• JB
• Turner and Chumney at press conference

In an effort to jump-start the campaign of Carol Chumney , Democratic nominee for District Attorney General, she and local Democratic chairman Van Turner held a joint press conference Thursday at the party’s new “resource center” on Poplar Avenue. As the chairman noted, it was the first press conference to be held there since the headquarters opened earlier this month.

Turner kicked things off by stating, “We called this press conference to sort of clear up some things that were recently said,” referencing a recent opinion column in the Commercial Appeal by Otis Sanford questioning both’s Chumney level of campaigning and the party’s commitment to her candidacy.

As Sanford had noted, Chumney’s Republican opponent, incumbent D.A. Amy Weirich, has raised a considerable campaign warchest and has been highly active on the stump, whereas Chumney had so far been less visible and has lagged far behind in fundraising.

Turner thereupon issued an unequivocal statement of support for Chumney, extolling her “25 years of legal experience,” such credentials as her having bee editor-in-chief of the University of Memp his Law Review, and her “17 years of public experience” as state legislator and City Council member.

As she herself would do, Turner noted Chumney’s longtime chairmanship of the legislative Children and Family Affairs Committee and said that experience was good preparation for dealing with the shortcomings in the operation of Juvenile Court that were recently publicized in a U.S. Department of Justice report.

Asked to what extent she held General Weirich responsible for Juvenile Court’s problems, including administrative foul-ups and alleged “race-based” procedures, Chumney noted that the DOJ study, requested by Shelby County Commissioner Henri Brooks, was commissioned in 2007 and documented problems “that were still there in 2010 and 2011.” Weirich was an assistant D.A. for years before being named to the top job in early 2011.

In addition to the usefulness of her experience with the Children and Family Affairs Committee, Chumney said she would also profit as D.A. from having enjoyed a good working relationship with current Juvenile Court Judge Curtis Person when both were in the legislature. In the DOJ report Person was credited with having initiated some reforms in the Court’s processes.

Chumney acknowledged that she would probably be unable to match Weirich’s campaqign expenditures butr said, “I have devorted my life to public service. I think that the people who have voted for me in the past will show up again. I am not soliciting special interest money.”

Unspoken to by either Turner or Chumney was the fact that several prominent Democrats, including City Council members Jim Strickland and Shea Flinn, businessman Karl Schledwitz, and lawyer/lobbyist John Farris are declared supporters of Weirich. Strickland and Farris are both former Democratic chairs. Schledwitz said this week he made his commitment to Weirich at a time when she was the only active candidate.

• JB
• Cohen at press conference on Delta fares

9th District Congressman Steve Cohen responded to a growing outcry against high passenger fares for Delta Airlines’ Memphis-originated flights with a press conference at his Overton Park-area residence Thursday, and, like most commentators on the issue, pinpointed competition as the solution.

Cohen told a group of reporters that he had expressed his concerns about the high travel fares in fresh dialogue with Richard Anderson, CEO of Delta, which operates what amounts to a “fortress hub” in Memphis as a consequence of that airline’s merger with Northwest, previously the city’s hub airline.

The congressman said he had also asked his staff to research anti-trust statutes for possible clues to action and was considering holding local hearings on the matter. Scheduling hearings in Washington would be more difficult, said Cohen, a member of the House Transportation Committee and its aviation subcommittee. “

The Republican majority controls hearings in Washington,” he said, and the same majority was unlikely to be friendly to the idea of imposing new regulations on an industry that was deregulated some three decades ago.

“It all comes through competition,” said Cohen, who characterized himself as an early activist ion behalf of a local presence for Southwest Airlines, the well-known budget airline whose flights emanating from Little Rock and Nashville have traditionally been fallback options for cost-conscious Memphis passengers willing to drive to those cities.

But the congressman thought it was unlikely that Southwest would materialize in Memphis in the near future with an operation on the same scale. Southwest is already scheduled to take over the local budget operations of Air Tran, another low-budget airline, but even that “is going to take a while,” Cohen said.

In the meantime, there are options like USAir, whose Memphis-to-Washington connections Cohen said he availed himself of twice recently. “It’s a smaller, cheaper competition that works.”

Among the causes of the high-rate problem here are the fact of deregulation and the recent rise in fuel prices, according to Cohen, who said he thought Delta had miscalculated in imposing a cutback on its Memphis-originated flights, the other issue besides high rates that Memphians have reacted to. “That was a mistake, because this is a low-cost airport,” the congressman said.

Of his own efforts on behalf of Memphis airline customers, Cohen said, “I was on this subject long before Debbie did Memphis or Delta did Atlanta or whatever….I was there.”

That was a clear reference to criticism aimed at the congressman by contributors to the Facebook site “Delta Does Memphis,” operated by Memphis blogger Tom Jones as a means of organizing resistance to Delta’s local pricing policies.

Among the congressman’s critics on the site has been his opponent in the 9th District Democratic primary on August 2, Tomeka Hart, who in a recent post said,”It's disappointing that we haven't heard more about this from our current Congressman….” Cohen said someone else connected with the site had tweeted that he had not wanted to get involved in the Delta situation. “That’s a lie,” he said. Asked if the criticism was politically motivated, he said, “Of course, it is.”

Cohen noted that he himself is now a “Friend” on the site and has made several posts in opposition to Delta’s policies. The congressman said intervention by local business leaders would be the most effective message to Delta officials.

• JB
• Taylor would be 9th vote for 2-J if needed.

UPDATE: On the second reading, Brent Taylor voted 'No.' Presumably his commitment, noted in article, to be Number 9 in the case of 8 votes applied only to the third reading.

As the Shelby County Commission convenes on Monday for its regular biweekly public meeting, one of the issues which has bedeviled it for many months now will probably get a virtually free pass. This would be a resolution on behalf of redistricting plan 2-J, which would divide Shelby County into 13 single-member County Commission districts.

A resolution on behalf of the plan was re-introduced this month by Commissioner Terry Roland, who argued that it, more than any other redistricting plan discussed by the Commission, was likely to pass muster with Chancellor Arnold Goldin, who has the responsibility for adjudicating what has been a months-long deadlock on the Commission regarding redistricting.

That being the case, said Roland, the Commission should go ahead and give the plan the 9-vote super-majority required for a redistricting plan by the county charter. Otherwise, he said, Goldin might approve 2-J on the basis of its having gained 7 votes on its third and final reading during the plan’s first run-through earlier this year.

And that, argued Roland, might involve a ruling by Goldin underscoring the primacy of state law, which calls for only a simple majority to resolve redistricting disputes, over the county charter. The Millington commissioner warned that such a ruling might endanger the charter’s provision for a supermajority on other issues, notably on raising taxes above a certain level.

So far, Roland’s argument seems to have carried the day. On the first reading of his new resolution for 2-J two weeks ago, he got 9 votes – including those of Chris Thomas and Wyatt Bunker, fellow Republicans who had been holding out for a multi-member redistricting plan which would essentially be an update of the present system.

In a speech to the ultra-conservative Dutch Treat Luncheon group on Saturday, GOP commissioner Brent Taylor, another advocate of multi-member districts, added his conditional approval of Roland’s reasoning, and, while Taylor regards 2-J as “a bad plan for Republicans,” he promised to vote for it himself if it appeared the plan had 8 votes already.

Meanwhile, both of the aspirants for the District 1, Position 3 seat now held by Taylor on an interim appointive basis, have indicated their support for 2-J. Republican nominee Steve Basar said Sunday at a fundraiser in his honor at the Germantown home of John and Sue Williams said he “could accept Plan 2-J as a basis for redistricting,” and Democratic nominee Steve Ross has filed suit on the plan’s behalf.

The issue is in Chancellor Goldin’s court because three members of the Commission — Roland, Mike Ritz, and Walter Bailey — sued for a court ruling when the Commission was deadlocked on redistricting when the year-end deadline was reached without a finished plan. Roland and Ritz have since withdrawn from the suit, but Bailey remains, keeping that action, along with Ross’, active.

