of the council. I think the plan should be put on hold and a committee of citizens in each sub-area, now called neighborhoods, should study the plan and make sure they understand it and recommend changes at the neighborhood level. I think the plan should be put on hold until citizens have had a chance to study it and until the next mayor takes office. This is being rammed down our throats without adequate citizen study.  

Top Stories

Kane courts the LGBTQ+ vote.

Kane Press Release - Jeremy Kane held the latest in a series of working lunches today speaking with LGBTQ+ Nashvillians to discuss issues that affect the community and how to make Nashville a more inclusive home for all. The working lunch is the latest in a series held by the mayoral candidate to allow leaders in various communities to share their concerns and ideas with the next mayor of Nashville.

“LGBTQ+ Nashvillians make great contributions to Nashville but they face unique challenges,” said Kane. “As Nashville’s next mayor, I want to hear directly from every community in Nashville and the LGBTQ+ community is no exception. My administration will be accessible, and the LGBTQ+ community, whether on LGBTQ+ youth homelessness, or inequity in public services, will be given a voice.”

Attendees included representatives from the Nashville LGBT Chamber of Commerce, the Tennessee Equality Project, The Brooks Fund, Unite Magazine, the Oasis Center, and the Middle Tennessee Transgender Support Group, and Parker Camp, a former openly-gay NCAA athlete.

Working lunches, along with the Just Jeremy town hall series and other efforts, are one of many ways.

My Comment: I knew what LGBT was an acronym for. That is lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender. I did not know what "Q+" added to the LGBT was. That was new one. I found this definition: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and other identities.

LGBPTTQQIIAA+: any combination of letters attempting to represent all the identities in the queer community, this near-exhaustive one (but not exhaustive) represents Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Pansexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Intergender, Asexual, Ally - See more at: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.uSRYXmvJ.dpuf

LGBPTTQQIIAA+: any combination of letters attempting to represent all the identities in the queer community, this near-exhaustive one (but not exhaustive) represents Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Pansexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Intergender, Asexual, Ally - See more at: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.uSRYXmvJ.dpuf

Top Stories

What happend at the May 19th Council meeting: Term limits advances to the ballot, Capital Improvement Budget controversy, New regs for sex clubs, Top Golf approved, Beer in the parks

This meeting is one and half hour long. If you are interested in watching the meeting but do not want to spend that much time watching it, you can watch it in double time.  In the bar at the bottom of the video screen, under "settings" see if you are given that option.  If not, go to this link and click HTLM5 player and then go back to the video and you should be given the option of watching the video at faster speeds.

It will help you follow what is happening if you have a council agenda. To see my commentary on the agenda and a link to get your own copy of the agenda and staff analysis follow this link.

The meeting is conducted by Lonnell Matthews Jr, who is President Pro Tem of the Council, whose job it is to conduct the council meeting in absence of the Vice Mayor. He also conducted the May 5th meeting. Where is the Vice Mayor?

The first item of business is a presentation honoring the Madison Utility District, followed by a presentation honoring Dr. Register, followed by the adoption of a Council rule change. The rule change would allow the Vice Mayor to put bills on public hearings on two consecutive meetings or call a special meeting to hear bills on public hearings. This makes sense. Last council meeting the meeting lasted four hours. That is entirely too long. I remember serving in the Council when there would be lots of bills on public hearing and meetings would last for hours. After about the first couple hours of basically people saying the same thing (it will cause traffic problems, it will cause water problems, it doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood) you are sort of brain dead. In June there will be 60 bills on public hearing! That is a lot. I see the need for this rule change and my only concern is that if the meeting is a special meeting, it still needs to be televised by Channel 3 and the video archived.  Unless someone coordinates with Channel 3, they may not have people scheduled to cover a special meeting. The council voting machine fails and a rule change requires a recorded vote, so the vote is taken by a show of hands.

The regular order of business does not get underway until timestamp 18:27.

