We wonder which Joe Ford is running to become county mayor – the one wrestling with the English language in debates or the writer of statements after the fact trying to explain what he really was saying.
In his recent debate with Sheriff Mark Luttrell, the interim mayor continued to say how he’s always been against the consolidation of city and county governments. Of course, it begs the question of why he voted to create the Metro Charter Commission in the first place. And why he promised its members that he’d help them in their work and give them a chance to write a new charter before taking a position.
But that was then. This is now.
Fire, Ready, Aim
Desperate for an issue that can enflame his base and led by the town mayors’ seduction that someone with the Ford name can actually pander on this issue and get votes outside Memphis, he’s made his opposition to consolidation the centerpiece of his campaign.
Along the way, however, it becomes another issue for Sheriff Luttrell to exploit as yet more examples of how Mr. Ford tells you one thing and does the other – a la his pledge not to run for county mayor if appointed to the interim position.
For conspiracy buffs, it just so happens that the minutes of the board of commissioners’ meeting where he voted for the Charter Commission cannot be accessed online. In a random search of other minutes from meetings within that timeframe, it was the only one not available.
But back to our point, after stumbling in his debate with Sheriff Luttrell in crystallizing why he is against consolidation, particularly as the sheriff laid out what seemed to us to be a mature, logical position that he’s never been a proponent of consolidation, but there are 15 citizens spending long days defining what a new government could be, so we should respect them enough to wait and see what they write and that in the end, this isn’t an issue for politicians but for voters at the polls.
Apparently, after the fact, and responding to the verbatim transcript posted by Zack McMillin as part of his indispensable postings on Memphis News Blog, Interim Mayor Ford issued a statement with complete sentences and sound syntax. At the debate, his opposition was based on political expediency: “My comment would be I’m against it, I don’t believe it will pass and that’s about where I’m going to leave it. I don’t know how else to comment on something I am going to vote against.”
Better Government
In comparison, Sheriff Luttrell’s sounded like an international diplomat, but after the fact and seeing his debate comments in print, Interim Mayor Ford’s staff wisely saw the need to do something to help their candidate. Thus was a new written statement born: “Let me state clearly and for the record a few of my views on consolidation and the proposed plan for Memphis and Shelby County government merger.”
It seemed irrelevant to him that there is no “proposed plan” yet, and there won’t be one until after the public hearings in June. But to our point, it appears that we may be witnessing one of those campaigns where the advisers will work hard to define their candidate through written statements after-the-fact to “clarify” what the candidate really meant to say. It’s campaign by proxy, and in this case, it’s hard to criticize it as a strategy considering some of Mr. Ford’s malapropisms.
It was also obvious that Sheriff Luttrell’s platform about the importance of making Shelby County Government more efficient and cutting costs drew blood, because Mr. Ford’s statement worked hard to co-op that point of view, agreeing that government can improve and that ways should be sought to be more efficient.
He segued to say that “there is no proof that consolidation is a cost-saving venture.” Of course, this depends on what he considers proof. There is research on all sides of this issue and you can just as easily make the case that it will save money. But here’s what matters to us. In the early 1960s, when we were the center of the Tennessee economy, we were a vibrant city with an expanding economy and we were keeping our young talented workers. Then, we voted down consolidation. Nashville passed it.
Tale of the Tape
If there’s one theme in that booming city these days, it is that modernizing its form of government was key to its progress. Mayor after mayor, business leader after business leader agrees that it was streamlining government that led to better government and more affordable government. As for us, we only need one piece of research on this. The combined tax rate in Nashville/Davidson County is $4.13. The combined tax rate in Memphis/Shelby County is $7.21.
In other words, the merged government in Nashville delivers services that are the equivalent of city and county governments for about the same tax rate as Shelby County Government alone — $4.13 versus $4.02.
Mr. Ford said there is no proof that citizens “will realize a tax savings by merging government.” We think there are compelling opportunities, but whether they are immediate is not the point. The Nashville tax rate has essentially been flat for 30 years. In other words, the question about tax rates is about the future.
If voting down consolidation assures us of anything, it is that it will guarantee that our cumulative taxes are the highest of our peer cities and the highest in Tennessee. As a former mayor of Nashville has said, his city has been pleased that Memphis didn’t improve its government because it gave them such a strong competitive advantage.
The Truth Matters
In other words, opponents like Mr. Ford regularly are having the wrong conversation. It’s not about the present. It’s about the future. What is there about the current indicators and trends that give him comfort that things will get better if we just leave things as they are?
Finally, in his written statement Mr. Ford resorts to two lies: “We can be assured that an increase will be experienced, particularly by those residing in unincorporated Shelby County and the City of Memphis.” That there is nothing that shows this to be the case doesn’t deter him from inventing facts. To reach this conclusion, he would have to have a financial analysis that proves it, and if this is the case, he should release it so all of us can see it.