Goldin has indicated he wants the Commission itself to resolve the redistricting issue, if at all possible. After today’s vote, there will be one more reading, a final one, and 9 votes for 2-J on that occasion would complete the redistricting process without need of a court ruling.

• jb
• GOP candidate Basar, here at Sunday fundraiser with hosts John and Sue Williams, adds his support to 2-J. Democratic opponent Steve Ross also endorses plan.

• JB
• Pickler at Tanner Pavelion in Germantown on Sunday

Given the dimensions of the ongoing controversy over city/county school merger, it was doubtless inevitable that it should spark a flame or two in individual races for the seven positions on the Unified School Board.

It did on Sunday, as David Pickler, candidate for District Five (Germantown, Collierville) seemed to question the bona fides of opponent Kim Wirth.

At a fundraiser/meet-and-greet at the Tanner Pavilion on the Germantown Horse Show grounds, Pickler made it clear to a group of supporters that he regards his mission, if elected, to continue on what he calls a 15-year quest on behalf of “independent, autonomous schools in suburban Shelby County.”

Although Pickler consistently sought independent school-district status for Shelby County Schools when he served several consecutive terms as SCS board chairman, he has been more equivocal about the issue as a member of both the 23-member interim United School Board and the 21-member Transition Planning Commission.

And in an interview after his remarks at the meet-and-greet, Pickler expressed doubt that his support for municipal schools could be matched by Kim Wirth, his opponent for the District 5 (Germantown-Collierville) seat on the Unified Board.

Said Pickler: “I think that my opponent is a fine lady, and I appreciate the fact that she’s engaged the community. One concern I have is why she would choose to have her campaign be managed by the same group that was promoting the governmental consolidation Brian Stephens was the co-chair for the Rebuild Government initiative, and when you’re trying to represent an area, when you’re offering to represent an area that was adamantly opposed to the governmental consolidation and you have chosen to align with a group that was adamantly in favor of governmental consolidation, then to me that sends a mixed message. And it makes me question whether or not her new-found support of municipal districts is a message of expediency as opposed to a heartfelt and abiding belief.’

Asked about Pickler’s comments, Stephens, the co-founder of the 2010 project Rebuild Government, which researched city/county consolidation and ultimately endorsed it and currently CEO of Caissa Public Strategies, a public relations firm, responded that Pickler’s comments “sound divisive,” and said, “We’re not managing her campaign. But we do public relations, and we do have customers. We did produce one piece of literature for her. So, technically, she is a client.”

Stephens also pointed out that Rebuild Government had excluded school consolidation from its endorsement of governmental consolidation and that the proposed charter it supported in the 2010 referendum had expressly called for an independent binding vote by suburban residents on any future proposal for school consolidation.

Pickler had also noted the fact that Wirth’s primary educational focus has so far been on Memphis City Schools rather than on the pre-existing Shelby County Schools system. Wirth has served as chairman of the board of the Memphis City Schools Foundation and as a liaison with the Gates Foundation on the MCS Teacher Effectiveness Initiative. She also has been affiliated with the SCORE organization (State Collaborative on Reforming Education) established by former U.S. Senator Bill Frist.

Wirth could not be reached for comment on Monday morning, but, at a forum held last week by the Collierville Republican Club, she and Pickler expressed agreement on most issues regarding the current school-merger issue. She specifically backed Shelby County’s six municipal suburbs wish to establish their own independent school districts and said that existing school buildings should be transferred to them without cost and that municipal districts should be allowed to enroll students in adjacent unincorporated areas of Shelby County.

In an emailed response received by the Flyer late Monday, Wirth responded to Pickler's allegations with a statement, which reads in part:

...My campaign is managed by Aleesa Blum, a retired executive from International Paper and one with experience running political campaigns. Brian Stephens is one of many vendors I have and he helped me with a communication piece.

So we are clear, I have had children in Shelby County Schools since 2004, and I am proud of the work I have done as a parent volunteer and PTA board member in my children's school. Through my role as the Executive Director of International Paper's Foundation, I have partnered with the Shelby County Schools Foundation and a number of schools directly providing thousands of dollars in support of literacy, environmental education programs and as sponsor of the annual Race for Education event.

I am also proud of my involvement with the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Sen. Frist's SCORE organization. These experiences have only increased my commitment to all Shelby County students and provides a clear choice for voters.....

• JB
• Pickler and Wirth in Collierville

A debate of sorts Tuesday night between David Pickler and Kim Wirth, candidates for the Unified School Board for District 5, made one thing clear: Whoever wins that seat, representing the Germantown-Collierville area, will owe their primary allegiance to the prospective municipal districts there, not to the Unified District itself."

The joint appearance of the two candidates was at La Hacienda Restaurant on West Poplar under the auspices of the Collierville Republican Club.

Asked point blank if they favored establishment of municipal school districts in Germantown and Collierville, both Pickler, the longtime former chairman of the old Shelby County Schools board, and Wirth, a communications executive with International Paper, answered “Yes,” categorically.

Both also professed concern for education throughout Shelby County, and, if elected, pledged to work, as Wirth put it, “as good neighbors toward the goal of great education for all or kids.” But both saw their first duty as being owed to the as yet unformed municipal school districts of Germantown and Collierville.

And each was at pains to advance an even narrower focus. Wirth, who has served as chairman of the board of the Memphis City Schools Foundation and has worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on behalf of the MCS Teacher Effectiveness Program, said she would put her experience to work in a “good faith” effort to insure that the transfer of school buildings from the jurisdiction of the Unified School Board of Shelby County to the municipal districts would be both free and painless.

Pickler also stressed the importance of making over the buildings “without compensation,” contending that in numerous instances in the past that was how schools had passed from the jurisdiction of Shelby County Schools to that of Memphis City Schools, “though we [i.e., county taxpayers] had paid for them.”

He made the case for a concept of “shared services” whereby the Unified School District would bear the responsibility for such functions as transportation, nutrition, and special education and make these services available for schools within municipal districts as well as for those remaining within the Unified School District itself. (One of the points emphasized by Shelby County Commissioner Mike Ritz in a report made to the Commission Wednesday on likely expenses of new municipal districts concerned the significant add-on cost of such services, if incumbent upon the new districts themselves.)

Both candidates agreed that when the municipal districts are formed the schools within them should be allowed to enroll students living in adjacent unincorporated areas of Shelby County. Both agreed, too, that outlying areas of Shelby County should continue to be represented on the Unified Shelby County School Board even after municipal school districts are formed within those areas.

click to enlarge

• JB
• Shelby County Commissioner Mike Ritz

In a study prepared for presentation to the Shelby County Commission’s education committee on Wednesday, District 1 Commissioner Mike Ritz, a Germantown Republican, offered some sobering fiscal warnings to suburbanites considering the establishment of municipal school districts for their communities.

Applying what he termed a “brutally conservative” approach, Ritz, whose background is in investment banking, essentially found fault with what he regards as over-rosy financial projections from Southern Educational Strategies, the local consulting group which has offered advice to six Shelby County suburban cities – Germantown, Collierville, Bartlett, Lakeland, and Arlington.

All these communities intend to hold referenda in August to gain voter approval for municipal schol districts.

Among Ritz’s findings:

*Significant employee expenses – notably OPEBs (Other Post-Employment Benefits) – were overlooked in the SES estimates. Should the six suburban communities establish independent school districts, those expenses would cease to be obligations of the Shelby County Unified System and become liabilities for the suburban communities.

*The prospect of having to ”level up” on teacher salaries, so as to make those in the suburban systems comparable to the pay-scale of the Unified System, was also overlooked in the SES estimates.

*Also overlooked by SES were costs associated with providing for students with special education needs. Says Ritz: At a cost-per-student of up to $100,000 annually, these costs must be borne by the municipalities. “There are no BEP or County funds for these purposes.”

