Another Fine Example of CVB Professionalism
Well, it happened again. Nashville attempted to join the ranks of top tier cities with our own landmark New Year’s celebration, complete with a “ball drop” all our own, only to see the much celebrated musical note get stuck halfway down the track.
“We don’t know what happened,” said Nashville Convention and Visitor Bureau chief Butch Spyridon, “but we are working with our crews to figure it out for next year.”
Yes, I know that these things happen. I have enough history as an event manager to know that things don’t work the way they did in rehearsal. However it behooves any meeting planner to make sure that the centerpiece of the entire event, the reason in fact for the gathering in the first place, works as advertised when the time comes. You’ve got one shot each year to get it right, and for the second year in a row the CVB failed to pull it off.
This is, of course, not a particularly big deal. After all, this is simply a visual gimmick to signal the coming of a new year. Nashville’s karma as a city will not be affected in any way by the failing note.
But this is the same Convention and Visitor Bureau that suggested in the run-up to the Music City Center vote that there will be no problem keeping the facility busy. This is the same CVB head who suggested in the weeks after the floods that it was appropriate for area hotels to kick flood victims out of their rooms so that there would be room for CMA Fest attendees. Our Convention and Visitor Bureau wields immense power in our city, and as such it would be great to know that they could succeed in doing something simple like dropping a sign down a shaft without getting stuck.
I recognize that tourism is an important industry for our city, and I know that our politicians love tourists for the generate lots of tax income that doesn’t have to be assessed to citizens who actually get to vote. Accidents happen, and things don’t always work the way that we hope they do.
It just makes me wonder that if they can’t get this right, how can we trust them in believing they have what it takes to make the Music City Center a success?
Taking Care of our Own–Country Music Marathon 2012
There is little doubt in looking at my waistline or the condition of my knees that I will be running a marathon any time soon, so I suppose the recent announcement about the new sponsor for the Country Music Marathon shouldn’t be high on my agenda. However I found myself confused in reading the announcement, heralded by the mayor, for I couldn’t understand how the charitable proceeds from an event in Nashville were being directed to a children’s hospital in Memphis when we have our own children’s hospital here at home which needs help, and our own city run hospital which often stands at the edge of financial chaos. Shouldn’t it be possible that the proceeds of the event benefit needs here in the community rather than St. Jude’s, which has been well endowed and a darling of the marketing and entertainment community ever since Danny Thomas took it on as a personal project.
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against St. Jude’s, and honor them for the work and research done there. I just think that if they want to get the proceeds from a large marathon event like the CMM, they should sponsor a race in Memphis. Call me crazy, but it’s our infrastructure, our police, and our lived inconvenienced by this great event, and as such, I would like to see charity proceeds stay within our own community.
I have come to learn this morning that in fact there are few local connections to this event anymore outside of the location. Back in the day, the event was created to support the work of our local Leukemia and Lymphoma society. Somewhere along the way a private company, The Competitor Group out of San Diego, obtained all the rights (and the risk as well) for the event, and that Nashville is nothing but a tour stop in their series of races throughout the country. Obtaining a nationally known charity like St. Jude’s makes sense in terms of drawing nationally to the event, which increase profits, but it means that local charities that could really use the assistance miss out. Yes, the city DOES get tourist income, but the tax revenues pretty much all go toward paying for the convention center rather than being applied to the general budget – a budget which has been getting cut for the past five or so years, usually at the expense of social services.
I’m confused for there is little transparency to the agreement between the city and Competitor Group regarding the allowance of city resources to support this event, such as any extra fees but as important to me, a requirement that a certain percentage of charity dollars stay within Davidson County. It may be that happens, but you certainly can’t find that via the Internet, and by all indications St. Jude’s comes off as the big winner at the expense of local charities.
Get the churches to do it . . . they’ll do anything!
It’s been a week or longer since the CNN/Tea Party Republican debate, and frankly there is little I can nor want to say about that event, for the candidates and the conversation seem so far removed from the world that I inhabit that it’s hard to imagine that we are in the same astral plane. However, as I’ve watched the comments and blog posts from afar, there was one moment that struck me that seems an ongoing trend in our world today.
