Peace in our time.
Once again, short-term political interests may be on the verge of defeating long-term good sense.
It appears that in hopes of eliminating political risk, some people are willing to sell the rights of Memphians down the river in exchange for what has been amusingly been called a “compromise.”
At least that’s the misnomer being used to describe the proposed agreement being reached by some members of Memphis City Schools with the all-white Shelby County School system and encouraged by the all-white legislative delegation outside Memphis.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, but in this case, one of the bedfellows is assaulting the other. That’s because the compromise being proposed not only calls for both sides to stand down for a year but allows a countywide vote if a referendum to surrender the charter is put on the ballot at that time.
Cold Comfort
It’s hard to imagine any Memphis elected official who would agree to disarmament with no promise that everything won’t actually be the same in one year – no legislation passed by the Tennessee Legislature, no actions by the Shelby County School Board, and no actions by the towns to create their own school districts.
In other words, how does anyone reach an agreement that is totally risk-free for Memphis?
Simple answer: you can’t.
This “compromise” doesn’t even manage to offer a benefit for Memphis City Schools, much less hold it harmless. In exchange for this open-ended deal, Memphis City Schools would put itself totally at risk, so in the end, we expect wiser heads to prevail. City schools gain nothing in the 12 months, and it is almost inevitable that at the end of a year, we’ll be in the same place, with the same political environment, the same rhetoric, and the same propaganda from Shelby County Schools.
There may be some who see this as brilliant master stroke in politics, but it is impossible to see it as anything but dismal policy. That’s why we think that any Memphis elected official who would agree to this should at the same time turn in his certificate of election. After all, there is nothing that this agreement does so much as to establish colonial rule for Memphis where other people can decide what’s best for the unworthy and unwashed masses in the city.
Precedent
It has been said that Memphis City Schools Commissioner Jeff Warren has been the force driving this “compromise” with Shelby County Schools, and while we don’t want to question his good intentions, this is tantamount to telling one of his medical patients that they are seriously ill but he’ll let another patient decide what should be done. Maybe it’s just the difference between a primary care physician and a surgeon. Sometimes, it’s not always the palliatives but risky surgery that saves the patient.
At this point, this is not an isolated issue affecting schools. Rather, if Memphis City Schools Board of Commissioners approves this agreement, they will have set the ignoble precedent for non-Memphis voters to have a say in issues that are by law strictly decisions of Memphians.
Our mothers told us that we would be known by the company that we keep, and the willingness of some city board members to consider Shelby County Board members as their allies rather than their own colleagues is a troubling display of “my way or the highway” politics.
Unfortunately, this is public policy, not medicine, where we assume our physicians are always right. In this case, approval of this agreement would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. We can only hope that Dr. Warren shifts from proving he was right to finding a way to support Memphians’ right to self-determination without outside interference.
No Protection, Equal or Otherwise
Already, we have heard that the U.S. Department of Justice has been alerted to the machinations of the amendment by suburban state senator Mark Norris to change the rules in the middle of the game and to undercut the right of Memphis voters to control their own futures. It seems obvious to us that the ability of the majority white suburbs to water down the ability of the majority African-American city to decide what to do with its city-only school district makes for a powerful federal court lawsuit.
That lawsuit based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was certainly strengthened when the new Speaker of the House, Nashville Republican Beth Harwell blurted out: “I am very open to do anything I can to help our Republican legislators from Shelby County, who have a real serious issue on their hands.”
And we were naïve enough to think that her party really believed their rhetoric about the best government being the one closest to you. Because of a minority of legislators in Shelby County, she is willing to fast track the Norris bill and violate years of legislative precedent that allows public input and committee hearing.
Well, at least she’s honest. It’s all about who you know in the new Tennessee Legislature.
We’re Not Laughing
Meanwhile, Mr. Norris tries to portray himself as only a vessel serving the public interest in pushing for an agreement between the two districts. The fact that none of this has involved the people in the majority who voted for the referendum is of no consequence. It’s all about winning.
The draft agreement itself would be laughable if it weren’t so obvious in its racial motivations. It says its purpose is to “preserve the status quo regarding school districts in Shelby County.” We suppose that the status quo is good enough for some people, but Shelby County Schools only said it will do this for one year.
Meanwhile, the agreement does not prevent the passage of special school district legislation, only that the county district “will refrain during the term of this agreement from acting pursuant to state law.”
That’s cold comfort, since it’s implicit that they will move ahead at the end of the year. To give the appearance that something substantive is really getting done, city and county schools will hire a “school district governance and funding expert” to consider the options for schools, four of which favor Shelby County Schools’ position and one that reflects the Memphis City Schools’ vote.
Stalling Tactics
According to the draft agreement, as many as 60 days can be taken to hire the experts, leaving about 10 months to conduct analysis on five options that have previously thwarted years of work.
We won’t bore you with the rest of the “compromise” language, since it’s about as compromising as Shelby County Schools Chair David Pickler has been throughout this process. Whoever contributed to this agreement on behalf of city schools must have been asleep at the switch since it’s impossible for us to find a single item in the “compromise” that benefits Memphis City Schools.