*Expenses associated with the acquisition of school buildings from the Unified District and with add-on per-pupil expenditures for students living outside the municipalities’ limits will be significantly in excess of the SES estimates, especially factoring in inflationary costs. In the case of some of the suburban communities, e.g., Arlington and Lakeland, these unanticipated expenses could be prohibitive – requiring, in the case of Arlington, a four-fold increase in that city’s property tax rate.

*Moreover, contends Ritz, the establishment of municipal school districts could necessitate the construction of new facilities “to educate students from an unincorporated area,’ and the capital cost of these buildings “will fall on all Shelby County taxpayers.”

Ritz's complete survey reads as follows:

FISCAL ISSUES CONCERNING PROPOSED MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS

May 14, 2012

-Mike Ritz, Budget Committee Chairman, Shelby County Commission

My observations and findings concerning the fiscal issues facing the proposed municipal school districts are based on my reading and understanding of (a) the separate reports presented by Southern Educational Strategies, LLC (SES) to each suburban government in early 2012 and (b) the ‘District-Wide Facility Usage and the Student Enrollment Within Unincorporated Shelby County’ report and ‘Student Place of Residence and School of Attendance’ spreadsheet presented to the Shelby County Board of Education March 20, 2012. Upon completion of the attached spreadsheet, ‘Fiscal Analysis of Various Municipal School District Data from the Separate Reports (Dated Early 2012) and The Student Place of Residence and School of Attendance spreadsheet prepared by Shelby County School Planning Department Revised 3-14-2012’, I prepared this report. Please note that I used the Shelby County School System average per student expenditure in my spreadsheet as a minimum expectation of expenditures per student. If I had used the State-wide, All County, or City and SSD average per student funding, the potential fiscal impact on each of the suburbs would have been considerably more. While some observations are common for several of the suburbs, very few apply to all suburbs. My findings are presented for each suburb.

My approach was to be ‘brutally conservative.’ It will be very difficult politically to turn back the creation of a municipal school district once it is in place. Any error in the SES calculations that misses or understates the actual and necessary costs for a municipal school district will fall 100% on the taxpayers of the municipal school district. Thus a very careful approach is necessary.

SES did not project the cost of the “Other Post-Employment Benefits” (OPEB) for their teachers and other staff. OPEB includes the school system’s costs of health and life insurance for retirees. The OPEB benefits are not part of the retirement pay from the state retirement system that Shelby County teachers expect. These OPEB costs have until recently been ignored and unfunded by both of the local school boards. Recent changes in governmental accounting standards require their annual financial reports or audits to calculate these unfunded liabilities. The unfunded OPEB liabilities of the two school systems as of June 30, 2011 was $1,503,097,723. The ultimate funding responsibility of the two system’s unfunded OPEB liabilities lies with Shelby County Government. Any reduction of teachers and staff employed by the Unified Shelby County School System will cause a reduction in the Unified System’s unfunded OPEB liabilities. Teachers and staff hired by the municipal school systems will expect some health and life insurance benefits in retirement. The ultimate fiscal responsibility of OPEB for their retired teachers and staff will be the respective suburban government. These costs were not included in the SES reports.

Another cost not included in the SES reports was the cost of ‘leveling up’ the teacher compensation of Shelby County School System to the salaries of the Memphis City Schools. State law requires ‘leveling up’ when 2 systems are merged. If the municipal school systems have to match a Shelby County teachers’ salary to recruit them, the FY 2014 or later salaries for the municipal district’s teachers will be higher than noted in the SES reports.

A third cost not included is the cost of special education needs students. It is not unusual to have a school age child who needs special assistance or equipment to learn which cost $100,000 annually. Each municipal school district will have to pay for those needs. There are no BEP or County funds for those purposes.

BARTLETT. Bartlett has the largest number,11, of the Shelby County Schools (SCS) buildings and 7837 Bartlett residing students now attend SCS schools. 6178 of the 8805 students attending SCS schools in Bartlett live in Bartlett. The remaining 1659 Bartlett residing students attend Arlington HS (466), and Bolton HS (1118), and other SCS schools. SES proposed the largest municipal school district for Bartlett with 9029 students, a system 15% larger than the number of Bartlett residing students. While the minimum state requirement of 15 cents of local property tax support for their municipal school system would produce the budgeted $1,650,525, the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase would produce $3,625,000 which is more than twice the minimal amount needed. However, if Bartlett (a) spends the average of FY 2011 SCS funding for their municipal system to start up in FY 2013 or later, (b) pays 50% of the cost of new schools for the 11 schools in their city, and (c) increase school operation costs 10% for inflation, greater expectations or needs than SES budgeted, then they will need a $1.36 property tax increase, a 91% increase over their current tax rate of $1.49. The annual cost to buy their 11 schools is 27% of the total of the three defined cost of this analysis (the Total SES Shortfall plus 10% Cost of Higher Needs and Expectations plus Annual cost of Schools Purchase). It might be expected that Bartlett municipal school district would want to build a new high school (or expand Bartlett HS) for the 1584 Bartlett residing students attending high schools outside Bartlett which would be an additional capital expense. Added to these potential additional property taxes can be some amount for OPEB benefits for their initial 886 teachers and staff, special education needs children, and the costs of matching the ‘leveled up’ teacher compensation.

GERMANTOWN. Germantown has 8 of the Shelby County Schools (SCS) buildings and 4585 Germantown residing students now attend SCS schools. 8579 students attend SCS schools in Germantown. Only 38 Germantown residing students attend schools outside Germantown. Of the 4032 non-resident students attending the 8 schools in Germantown, 2799 live in unincorporated Shelby County and 1067 live in Collierville. SES proposed a municipal school district for Germantown with 8142 students, a system 76% larger than the number of Germantown residing students. While the minimum state requirement of 15 cents of local property tax support for their municipal school system would produce the budgeted $2,100,000, the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase would produce $2,419,979 or $319,979 more than minimally needed. However, if Germantown (a) spends the average of FY 2011 SCS funding for their municipal system to start up in FY 2013 or later, (b) pays 50% of the cost of new schools for the 8 schools in their city, and (c) increase school operation costs 10% for inflation, greater expectations or needs than SES budgeted, then they will need a $1.06 property tax increase, a 71% increase over their current tax rate of $1.485. The annual cost to buy their 8 schools is 26% of the total of the three defined cost of this analysis (the Total SES Shortfall plus 10% Cost of Higher Needs and Expectations plus Annual cost of Schools Purchase). Obviously if Germantown would propose a system more aligned to the number of students residing in Germantown, the fiscal impact on their residents could be substantially lessened. Germantown has annexed all of its annexation reserve areas. Taking greater fiscal risk for students who don’t and won’t live in Germantown does not appear to be a conservative fiscal policy. Added to these potential additional property taxes can be some amount for OPEB benefits for their initial 777 teachers and staff, special education needs children, and the costs of matching the ‘leveled up’ teacher compensation.

COLLIERVILLE. Collierville has 8 of the Shelby County Schools (SCS) buildings and 8314 Collierville residing students now attend SCS schools. 7780 students attend SCS schools in Collierville. 1072 Collierville residing students attend schools outside Collierville with 1067 attending schools in Germantown with 754 and 204 at Houston High and Middle, respectively. Of the 7780 students attending schools in Collierville, 7229 live in Collierville and 456 live in unincorporated Shelby County. SES proposed a municipal school district for Collierville with 7591 students, a system for 91% of Collierville residing students. While the minimum state requirement of 15 cents of local property tax support for their municipal school system would produce the budgeted $2,100,000, the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase would produce $3,908,858 or $1,731,893 more than minimally needed. However, if Collierville (a) spends the average of FY 2011 SCS funding for their municipal system to start up in FY 2013 or later, (b) pays 50% of the cost of new schools for the 8 schools in their city, and (c) increase school operation costs 10% for inflation, greater expectations or needs than SES budgeted, then they will need a $0.84 property tax increase, a 59% increase over their current tax rate of $1.43. The annual cost to buy their 8 schools is 25% of the total of the three defined cost of this analysis (the Total SES Shortfall plus 10% Cost of Higher Needs and Expectations plus Annual cost of Schools Purchase). Added to these potential additional property taxes can be some amount for OPEB benefits for their initial 745 teachers and staff, special education needs children, and the costs of matching the ‘leveled up’ teacher compensation.

