The Early Voting Cycle

October 22, 2007

I recently was a candidate for the Memphis City Council (Super District 9, Position 2) and while I did not win, I ran well and finished third in a field of six getting 20% of the vote.

After the election I talked with many of the other candidates for the various smaller districts and the super districts and there seems to be general agreement that the extended two week period of early voting is a bad idea that greatly increases the cost of campaigning but does not increase the actual voting totals. Also, as happened this year, many people voted before certain information came out about some of the candidates.

Therefore I would propose that in the future, early voting occur two to three days immediately before the actual voting date. For instance this year the final date was Thursday, October 4, 2007. Early voting could have occurred on Monday and Tuesday and the final vote on Thursday. This would cut the cost of the election to the taxpayers and certainly cut the cost and the length of the campaign to those running.

While there is nothing that can be done about signs, they are an eyesore and a distraction that takes away from the debate of ideas. Public television should be used to have a full and thorough debate between the various candidates giving them time to question each other and to display their ideas and their knowledge.

The election commission should reconsider the early voting cycle and change it to a shorter, more compact and less expensive model.

Joe Saino

October 15, 2007

JUST HOW DOES THE CHARTER COMMISSION OPERATE. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE

Today, October 11, 2007, I plan to present to the charter commission 3307 signed petitions for a change to the City Charter to be put on the November 2008 ballot in order for the Memphis voters to say YES or NO to this proposal. John Lunt and John Malmo tried to present these petitions two weeks ago to the Charter Commission but were refused permission to make the presentation by George Brown. John Lunt is the person who was responsible for the formation of the Charter Commission. For this meeting, I asked all the member of the Charter Commission for permission to present these signed petitions and you see the response from George Brown. The maximum number of petitions for a particular item up to this presentation is 28. I have attached a sample of these new petitions and a copy of the Charter Commissions totals of previous petitions.

Regards, Joe Saino

Here is the email response from George Brown to Joe Saino

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: GBrown79@aol.com < GBrown79@aol.com>
Date: Oct 10, 2007 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Petitions to be presented to charter commission
To: joe.saino@gmail.com
Cc: sjc@sylviajcox.com


Mr. Saino you may deliver your petitions to the commission, however, our procedure is that while you may attend the meetings you shall not be allowed to address the Commission. Thank you for your interest. George H. Brown, Jr.

Click here to see a sample of the over 3000 petitions signed by Memphis voters wanting to vote YES or NO on this change to the City Charter

Click here to see the number and types of charter commission recommendations they have received from the public to date

Click here to see the number and types of charter commission recommendations they have received from the city council and other city officials

July 19, 2007

In the glare of the corruption in the Memphis City Council, I suggest that the City Council and/or the Charter Commission enact the following changes to the charter if they want real change and verifiable honesty in their city government. I ask you to take the following recommendations from myself, John Malmo and John Lunt and write or email the city council and the charter commission and demand change so that you, the tax payer can say yes or no to each of the following proposed changes. If they get hundreds and possibly thousands of emails, they will be under pressure to propose these and other good changes and let the voters decide either in August 2008 or November 2008. It is the last best chance for us to save Memphis. Send this out to your email list. Thanks for your help.



• CHARTER CHANGE TO ALLOW CITIZEN PETITIONS. A charter section like the Shelby County charter sections which allow citizen generated referendums like the voters used in 1994 to set term limits on County Commissioners.
• CHARTER CHANGE FOR REQUIRED CANDIDATE DONATION AND EXPENDITURE RECORDS. An open records charter amendment requiring election commission reports of donations and expenditures to be submitted electronically in spreadsheet format so that they can be entered into a unified database and published for notification and verification of information. All required election commission documents detailing contributors to and expenditures from all local elected officials needs to be put in an electronic data base so that the public can tell who is contributing to whom and how the contributed money is being spent.
• TERM LIMITS- Prevent elected officials from getting the tenure that gives them the position to sell their influence to developers and other buyers of political influence exhibited by Tennessee Waltz and Main Street Sweep.
• NO SALE OF MLGW WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND EXPANSION OF BOARD- Because MLGW is piling up cash at the ratepayers expense, politicians want to get their hands on the cash. As of December 31, 2005, MLGW had A $306 million balance of current assets over current liabilities, up from $277 million the year before. The law says that any surplus remaining after establishment of proper reserves, shall be devoted solely to the reduction of rates. Also the board of MLGW should be expanded to seven or more members to include members from the largest Shelby county cities outside Memphis such as Germantown, Collierville and Bartlett, those members to be appointed by the Mayors of those cities.
• THIGHTEN ETHICS RULES- No election official should be able to serve if he benefits from any contract involving City taxpayer money even if he recuses himself from voting on that particular contract or issue.
• PENSION REFORM- The January 2001 pension change has cost millions of dollars to date and will go on costing millions more as these elected and appointed officials retire. Since hardly any of the taxpaying public who work in private industry has a defined benefit pension plan anymore, a defined contribution plan should be instituted in the future for all newly hired public employees.
• OPEN RECORDS- The following should be put on the internet promptly. All RFPs (Request for Proposals), replies to RFPs, contracts, purchase orders, related correspondence and selection justification. All professional contract awards with related correspondence. All building projects, related contracts, purchase orders, change orders and correspondence e.g. the FedEx Arena and the Cannon Center and school projects. All salaries, benefits, pension details, land deals and minutes of meetings. All budgets, financial statements and audits. Only by making open records access easier, can we keep the sunshine on government practices which politicians like to conceal. The current no bid purchase orders given under the ACS contract shield is an example of gross abuse and lack of transparency in bidding and awarding contracts.
• APPOINTEES- There are over 400 appointees whereas the charter, according to Sara Hall’s reading, only allows about 110. This needs to be defined and limited to much less. The January 2001 pension resolution allowing elected and appointed officials to collect pensions and health benefits after only 12 years regardless of age has already cost millions and has the potential to cost $60 million if all of the current eligible elected and appointed people retire under that provision.
• RESTRICT ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM VOTING MEMBERSHIP ON CITY AND COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS- This is where the influence peddling starts and needs to be stopped.
• CONTRACTING AUTHORITY- Prohibit the Mayor, any Mayor, from signing any contract unless it has been approved and funded by the City Council.
• SEPARATE PUBLIC PARK COMMISSION BOARD. Reinstate a separate non political Park Commission as it was previously constituted before the City Council dissolved it to its detriment.