These thoughts were triggered by the now infamous exchange between moderator Wolf Blitzer and Ron Paul in which Blitzer threw forth a hypothetical young man with no health insurance who finds himself on his death bed due to a medical crisis. Of course Blitzer was baiting the radical libertarian Paul in the hope that he could get Paul to day what few libertarians want to say aloud – that yes, the belief in personal responsibility likely means that those who fail to (or unable to) care for themselves will likely die. What shocked most commentators was the cheering from the audience which was willing to do just that . . . not only speaking the truth behind that belief structure but also celebrating it. However Paul, a man who is rarely characterized as the most reasonable man in the room, refused to acknowledge that the consequences of a world in which everyone is responsible for themselves with no responsibility to another will likely mean some will be unable to care for themselves with fatal consequences.
Paul said:
No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals," said Paul to additional applause. "And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it.
Sigh….
Of course Paul’s experience is likely correct, but it fails to recognize that the cost of medicine in the 1960’s was significantly less, and both our scientific and technological knowledge was relatively primitive compared to today’s. Back in the 1960’s, when I was born, the choices for healing were much fewer and the fatality rates were higher. There were fewer dilemmas like those experienced today where methods for bringing healing are available but for those without help are unaffordable. It was a different world, and the thought of going back to that way of life is simply out of touch with reality.
What worried me more though is the mindset that the “…churches will pick up the slack.” To be fair, that sentiment is not original to Ron Paul. No, it has become the regular mantra from politicians of all stripes when they propose cuts in programs that help poor folks, or meet other social ills. Rather than acknowledging the truth that some will suffer due to these difficult decisions our political leaders are making, they instead pivot to the goodwill of communities of faith as the source of universal help to those in need, as if these communities have never ending resources that could come close to addressing the needs of the world.
Don’t get me wrong . . . I believe that church indeed have a responsibility to help meet the needs of our communities. We must be engaged in the work of care and justice that is rooted in the witness of our scriptures and traditions. But given that religious practice of all kinds is declining in our society, it simply doesn’t make sense that the religious will be able to care for the wide variety of needs present today. Suggesting that the churches will take care of the problem is simply a ploy that politicians use to avoid the personal responsibility that they are so big on promoting.
Take for a moment a real life example. I recently read a blog post which suggested that one of Ron Paul’s formers staffers had recently died at a young age of viral pneumonia. This staffer, according to the story, had no health insurance, and left his family with $400,000 in medical bills. Let’s suppose that this family was connected to my church, a church whose entire budget for the year is $150,000. Yes, we have been effective in some fundraising efforts and have seen God’s provision, but the fact is that aren’t unlimited dollars coming for us to do ministry in the community. We could undertake a special campaign to raise funds for this project – but in all honesty the best we could hope for would generally fall well short of the $400,000 owed. And this is a single individual. In Tennessee according to recent statistics, over 1 million folks are uninsured. While the gamble that is living without insurance will pay off for some, the law of averages suggests that even a small percentage of those folks will get sick, and the ability of the churches to address the big ticket expenses that go with modern American medicine is very limited at best.
But it’s not simply health care. In Nashville we have a 211 service where folks in financial crisis can call 211 to obtain information regarding assistance. The service is run by our local United Way, and is supposed to connect people in need with agencies (both governmental and non-profit) who can provide help. It’s a great ideal, but what has been shared with me again and again is that more often than not persons in need are told by the 211 operators that they only place they can find help is through the local churches – and they are encouraged to call congregations at random.
For the most part, that advice is true for after years of governmental budget cutting, there are very few agencies that can provide financial help beyond individual congregations, however in the time of economic distress that we face, congregations quickly become overwhelmed with the requests, and as the last faces on the totem pole, we bear the responsibility of speaking the truth – your community has abandoned you and there simply isn’t any assistance available.
Again, this is not a rant against the role of the church in helping others. No, this is simply a plea for our political leaders to speak the truth. If the political will doesn’t exist for supporting the poor and downtrodden, let’s simply say so. If we are seeing the triumph of Ayn Rand individualism which believes that the wealthy are morally more deserving and that the poor are morally corrupt and should be cast aside in the survival of the fittest world we’ve become, then let’s say so. Let’s not attempt to soften our moral decline, our lack of compassion, or our greed by suggesting that those who believe that love and care are to be the center of life together will take care of it.
Will the churches try? Absolutely.
Can we succeed? It’s hard to see how, but our hope in the resurrection means that nothing is impossible.
BUT, know that if you are going to move the responsibility of care to the churches, tithing is no longer optional. You can pay the government or you can pay the churches, but ultimately someone has to pay.