All of the mayor's appointees to board and commission are approved without discussion. I am very disappointed. Two of the appointees were to the Human Relation Commission. I was hoping that at least one councilmember would take the opportunity of vote "no" on these confirmations. My basic reason is that this agency is a useless agency at best, but the worse thing they do is sponsor the youth pavilion at the Gay Pride Festival. For a more detailed explanation, follow this link.

There are 18 resolution on the agenda and all but two are on the consent agenda. All resolutions on consent pass with no dissention. The consent agenda are those resolutions deemed non-controversial and they stay on consent if they pass the committee to which they were assigned by a unanimous vote.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1433 was not on consent. It proposes an amendment to the charter that would extend term limits for the Vice Mayor and members of the Council from two to three terms. It had been approved by the Charter Revision Commission. This would only extend term limits; it would not reduce the size of the council. Only the sponsor speaks in favor and only Steve Glover speaks in opposition. The resolutions required 27 votes to pass and it gets only 27 positive votes, 9 "no" votes and two abstentions. The voting machine is still not working and the clerk has to call the roll.

With this resolution passing, this means there will be two measures on the ballot that extend term limits, this one and the one that got on the ballot by petition that in addition to extending term limits also reduces the size of the council. For more on that proposed charter amendment and other charter amendments that will be on the August ballot, follow this link. To see the discussion and the roll call go to timestamp 27:0- 33:34.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1498 by Charlie Tygard is the other resolution not on consent. It request the   Metropolitan Civil Service Commission to consider and recommend an amendment to the General Pay Plan to partially base the compensation of Members of the Metropolitan Council upon Council and committee meeting attendance.

 Recently, Channel 5 did an investigative piece and revealed that some Council members almost never attend committee meetings.  With a large council, the council must have a strong committee system.  It is in committee where the real work of the Council is done. It is in committee where the council can ask hard questions and get answers.  There is no way a councilmember can know all there is to know about the  bills on the agenda. Some of the Councilmen said they had regular jobs and could  not take off work to attend committee meetings. In my view, if a councilmember does not have flexibility in his job to attend to his council duties, he should not run for council.  If he cannot attend Council committee meetings he should resign from the council. The worst offenders were Emily Evans, who missed 83 committee meetings since 2013, Robert Duvall, who's missed 93 committee meetings in that time period, and Sean McGuire, who's missed 132 committee meetings since 2013! Among the top twelve members with the worst attendance records was Council member-at-large and Mayoral candidate Megan Barry.

I was very disappointed to learn of this because generally Duvall and Evans are two of my favorite council member. For more on the  story and to watch a video of the Channel 5 newscast, follow this link. I am proud of Charlie Tygard for proposing this. I wish other council members had to guts to go out with a bang, standing tall. The Committee vote was only one in favor and four against for a recommendation of disapproval. Councilman Tygard moves to defer indefinitely. That probably kills the resolution.

Bills on First reading all pass all lumped together in one vote as is customary, with the exception of the Capital Improvements Budget which is filed as a late resolution requiring a suspension of the rules.  The Charter requires the Capital Improvements Budget to be approved by no later than June 15; so, in order for that to happen it had to be on First Reading tonight or the council would have to have a special meeting to meet the June 2nd deadline.

The Capital Improvements Budget is not really a budget but a prioritized list of capital projects and the source of the funding for those projects. It is a planning document. Some projects can be funded by revenue bonds and some other sources but most are funded by general obligation bonds. Throughout the year, the Capital Improvements Budget can be amended but that can be difficult to do. Ideally all capital improvements are included in the Capital Improvements Budget. The number of projects that actually get funding that are in the Capital Improvements Budget depends, in most cases, on how much money the Council approves for debt service in the Operating Budget.

Council members really do not have much say on what gets funded because to include a project, another project must be removed from inclusion. A councilman may get something added to the Capital Improvements Budget but it may have a low priority and never be funded. It is easier to get an unpopular project taken out of the Capital Improvement Budget than to get a pet project funded. This is one example of how we have a weak council-strong mayor system.