This can be done and passed if only the City Council or the Charter Commission has the courage and resolve to propose it for the voters. If we can bombard them with enough email and letters and calls, they may be forced to put these items on the ballot and let the voters decide.

Joseph N. Saino
6560 Kirby Forest Cove
Memphis, Tennessee 38119
754-0699

February 16, 2007

Sylvia Cox is the secretary of the charter commission and is also a commissioner. She is very competent and wants to do a real job of changing the City Charter for the better. Click below to see a resume of the commission actions to this point.

Click here to read Sylvia Cox's charter commission website

February 15, 2007

Here are the email addresses of the charter commission members. Let them have your thoughts on what changes you want in the Memphis City Charter.

sylvia.cox@memphistn.gov
george.brown@memphistn.gov
willie.brooks@memphistn.gov
sharon.webb@memphistn.gov
janis.fullilove@memphistn.gov
marsha.campbell@memphistn.gov
Myron.Lowery@memphistn.gov

January 24, 2007 Minutes

CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
MEMPHIS CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING





Present: Commissioners: Willie Brooks, George Brown, Jr., Marsha Campbell, Sylvia Cox, Janis Fullilove, Sharon Webb



City of Memphis/Law Division: Jenni Falkof/Assistant City Attorney, Berneta Miles, Administrative Assistant to Sara Hall, City Attorney



Absent: Commissioner Myron Lowery



The meeting was called to order by Commissioner George Brown, Jr. with prayer by Commissioner Sharon Webb.



The minutes for the January 3, 2006 meeting were approved as read.



The meeting began with an open discussion on dates and locations for the public forums. The dates approved at the January 3rd meeting were March 27, 29, 31 and April 18, 24-26. Commissioner Cox reported that the Board of Education was reserved for March 24, 207 and the Central Library for March 31, 2007. She also stated that the library location would probably not be adequate for the forums. Jenni Falkof, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the Commissioners that the locations chosen for these public forums must be ADA compliant because the Charter Commission is a City entity. She will continue to check for other ADA compliant facilities and the MEA building.



The following locations and dates were approved:





- March 21, 2007, City Council Chambers, 6 p.m.

- March 29, 2007, Hollywood Community Center, 6 p.m.

- March 31, 2007, Central Library, 1 p.m.

- April 18, 2007, Whitehaven Community Center, 6 p.m.



It was agreed that a press release will be provided for the public forums.



There was continued discussion regarding the public’s perception of the Charter Commission. It was suggested by Commissioner Brown and agreed by all Commissioners that an overview will be given at the beginning of the first public forum regarding what has been done and how the Commission will proceed.



Commissioner Fullilove asked for clarification on the procedures for the public forums. Commissioner Brown stated that he had asked MTAS to provide recommendations. It was agreed that the procedures for the public forums would be on the agenda for the Feb 7th meeting.




There was an open discussion regarding the no-show of stakeholders for this meeting. To foster better communication from the Charter Commission, Commissioner Fullilove volunteered to accept the responsibilities of communicating all future invitations for the Charter Commission. She will contact the list of stakeholders that was agreed upon by the Charter Commission and update the Commissioners via email. The scheduled dates for the stakeholders is Feb 3 and 28th.



The Commissioners had an open forum on where the Commission is and what it has been doing. It was decided that the Commission would put forth its best effort to publish the town-hall meetings and what we have done up to this point. Commissioner Cox will provide a chronological report of what the Commission has been doing.



The meeting was adjourned.

January 3, 2007 Minutes

CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
MEMPHIS CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING




Present: Commissioners: Willie Brooks, George Brown, Jr., Marsha Campbell, Sylvia Cox, Janis Fullilove, Myron Lowery, Sharon Webb


City of Memphis/Law Division: Jenni Falkof/Assistant City Attorney, Berneta Miles, Administrative Assistant to Sara Hall, City Attorney


Guest(s): Alan Wade, City Council Attorney and Sara L. Hall City Attorney



The meeting was called to order by Commissioner George Brown, Jr. with prayer by Commissioner Sharon Webb.


The minutes for the December 13, 2006 meeting were approved as read.


The meeting began with a discussion on dates for the public forums - 3 weekdays and 1 weekend. The discussion continued with suggestions for locations that included churches, libraries, community centers, The University of Memphis, Board of Education and city owned/operated facilities. The locations must be accessible to all constituents. After much discussion, it was decided that we would check on the availability of community centers, libraries, Board of Education and NEA building.


The discussion moved to dates for the public forums. It was agreed that the weekday meetings would be Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. The one weekend meeting will be on Saturday. The dates chosen are March 27-29, 31 and April 18, 24-26. It was also decided that two of the meetings would be at a community center located in the northern and southern parts of the city and two at the NEA, Board of Education or Central Library on Poplar Avenue.


Commissioner Brown asked Jenni Falkof to check with MTAS to give recommendations on how to conduct the forums.