Some Further Comments on Councilwoman Megan Barry
Tonight Joey Garrison came out in the City Paper with a profile of Councilwoman Megan Barry in which I am quoted as the pompous pundit of record. When I was talking with Joey, I thought I would be a minor voice among many others, but since I’m above the fold in the story, I want to offer some additional clarification on the person I called “Megan” in the story but should have called “Councilwoman Barry.”
I want to say from the beginning that I have never had any dealing with Councilwoman Barry that was less than professional, helpful, and respectful regarding my issue of concern. She was an important voice in helping the Nashvillians for Metro General group that I am a part of think about how to help the Metro Council recognize the value of that institution for our city. Most of my direct dealings with her were around legislation in the Budget Committee regarding the economic development incentives and the Industrial Development Board, and she offered great insight into the process. She has never failed to respond to my inquiries, and although we don’t socialize in the same circles, I have little doubt that she is someone with whom could have a great talk over a class of wine.
And yet, among some of the neighborhood activists and leaders I chat with via e-mail, Councilwoman Barry came in for a bit of scorn for her uncritical support of the Music City Center project, and her demeanor and political maneuvering during the fairgrounds debates. I can’t speak to her motives for her positions on these issues for in all honesty we never talked about them. However, at times she seemed to be aligning herself with folks like Councilman Stein, a colleague who is clearly and deeply interconnected to the inner circle of the mayor’s office. There is worry among these activists, many who are fairly progressive, that Councilwoman Barry’s independence from the power center in the Metro Courthouse is suspect, and that she represents an unquestioning voice for a pro “development-at-all-costs” approach from the Nashville Chamber. The issue isn’t that she is on the same page with neighborhood concerns, but rather that each councilperson is willing to critically examine proposals so as to consider a variety of viewpoints, and to hopefully perfect imperfect proposals or protect the city from bad proposals. There is concern that her tight connections to the mayor and the chamber erode her independence and keep her from being the effective check and balance required in our system of governance.
While some can easily fall into sinister conspiracy theories about power and control in Nashville, I think Councilwoman Barry is representative of a group of folks (Mayor Karl Dean is another) who have come to power as relative newcomers to the city and who don’t fully appreciate the history and layers of understanding that is Nashville. This group has been affluent, progressive, and is pretty much clustered in just a few neighborhoods throughout the city. They are true “progressives” in their belief that the future of Nashville is to be found through economic progress, however I’m not sure they have a good sense of life outside their immediate circles, and the breadth of experiences and traditions that are a part of Nashville. This was demonstrated in the frustration expressed by Councilwoman Barry during the fairgrounds debate, for she was unable to connect with the depth of emotion and experiences shared by those persons for who the fairgrounds serves as a symbol, a reminder, and a celebration of a different type of Nashville than experienced in Hillsboro Village.
My council for Councilwoman Barry is similar to what I offered Mayor Dean in my previous post — Get out of Hillsboro Village, gentrified East Nashville, Sylvan Park, or Green Hills, and spend some time visiting with and talking to Nashvillians of another stripe. Councilwoman Barry is an “at-large” representative, representing ALL of Metro Nashville. Spend some time in the hinterlands. Come have breakfast at Pam’s Country Kitchen in Old Hickory. Start hanging out in Antioch and spend some time talking at the Cane Ridge Community Club dinners. Begin to develop a deeper appreciation for who we’ve been, and where we’ve come from.
In the end, I really can’t fault anything Councilwoman Barry has done, even though I disagreed with her on a couple of major issues. My hope is that she will continue to grow in the job, and begin to develop relationships throughout the entire region that we help her better serve the people of Nashville.
A Post Election Letter to Mayor Karl Dean
Dear Mayor Dean,
Congratulations of succeeding in your re-election effort. Of course, it really wasn’t much of a surprise, for you had accomplished your goal of squashing serious competition months ago, but you were successful in obtaining a second term and while I may question that strategy, we have to move on from here as we work together to build up Metro Nashville. It’s in the spirit of unity and cooperation that I want to share with you some random thoughts about the next four years, and my hopes and dreams for our city.