ARLINGTON. Arlington has 4 of the Shelby County Schools (SCS) buildings and 2827 Arlington residing students now attend SCS schools. 5028 students attend SCS schools in Arlington. Only 22 Arlington residing students attend schools outside Arlington. Of the 5028 students in Arlington schools, 2787 live in Arlington, 484 live in Bartlett, 1111 live in Lakeland, and 559 live in unincorporated Shelby County. SES proposed a municipal school district for Arlington with 4887 students, a system 73% larger than the number of Arlington residing students. While the minimum state requirement of 15 cents of local property tax support for their municipal school system would produce $406,134, the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase would produce only $349,685 or $56,449 less than minimally needed amount. Arlington and Lakeland are the only two suburbs where the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase produces less than the minimum 15 cent property tax increase. Moreover, if Arlington (a) spends the average of FY 2011 SCS funding for their municipal system to start up in FY 2013 or later, (b) pays 50% of the cost of new schools for the 4 schools in their city, and (c) increase school operation costs 10% for inflation, greater expectations or needs than SES budgeted, then they will need a $3.91 property tax increase, a 391% increase over their current tax rate of $1.00. The annual cost to buy their 4 schools is 20% of the total of the three defined cost of this analysis (the Total SES Shortfall plus 10% Cost of Higher Needs and Expectations plus Annual cost of Schools Purchase).Obviously if Arlington would propose a system more aligned to the number of students residing in Arlington, the fiscal impact on their residents could be substantially lessened. It may be a very long time before Arlington annexes the areas of unincorporated Shelby County where some of their students may reside. It does not make conservative fiscal sense to take the greater fiscal risk for those children or the students from Bartlett and/or Lakeland. Added to these potential additional property taxes can be some amount for OPEB benefits for their initial 456 teachers and staff, special education needs children, and the costs of matching the ‘leveled up’ teacher compensation.

MILLINGTON. Millington has 5 of the Shelby County Schools (SCS) buildings and 1564 Millington residing students now attend SCS schools. 3421 students attend SCS schools in Millington. Only 6 Millington residing students attend schools outside Millington. Of the 3421 students in Millington schools, 1437 live in unincorporated Shelby County. SES proposed a municipal school Millington residing students. SES recommended Millington annex the Lucy community annexation reserve area to reach the minimum state requirement for new municipal school districts to assure 1500 students in the schools or at least 2000 students presently enrolled. While the minimum state requirement of 15 cents of local property tax support for their municipal school system would produce $253,515, the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase would produce $1,386,290 or $1,132,775 more than minimally needed. However, if Millington only spends the average of FY 2011 SCS funding for their municipal system to start up in FY 2013 or later, but however (a) pays 50% of the cost of new schools for 4 of the 5 schools in their city, and (b) needs to increase school operation costs 10% for inflation, greater expectations or needs than SES budgeted, then they will need a $1.28 property tax increase, a 104% increase over their current tax rate of $1.23. The annual cost to buy 4 of their 5 schools is 64% of the total of the three defined cost of this analysis (the Total SES Shortfall plus 10% Cost of Higher Needs and Expectations plus Annual cost of Schools Purchase). If Millington would propose a municipal school system size closer to the minimum state requirement, the fiscal impact on their residents could be substantially lessened. Added to these potential additional property taxes can be some amount for OPEB benefits for their initial 246.5 teachers and staff, special education needs children, and the costs of matching the ‘leveled up’ teacher compensation.

LAKELAND. Lakeland has only 1 of the Shelby County Schools (SCS) buildings and 2204 Lakeland residing students now attend SCS schools. Only 831 students attend the SCS school in Lakeland. Of the 2204 Lakeland residing students, 111 attend Arlington located schools, 240 attend Bartlett schools, and 788 attend the single Arlington school. Of the 831 students in Lakeland ES, 19 live in Bartlett and 10 live in unincorporated Shelby County. SES proposed a single school municipal school district for Lakeland with 819 students, a system big enough for only 37% of Lakeland residing students. While the minimum state requirement of 15 cents of local property tax support for their municipal school system would produce $491,460, the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase would produce only $329,631 or $161,829 less than minimally needed. Lakeland and Arlington are the only two suburbs where the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase produces less than the minimum 15 cent property tax increase. Moreover, if Lakeland only spends only the average of FY 2011 SCS funding for their municipal system to start up in FY 2013 or later, but however pays (a) 50% of the cost of new schools for the single school in their city, and (b) needs to increase school operation costs 10% for inflation, greater expectations or needs than SES budgeted, then they will need a $0.34 property tax. Lakeland currently does not have a property tax. The annual cost to buy their 1 school is 34% of the total of the three defined cost of this analysis (the Total SES Shortfall plus 10% Cost of Higher Needs and Expectations plus Annual cost of Schools Purchase). If Lakeland decides to also have a property taxes over and above the 34 cent increase noted above. Added to these potential additional property taxes can be some amount for OPEB benefits for their initial 94 teachers and staff, special education needs children, and the costs of matching the ‘leveled up’ teacher compensation.

FISCAL IMPACT ON SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

There are several observation, albeit general and non specific, that should be noted.

1.If the Shelby County School Board does not allow a municipal school district to educate students from an unincorporated area, those students will stay in the Shelby County system and will need school buildings to house them. Many of the unincorporated students now attend schools in a suburb. If a municipal district acquires (buy, lease, or gift) the schools in their respective suburb, then the capital cost of new buildings for the unincorporated children will fall on all Shelby County taxpayers via Shelby County’s obligation to provide the capital funds for the Shelby County Schools.

2.Per 1 above and If the municipal districts have to pay to buy or lease the public schools in the suburbs, then that consideration could be used by Shelby County Schools to build the schools they may need for the unincorporated students. These funds would offset a requirement for Shelby County taxpayers to pay debt service on new bonds to replace the schools in the suburbs.

3. Creation of municipal school districts will reduce the teachers and staff of the Shelby County Schools which will in turn reduce the unfunded OPEB obligations of the Shelby County Schools.

click to enlarge

• Ritz spreadsheet

But that doesn’t touch this whole development regarding comments appended to articles, and people wanting to ban each other’s comments and bugging Flyer editor Bruce van Wyngarden about it and his reacting in ways that I think, upon reflection, he’ll have second thoughts about – nay, seems to acknowledge already having second thoughts about, if I read him right.

But perhaps not. I will leave such second thoughts, if there be any, to him. The one thing I won’t do is second-guess him or any other colleague, any more than I would appreciate being second-guessed in my turn.

But one thing I want to reiterate as strongly as I possibly can. The issue of school merger in Shelby County is now, as it was at the end of 2010 when it came out of nowhere, the most significant circumstance facing those of us who live in this larger community. As such, it is still the biggest news item going.

How could it not be? It involves politics, education, commerce, society at large – all in very large ways. And to turn one’s back on it, either as newsperson or as citizen, would be irresponsible in the extreme.Yes, I too get annoyed at some of the turns taken by commenters -- to Flyer items, to CA items, to TV stories,to each other, whatever.

But I understand their passion, even their exhibitionism. From time to time one of the commenters even comes up with a real nugget of insight or information.

Two things I can assure you of.