Introduction of Attorney Wade and Attorney Hall


Allen Wade is the attorney for the Memphis City Council. Sara Hall is the attorney for the City. Commissioner Brown commended both attorneys on their professionalism in their respective roles. The discussion began on their use of the Charter in their respective roles.


Attorney Hall began the discussion stating that the City is a business with numerous duties being performed on a daily basis for the constituents and the City. The Charter is a structure and a framework; and that it should be a documents that allows the City to function in a productive way for the City and it’s constituents. Be mindful that in addition to outside laws, e.g. state, federal, that affect the City of Memphis, it’s day-to-day operations are also affected by the laws of its Charter. Ideally, you want a structure, a separation of powers and an interplay of the branches. Inevitably, there are places in the Charter where the power of the administration and the power of the Council will intersect. There are also debates as to where is that intersection. To a large degree, there is no way to state each scenario and how it will be decided. It is a healthy exercise that causes our bodies to be critical at times but also causes the bodies to work together for the good of the City.


Attorney Wade began the discussion with a brief history of the Charter. The current Charter is the result of a private act by the General Assembly with new acts added as approved by the General Assembly. The City adopted Home Rule in 1966 which set forth different modes of operations that previously existed. It is how the prior Charter and the Home Rule Charter interface that creates some ambiguity. Overall, it is a good working document. The challenge before this Commission is not what you do but what you don’t do. Be careful not to strangle the ability of the administration and the council to grow and take on the ever complex nature of how the city operates.


Attorney Wade and Hall gave examples of how the marriage of the prior and the Pop Charter may cause ambiguity. Some areas of concern are:


- Power to contract ... it remains with the mayor ...

- Interim appointments .. what power does the mayor have ...

- Ability of the council to budget

- Law Division as a “set division” within the Charter and its duties

- Municipal elections

- Set time to clean-up/review charter


Commissioner Brown suggested that the Commission get clarity as to whether or not the final changes for the Charter must be stated as “one” or “multiple” questions. Commissioner Brown addressed the issue of ethics and the City Council and Charter Commission’s role in addressing the matter. Attorney Wade stated that it is more than likely that the City Council will address those concerns so that it would not be a concern for the Commission. The City Council is under a state mandate to adopt ethic legislation.


The Commission had an open discussion of the subject matter presented by Attorneys Wade and Hall, date of next general election, format for referendum and ethic mandate by the state. The City Attorney’s office is to assist the Commission in clarifying the rules that will apply for the Commission to present its proposed changes to the public.


Commissioner Campbell prompted a discussion regarding a state mandate for the City Council to write an ethic ordinance and how/if that would have any impact on the Charter Commission duties. Commission Lowery advised that Chairman Marshall had appointed an ad hoc Charter Commission Committee of which he is the chair. Commission Lowery will advised when they meet.


As to further guests to speak to the Charter Commission, it was decided to invite the Mayor, Chair of the City Council and other City Council members for the next meeting (January 24, 2007). Jenni Falkof will extend an invitation to the President of MLGW and other judicial entities and clerks for the month of February.


The meeting was adjourned.

December 13, 2006 Minutes


CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
MEMPHIS CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING

Present: Commissioners: Willie Brooks, George Brown, Jr., Marsha Campbell, Sylvia Cox, Janis Fullilove, Myron Lowery, Sharon Webb
Steve Wirls, Professor/Rhodes College
City of Memphis/Law Division: Jenni Falkof/Assistant City Attorney, Berneta Miles, Administrative Assistant to Sara Hall, City Attorney
Guest(s): Rick Whitehead, Municipal Technical Advisory Service

The meeting was called to order by Commissioner George Brown, Jr. with prayer by Commissioner Willie Brooks.
The minutes for the November 8, 2006 meeting were approved as read.
Chairman Brown opened with congratulations to Commissioner Webb on being elected to the Memphis City School Board.

At the meeting on November 8, 2006, it was decided that Sara L. Hall, City Attorney and Alan Wade, City Council Attorney would speak to the Charter Commission. For various reasons, they would not be available; so Commission Brown contacted the consultants with Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) to provide the Commissioners with a session on December 13, 2006. Commissioner Brown suggested Sara Hall, City Attorney and Alan Wade, City Council Attorney make a presentation at the January 3, 2006 meeting. This meeting would be the first in a series of meetings with various groups/constituents who can provide information to the Commissioners as they begin the process of reviewing the Memphis City Charter.
Introduction of Melissa A. Ashburn, MTAS Legal Consultant