You have made no secret that your priorities for your administration are education, public safety, and and economic development. Certainly you have kept to those priorities, focusing the most on the economic development piece of the pie, with a few things thrown to education and public safety, usually at the expense of the social safety net. I’m not sure that I agree totally with those priorities as they have been practiced, for I continue to believe that the effectiveness of our educational and public safety system is deeply connected to our ability to help folks out of poverty, and to provide basic needs as a means of creating a better climate for education and preventing crime. This is especially true among our children, who often remain voiceless in the halls of government (or if not entirely voiceless, are given crumbs but not real resources that can effect change in their lives). I wish there was a valuing of the marginalized in your administration, but I understand that poor folks usually don’t make political contributions nor vote, and there are much more “important” people who have your ear, so I won’t hold out much hope that social needs will ease into your priority list.
However, it is my hope that you might pivot away from focusing on big economic development projects such as Convention Centers and Fairgrounds redevelopment toward a serious consideration of the needs of our schools and police departments.
Oh I know that you campaigned that you were able to fully fund our schools. That was, of course, a bit disingenuous for while you indeed were able to fund the amount requested by the school board (an amount predetermined through conversation with your finance office and school officials), the fact is that the schools actually experienced huge cuts in teaching personnel due to cuts in federal spending. Take McGavock High School, where my daughter attends (by the way, why DON’T your kids participate in public education?). This year McGavock is trying to make do with 30 fewer teachers than last year, which has made it difficult for my daughter to get the classes she needs for graduation from her specific academy. The school system has made this big push toward the vocational academy model, however last year my daughter attended a class in which they were unable to do anything in the particular topic (audio technology) because the school couldn’t afford to purchase needed equipment until mid year. The fact is that we didn’t fully fund schools, because we gave them a predetermined figure of what we could afford rather than truly evaluating what they need to carry out the task. It’s my hope this year you will sit down with Jesse Register over lunch (I may be willing to pay for it if you want) for an honest conversation about what the school system needs regardless of the cost, and then you will take that dream to the people of Nashville for an honest conversation about what’s really needed to transform our school system.
You’ve done pretty well maintaining the level of police protection, and in building two new precincts with additional officers enhancing public safety in Nashville. And yet, much of those additional officers are funded through sources outside of the Metro budget, which puts us at risk in an environment in which those funds are being radically cut. The fact is that we have a police department that is being asked to patrol very large service area with a minimum of officers, leading neighborhoods into battles regarding policing priorities. Juvenile violence continues to increase (see my second paragraph) and perceptions of safety continue to be eroded, especially in the second and third ring suburbs to the South and Northeast which have become pockets of poverty in their own right. Simply put, we need more officers and more resources to deal with ongoing issues of crime, both in prevention, protection, and prosecution.
It’s my concern about those two important issues that leads me to ask that you put things like a new stadium for the Sounds or a downtown amphitheater on the back burner. Yes, I know that they are economic development opportunities that “expand the tax base” (a phrase that my research shows is often used by rarely true), however we are at a point as a city where we need to help folks recognize their part in supporting the basic functions of government — education and police protection. It’s hard to make that sale in a climate where they see city dollars focused on big ticket projects that have little connection to their daily lives. Schools and police presence are daily reminders of the place of governance, and the main interest of concern for those of us out in the hinterlands beyond Briley Parkway.
It’s time to get out of the courthouse and engage in honest conversation with leaders whose offices aren’t in downtown. When you walk the streets of Old Hickory Village or Priest Lake, you’ll discover that the most important thing for most residents is to see police patrolling the neighborhood, the need for police and fire to have quick response times when called, and neighborhood schools which are helping our kids to better themselves and offer hope for the future.
I look forward to seeing what you have in mind in the coming months. It should be an interesting time.
Sincerely,
Jay Voorhees
There will be no loss for commentary on the outcomes of tonight’s elections in Nashville, so I don’t know why I feel the need to offer my two cents. However, as someone who watches our leaders carefully, who engages with them in bettering our city, and who cares deeply about the process of governance, I do have some thoughts as to tonight’s events:
- Mayor Dean won. Is anyone surprised? Look, this race was pretty much over before it started when no viable opponent was willing to challenge the Dean juggernaut and the Tennessean had declared the race all but won prior to the filing deadline. Mike Craddock’s entry into the race might have made it interesting, but the powers that be had spoken and there were simply no dollars to be found. However, while Dean’s re-election was assured, this move to chase off viable challengers ultimately led to a election about which there was little excitement, and which had one of the lowest turnouts ever. While Dean won 80% of the votes cast for mayor, it’s not insignificant that over 25% of the total voters either voted for candidates who basically were on the ballot but did not run, OR did not vote in the mayoral race at all (with almost 5,000 persons choosing to not vote in the mayoral election, more than voted for Marvin Barnes). That still means that Mayor Dean received 75% approval of those voting in this election, but it’s hard to see how having the votes of 8% of the total residents of Nashville represents a mandate. He is to be congratulated for his victory, but shouldn’t mistake this victory with an overwhelming sense of approval citywide.