One is, I don’t write news items or analytical pieces about the merger issue or any other subject –nor does John Branston or any other colleague or news competitor — in order to throw these folks any red meat. It’s rhe subject itself that arouses them, for good reasons, bad reasons and everything in between. Tired of it all? Blame the subject, and the never-ending incidents and major developments – many, many of them crucially important – that accrue to the subject.

Believe me, if we in the news business didn’t make an effort to try to keep up with this story, and to separate the wheat from the chaff, the essential from the inessential, the reality from the deceits, etc., etc., we – the whole community – would really be up a creek. I appreciate the compliments paid me and John, but all we’re doing is doing our job.

Parenthetically, Bruce, I do know this for a fact (and no, I’m not guessing): If we at the Flyer flagged even slightly in our coverage, our friends on Union Avenue, who also are doing their conscientious best to stay up with the story (and, yes, with us, as we with them) would shout hallelujahs and light cigars.

The other thing is I’m certain of is this: There is no law nor coercive power that can make anyone read a line of a news article in the Flyer or CA or anywhere else, nor can anyone be forced to read a jot or a tittle composed by any commenter.

We have articles on all kinds of subjects, thanks be to God (as well as to the First Amendment), and people are free to comment on any and all of them. Or to disregard them. At no offense to me, I can assure you.

It’s a free country.

• JB
• Tomeka Hart at headquarters opening

Vowing to run hard against “two millionaires, actual millionaires, one in the primary, one in the general election,” 9th District congressional candidate Tomeka Hart opened up her headquarters in Chickasaw Crossing on Poplar Thursday night.

Addressing a group of supporters drawn heavily from the ranks of New Path, the activist group that gave her a start in politics by boosting her for the Memphis City Schools board in 2004, Democrat Hart promised to focus on local issues in a way that she said the incumbent Democrat, Steve Cohen, has not.

Hart even managed to turn a supporter’s suggestion that she might have considered running for mayor or the City Council first into a slam against Cohen. “I get that a lot,” she said, contending that such advice reflects a sense in the district that the current congressman is “not about local issues, but all about national politics....That seat should be completely about what’s going on in Memphis.”

Having reviewed her role as a prime mover on the MCS board in 2010 for the charter surrender that forced the ongoing city/county school merger, Hart said she had asked Cohen for aid and support of the merger movement but had been turned down. “The response was he wasn’t getting involved in local issues,” Hart said.

The reference to “two millionaires” was Hart’s way of designating Cohen, whose political war chest is known to be in the neighborhood of $1 million, and George Flinn, the wealthy radiologist/radio magnate who is a candidate for the 9th District seat in the Republican primary.

“I represent the future of Memphis,” Hart said. “Forget what you might hear. We’re in this.” As evidence, she noted her decision, announced this week, to take temporary leave of her job as head of Memphis' Urban League chapter.

Acknowledging her relative lack of fundraising success so far, Hart said, “Pundits want to see how much money you’ve got in the bank, and then they write you off. If it was about money, I wouldn’t be out there, ‘cause we knew in April I wouldn’t have money, right? If it was about money, I’d have been gone a long time ago. But it’s about work.”

Although Hart, an African American, made no direct appeals to the 9th District’s majority black population, she did note that blacks in the district were “three times more likely than whites” to be in the poverty bracket and said, “What’s far more powerful than money is a vote. Poor people should be the most powerful.”

• JB
• Tommy Hart during TPC deliberations

The work of the Transition Planning Commission, going forward, is bound to be affected somewhat by the astonishing news last Friday that TPC member Tommy Hart, a former Shelby County Commissioner, had been arrested on charges of embezzling thousands of dollars of prize money contributed by bowlers competing in a tournament at a Southaven bowling establishment owned by Hart.

As a member of the TPC’s Educational Policy and Logistics Committee, Hart had been vocal in debate on the several key issues discussed at the TPC’s meeting of Thursday, May 3, just the day before. In general, Colliervillian Hart had served as one of the TPC’s spokespersons for a middle way and had been a mediating force between urban and suburban factions on the Commission.
`
There was a turning point, some weeks back, when the TPC engaged in a spirited discussion on whether (and to what extent) the TPC’s calculations on merger of Memphis City Schools and Shelby County Schools should take into account or even facilitate the plans of six suburban municipalities to extract themselves from the ongoing merger.

As much as anyone else, it was Hart who had shifted the focus of the group back to planning for a full merger involving the 150,000-odd students now enrolled in MCS and SCS. While acknowledging his suburban roots, he declared, “I’m wearing my TPC hat here,” and, in private conversations as well as public statements, he made clear his belief that there was no unanimity of opinion in his own municipality or in the other five — Bartlett, Germantown, Lakeland, Arlington, and Millington — where plans for separate schools system were going forward.

Though it has in the several months of its activity evolved a preliminary merger plan (called “Multiple Achievement Paths”) that would extend maximum autonomy to Memphis and suburban schools, as well as to new charter schools and a state-administered Achievement School District for “failing schools,” the TPC has kept itself focused on the ultimate goal of true consolidation.

Last Thursday’s meeting of the TPC, likely Hart’s last, was probably the first one in a while that made no reference at all, even obliquely, to the looming prospect of an organized breakaway from a unified school system by the suburban municipalities. That was something of an irony, given that state Senator Mark Norris (R-Collierville) had in the preceding week willed (and wiled) enabling legislation into being for the suburbs.

What happened last week was elaborate discussion by TPC members concerning the details of meshing the existing educational policies and logistical strategies of MCS and SCS — even to the details of transportation fleets and bell times. Everything was based on the presumption of having to plan for a system covering the whole of Shelby County.

Asked after last week’s meeting about the apparent anomaly involved in the TPC’s focusing on the elaborate aspects of a whole-county merger plan while the General Assembly had opened the lid early for the suburban separatist movement, both TPC chair Barbara Prescott and Richard Holden, co-chair of the TPC’s Educational Policy and Logistics Committee, downplayed the difficulty of translating the Commission’s plans into a smaller focus for a system that wouldn’t include the 50,000-odd suburban students.

Both Prescott and Holden indicated the changes, if necessary, would be adjustments of scale, but the earlier discussions Thursday had seemed to emphasize qualitative as well as quantitative differences between MCS and SCS, presenting an apples-vs.-oranges scenario — arguably as hard to disentangle at a later point as to combine in the first place.

Meanwhile, there was an ex post facto feel to the current line being vended by state Sen. Norris concerning what had been the intentions of the original 2011 bill, popularly known as Norris-Todd and referred to by himself, more formally, as Public Chapter One. Speaking on the WKNO-TV program “Behind the Headlines” last weekend, Norris suggested that the intent of his bill had always been to allow the Shelby County suburbs to prepare themselves for an early exit from merger — to the extent of extricating themselves altogether before that merger even took place.

If so, such an intention was not spoken to in extensive floor discussion on the bill, the final clause of which allowed for the lifting, in Shelby County only, of an existing state ban on new municipal or special school districts after the completion of MCS-SCS merger in August 2013.

No legal authority seems to have interpreted the bill, which became law when signed by Governor Bill Haslam, in the way that Norris is now suggesting — not state Attorney General Robert Cooper, who ruled in March that the suburbs could take no advance steps until August 2013, and not presiding U.S. District Judge Hardy Mays, whose qualified approval last year of the Norris-Todd bill for planning purposes explicitly excluded the issue of new school districts as not “ripe” until merger had been effected.

Hence the very need for new legislation for Norris — specifically HB1104/SB1923, which, as amended, would fill in the blanks left by Norris-Todd and allow Shelby County’s six suburban municipalities to proceed with enabling referenda on independent districts this year.

The immediate response of Governor Haslam, who had urged that no new legislation be rushed before the TPC could complete its work, was that it was not a “given” that he would sign the new bill but that it was unlikely he would veto it. Flash: He said Tuesday he anticipates signing it. End of that none-too-susenseful interlude. As for Judge Mays? He will likely be heard from in the near future.

