Like a kid who brought home a bad report card, the city of Nashville is stuck in its bedroom anxiously waiting on its parents to hand down a punishment.
The transgression: opposing a bid to bring the 2024 Republican National Convention to Nashville, something desperately wanted by many in the GOP-dominated Tennessee General Assembly. Unfortunately for the Metro Council, the state legislature that meets down the road holds more power than the combined city-county government, and some in the Republican supermajority seem to be itching for retribution.
Speculation in recent months has centered on one possible punishment for thwarting the RNC bid. Tennessee Republicans could cut the size of the Metro Council in half, from 40 members (among the largest councils in the country) to 20. House Majority Leader William Lamberth and Senate Finance Chair Bo Watson filed legislation to that effect on Monday, though specifics on how the changes work, or whether the proposal makes it through the legislature, remain to be seen. Their press release about the legislation did not mention the RNC or Nashville. Perhaps Republicans believe this would allow them somehow to get more conservatives elected to the overwhelmingly liberal Metro Council. Perhaps they simply want to stick a finger in Nashville’s eye. Perhaps they are earnestly concerned about efficiency and local governance and believe that no local government should have such a cumbersome legislative body. Lamberth said that “government functions best closer to the people,” despite the obvious result of the reduction being that each councilmember would represent more Nashvillians.
Vice Mayor Jim Shulman, who runs Metro Council meetings, is opposed to the hypothetical reduction and is still seeking a meeting with state House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) and eventually Senate leadership, too.
“I think it’s important to at least have a discussion with the proper folks at the state legislature and point out that Nashville’s Metro Council has worked pretty well for over 50 years,” Shulman tells the Scene.
Though the proposal has been pitched as punishment, many people around Metro have long argued that a smaller Metro Council could be good for the city. It would mean more money for council staff and members — who currently make part-time money — resulting in a more professionalized body with representatives able to devote more time to legislating and constituent services, and the possibility that more working-class people could seek the elected positions. It could also mean more manageable meetings. And some argue that the relatively small council districts that exist now lead some members to govern parochially, beholden to provincial interests and less focused on the well-being of the city as a whole.
Shulman, for his part, says those questions have been asked and answered. Proposals to change the size of the council have come and gone, unsuccessfully, in the years since Nashville and Davidson County combined in the 1960s, and one failed a citywide vote in 2015. And more councilmembers, he says, means constituents can more easily engage with government. Another concern about reducing the size of the council is the possibility that it could reduce minority representation, though that possibility is difficult to prove.
“If they want to reduce the size of the council to 20, then let Nashville decide,” Shulman says.
This wouldn’t be the first time the state government has waded into Metro governance in recent years. Legislation around education savings accounts, short-term rental regulations and development impact fees have been targeted — at least in part — at Nashville. The state could get around restrictions on legislation targeting individual communities by, for example, capping all metropolitan government legislative bodies at 20 members. (Of the two other metro governments in the state, the largest council has 20 members.)
“Cities and counties are creatures of state government,” says Dewey Branstetter, chair of the Metro Charter Revision Commission and son of one of the authors of the original Metro Charter. “They do have some authority and ability to make changes and do things, but it would be, in my opinion, highly unusual and really inappropriate without a valid reason. It would border on being unconscionable.