Councilman Duane Dominy takes to the floor and argues against the Capital Improvements Budget saying it includes moving the criminal justice center to the southeast portion of the county and moving the police headquarters to Jefferson Street and he says there is a lot of concern about those proposed moves and without proper public input and council review he will not vote for it and he request a machine vote. Other discussion follows. My view is that these two projects should be taken out of the Capital Improvements Budget as well as the downtown flood wall. I think the next mayor and the next council should consider those projects. With the voting machine not working, there is an actual roll call vote with a few "no" votes but the clerk does not announce the totals. To see the debate see timestamp 35:37 - 53:28.

Bills on Second Reading all pass and none of them are of interest.

Bills on Third Reading all pass and none generate controversy. These are the ones of interest:

BILL NO. BL2015-1081 passes which changes a zoning in order to allow Top Golf to build a large high tech golf driving range.

BILL NO. BL2015-1099  defines what is a sex club, and says they can only locate in areas zoned industrial and not within 1000 feet of a church, home, school, park or daycare center. It would prohibit the following:

1. Admitting members that are younger than 21 years of age;
2. Admitting any new member without the affirmative vote of a majority of the other members;
3. Accepting applications for membership without a current member’s written recommendation; and
4. Granting membership within 24 hours from the time a membership application is filed.

BILL NO. BL2015-1100 changes the code to make it the applicant's responsibility rather than the city's for posting signs that say a property has a hearing before The Board of Zoning Appeal. Originally it removed the requirement that such notices be published in a newspaper but it amended to continue requiring notices to be published in the paper.

BILL NO. BL2015-1102  would allow the Parks Department to permit the sale of beer in any Metro Parks. Now, the Parks Department can only allow beer sales at parks in the downtown area.

Here is the Tennessean's report of the meeting. Please note that the Tennessee's now has their on-line content behind a pay wall so if you are not a Tennessean subscriber you can't read it. 

Top Stories

Three charter amendments make the ballot: Ban the box, cut the council, and hire locals.

Three proposed charter amendment petitions appear to have gotten enough signatures to get on the August ballot. A fourth that would have restricted funding for marijuana law enforcement for people processing not over two ounces of the herb failed to make the cut. To get on the ballot a proposed charter amendment had to have signatures on a petition that equaled 10% of the number of votes cast in the last Metro election.

The three proposed charter amendments that it looks like will be on the ballot are below and these are my initial thoughts on them:

Ban the Box- removes the question from the initial Metro job application that

ask if an applicant has ever been convicted of a felony. I am undecided about this but leaning "yes." We need to ease the reentry of ex-felons into society. This applies only to the initial application. To give an ex-con a shot at getting a Metro job does not seem too much to ask.

Reduce the size of the Council from 40 members to 27 and expand term limits fom two to three terms. I am supporting this. I have always thought term limits was a bad idea. It makes for a weak council and a strong mayor. I do not think having the next to the largest Council in America has served us well. We may have 40 members but very

little diversity of thought. On things that should be controversial we have votes that are 40 to 0 in favor. The argument against this change is that a person can get elected now without spending a lot of money if they are willing to work hard and that neighbors can have access to their councilmen. I am not buying that argument. Twenty-seven will still make us have a larger council than most cities and these other cities seem to manage as well as we do. This proposal does away with the Council-at-large positions. I have always thought the at-large positions served no useful purpose. This proposal only reduces the number of districts from 35 to 27 which is not that much of a reduction. It only takes 99 Representatives and 33 Senators to legislate for the State, surely we can legislate local matters with less than 40 people.