All in all, it seems the educational version of the “peace in our time” declaration by former British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain in his misguided attempt to pacify the Germans prior to World War II. Before any Memphis City Schools board members support this “compromise,” it might be a good time for them to acquaint themselves with the Munich Agreement and the prime minister’s justifications for it.
One thing is obvious: there are worse things than conflict.
I’d liken this compromise to bending over for the soap in a prison full of violent sex offenders.
If the situation did not read like a tragedy it would be laughable. Here, in so short a time after the failed consolidation referendum, we have representatives in Shelby County publicly stating that seeing as they are so directly impacted by the actions of city oriented service providers that they should have a voice in city decision making process.
Then they should pat city taxes, no matter where they live, urbanut.
oops, PAY city taxes.
Here’s some interesting reading material from the 1997 court case about Memphians voting for county schools board members:
Board of Commissioners of Shelby County v. Burson, 121 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 1997). In Burson, Republican Commissioners Mark Norris, Bill Gibbons, and others caused Shelby County to sue in federal court (over the objection of black Commissioners) to declare its own redistricting plan for the county school board unconstitutional because it included voters from Memphis. (The Commission had done so because a new Tenn. law at the time had required it.) The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held it was unconstitutional for Memphis voters to have a say in Shelby County school board elections. The Court stated that the “relevant geopolitcal entity” for one person, one vote issues was the school district, not the county.
Notably:
1. The Court said the constitution is violated “where the government allocates the franchise in such a manner that residents of a separate area have little or no chance to control their own school board….” Id. at 248. Here, the “dual majority” requirement gives suburban voters a complete veto over whether Memphis decides to discontinue operating its special urban school district. Memphis must have the right to decide if they will continue to operate its special school district, because state law provides the default rule that COUNTIES educate kids in the county–special school districts are a departure from the default rule, undertaken voluntarily by the city operating a special school district. Norris’ bill would mean that Memphis signed up for a SSD 100 years ago, not knowing they’d be perpetually locked in, but now has no control over its own fate.
2. Here’s the kicker. To defend the redistricting plan, the State had argued that without including Memphis voters in Shelby County elections, it would dilute minority voting strength. The court rejected this argument, because the relevant pool of voters is those inside the school district. They said it would be different if someone tried to include mostly white suburban voters otuside the school district in a an election for an urban, mostly black school district–i.e., the exact case here. The court’s exact words: “The…problem…is the issue of whether the decision to expand the electorate to include out-of-district votes dilutes minority votes. Such a case would be presented, for example, if a city’s electorate was expanded to include white suburban or rural areas in order to prevent a black majority in an urban area from controlling their own local government.”
There is some language which provides room for them to argue the other way, but I think these pull-quotes are pretty damning.
Keep it coming, Tom, folks need to know how far they can trust those that ask for it.
SCM, can you explain why it was Sara Lewis who voted in favor of convening a meeting to consider the compromise, but it was Sharon Webb who voted to surrender the charter?
I would bring a lawsuit that states that if the county is allowed to vote if the CITY’s MCS charter will be surrendered, then the county residents shall be required to pay all city taxes retroactive for the year at least.
@Brian Knight
But the argument that keeps being brought up by the suburbanites outside of Memphis is that they already contribute a total of about $20+ million in county taxes to MCS, whereas the city of Memphis proper does not contribute a single penny to SCS in terms of their tax bill, which is a skewed argument at best since Memphis IS a part of Shelby County, and therefore pays the same county tax rate as everyone else (plus an additional $78 million in city taxes which goes directly to MCS).
One counter-argument that could be made is that the suburban areas of Shelby County outside of Memphis yield higher tax revenues on average per resident than those same revenues collected inside city limits, whose residents make up about 70 percent of the entire county. But again, the suburbanites would still call BS.
I’d argue that suburbanites use City utilities, services and/or amenities in some way, every day of their lives, and don’t pay for it which makes their argument that they pay more for city schools than city folk pay for theirs highly hypocritical.
James-
While Memphis only occupies 40% of the land area in Shelby county, it generates 2/3 of the total property tax revenue.
James, I hear you, but, they don’t send any of their kids to city schools, so they don’t pay the city portion, we city people still pay all their county portion. Since they don’t pay the city portion nor use the city service, they don’t have ANY say in the city service, whether it continues or not.
I don’t think county revenues exceed city revenues since most city workers pay in, but, don’t file returns.
The more you make the more you know how to get it back and do so, thus, survival of the rich and the poorest on the backs of the poor. There is almost NO middle class left, just people who think they are either rich or are poor and poor people who think they are middle class but are less than one full paycheck from homelessness. Suburbanites in the county often live in developments who’s utility infrastructure is payed for on the backs of city dwellers. MLGW used to and may still do target certain areas for over-billing because they won’t/can’t fight it. Those targets are in poor inner city areas.
What they do and say is obscenely ridiculous.
We’re talking about people who would make children they’ve never met pay for their mistakes, compromising their future, because their bigoted opinion of the innocent is more important to be seen as correct by themselves than actually serving God or Man.