Ms. Ashburn began the session with a discussion on term limits as requested by the Charter Commission. She advised that term limits for city governments are legal and constitutional in Tennessee. However, there have been some questions/concerns regarding term limits for county governments which involves a specific TN state statute. This statute does not affect the city of Memphis. The courts have said that there is no court opinion on city term limits. However, there is an Attorney General opinion that says they are legal. Within the state of TN, the Attorney General is the state’s official source for legal opinions. Until the courts provide a different opinion/decision, the Attorney General’s opinion is the rule to follow. Within those states that have home-rule charters, the courts have upheld term limits and it is MTAS’ opinion that term limits are legal in the state of TN. She provided a list of cities that have term limits.
Ms. Ashburn provided one caution in the use of term limits. When term limits are passed, it applies prospectively and not retroactively. That means that when the amendment is made to the charter, an official has two additional terms of office before the term limit becomes effective. She also noted that term limits are generally based on personal opinions about the current government. It is best that the Charter Commission move with caution in addressing the issue of term limits.
Commissioner Fullilove asked when the Commission had discussed term limits. Chairman Brown answered by stating term limits would probably be one of the topics brought to the Commission’s attention as they began meeting with others. He asked MTAS to provide information to the Commission so that the Commissioners would have knowledge about how term limits work/affect a government body. Commissioner Brown also stated that he would ask for research on ethics for government entities.
Ms. Ashburn provided a reply to Commissioner Lowery’s request for a legal opinion on potential vacancies on the Charter Commission. Ms. Ashburn’s opinion is that if there is a vacancy on the Commission, you cannot go forward because our state constitution states that you must have a seven (7) member commission to put an amended charter on the ballot. There is no state statute or direction within our constitution to address a vacancy but you should do what is reasonable. Ms. Ashburn’s opinion believes that the courts would say it is reasonable for the Commission to follow the City of Memphis Charter for filling the vacancy. The City of Memphis Charter says that vacancies are filled by the remaining members making an appointment until the next election at which time the voters would elect someone.
There was a continuing discussion of various scenarios regarding a possible vacancy within the Commission and other term limit issues. MTAS advises much discretion for governments contemplating term limits, especially in small cities where they are limited in the number of individuals who would choose to be a public servant.
Ms. Ashburn provided a handout for “houskeeping” the city charter. She listed several articles where the language should be modified/revised. These changes are based on amendments or court decisions that affect specific language within an article.
Commissioner Brown asked MTAS to provide a more detail report on term limits and ethical matters as they relate to government employees, elected officials, etc.
Introduction of Commissioner Sylvia Cox
Commissioner Cox provided a timetable of future meeting dates for the Charter Commission. The timetable was for six months with various dates for meeting. The Commissioners began a discussion as to which dates would be good.
The Commissioners agreed to the following meeting plan:
- Two months for public forum:
- March and April 2007
- 3 weekdays and 1 Saturday for a total of 4 days
- Regular meeting dates are Feb 7 and 28, 2007
- The month of January is set for the City Charter Commission
to meet with stakeholders. The following was approved:
- Invite the Chairman of City Council
- Extend an invitation to other City Council members
- Extend an invitation to President of MLGW
- Invite the Mayor
- Extend an invitation to judicial entities and clerks
Commissioner Brown asked Jenni Falkof, Assistant City Attorney to coordinate the dates for the January and February meetings with the approved stakeholders.
The meeting was adjourned.

November 8, 2006 Minutes

CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
MEMPHIS CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING





Present: Commissioners: Willie Brooks, George Brown, Jr., Marsha Campbell, Sylvia Cox, Janis Fullilove, Myron Lowery, Sharon Webb


Steve Wirls, Professor/Rhodes College


City of Memphis/Law Division: Jenni Falkof/Assistant City Attorney, Berneta Miles, Administrative Assistant to Sara Hall, City Attorney


Guest(s): Rick Whitehead, Municipal Technical Advisory Service




The meeting was called to order by Commissioner George Brown, Jr. with prayer by Commissioner Janis Fullilove.


The minutes for the October 25, 2006 meeting were approved as read.


Introduction of Rick Whitehead/MTAS


Mr. Whitehead continued a discussion regarding the definition of a “charter.” He expounded upon the number of charters within the state and that none were the same. Charters are a reflection of its governing city/community. He began a review of the handout that he distributed. The charter is a different document from your code of ordinances. This code of ordinance is a compilation of all the laws that are passed by the City Council. The charter empowers the City Council to pass those ordinances and it contains the city’s form of government, how the city is organized administratively (departments, etc.), and a list of what the city officials can and cannot do.


Mr. Whitehead suggested to get assistance from a legal advisor if there were concerns regarding information that should be placed in the code of ordinances and the charter. He also reemphasized that the Charter Commission should let MTAS know how they should assist the Charter Commission with their tasks. MTAS can provide research and surveys. If they are asked to provide surveys, they prefer to limit it to the state that requested the survey. They apply this limitation because laws vary from state to state; thus, you should only use the laws that will apply to your task. The surveys can be as detailed as the requestor likes. They also can provide legal opinions. Mr. Whitehead will see that MTAS will research the issue of term limits and other forms of government in cities the size of Memphis.


Commissioner Lowery asked for clarity on the matter of replacing a commissioner in the event of resignation or death. Mr. Whitehead said that he would forward the request to one of the legal consultants for MTAS. Commission Lowery also asked about the timeline for the Commission to complete their task. Mr. Whitehead said that he had reviewed the matter regarding the timeline and that it appeared rather clear to him. That is that the Commission’s task must be presented to its citizens at the next general election. However, he would get a legal opinion on that.

Commissioner Brown suggested that the real question may be “What is a general election.” There will be an election in August 2008 and November 2008. This is a matter we will have to look at later as it may involve deciding what is the best time to present this to the citizens, e.g. length of ballot. Commissioner Brown stated that when the Commission gets to that stage, he would call it a political stage; that is 1) informing and educating the public to the proposed changes to the charter and 2) which ballot to place it on - August or November. It will probably be around the first part of 2008 before the Commission can make a decision on the date.


Commissioner Brown started an open discussion with the Commissioners about their understanding of their duties as members of the Charter Commission. It went well and was good for the body. All felt that they had received an appropriate amount of information that would help them in the decision process. He reminded the Commission that he sees three phases: 1) Education, 2) Fact gathering from constituent groups/agencies, community at large and 3) Digesting information that has been received and seeking assistance from our resource of experts.


Commissioner Fullilove addressed the issue of seeking funding/financial assistance from City Council. It was discussed and decided that those matters would be addressed when needed. At the present time, there is no charge for the services being provided by MTAS and the City of Memphis, Law Division and there are other individuals/organizations willing to provide services to the Charter Commission free of charge.