- Some two-thirds of those voting chose to support the changes in the Metro Charter related to the fairgrounds issue. I’m not so sure that this is as big of a rebuke of that mayor as some might think given that there was no campaign against this amendment. What is clear is that there are a bunch of folks for whom the fairgrounds has meaning as a place of significance in their lives, and that blindly suggesting the closing of the place probably won’t fly.
- I was surprised that all five incumbent at-large delegates were re-elected with no run off. I thought that Crafton, Wilhoite, and Coleman had a chance to pick off Maynard but there was obviously support that wasn’t that as visible my way. I know some of my progressive buddies don’t particularly like Coleman, but having worked with Sam I think he could have been an interesting voice that would have provided different insight from one of the largest and most diverse communities in the city, Antioch.
- I simply don’t understand District 5, and especially the support for Pam Murray. I would have thought her political career over, but she won’t go away. I imagine that the votes for Eaton and Bryson will likely go to Davis and carry him over the top, but District 5 is certainly an interesting place.
- While I was hopeful for Nancy VanReece in District 8, I feared that the re-districting that moved her from District 6 to 8 would not serve her well, and it didn’t. However she ran strong and I think may still have a future in politics ahead of her.
- There were really no surprises from District 11 (where I live) as Darren Jernigan has been a popular incumbent. There are still undercurrents of distrust in the community from the Lakewood vote (debacle?) but folks are beginning to move forward and Darren should be able to be a part of that movement.
- I don’t know what to make of District 13 other than when you look at the district, very little of the land area is residential. It seems like Stites and Robinson represent different visions and experiences, and I am inclined to think Sandidge’s support will go to Stites.
- What can you say about District 16. Anna Page cast her lot with the mayor and it doesn’t seem to have worked for her.
- I was happy to see Emily Evans clone (according to Randy Rayburn, that is) Burkley Allen prevail in District 18. I frankly think Allen can think well enough on her own, but it is good to have a neighborhood leader like Allen on the council. It’s also good to know that a good grassroots campaign like Allen’s can take on the Nashville Chamber (personified in Randy) and win.
- It’s unclear whether District 20 is settled given a late breaking e-mail from Mary Carolyn Roberts regarding a meeting she had at the Election Commission. I know that Buddy Baker had come for a bit of criticism in the neighborhood leaders e-mail group and it will be interesting to see if he becomes less willing to work with neighbor groups this go around.
- Congrats to my friend Jason Holleman in prevailing in District 24 in the face of the formidable bevy of heavy hitters supporting Sarah Tally. My sense is that residents resented the outsider attempts to undermine their councilman by the mayor’s minions, but Jason worked hard and deserves respect for not folding under the pressure.
- I’ve seen several progressive folks (most notably Sean Braisted) suggest that Dominy in District 28 and Duvall in District 33 were ignoring their districts in their pursuit of other Republican pursuits. There is no doubt that they are on the right of the political spectrum (with Duvall being the more reactionary of the two). But Sean was wrong in the accusations of their ignoring their districts, as I have seen them again and again at meeting after meeting trying to address the needs of their communities. I think Dominy’s re-election shows that he may be more reflective of his district than many might imagine. Duvall has a tougher row to hoe, and a more formidable candidate in Page Turner (she’s run against him before). I don’t really know where Kincaid’s support will land, but don’t ignore Duvall’s support from the small section of land along Hopson Pike across the lake which really is more in tune with Mt. Juliet than Nashville. There are lots of reasons to challenge Duvall’s political philosophy (hey, I even thought about challenging him back when I lived in his district) but don’t question his work ethic.
- What happened in District 29? Name recognition and hard work. Karen Johnson has worked that area tirelessly since leaving the school board, and simply outworked the opposition.
- The shocker of the night — Jason Potts win over Jim Hodge. What made the difference? I’m wondering if the re-districting which brought some of the former District 32 (Coleman’s district) into District 30 may have been the turning point.
I could say more about my beloved District 32 (congratulations Jacobia!) or the historic nature of the District 31 election (congratulations Fabian) but others will do that well. I’m simply glad this is over so that we can get on with the business of trying to help Nashville be a great city.