A requirement that 40% of the workforce on any Metro project exceeding

$100,000 be residents of Davidson County.  I oppose this. When we put out for bids a big project, the winner of the bid already has his employees. To require that the contractor lay off his employees and hire local employees will drive up the cost of construction. It takes time to find the right people who fit the culture and environment of a company. Also, there is a learning curve in learning how a company does things and what the expectations are.  Many companies cannot just replace 40% of their workforce and still do the quality job they were hired to do. Also, if we have such a requirement, other cities may start having such a requirement. There are a lot of people in the construction trade in Nashville who work on projects out of town. Do we want those people to lose their job? At one time, the city required that everyone who had a metro job had to live in the county.  This restricted us from getting the work force we needed. When you start tampering with the market by fixing prices or imposing requirement that you only buy local or hire local then there are usually detrimental consequences. Markets maximize efficiency. This needs to be defeated.

Top Stories

It matters who we elect to the office of Mayor and Metro Council. We are at a turning point.

In a year from now will we be watching on the evening news that Nashville's mayor conducted a mass grand wedding for gay couples on the steps of the metro court house, and the city funded a big gay wedding party to celebrate our "diversity" and how "welcoming" of a city we are?

Will we see a massive new tax increases?  Will we see our bond ratings tumble?

A year from now will we learn that our schools will be adopting a family life curriculum that teaches gender fluidity- the ideal that there is no such thing as boys and girls but we are each somewhere along a spectrum?

Will we see massive new spending for public art, for new light rail that multiplies the failure of the Music City Star several times, and new everything- infrastructure, parks, schools, and as of yet unthought of projects? Maybe a downtown soccer stadium? We will continue to divert tax generated from downtown development out of the general fund?

Will we be engaging in price fixing by mandating that all new residential property construction contain a set aside of a certain number of units that must be priced to be "affordable" and that they must be kept "affordable" for the next thirty to forty years?

Will we be running roughshod over private property rights by taking people's property and selling it to a developer because bureaucrats and the mayor think the new owner will do something better with the property?

These things are not fantasies. There are examples all across the country of cities that are on the verge of going bankrupt because of mismanagement and cities with outrageously high property taxes due to unfettered spending, and cities that are celebrating the normalization of deviant behavior.

Since 2010, forty-seven municipalities have gone bankrupt (link). Many cities have tax rates that are a severe burden to the residents. If you think taxes are high in Nashville, look at other cities. In San Francisco, a home-owner with a median income pays a total of 39% or their income in Federal, State and local taxes of one sort or another. In Nashville it is 24.36%.  Of the largest 100 cities, we are the 45th most heavily taxed (compare the top 100). There are those who want us to spend more for this or that and "invest" more. The flip side of the "spend," "invest," or "fund," is "tax." Money for pubic goods has to come from somewhere and it comes our of your pocket. I think we are taxed enough.

One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on gender fluidity (link). In Orlando, Florida, 50 same sex couples got married by Mayor Buddy Dyer in January (video). There are those who want Nashville to become "the San Francisco of the South." I don't.

We need to pay close attention to this election and elect some common-sense people. If one rushed to the election commission tomorrow early and picked up a petition to run for council, one could work hard at it and turn it in before noon on Thursday and be on the ballot.  Nashville is on the verge of taking a hard left turn if we elect some of the people who are running to the office of mayor and council. We don't need to let that happen.

Top Stories

1st Quarter Report on who is contributing to the Howard Gentry campaign

Howard Gentry

 Short on Cash

Howard Gentry did not raise any money prior to January 15, so was not required to file an initial report. The First Quarter campaign financial disclosure report is for the period of Jan.15 through March 31st. He begins the period with no cash on hand, had receipts of $103,875 and ends the period with $98,145. "Howard Gentry for Criminal Court Clerk" loaned his campaign $30,000. Below are the contributions of interest.

Rahim Rahimi contributed $1,500 and Libra Holding, LLC, which is owned by Rahim Rahimi contributed $1,500.  Dinah Gregory, Director of Planning and Coordination with Metro Social Services, $1,000; Jack Cawthon, owner of Jack's Barbeque, $1,500; retired judge Sue M. Evans, $1,000, Orrin H. Ingram of Ingram Industries $1,500 and  Martha Ingram, owner of Ingram Industries and philanthropist contributed $1,500.