Commission Lowery addressed the perception by the public that the Commissioners had been elected by districts. He suggested that the Commission choose locations that were strategically located to encompass all districts for the welfare of the public. He also addressed the matter of the public having their questions in writing. Commissioner Brown reminded them that this process is a matter of proficiency. Commissioner Cox suggested that we provide a document for the public to write on if they did not bring a written statement. Commissioner Brown stated that we may be ahead of ourselves and that we should schedule a meeting around the first of the year where the Commission can decided on some procedures for going to the community, e.g. time, place, how many occasions and the rules. Hopefuly, we can do this the first part of January and fine tune it for delivery to the public by the last of January.


Introduction of Jenni Falkof


Jenni Falkof, Assistant City Attorney, researched the matter of the Memphis City School Charter being within the Memphis Charter. It is not part of the Memphis Charter but was simply put there by the publishing company. The Memphis City School Charter was created by the Private Acts of 1866 -1869; therefore, any changes would have to be presented to the state legislature. She reminded the Commissioners that though there was language within the Memphis City School Charter which may cause concern, there are federal laws in place which make the language obsolete. Also, she will look at the Commissioners’ request to provide dividers for their Charter books and she stressed the importance of reviewing the POP Charter each time they read an amendment. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to reading the Charter.




Professor Wirls commented that as the Commission begins to review specific elements within the Charter, the Commissioners will have a better understanding of the amendments and their effect on each section and the Charter as a whole.


The Commission began a discussion regarding a timeline. A motion was presented, amended and approved that Sylvia Cox, Charter Commission secretary, will develop a timeline for presentation at the next meeting (December 13, 2006) for the Commission to vote on; the Commission will call for a news conference at the first meeting in January 2007 and will lay out a timetable for meetings at that time. Sara Hall, City Attorney and Alan Wade, County Attorney will provide a presentation at the December 13th meeting. Commissioner Brown also suggested that we set a date for two meetings in January 2007. The recommended January meeting dates will be January 10 and 24, 2007 and Berneta Miles will verify that those dates are available at City Hall. All future meetings will convene at 3 p.m.


Commission Lowery provided an update on the website. The foundation has been laid for the website but they still need pictures and biographies of the Commissioners. There has been only one request for business cards and ID’s will be provided to anyone who wants them. Before the website goes live, the Commissioners will review and approve or disapprove it. The website will contain an email link, commissioner’s biography and picture, minutes of the meetings and the schedule for future meetings.


Commissioner Cox asked that everyone provide recommendations/suggestions for the timeline.


The meeting was adjourned.

OCTOBER 25, 2006 Minutes

CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
MEMPHIS CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING



Present: Commissioners: Willie Brooks, George Brown, Jr., Marsha Campbell, Sylvia Cox, Janis Fullilove, Myron Lowery, Sharon Webb


City of Memphis/Law Division: Jenni Falkof/Assistant City Attorney, Berneta Miles, Administrative Assistant to Sara Hall, City Attorney


Guest(s): Melissa Ashburn and Rick Whitehead, Municipal Technical Advisory Service


Absent: Steve Wirls, Professor/Rhodes College



The meeting was called to order by Commissioner George Brown, Jr. with prayer by Commissioner Sharon Webb.


The minutes for the October 11, 2006 meeting were approved as read.



Introduction Melissa Ashburn


Ms Ashburn is an employee of the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS). It is an agency that is funded by the Tennessee tax system. Its purpose is to provide technical support to cities in the state of Tennessee regarding their respective municipal government. She began the discussion by providing background on city charters in Tennessee.


The city charter is a form of constitution. That is it provides structure, powers and limitations. She discussed the following items:




- Charters - 3 types/Private Act, General Law, and Home Rule


- Private Act - Passed by General Assembly and applies to only one city or county. It can also be an agreement/contract between two cities but it only applies in that particular situation. Once passed by the General Assembly, it is sent to the city for vote by its citizens or the governing body accepts it by two-third votes of its membership. When it is sent back to the Assembly, it is specified as to how it will be adopted. It can be amended every year. All cities in West Tennessee have a Private Act Charter except Memphis which is Home Rule.


- General Law - Set up by Title VI of the Tennessee Code. Cities governed by the General Law Charter may adopt 1) Mayor-Aldermanic Charter; City Manager Commission Charter, or Modified City Manger Commission Charter. The difference in each is voting power - commission may elect mayor versus a poplar election of the mayor.


- Mayor-Aldermanic Charter - All cities using this form have the same charter. If the General Assembly chooses to change the charter, it can; and, it will affect every city that adopted that form of charter. However, changes may also be initiated by an individual city. All parties will be notified of the pending change.


- Home Rule - Created by the 1953 Tennessee Constitutional Convention as Amendment VII (Tennessee Constitution, Article 11, Section 9). The citizens of that city control the charter versus the General Assembly. All changes to the charter must be voted on by the citizens of that city. These changes can be brought to the citizens in several ways:



- Governing body passes an ordinance that will appear as a referendum on a ballot

- Petition the election commission

- Governing body appoints a charter commission

- All changes must not conflict with any existing state or federal laws


- Metropolitan - Set up in Title VII of our general law. It is a consolidation of city and county functions. Citizens have to vote to decide whether or not they want to consolidate the city and county government.


- The Charter Commission’s duties, as the constitution pertains to Home Rule, are to see that the charter covers the powers, duties and functions of that local government. This includes the form, structure, personnel and organization of the local government. It also must state how votes are counted; how many must be present for a meeting; how many votes are necessary to pass certain measures.


Ms. Asburn asked that all requests to MTAS be in writing. MTAS can also provide onsite assistance, conduct surveys, and provide examples/templates. It was voted and approved by the Charter Commission that Chairman Brown would be the contact person for MTAS. Mr.Whitead, MTAS/Jackson, Tn, will address the Commission at the November 8th meeting. Ms. Asburn reminded the Commission to seek input from others regarding proposed changes.