A Word on Pastoral Endorsements
For those who maybe haven’t realized it yet, I am a pastor of a local congregation. And I believe that part of my calling is engaging in issues that are important to my community, be they located here in Old Hickory, or involve the entire City. I am a politically engaged pastor in that I pay attention and am willing to participate in the political process at some level.
However, one thing that try to be scrupulous about is avoiding any official endorsements of individual candidates or political parties. Yes, I have people that I have worked with and liked and there have been times when I’ve shared my experiences of working with these individuals, but I am careful to note that I am not making an official endorsement, and that my comments in no way represent the official position of the congregation that I serve.
Frankly, I do this not out of any particular ethical framework, but rather because the Internal Revenue Service rules regarding the 501 c 3 status of my congregation compels me to act with great care and intentionality. The rules are clear — 501 c 3 organizations are not to engage in “political campaign activity” that is biased or partial toward one candidate or party. Non-profits, including churches, MAY engage in issue advocacy as long as it does not make up a substantial portion of its activities (the legal rule our attorneys suggested in the lottery referendum was no more than 5% of total expenditures of the organization). However, when it comes to endorsing a candidate, the rules are firm, and there have been several congregations that have found themselves at risk regarding these rules.
One can argue the need for such legislation, suggesting as some have that it represents a limit on a church’s right to free speech. However non-profit tax status is a privilege and not a right. The price to be paid in not paying taxes is to give up one’s ability to engage in partisan politics. If a church wants to endorse candidates they certainly can, but they have to be willing to give up the 501 c 3 status. The congregations that I’ve served haven’t been willing to pay that price, and so I try to be careful in how we proceed.
The issue of pastoral endorsements is murkier. On the one hand pastors should be able (as free citizens) to express their personal views about individual candidates. On the other hand, the division between the pastor’s professional and private life isn’t always clear. The “reverend” or “pastor” title is usually attached, whether we want it to be or not, and that very title comes through a relationship with an endorsing agency — a congregation or a denomination. The IRS guideliness on endorsements from staff members don’t forbid them outright, but they urge extreme caution in how they are done. According to IRS publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches, religious leaders are to clearly identify that their endorsements are personal and not intended to represent the views of the church. The guide suggests that mailers should note that any titles used are for identification purposes only, and do not imply any endorsement of the body that this leader represents, so as to be clear about the personal nature of the endorsements. To do otherwise is to imply that the speech of the leader is reflective of the organization, and thus prohibited under the IRS guidelines.
This civics lesson endorsements was spurred by a recent release that came across my desk from Councilman Jerry Maynard’s campaign. Jerry is a nice enough guy who has worked hard for the community, in fact, he and I worked together on advocacy for Metro General Hospital. I haven’t always agreed with all his decisions, but I can’t question his commitment to our city.
What concerns me is this release which clearly lifts up the identity of 40 endorsers as pastors, freely using their titles without any sort of disclaimer that these endorsements were not connected to the congregations that these pastors serve. Certainly these pastors have the ability as individuals to endorse Jerry, and I encourage them to do so. But the release (which can be viewed here) skirts on the borderline and I think is a risky endeavor for those endorsers.
I may be going overboard in my concern (and I know there are some who would say so) but the balancing act between the pastoral and personal role was something I’ve had to learn along the way. While our tax status hasn’t been at risk, I learned in no uncertain terms from some of my church members of their concerns when I put a yard sign for a certain presidential candidate in the yard of my parsonage. They made it clear that while I was thinking that was a personal act in my house, for them it represented an endorsement from their pastor. They were willing to concede that I had a prophetic role in speaking to issues, that line fell apart quickly when it came to personal politics, and I’ve tried to respect the murkiness ever since.
I don’t know what to do about Jerry’s mailer. There are friends on the list, folks that I respect, and I have great confidence that most recognize the care that must be taken regarding these endorsements.
What is more problematic are the campaigns that are searching for ANY and all advantage, and are not especially helpful in respecting the difficult line that church leaders have to walk.
Consistency Isn’t A Hallmark of the Dean Machine
I was just reading Joey Garrison’s story in the City Paper about Karl Dean’s active opposition to the re-election of Robert Duvall and Duane Dominy in their respective council seats out in Antioch. While I have worked with both guys and consider them friends and colleagues who care deeply about their community, I’m not surprised that Dean is actively endorsing their opponents if for no other reason than Robert and Duane’s politics are certainly right of center.