• JB
• Governor Haslam, flanked by Lt. Gov./Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey (left() and House Speaker Beth Harwell afrer close of 107th General Assembly

NASHVILLE -- Bartlett Mayor Keith McDonald and his fellow suburban chief executives can apparently rest easy about the prospect of Governor Bill Haslam’s interposing himself against HB1105/SB1923, the bill just passed by both chambers of the legislature authorizing referenda this year on creating municipal school districts.

In a valedictory meeting with the Capitol Hill press corps following the General Assembly’s adjournment late Tuesday afternoon, Haslam, who had frequently expressed the hope that the Transition Planning Commission could finish its labors on school merger before any legislation was passed, was asked his attitude toward the bill, which was relentlessly pushed by state Senate majority leader Mark Norris of Collierville.

The governor was asked if it was “a given” that he would sign the bill. Haslam responded: “I don’t think anything is a given. Our policy has been that we’ll look at everything when it goes to our desk. So I don’t think anything is a given. We have been having those discussions. As you know, I’ve made my thoughts clear. I really did want to see the [Transition Planning]Commission get their plan out and implement it. So we’ll have to see how all of this impacts that.”

After the formal press conference, Haslam was asked about the matter another way. Was there a chance, given his preference that the TPC to allowed to come to a finish fist, that he would consider vetoing the measure? After praising the TPC again (Haslam: “Their work has been extraordinary”), he said, “We’ll look at it, but, just to be honest, I doubt that we’ll veto it."

• JB
• State Senator Mark Norris

In steering legislation through the General Assembly, at what was literally the eleventh hour, that enabled Memphis suburban municipalities to vote this year on creating their own school districts, Norris has probably advanced the schedule for creating such districts by a full year, and that is crucial.

Had not a House-Senate conference committee finally okayed on Friday Norris’ amendment to a bill by state Rep. Richard Montgomery (R-Sevierville), HB1105/SB`1923, which originally had nothing to do with Shelby County, the mid-March opinion by state Attorney General Robert Cooper on the unconstitutionality of a suburban vote this year would have stood.

Without the passage of the amended Montgomery bill, the suburbs would have been forced to wait until August 2013 even to launch their initiatives and, like it or not, would have had to spend the 2013-2014 school year within an all-Shelby County Unified District.

Although, as Bartlett Mayor Keith McDonald, unofficial spokesperson for the municipal-school movement, has vowed, he and other suburban leaders in Germantown, Collierville, Bartlett, Lakeland, Arlington, and Millington would have kept trying, the enforced year-long membership in a Unified District would inevitably have dissipated their momentum.

Residents of those communities might have developed second thoughts in the course of a school year in which academic affairs conceivably could have gone smoothly, with attendance zones functioning as usual, and with the possibility that a known quantity like current county superintendent John Aitken might then have been hired as superintendent for the Unified District.

Suburban voters could also have seen their resolve for independent school systems progressively weakened by alternative forecasts of tax levies and other expenditures conspicuously less rosy and likely more realistic than those that were presented to them this past year by their consultants at Southern Educational Strategies.

Who knows what would have happened? Norris has kept it from happening with some typically sophisticated sleight-of-hand. And he was aided by lackluster performance from potential opponents in the legislature and elsewhere.

The Senate Majority Leader’s insistence on sticking with another piece of school-related legislation initiated by himself, HB3234/SB2908, despite that bill’s having been neutered into meaninglessness, had puzzled onlookers, but this past week’s denouement may have clarified Norris’ strategy.

That other bill, which had begun as an ostensible effort to advance the date of eligibility for suburban districts from August 2013 to January 1, 2013, was finally moved through the legislature in a form that merely repeated the August 2013 date and restated the terms of the existing Norris-Todd Act of 2011.

But in negotiations with Democratic legislators, specifically the two who were named to the conference committee for the now-altered Montgomery bill that opened the door to suburban referenda in 2012, the parallel bill by Norris, meaningless in its own terms, became something of a red herring, a diversion.

Specifically, state Rep. Antonio Parkinson and state Senator Reginald Tate, the two Memphis Democrats who were named to the conference committee, seemed to suffer from some confusion as to which bill did what and which bill seemed to have incurred resistance and even, it almost seemed, which bill they were supposed to be working on.

At one point Norris appears to have indicated to Parkinson, who had inquired about a resolution from the Shelby County Commission opposing the referendum initiative, that he, Norris, had communicated with Commissioner Steve Mulroy, sponsor of that resolution, and “worked it out,” reassuring Mulroy that the bill in question did not alter the scheme of things.

Tate, too, would later indicate that he believed the bill before the conference committee, the one originally by Montgomery on an unrelated issue regarding Tennessee school boards but now amended to authorize suburban referenda in Shelby County, made no fundamental alterations in the Shelby County situation.

Whether convinced on the point or not, both Parkinson and Tate would sign the conference committee report on HB1105/SB1923, the amended Montgomery bill,allowing it to be presented to the full House on Friday as unanimously approved, a fact diminishing potential opposition on the floor to a general measure which, in an amended clause relating only to Shelby County, specifically countered the Attorney General’s opinion and authorized the very 2012 referenda which Cooper had deemed unconstitutional.

The bill passed 61-25 in the House, where there was more confusion as to which of two measures was being considered, and seemed assured of passage on Monday in the Senate.

As for the conversation between Norris and Mulroy in which things were allegedly “worked out,” the Memphis county commissioner insists that no such conversation, or any conversation at all between himself and Norris, ever took place.

Mulroy says he did receive an email from Norris informing him, accurately, that HB3234/HB 2908 made no fundamental changes and advising him not to worry. The email made no mention, however, of HB1105/HB1923, the now-amended Montgomery bill that authorized immediate suburban efforts to create municipal school districts, and it was that bill, of course, which was the actual subject of the conference committee report, and which had been the subject of the County Commission’s resolution of opposition.

It is a moot question as to whether Norris actively fomented confusion concerning the actual meaning of the legislation which surrogates finally guided through the House on Friday, after two aborted earlier attempts to have his amendment accepted there.

He may merely have taken advantage of the fact of confusion regarding two distinctly different bills. He may even have been relatively open and above-board in playing his hand and can plead in all candor that it’s not his fault if others misread his cards.

In any case, what’s done is done, the suburbs will apparently get to vote this year and to have their independent districts the year after, and the Unified School District will most likely kick off in August 2013 without participation by suburban Shelby County schools.

All of this is for better or for worse and can be argued either way. It is a stretch, however, to suggest that it was inevitable.

Though the Tennessee General Assembly was still grinding away at last-minute matters on Friday afternoon and was destined to work over the weekend and on Monday to complete this year’s budget and other matters, the two bills affecting school districts for Shelby County’s suburban municipalities finally got legislative imprimatur.

Just before 5 o’clock on Friday, the House easily approved a conference committee report on HB1105/SB1923, the education bill on which Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris (R-Collierville) had grafted an enabling amendment for the suburbs to hold referenda on municipal districts this year.

Thus was concluded a drama that resulted from state Attorney General Robert Cooper’s opinion last month that referenda which had been scheduled for May by Germantown, Collierville, Bartlett, Lakeland, and Arlington would be unconstitutional . Cooper’s reasoning was that no such steps could be taken until August 2013, the date specified by last year’s Norris-Todd bill. Subsequently the Shelby County Election Commission canceled the May referenda.

Norris then submitted one bill, SB2908/HB3234, that would have moved up the date of eligibility for municipal school Districts to January 1, 2013 and offered an amendment to HB1105/SB1923, an unrelated measure concerning the evaluation of school directors, that explicitly would have permitted the suburbs to hold referenda, presumably in August, and then to establish the machinery for school boards.