Since we have help from MTAS, Commissioner Fullilove asked if we would need the services of other legal sources. Chairman Brown stated that he believed that we could receive adequate and objective assistance from either the City Attorney, County Attorney or MTAS. However, at some point, we may need to seek other legal sources. Commissioner Fullilove also addressed the issue of the public not viewing the commission as a separate entity by using the services of the City Attorney. Chairman Brown assured the Commission that we, as a Commission, would conduct our business in such a way that the public would see that the Commission is a free standing body.


Several Charter Commissioners expressed concern regarding the organization of the charter. It is hard to decipher/read. Jenni Falkof, Assistant City Attorney will research and advise.


Commissioners asked that the minutes of each meeting continue to be sent to them at the City of Memphis and their personal email addresses.


The next Charter Commission meetings will be November 8, 2006 and December 13, 2006 at City Hall, 4th Floor Conference Room A. It was motioned and approved that the next two scheduled meetings will be at 3 p.m. There will be a self-assessment of the Charter Commissioners at the November 8th meeting.


The meeting was adjourned.

OCTOBER 11, 2006 Minutes

CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
MEMPHIS CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING



Present: Commissioners: Willie Brooks, George Brown, Jr., Marsha Campbell, Sylvia Cox, Janis Fullilove, Myron Lowery, Sharon Webb



City of Memphis/Law Division: Jenni Falkof/Assistant City Attorney, Berneta Miles/Administrative Assistant to Sara Hall, City Attorney

Guest(s): Steve Wirls/Rhodes, College; Brian Kuhn, Shelby County Attorney

The meeting was called to order by Commissioner George Brown, Jr. with prayer by Commissioner Sharon Webb.

The minutes of the September 27, 2006 meeting were approved as read. The Commission elected a Vice Chair. The nominees were Willie Brooks and Sharon Webb. Commissioner Willie Webb was elected Vice Chair with 5 votes. Commissioner Webb had 2 votes. The elected officers are: George Brown, Jr./Chairman, Willie Brooks/Vice Chairman, and Sylvia Cox/Secretary.

Introduction of Steve Wirls/Rhodes College

Professor Wirls began his discussion on MLGW and its relationship to the charter. He made references to several sections and noted that the most relevant parts are in the amendments. He focused on the section that reorganized MLGW. Though the charter makes reference that MLGW is a “division,” it is not. It does not operate as the other divisions of the City. It is an independent entity.

Professor Wirls discussed the divisions within the City government, how they work, and how they are different from the structure of MLGW. This brought an open discussion regarding the specific operation/structure of MLGW.

Introduction of Brian Kuhn, County Attorney

Attorney Kuhn was the Legal Advisor/Attorney for the Shelby County Charter Commission. The County government adopted a charter in 1984 and went into effect 1986. Until the Constitutional Convention of 1978, the county did not have the right to charter as a government so they structured their government on what is known as “private acts” - acts passed in Nashville but ratified locally.

The County Charter Commission was appointed by the County Mayor and confirmed by the County Commission. Each Commissioner chose one person from their district; so, there were 11 members on that County Charter Commission. The County Charter Commission decided to mirror image their present government structure in the new charter. It was done so that it would be easy to pass (no radical changes for the public) and at that time, that form of government seemed to be working well. It has only been amended 3 times.


Attorney Kuhn’s comments on the County Charter Commission:

- Understand the role/function of a charter

- Transition of current working government into new charter

- Charter is built on:

- Article I - The powers and functions of general empowerment of creating government;

- Article II - The legislative branch (sets up the legislature)

- Article III - The executive branch (creates, empowers, restricts)

- Judicial Branch - Limited because of existing restrictions that apply to county government

- General Conditions (Conflicts of Interest, County Seal, amendments, etc.)

- Prohibition Section (Article 6) - Things that it can not do

- Transition Section

- Charter was voted on by the people in its entirety

- Reviewed other charters that were similar to their form of government and size

Commissioner Brown asked Attorney Kuhn to discuss ordinances and resolutions as they relate to the charter. The County Charter Commission placed within their charter the definition of an ordinance and resolution:

ORDINANCE - ...any local legislation adopted by that body which is adopted according to the formalities set forth in this charter, and is of county wide concern of a permanent nature in its effect, whether in a governmental proprietary nature, including but not limited to all types of formal actions ratified by the Board of County Commissioners in the nature of private acts...

RESOLUTION - ... any measure adopted by the Board of County Commissioners which is not an ordinance requiring a majority vote to pass as you must otherwise require by law for the issuance of bonds, notes or other evidence of indebtedness with the county in dealing with manners of a temporary and special nature, generally involving administrative matters...

Attorney Kuhn discussed briefly:

- The role of the county mayor vs city mayor - veto authority, contracts

- Restructuring Act - Private acts specifically for Shelby County

- Time constraints

Commissioner Brown reminded the Commissioners that we are still in the education phase. He asked the Commissioners to use the time to ask any/all questions for clarity. At the next meeting, we will have representatives from the Municipal Technical Advisory Service. This is a service that assists cities/commissions which are undertaking the role/duty of revising/creating charters.

The next meeting dates are Oct 25 at 2 p.m., Nov 8 at 2 p.m., and Dec 13 at 2 p.m. Commissioner Brown noted that we would continue the remaining 3 meetings at City Hall. Berneta Miles will check the availability of the conference room and notify all parties. At the beginning of the new year, the City and County attorney (and others who deal directly with the City Charter) will visit to advise the Commission of any provisions within the City Charter that may be problematic. We will also revisit MLGW for a better understanding of its charter. It was suggested that the City and County attorney provide a reference list of the articles that will be discussed so that the Commissioners may review them prior to the attorneys’ presentation(s). It is hopeful that around the spring of 2007, the Commission will begin receiving community input.