Mike Curb of Curb Records, songwriter, philanthropist, and former Lt. Governor of California, $1,500. Linda Curb of the same address contributed $1,500.

John Curley III, manager with DET Distributing contributed $1,500 and Fred Dettwiller contributed $1,500. Fred Dettwiller has contributed to several of the candidates.  Catherine Dettwiller contributed $1,500.

Ryman Hospitality PAC Contributed $1,000. This PAC has also contributed to other candidates for mayor.

Two pay day lenders, Tennessee Quick Cash of 5302 Mt. View Rd and Cash 2 Day LLC of 5307 Mt. View Rd, each contributed $250. Two bonding companies, both located at the same address, contributed $250 each.

Top Stories

Marijuana push falls short in Nashville.

Marijuana push falls short in Nashville.WBIR-TV -  Petitions that were submitted to the Metro clerk on Monday on other issues will now make their way to the Davidson County Election Commission,...

Top Stories

1st Quarter update on Who is contributing to the Bill Freeman Campaign

Bill Freeman

 The candidate who has raised the most money and most of  in amounts of  $1,500.

I have examined Mr. Freeman's 1st quarter campaign financial disclosure report which is for the period that ended March 31st, 2015, which had a report due date of April 10th.

Mr. Freeman began the quarter with a balance on hand of $1,500 had receipts of $1,110,175 and ended the period with a balance on hand of $751,293. The candidate loaned his campaign an aggregate of $530,000. He reports in-kind contributions of almost $8,000.

Among the expenditures this quarter is $3,500 for consulting services paid to State Representative and Metro Council member Brenda Gilmore and  $18,090 to Metro Councilman Jerry Maynard for consulting services.

One thing interesting about Freeman's report is that most of his itemized contributions are for the maximum of $1,500. How does that happen? How are contributors persuaded to write checks for $1,500, rather than smaller amounts?  He also had $5,623 of unitemized contributions meaning the contribution was for an amount not over $100, but of those that are itemized the vast majority or for $1,500 each.

A review of this report shows the following contributions of interest.

I don't know who the Burns' are but Mary Jordan Burns, Susan Burns, and Virginia Burns, all of 419 Sunnyside Dr. each contributed  $1,500 for a household total of $4,500. Barney Byrd, CEO of Gen Cap America contributed $1,500 and Elena Bryd, homemaker, at the same address in Franklin contributed $1,500.

B. C. Clippard, who is "Scooter" Clippard who is a Republican insider who led Fred Thompson’s national fundraising efforts when Thompson made a run for the Republican presidential nomination, but then become a national finance co-chairman for McCain's campaign when Thompson dropped out, contributed $1,500. Of course, Bill Freeman was a major fund raiser for Barack Obama. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Thomas Beasley, former chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party and a founder of Corrections Corporation of America contributed $1,500.

Ann Archer Davis, a homemaker, and Kirby Davis, who I assume is her husband, who works for Freeman-Webb, each contributed $1,500 to the General Election and each contributed $1,500 to the run off.  The Elections Commission has ruled candidates may not accept contributions to the run off until after the general elections so the Freeman Campaign has had to return $3,000 of this $6,000. There are several other people who also contributed to the run-off who will have to have their money returned.  Councilman Sean McGuire who is a Vice President at Freeman-Webb contributed $1,500 and several other people who work for Freeman-Webb contributed $1,500 each. Several people with the last name "Webb" contributed $1,500 each.

Michael McWherter, former Democrat candidate for governor and son of former Governor Ned Ray McWherter, and Mary Jane McWherter of the same address each contributed $1,500. The Ned McWherter Trust contributed $1,500. Mike McWherter also contributed $1,000 to Charles Bone and $1,000 to Megan Barry. I do not understand people who contribute to different candidates seeking the same seat.