No, what amazed me in the story was the quote at the end:
Dean re-election spokesman Tom Hayden said the mayor’s involvement in council races is about putting independent thinkers on the council.
“It’s important that we continue to elect independent-thinking leaders that want to move our city forward and continue the progress we’ve made,” Hayden said.
Uh . . . excuse me? Didn’t I recently read a flyer with Dean endorsing Sarah Lodge Talley in District 24 because Jason Holleman was an independent thinker and only voted with the mayor 85% of the time? Isn’t the entire basis of the Talley campaign, supported by the Dean machine, that she will walk in lock-step with the mayor’s agenda? Talley has said several times that she is running against Holleman because he opposed several of the mayor’s proposals — most notably the Music City Center and the fairgrounds projects. Apparently, being independent of the mayor’s agenda 15% of the time is in fact too much independence — for true independence means that one will follow Mayor Dean’s lead all the time?
Look, there are valid arguments to be made in opposition to Duvall and Dominy, although they could make equally valid arguments that their positions on the fairgrounds and the Music City Center were in fact in keeping with the desires of their constituents (have you ever talked to folks along Hopson Pike or in parts of blue collar Antioch Karl?). But let’s not pull out the independence card when you are making the exact opposite pitch in endorsing Sarah Lodge Talley over Jason Holleman. Otherwise, you come off as a cynical politician who appears to think that no one is paying attention.
Down With The Sunset Grill
I’m currently out-of-town so I’m not exactly in the think of Nashville politics, but I did run through the news today and learned of Randy Rayburn’s recent fundraising letter in opposition to Burkley Allen’s campaign in District 18. Randy, of course, is the restaurant magnate who owns the Sunset Grill, Midtown Cafe, and the Cabana, and was a very vocal and aggressive supporter of the Music City Center project. The letter was pretty typical, but I was struck by the following paragraph:
I would remind you that we don’t need a strident, vociferous, engineering version of Emily on our Council opposing Mayor Dean’s policies and programs. Our business community has known for years that she equates being supportive of business and economic development programs as being anti-neighborhood interests. We know that Jason Holleman helped recruit her and lobbied to move her into District 18, as he and his Crafton/Evans cohorts have done in several other races. We don’t need a new member of the Anti-Dean Gang to slow or thwart our city’s next four years. There will be new, unanticipated challenges along the way. We need to limit their head count numbers now.
This paragraph makes me laugh in so many ways. First, to conflate Emily Evans and Eric Crafton as somehow representative of a unified cohort in opposition to the mayor clearly hasn’t been watching votes on issues other than the fairgrounds and MCC. Randy seems to believe that anyone who asks difficult questions of the mayor and the pro-business policies of this administration is to be “limited” as persons who will slow down the advancement of the city.
Frankly, I don’t know Burkley Allen nor have any clue about whether I would want to vote for her for council. From what I’ve seen she seems to be a person who has worked without compensation for the betterment of her community, representing the interests of residents with no other agenda or compensation that her love of the place that she lives. It’s very likely from what I see on her website is that she will likely not be a rubber stamp for business development without limits, but rather will push for smart development that balances the interests of residents and business. Her opponent may be just fine as far as I know, but based on Randy’s comments sounds like a sure vote for the mayor’s agenda without a willingness to show independence and critical thinking.
What bothers me, even though it doesn’t surprise me, is a business owner being so transparent about his belief that persons who express a desire or concerns for the needs of neighborhoods are somehow anti-business and somehow should be stopped at all costs. The last time I checked, it was the residents of those neighborhoods who come to Randy’s restaurants and spend their hard earned money in those establishments. One would think that Randy might want to recognize that the neighbors in District 18 are his customers.
Which leads me to wonder: If Randy thinks it’s okay for oppose aggressively those who threaten to thwart the pro-business agenda shouldn’t it be just as appropriate for those persons who believe in the power of neighborhoods to work together and retain a particular identity to aggressively oppose Randy’s efforts, doing something like . . . oh, I don’t know . . . boycotting Randy’s businesses as an expression of their opposition?
What do you think?
Get Ready Local Churches
Older residents and families with young children who depend on federal aid to pay their utility bills will have to wait until Oct. 1 to reapply.
via Needy will have to wait until Oct. 1 to apply for utility bill aid | The Tennessean | tennessean.com.
It’s already a given that local congregations generally have to pick up the slack when government funds for the needy fall short. It would have been nice to have some notice about this.