The Commission is still waiting for a response regarding the time-frame for giving their proposals to the public and guidelines in the event of resignation or death of a Commissioner. Until further advised, the Commission will work toward a completion date of August 2008.

Commissioner Fullilove thanked Commissioner Lowery for his input in bringing the commission together as acting chairman in Commissioner Brown’s absence.

Commissioner Campbell suggested that we make an effort to provide information to the public as to the status of the work of the Charter Commission. It was also suggested that we invite the media to the Nov and/or Dec meeting for an update.

There was no new business and the meeting was adjourned.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 Minutes

CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
MEMPHIS CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING

Present: Commissioners: Willie Brooks, Marsha Campbell, Myron Lowery, Sharon Webb


Absent: Commissioners: George Brown, Jr., Sylvia Cox, Janis Fullilove


Guest(s): Honorable Russell Sugarmon, Steve Wirls/Rhodes College



The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Myron Lowery with prayer by Commissioner Sharon Webb.


The minutes of the September 13, 2006 meeting were approved as read. Commissioners requested that the font used in typing the minutes be changed as it was causing problems when transmitted via emails. So noted and will be changed.


Election of officers continued to the next meeting without objections. Commissioner Brown advised the Commission that he would not be at the meeting on September 13. The 4th floor conference room at City Hall has been confirmed for the Commission meetings on Oct 11 and 25th. Future meetings will be at other locations within the City to include meetings with specific agencies, i.e., City Council, Shelby County Commission, School Boards, Mayor, etc.


Commissioner Lowery reported no response from the state Attorney General regarding the Commission’s time-frame for giving their proposals to the public and guidelines in the event of resignation or death of a Commissioner. He will report to the Commission as soon as a response is received.



Introduction of Member from First Charter Commission


The Honorable Russell Sugarmon provided comments on the role of the first Charter Commission. His comments are as follows:


- Process should not be too specific as it can cause problems

- Study the problems very carefully as you may implement rules/laws that could cause problems for the city, e.g. living wage - could put City in a financial obligation that they may not be able to meet or you may have to make changes within the charter more often than needed

- Growth of city - status of middle class - City can go either way - up or down

- First Charter Commission - wanted equal representation from minorities

- District tends to limit the range of representation; At-Large gives you the opportunity to get an overall viewpoint; review the impact it has on the current structure of the city

- Segregation of Schools - Question posed as to why that language is in the Charter. It is part of the City School Charter and not the City Charter; however, both Charters are housed in the City of Memphis charter book. The current Commission will review the statement and Atty Falkof will review if the Memphis City School Board Charter should be addressed by the current Charter Commission

- Review the Charter by sections and address specific ideas/issues. Reading the entire charter can be very tedious.

- Opposed Manager/Council control as it works similar to a corporation - no true representation by minorities. Reviewed Strong-Mayor/Council and Weak-Mayor/Council rule.

- Term Limits - Originally opposed. No set opinion now as there are good and bad aspects - depends on one’s personal perception



Introduction of Steve Wirls/Rhodes College


Professor Wirls discussed the charter as it is compared to the constitution. He does not have the experience of seeing the charter in action as would other elected/appointed City members/employees. He addresses the design of the charter and it’s functions:


- Charter is a constitution - constitution with a different name

- Establishes the form of government

- Review it very carefully and in detail - how it operates as a whole - does it affect another section/part/clause

- Separation of powers

- Gives different points of view

- Provides checks and balances

- Gave examples of use of power(s) and various definitions of charter terms

- Discussed specific sections of the charter

- Power of council and mayor

- Funding for Charter Commission

- Reading of Charter as it relates to referendums


Commissioner Lowery commented on the educational process that the Commission is going through. With all the information that the Commission is receiving, it will be their responsibility as a body to study the charter, listen to their constituents, and recommend changes that will benefit all. It is understood that some constituents may need to be informed as to which matters fit within the realm of a Charter; however, that is such a large undertaking that it may not be possible. It will be the responsibility of the Commission to listen to the constituents, discuss the matters and make a collective decision regarding the recommended changes.


A discussion regarding the Commission's voting procedures was presented. It was suggested that four (4) votes will be a majority rule. It was acknowledged that four (4) is also a quorum; however, when there are only four (4) Commissioners present, items to be voted on would be reconsidered at another meeting when four (4) votes would be a majority. Those Commissioners present agreed that would be a good policy. It was also suggested that this Commission may recommend rules/guidelines for future charter commissions as there are no present rules/guidelines.


There was no other business and the meeting was adjourned.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 Minutes
CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
MEMPHIS CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING


Attendance: Commissioners, Willie Brooks, Marsha Campbell, Sylvia Cox, Janis Fullilove, Myron Lowery, Sharon Webb

Absent: Commissioner George Brown, Jr.

Guests: Lewis Donelson, Esq., Tommy Powell, Honorable Harry Wellford, Representative from WREC Radio, Mr. Birch (Citizen), Don Richardson (Citizen), Steve Worlds, Rhodes University, Sara Hall, Jenni Falkof, Berneta Miles

The first meeting of the Memphis Charter Commission (“hereafter Commission”) was called to order by Commissioner Myron Lowery, Acting Chairman with prayer by Commissioner Sharon Webb.