Bob Tuke, an attorney who is a partner with Trauger & Tuke who was the 2008 Democrat nominee for U. S. Senate and who contributes to lots of campaigns contributed $1,500. He also contributed to $1,500 to Megan Barry.

Gaylord Entertainment Co. PAC contributed $1,000. Gaylord also contributed $1,000 to Megan Barry. Beth Franklin, owner of Multi-Task Solutions and Steve Franklin of the same address who is also an owner of Multi-Task Solutions, each contributed $1,500 and in addition, Multi-Task Solutions contributed $1,500.

Will Cheek, Jr contributed $1,500, and Will Cheek III contributed $1,000. Hostettler Realty, LLC contributed $1,500. Michael Hodges, executive with the pay day lender company Advance Financial and Tina Hodges  of the same address each contributed $1,500. George Armistead, former Council member-at-large contributed $200.

Fred Detwiller. owner of beer distributing company DET Distributing contributed $1,500 and Kathryn Dettwiller of the same address contributed $1,500. Fred Detwiller also contributed $1,500 to the Bone Campaign.

Gordon Ball, the 2014 Democrat nominee for U. S. Senate contributed $1,500. He also contributed to  $1,500 to the Megan Barry campaign.

Renata Soto, Executive Director of Conexion Americas contributed $250. She also contributed $100 to the David Fox campaign.

Waller Landsen PAC contributed $1,500 and H. G. Hill Realty PAC, $1,000. I believe this two PAC's have contributed to all of the candidates except David Fox.

Robert Clements who is better know as Bob Clement, former Democrat U. S. Representative and former candidate for Mayor who now heads his own lobbying firm Bob Clements and Associates contributed $1,500 and Mary Clement of the same address also contributed $1,500.

General Sessions Judge Bill Higgins contributed $500; Julius Sloss, former councilman who now works for the Davidson County Juvenile Court, $500; David Smith, Juvenilte Court Clerk, $1,000; Reese Smith, IV of Haury and Smith Contractors, $1,500 and Reese Smith III, $1,500;  Former State Representative Mike Turner, $1,000, John Arrliola, former State Metro Councilman, State Representative and County Clerk, $500.

Dr. Ming Wang, famed eye surgeon, ball room dancer and philanthropist, contributed $500. He also contributed $500 to the David Fox campaign. 

A large number of other attorneys, contractors, builders, and realtors made contributions. 

Below is what I reported following the initial report which covered the period prior to January 15th:

As of the date of the first required financial disclosure, Jan. 15th 2015, Bill Freeman had only raised $1,500. Don't fret however, Freeman has the ability to self fund  whatever it takes to mount an effective campaign.  He started the report with no money on hand, loaned his campaign $30,000, received a single contribution of $1,500 from Chip Forrester, former Chair of the Tennessee Democrat Party, spent $30,000 in advertising to put his ads on Gray’s Disposal trucks and that is all his report shows.

Top Stories

What is on the Council agenda for May 19: less work = less pay for Council, sex club regs, beer in parks, term limits,

If you don't know what the Metro Council is voting on and you watch a council meeting, you will find it really, really boring. If you have your own copy of the Council agenda and staff analysis the meeting will still be boring but not really, really boring. To get your own copies, follow the highlighted links.

There are three appointees to Boards and Commissions on the agenda for Council confirmation. Two of them are to the Human Relations Commission. The Human Relations Commission should more aptly be named, The Commission to Enforce and Promote Political Correctness. The Human Relations Commission does some things that are not objectionable but those things could be done by the private sector or other departments. This is a totally useless commission and a waste of tax payer money.

One thing the Commission does that I find objectionable is sponsor the twink booth at the Gay Pride Festival. Actually it is called the Youth  Pavilion and its goal is to normalize deviant behavior among young people who may be confused about their sexuality.