Both the new Norris bill and the amendment were written so as to apply statewide. This would seem to have been a precaution taken by Norris in the wake of an earlier Cooper opinion that a piece of Norris legislation affecting annexation procedures in Shelby County alone was unconstitutional and had to be withdrawn. Cooper had noted that the bill’s effect was limited to one county without having the unanimous consent of that county’s delegation, and thus could not qualify as a private bill.

But the two new Norris initiatives, cast as general bills with provisions seeming to enable new school districts everywhere, aroused alarms even among previously compliant GOP legislators elsewhere in the state. Ultimately, SB2908/HB3234 was amended to a shadow of its previous self, merely repeating language already appearing in Norris-Todd concerning the eligibility of municipal districts in Shelby County as of August 2013, when merger of Memphis City Schools and Shelby County Schools is due to be completed.

And Norris’ amendment to HB1105/SB1923, which had failed of acceptance twice in the House because it, too, seemed clearly to have statewide application, was revised in a House/Senate conference committee this week so as to apply only to counties where transition committees were monitoring school mergers — a definition that essentially fit only Shelby County. In that circuitous form the amendment was made acceptable to the full House, which accepted the bill as so amended and passed the measure 61-25.

Almost certainly the new legislation will be subjected to legal challenge of one sort or another. And so will other aspects relating to the establishment of municipal school districts — notably the issue of whether such districts are entitled to enroll (and receive state and federal funding for) students residing outside their borders, as well as the vexing issue of potential costs for the suburban municipalities in acquiring existing school property.

• JB
• Commissioner Terry Roland

It may seem — nay, be — anti-climactic, but what is it they say?: Hope springs eternal in the human breast. The breast in question, this time around, is that of Terry Roland, who on Wednesday will offer his mates on the Shelby County Commission a redistricting map, identified as 2-J by the Office of Planning and Development team which prepared it.

If “2-J” has a familiar ring, that’s because that particular redistricting plan, which posits 13 single-member districts, has been before the deadlocked Commission before. Several times. In fact. Indeed, on its second time around, several weeks ago, it received 9 votes – enough, if the vote total had held on a climactic third reading — to satisfy the county charter, which calls for that many votes on the third reading of a redistricting bill to make it effective

By the time 2-J got its third reading on Monday, March 12, however, a rival single-district plan, 2-O, which offered the likelihood of 8 majority-black districts rather than the 7 provided by 2-J, had beguiled enough votes away — notably those of Democratic commissioners Henri Brooks and James Harvey — to limit the final number of votes for 2-J to 7.

That impasse worsened a situation whereby the Commission was already months late in fulfilling its obligation to redistrict itself, failing to agree on any given one of a bewildering variety of plans, and caused an internal crisis on the Commission.

Ron Krelstein, the special attorney engaged by Shelby County Attorney Kelly Rayne to represent the Commission in litigation pending before Chancellor Arnold Goldin, had committed himself to arguing that 2-J, as a plan that had received three consecutive majority votes, satisfied state law and should be considered final.

The county charter, however, mandates the aforementioned 9-vote supermajority on a definitive third reading, and Commissioner Mike Ritz, a Germantown Republican who had at various points favored 2-J, insisted that Krelstein uphold the county charter before Chancellor Goldin. The upshot, as Ritz’s point of view gathered adherents, was that the Commission voted to require Rayne to insist on Krelstein’s fidelity to the charter.

Whether the Commission had the right to do so, or whether Rayne had the authority to impose that condition on Krelstein, became academic when a frustrated Krelstein voluntarily withdraw from the case, to be replaced by attorney Lee Winchester, who made it clear he would abide by the county charter’s requirements.

The case is in Chancellor Goldin’s court in the first place because of a suit by three commissioners — Ritz, Terry Roland, and Walter Bailey, all single-member advocates — who at the time they filed the suit, late last year, were attempting to end-run an effort by other Commission members, including a suburban Republican hard core, to push through a multi-member district plan like the Commission’s current model.

As of this week, however, Ritz and Roland, a Millington Republican, had withdrawn themselves from the suit, leaving only Bailey, an inner-city Memphis Democrat, as a litigant.

In announcing his action and his simultaneous decision to re-introduce 2-J this week, Roland said this week he considered it important to maintain the county charter’s requirement for 9 votes on specific issues, including redistricting and, even more importantly, votes on imposing new taxes.

Recalling that interim Commissioner Brent Taylor, another Republican and a multi-member-district supporter, had volunteered at the March 12 meeting to become the 9th vote for 2-J if an 8th vote could be found (it wasn’t), Roland said he thought that it might be possible to get 9 votes if the Commission tried one more time on 2-J — the idea being that getting redistricting out of the way would obviate the need for a ruling by Chancellor Goldin and safeguard the charter requirements against the possibility of being struck down.

And so, when the Commission’s general government committee convenes next Wednesday, the Commission will, at Roland’s behest, make one more college try at redistricting itself. The idea, in the tradition of Knute Rockne heroics, will be to Win One for the Charter.

• Chancellor Arnold Goldin, who must decide the Commission's redistricting case

Lawyer Ron Kreslstein, the special attorney hired at year’s end by Shelby County Attorney Kelly Rayne to represent the County Commission in pending hearings before Chancellor Arnold Goldin, has been asked to withdraw. The action came as a result of a vote by the Commission last month insisting that requirements of the county charter be defended in court.

Krelstein had indicated that he intended to make the case for acceptance of a single-member redistricting plan, 2-J, on the grounds that it had earned at least seven votes on three different readings, which is all that state law requires. The county charter, however, specifies that the final vote be a super-majority, or 9 votes.

Hence Krelstein’s departure. The new attorney handling the Commission’s case is Rick Winchester, who has indicated, in a memorandum to Mark Allen of the county attorney’s staff that he will defend the charter’s stiffer requirements.

At issue for several Commission members, including Mike Ritz and Terry Roland, two of the original plaintiffs seeking approval of a single-member plan, is that a striking down of the charter’s super-majority requirement on the redistricting matter could end up affecting other issues currently requiring a super-majority — on new taxation, in particular. Accordingly, Ritz and Roland have withdrawn from their status as plaintiffs.

The third original plaintiff, Commissioner Walter Bailey, is apparently willing to continue with the suit, regardless of how the primacy of state law vs. county charter is argued.

The Winchester memo reads as follows:

TO: Mark Allen
RE: Bailey vs. Shelby County, et al./Status Report

Mark,

Please accept this as a brief report on the current status on the “redistricting” lawsuit filed by Walter Bailey, Mike Ritz, and Terry Roland. Commissioners Ritz and Roland have now withdrawn as plaintiffs from the litigation. Keith Kyles has filed a Motion to Intervene as a defendant. He has set this Motion so as to be heard at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, May 4, 2012 in Part II of Chancery Court. Mr. Kyles’ contention is that he should be allowed to intervene as a citizen in order to defend the provisions of the Shelby County Charter – more specifically, the provision requiring a two-thirds vote to approve a redistricting plan. I spoke with Mr. Kyles and apprised him of the fact that, as the attorney for Shelby County, I will be opposing any effort to invalidate the County’s Home Rule Charter. Accordingly, I advised Mr. Kyles that unless I advised him otherwise, I did not object to his appearance in the litigation. I do not know whether Mr. Bailey will oppose Mr. Kyles’ intervention or not.

On April 4, 2012, at the invitation of Chancellor Goldin, Mr. Bailey and I appeared for a conference in his chambers regarding the establishment of a timetable for briefing the issues before the Court. It was agreed that Mr. Bailey’s memorandum would be filed not later than April 20, 20112, and that my response would be submitted on or before May 11, 2012. Chancellor Goldin indicated that he would entertain oral argument upon request by either party.

I have now received Mr. Bailey’s memorandum. His memorandum is appended to a Motion for Summary Judgment. This Motion also has appended to it a Statement of Undisputed Facts as required by TRCP Rule 56. I am in the process of digesting his Motion, Memorandum and suggested facts and will be preparing my response during the next two weeks.