Commission Lowery noted to the Commission that he had asked for clarity from the State Attorney General’s office on two matters: 1) Time-frame for giving their proposals to the public and 2) guidelines in the event of resignation or death of a Commission member. He received a verbal response stating that the State Attorney General’s office did not respond to local elected officials. They could only respond to requests from state officials. Commissioner Lowery will ask a member of the state legislature to write the Attorney General to get a legal opinion on those issues and any other that the Commission may request.

Commissioner Lowery received notice from Brad Martin, Chairman of SAC (?) offering their facilities for any meetings; Nathan Bix stating that his law firm will provide pro bono work for the commission; however if it is too extensive, Mr. Bix stated that they were willing to work out an arrangement regarding any fee(s). He also talked with Commissioner Brown regarding his absence from today’s meeting. Commissioner Brown will not be available Sept 18 through Oct 2, 2006; he requested consideration for meeting at the library for future Commission meetings and that the Commission should meet twice a month.

Introduction of Members from First Charter Commission

Members present from the first Charter Commission were Lewis R. Donelson, Tommy Powell, and the Honorable Harry Wellford. The former commissioners provided invaluable remarks and commended the new Commission for the task ahead. Their comments are as follows:

$ Relationship between the city council and mayor and their duties
$ Skilled individuals to assist with research to include other cities
$ Review the thoughts/plans of previous Charter Commission
$ Economics as it affects the City
$ Business industry for input/thoughts - their role/influence(s)
$ Term Limits
$ Voting at-large vs. district
$ Super-majority of council to approve matters
$ Living Wage
$ Pension
$ Reapportionment
$ Nepotism
$ Provided names for consultation/resource: Friason Graves, Atty and assistance from Rhodes through use of interns and faculty
$ Merger of county and city departments/divisions

Introduction of City Attorney

Sara Hall, City Attorney presented statistical and historical information about the City. (Copy of handout attached.) Attorney Hall provided following names for assistance: MTAS, a group that provides research assistance, and Brian Khun, County Attorney. Attorney Hall has provided assistance from the City Attorney’s office through Jenni Falkof, Assistant Attorney, and Berneta Miles, Administrative Assistant to City Attorney.

Election of Officers

All elected offices are for a one year term. The following offices were presented for vote:

Chairman: Nominees are Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Webb. Commissioner Lowery confirmed that in Commissioner Brown’s absence, Commissioner Brown would accept the position of chairman if elected.

Tally: Commissioner Webb: 2
Commissioner Brown: 4

Vice Chairman: Nominees are Commissioner Brooks and Commissioner Webb.

Tally: Commissioner Brooks: 3
Commissioner Webb: 3
(This position will be reconsidered.)

Secretary: Nominee is Commissioner Cox.

Tally: No other nominations. Commissioner Cox voted by acclamation.

The Commission will meet every two weeks until further notice. The meeting time is Wednesday at 2 p.m. The next meeting will be September 27, 2006 at 2 p.m. at City Hall, 4th Floor Conference Room.

There was no other business and the meeting was adjourned.

Public suggestion for Memphis Charter changes

September 5, 2006

THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED IN THE CITY OF MEMPHIS CHARTER AND EXAMPLES OF WHY CHANGES ARE NEEDED. HOPEFULLY THE CHARTER COMMISSION WILL ADDRESS AND ENDORSE THESE NEEDED CHANGES?

Here are some of the most important items that need to be addressed by the Charter Commission in the upcoming discussions with the public. There will no doubt be many more issue and questions, the following issues illustrate the most egregious problems that certainly need solutions.

TERM LIMITS- Prevent elected officials from getting the tenure that gives them the position to sell their influence to developers and other buyers of political influence exhibited by Tennessee Waltz.

NO SALE OF MLGW WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL- Because MLGW is piling up cash at the ratepayers expense, politicians want to get their hands on the cash. As of December 31, 2005, MLGW had $167 million in unrestricted cash, up from $111 million in one year. The law says that any surplus remaining after establishment of proper reserves, shall be devoted solely to the reduction of rates.

THIGHTEN ETHICS RULES- No election official should be able to serve if he benefits from any contract involving City taxpayer money even if he recuses himself from voting on that particular contract or issue.

PENSION REFORM- the January 2001 pension change has cost millions of dollars to date and will go on costing millions more as these elected and appointed officials retire. Since hardly any of the taxpaying public has a defined benefit pension plan anymore, a defined contribution plan should be instituted in the future for all newly hired public employees.

OPEN RECORDS- Only by putting all important contract bids, purchase orders, personnel salaries and benefits on the internet and by making open records access easier, can we keep the sunshine on government practices which politicians like to conceal. The current no bid purchase orders given under the ACS contract shield is an example of gross abuse and lack of transparency in bidding and awarding contracts.

APPOINTEES- There were over 400 appointees whereas the charter, according to Sara Hall’s reading, only allows about 110. This needs to be defined and limited to much less. The January 2001 pension resolution allowing elected and appointed officials to collect pensions and health benefits after only 12 years regardless of age has already cost millions and has the potential to cost $60 million if all of the current eligible elected and appointed people retire under that provision.

RESTRICT ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM VOTING MEMBERSHIP ON CITY AND COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS- This is where the influence peddling starts and needs to be stopped. As an example, Rickey Peete is chairman of the Center City Commission and is on the Center City Development Board and on the Pilot committee of the Industrial Development Board. Barbara Shearengen Holt is on the Center City Commission board. Scott McCormick is on the Pilot evaluation committee. There are so many boards and commissions that it is difficult to get a full picture of all of the members.

CONTRACTING AUTHORITY- Prohibit the Mayor, any Mayor, from signing any contract unless it has been approved and funded by the City Council. The Linebarger contract given to a firm charging 20% commission for the collection of delinquent taxes when the County Trustee offered to collect the same money for 2% is a good example of abuse.