If I were on the council, I would ask if any member of the Rules Committee had asked the appointees if he supported the Human Relations Commission's sponsorship of the Youth Pavilion and how the appointee had responded. If that question had not been asked in committee, I would ask the Vice Mayor if I could ask that question of the appointee.  If the question had not been asked in committee and I was permitted to ask the question of  the appointee and he said he did support the Youth Pavilion, then I would ask to be recorded voting "no" on the confirmation. If the Vice Mayor refused to let me ask the question of the appointee, I would ask to be recorded as voting "no."

I really do not believe people like Josh Stites, Robert Duvall and Duane Dominy support metro sponsoring a youth pavilion at the Gay Pride festival, yet they never take a stand against it. The council routinely confirms whoever the mayor appoints and approves all appointees unanimously. The handful of conservative councilmembers on the council are termed out or are not seeking reelection. They have nothing to lose. I wish they would go out in a blaze of glory and take a stand for decency and vote against the appointees  to the Human Relations Commission unless the appointee has taken a position against the Commission sponsoring the Youth Pavilion.

There are 15 resolution on the agenda. Most resolutions are lumped together and put on the "consent agenda" and all pass with a single voted. If a resolution does not pass the committee to which it was assigned unanimously then it is not on consent and is considered separately. Any council member may, from the floor, ask for a resolution to be pulled off of consent and then the resolution will be considered separately. Almost all of the resolutions are simply accepting grant money from the state. These is the resolution of interest:

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1433 proposes an amendment to the charter. There are two ways proposed amendments to the charter can get put to a vote of the people. One, is the petition route and  the other is by resolution of the Council.  This resolution proposes an amendment to the Charter that would extend term limits for the Vice Mayor and members of the Council from two to three terms. It has been approved by the Charter Revision Commission. It will take 27 votes to pass.  If it passes it will be on the August ballot. However, it takes two votes of the Council for that to happen; one to approve the proposed amendment and another to submit it to the ballot.

I think term limits are a mistake and they transfer power from the Council to the Mayor. Even without term limits we have a weak council-strong mayor structure. Term limits makes the unelected bureaucrats stronger and they serve the interest of the mayor.  It takes a while for a new councilman to learn out how things operate and it takes an informed and powerful councilman not to be snowed by a long-term bureaucrat. While expanding the number of terms from two to three may help some, I think this is pretty insignificant. One problem with term limits is that almost the whole council terms over ever eight years.  A more meaningful measure would be to stagger terms so that not all experienced councilmen leave office at the same time.  This proposed amendment does not do that. This resolution does nothing to reduce the size of the Council either. I have slowly reached the point to where I think the size of the council should be reduced.

There is a proposal that does reduce the size of the council and also extends term limits that is proceeding via the petition route. I am not sure we need competing measures on the ballot that address the same issue. It is also worth noting that efforts to amend the charter to increase term limits has already been tried several times. While I think the public is wrong in supporting term limits, I think they have clearly spoken, and I see nothing that has happened that would change their mind at this time and make them think extending term limits to three terms was a good idea. Terms limits for the Council were approved in a public referendum in 1994. Attempts to repeal or extend term limits have been tried several times since. I would probably vote against this.

There are 20 bills on first reading, but I don't look at them until second reading and I doubt many of the members of the Council do either. First reading is a formality to get the bill on the agenda and all bills on first reading are passed at one time in one motion.

There are seven bills on Second Reading.  I do not find any of them controversial or of much interest.

There are 36 bills on Third Reading. Below are the ones of interest

BILL NO. BL2015-1099  defines what is a sex club, and says they can only locate in areas zoned industrial and not within 1000 feet of a church, home, school, park or daycare center. It would prohibit the following:

1. Admitting members that are younger than 21 years of age;
2. Admitting any new member without the affirmative vote of a majority of the other members;
3. Accepting applications for membership without a current member’s written recommendation; and
4. Granting membership within 24 hours from the time a membership application is filed.