In our conference, Chancellor Goldin appeared to be very aware of the legal issues involved and his responsibility to redistrict Shelby County in the event that the Commission fails to do so. I did not understand from the Chancellor that he would have any objection, even at this late date, to the Commission proceeding to approve a redistricting plan, provided, of course, that this was done very expeditiously. In fact, my observation is that chancellors/judges are generally reluctant to become involved in the legislative process, unless absolutely required to do so. Obviously, in this situation, the Court will be required to do so unless a plan is approved very quickly.

Mr. Bailey’s Motion asks the Court to declare the “two-thirds” requirement of the Shelby County Charter invalid inasmuch as he contends that it conflicts with the provisions of TCA § 5-1-1-11. He further asks the Court to declare that the redistricting plan represented by Map 2J to have been passed and, accordingly, to now represent a validly adopted redistricting plan for Shelby County.

I am of the opinion that, absent prompt action by the Commission, the Chancellor has the authority, and probably the obligation, to adopt a redistricting plan. However, I am also of the opinion that this obligation and responsibility of the Chancery Court does not require the Chancellor to invalidate a portion of the duly adopted County Charter, and I will be attempting to persuade the Chancellor accordingly.

I will deliver a full copy of Mr. Bailey’s submissions to you early next week. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the event that you, the County Attorney, or any of the Commissioners have any further questions, suggestions or comments.

Many thanks.

Richard L. Winchester, Jr.

• County Commissioner Steve Mulroy

A similar resolution, moved by Transition Planning Commission member Jim Boyd, had narrowly failed of passage at last Thursday’s meeting of the TPC.

Mulroy’s resolution addressed two bills recently introduced by state Senator Mark Norris (R-Collierville) that would facilitate the holding of suburban referenda on behalf of municipal school districts.. The bills were regarded as responses to an opinion by state Attorney Genral Robert Cooper that five Shelby County suburbs could not take immediate concrete steps toward creating such districts.

Noting that the legislature is nearing the end of its session and that its actions are fast-moving and flexible, Mulroy amended his resolution to add the phrase “or any bill speeding up the process for municipal school districts to form.” He cited the existence of last year’s Norris-Todd bill, whose provisions regulating the school- merger process had received the approval of presiding U.S. District Judge Hardy Mays.

“The process we have in place is adequate and we don’t need further interference by Nashville,” Mulroy said.

Several commissioners representing suburban constituencies spoke against the resolution. Said Terry Roland: “This is kind of hypocritical here. The first thing they do is go get an Attorney General’s opinion to tell us we can’t do this….If you want that [legislation on behalf of municipal districts] to pass quicker, pass this, because the state legislature don’t give a flip about what this Commission thinks…”

Commissioner Chris Thomas said, “It seems like those who don’t want municipal schools are doing everything they can to stop municipal schools.” He said that Attorney General Cooper’s finding had been “just an opinion.”

Commissioner Wyatt Bunker defined the issue as one of “qualify education, contending, “Our municipalities are convinced that the only way to insure quality eeducation is if they control the education of their children.” He said it was necessary for the legislature to speed the process up to insure proper parental preparation for the next school year.”

And he seconded Roland on the effectr of the resolution, encouraging “all the Democrats” to vote for the resolution on the grounds that such an action would put “wind in the sails” of pending legislation on behalf of municipal schools.

But another Republican, Commissioner Mike Ritz, a proponent of the resolution, spoke at some length about calculations he had made indicating that the municipalities which had expressed a wish to hold referenda and to form municipal districts could be overwhelmed with unexpected expenses and that it would be better for them to permit the TPC’s advisory process to conclude before acting.

“I believe in every case there is no harm in waiting and great benefit in waiting,” Ritz said, adding, “There is no guarantee the creation of municipal school districts is going to create a quality school district.”

Commissioner Walter Bailey said the rush to create municpal schools was based on "hysteria and unfounded fears" and that he was prepared to defer to the strong opposition to such bills by state Rep. Jimmy Naifeh (D-Covington).

After the vote Mulroy asked for the immediate transmission of the resolution’s text to Nashville and pressed Harvey Kennedy, CAO for Shelby County Mark Luttrell, for assurances that county lobbyists in Nashville would inform legislators. Kennedy indicated he couldn’t say without consul ting with Luttrell and noted that the mayor had not taken a position opposing municipal schools.

Mulroy insisted on the “courtesy” of the legislators’ conveying the fact of the resolution and, after pointing out that the Commission voted to fund the lobbyists, suggested that if such an action were not taken, “we should have our own lobbyists or no lobbyists at all.”

Bunker made a point of insisting that the party labels of those voting for the resolution be included with the text being sent to Nashville. Mulroy said he had no objection to that. Of the 8 Aye votes, 7 came from Democrats, and one – Ritz’s – was by a Republican. All the Nay votes were from Republicans – Roland, Bunker, Thomas, Brent Taylor, and Heidi Shafer.

Monday ‘s vote came as a surprise add-on. Proponents of such a resolution had been ready to hold a vote at the Commission meeting of two weeks ago but held back when two Democratic members expected to vote Aye failed to attend. On Monday, all Democrats and Ritz were on board.

Roland attempted to object to the add-on but was overruled by Commission chairman Sidney Chism.

The Commission majority’s action, the first of its kind, came in the wake, not only of last week’s aborted action by the TPC but of an earlier decision by the Unified School Board of Shelby County not to approve a strong resolution on the need for compensating the county for any school buildings transferred to municipal school districts. The Board’s vote had been by a narrow margin.

Text of the Commission Resolution:

A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE IN OPPOSITION TO THE TENNESSEE GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S INTENT TO LIFT THE BAN ON THE CREATION OF MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY AMENDING THE TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED, SECTION 6-58-112. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER STEVE MULROY. ______________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, for several decades, the General Assembly has seen fit to ban the creation of new special school districts; and

WHEREAS, this ban was motivated in part by past experience with a proliferation of special and municipal school districts, which divided communities, reduced economies of scale and efficiencies, and led to inequalities in educational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, current law places the foundational obligation of public education at the county level; and

WHEREAS, the General Assembly disturbed this equilibrium last year in the “Norris-Todd” bill, which lifted the ban on municipal school districts in Shelby County effective upon the successful completion of the ongoing school merger process in Shelby County; and

WHEREAS, SB2908 has passed, and HB3234 is currently pending, in the General Assembly, which would lift the current ban on municipal school districts effective Jan. 1 of 2013; and

WHEREAS, it is obvious that this new legislation is directed at Shelby County, and is being rushed through the General Assembly to address concerns raised by certain individuals in Shelby County who may not represent the majority of Shelby County citizens; and

WHEREAS, it is desirable for Shelby County to have some latitude, some leeway, a decent interval of time, to plan and implement school merger before further intervention from afar in Nashville; and

WHEREAS, it is desirable that the ongoing work of the Transition Planning Commission and the Unified School Board in designing and implementing the new unified school system have a minimal chance to run its course before the decision is made whether to re-fragment the Shelby County school into multiple school districts; and

WHEREAS, it is desirable that all actors in Shelby County understand exactly what sort of unified school system we will have before important and irrevocable decisions are made to split the county education system up; and

WHEREAS, the existing “Norris-Todd” law lifting the ban upon the successful completion of the merger process adequately protects the interests of suburban municipalities, such that further interference in Shelby County affairs by the General Assembly is unnecessary;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, that the Shelby County Board of Commissioners hereby expresses its opposition to the enactment of SB2908 and HB3234, and urges the members of the Shelby County legislative delegation, and the Tennessee General Assembly more broadly, not to pass it.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that members of the Shelby County Legislative Delegation and the Tennessee General Assembly be made aware of the position of the Shelby County Board of Commissioners by copy of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect in accordance with the Shelby County Charter, Article II, Section 2.06(B).