Secondly, he writes that the Charter Commission is eliminating “civil service protections for current government workers.” Here’s the truth: the proposal specifically said it does not apply to current workers, and before someone writes statements for Mr. Ford, they might want to actually read the proposal for a personnel system.
Here’s the most cynical thing of all: There is no one in Shelby County who suffers more from government waste and high taxes than Mr. Ford’s traditional political base. Every dollar wasted in inefficient government is a dollar that can’t be spent on the kind of urban intervention programs that are needed to make our community competitive again. Poor families pay a disproportionate tax burden because of Tennessee’s regressive and archaic tax system, and that should be reason enough for the interim mayor to care about better government.
Tell Us How
If Mr. Ford wants to contend that there is a better way than city-county merger to tame our twin government behemoths, he should produce it. After all, if the best predictor of the future is the past, a sudden burst of innovative government in the present government structure is a fiction invented by those clinging to the present for their own political reasons.
If Mr. Ford has a better way, he should release it. Being against consolidation is not enough to make him a leader. He should lay out his vision and his plan to achieve the same goals as merger with the existing government structure. He should show his grand plan for improving the present structure so that it is responsive, efficient, affordable, and effective.
There are few things that those of us in this community agree about, but this is one: Government is a big part of the problem here. If Mr. Ford and the town mayors are intent on keeping things as they are, it is incumbent on them to prove to us how they can change things, and by revealing specific plans and programs.
If Mr. Ford has a vision of how government will work better, he should let us know, because at this point, it is the consensus inside county government that it is at its dysfunctional worse, that the proposed budget submitted by the Ford Administration is a ticking bomb, special task forces are tripping over each other with busy work while real decisions are delayed and politics is seeping into operational decisions.
Tell Us How
If, as he says, consolidation will not cut costs or taxes, Mr. Ford is implicitly saying these are his goals. As a result, he should tell us how he’s planning to do it. If he’s concerned “about the direction the Memphis and Shelby County Metropolitan Government is moving,” he should tell us how he’s going to change the disastrous direction that Shelby County is moving now.
If he thinks that consolidation would produce a tax increase, he’s implying that he will not, so he should take a pledge – as the charter commission is proposing – to ask for no tax increases for three to five years.
It’s easy to be against something, but if you are, it is incumbent on your to explain your alternative vision of the future. As for the interim mayor, he said he will “share more of my views on consolidation” in coming weeks. We expect it to come more in written statements than in debate comments since his campaign team has clearly conceded that he’s not up to the task when he’s going one-on-one with his challenger.
He begins his letter by assuring readers that he is not “pandering to the suburban vote” and suggestions to the contrary are “untrue.” He is right. We think he’s pandering for the urban vote as well.
Greetings Smart City. Hope all is well. I truly appreciate the diverse collection of opinion.
You criticized Ford for noting that there is a “proposed plan” and then later you cite a Charter Commission “proposal” on civil services positions. That’s perplexing.
Let’s note that there is a plan but it is not yet complete. So Ford was right–technically speaking, of course.
On another note, I hope more of our influencers can push Luttrell to reveal his inner thoughts on the role of government. His ability to “listen” and “work” with different groups is admirable but those qualities are extremely vague–too much so as we head into another critical period for our county.
You mean in this whole thing your question is about vocabulary. What about the lies, duplicity and incomprehensibility. At least Luttrell can spell government.
There are two reasons that Joe Ford is a serious candidate.
1) his name is “Ford” and he is part of THAT family.
2) his special interest sponsors, who prosper by the city and county being as divided as possible, keep him funded.
I have campaigned for Democrats, including HF Jr. and even Ophelia. However, I cannot even vote for someone who promises to take us backwards like Joe Ford. I encourage City voters, especially Democrats, to overlook name and Party to vote in the best interests of Memphis and the future of our City.
Democrat!
You got that right. I’ve met them.
Vote for someone without the Ford name. Put them out of business.
The commission won’t have a charter finished until after the June public hearings, and it is now still getting input from employees and others about civil service. If Mr. Ford wants to influence the outcome of the commission, he should think about talking directly to it. As we saw last week, it changed its ethics thinking based on Rebuild Government survey.
Based on what we’ve heard Sheriff Luttrell say, it sounds like a fundamental point of departure between him and Mr. Ford is the different perspectives about reducing government workforce. As we’ve said often here, politicians should see taxpayers and cutting costs and taxes as their first priorities rather than seeing government as a giant employment agency.
I am not advocating throwing out the Fords. I am just saying that Joe Ford should NOT be county mayor. As displayed in this post, he has no vision and little insight. I usually see Republicans in this light. In fact, Ford seems to “out Republican” the Republican this year.
While I have issues with Luttrell, he at least has been a competent administrator and seems open to progressive ideas.
The arguments against Ford have some merits.
But no one really knows exactly what Luttrell do? Is that acceptable? Let’s just push for the details.
Richard:
Point taken. We’ll be asking about his plans and vision for the administration.
I AM for outing the Fords. Enough is enough already.