This looks like this is intended to make it impossible for a sex club to exist. I know no councilman wants to be labeled as voting for a sex club, but this is pretty heavy handed. The one existing sex club in Nashville has existed for over forty years and is not associated with crime or disturbances.  If it was not pointed out to someone, no one would know it was a sex club.  it has the letters "TCS" on the door.  It does not have flashing neon signs saying, "Naked Girls," "Sex, Sex, Sex." I think people ought to mind their own business and let consenting adult perverts have a place to play.

BILL NO. BL2015-1100 changes the code to make it the applicant's responsibility rather than the city's for posting signs that say a property has a hearing before The Board of Zoning Appeal. Also it removes the requirement that such notices be published in a newspaper. Notices will be published online on an official website. This makes sense to me.

BILL NO. BL2015-1102  would allow the Parks Department to permit the sale of beer in any Metro Parks. Now, the Parks Department can only allow beer sales at parks in the downtown area.  I approve of this bill.

There are three memorializing resolutions and if they meet the same criteria for inclusion they will be included in the consent agenda. Memorializing resolutions do not have the force of law and simply express the will of the council and are often used to honor a sports team on a victory or honor a long-time employee on his retirement. Memorializing resolutions are occasionally used by the more liberal members of the council, however, to put the council on record approving some extremely liberal piece of national legislation being debated in the U. S. Congress. The Council staff does not analyze memorizing resolutions. There are two significant memorializing resolutiions on this agenda:

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1496  request the Davidson County Delegation to the Tennessee General Assembly to introduce and support legislation to authorize the Metropolitan Government to issue public obligation bonds for the purpose of providing funds for affordable housing. This would only be permissive and I see no reason to oppose this.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-1498 by Charlie Tygard request the   Metropolitan Civil Service Commission to consider and recommend an amendment to the General Pay Plan to partially base the compensation of Members of the Metropolitan Council upon Council and committee meeting attendance. This will probably prove controversial. I support it.

Recently, Channel 5 did an investigative piece and revealed that some Council members almost never attend committee meetings.  This is just not right! As Tygerd said, "It's not fair for certain council members to do all of the homework and others to get the same rate of pay and do nothing of the work.”

With a large council, the council must have a strong committee system.  It is in committee where the real work of the Council is done. It is in committee where the council can ask hard questions and get answers.  There is no way a councilmember can know all there is to know about the  bills on the agenda. Some of the Councilmen said they had regular jobs and could  not take off work to attend committee meetings. In my view, if a councilmember does not have flexibility in his job to attend to his council duties, he should not run for council.  If he cannot attend Council committee meetings he should resign from the council. The worst offenders were Emily Evans, who missed 83 committee meetings since 2013, Robert Duvall, who's missed 93 committee meetings in that time period, and Sean McGuire, who's missed 132 committee meetings since 2013! Among the top twelve members with the worst attendance records was Council member-at-large and Mayoral candidate Megan Barry.

Fore more on the  story and to watch a video of the newcast, follow this link.

Top Stories

Who do the polls show is leading in the race for Mayor?

It depends on who commissioned the poll.  The poll commissioned by Bill Freeman show Bill Freeman is ahead; the polls commissioned by Howard Gentry shows Howard Gentry is ahead.

The Tennessean turned to a Vanderbilt polling expert to offer an opinion on the conflicting polls.  After Vanderbilt's recent "poll" about InsureTennessee, I don't think a polling expert at Vanderbilt has the credibility to be considered an expert in talking about the validity of someone else's poll, but the Vanderbilt expert may know what he is talking about when he tells how polls can be manipulated to get the answered one wants. I don't think after the Vanderbilt's InsureTennesssee polling story, a credible news source would have turned to Vanderbilt to offer an opinion on a poll without also revealing Vanderbilt's own recent questionable polling tactics. The Tennessean however did not bring that up again.  To read more follow this link.

Top Stories