On First Reading: Secret Cabals and Settlement Changes

@startleseasily is a fervent observer of the Metro government's comings and goings. In this column, "On First Reading," she'll recap the bimonthly Metro Council meetings and provide her opinions and analysis. You can find her in the pew in the corner by the mic, ready to give public comment on whichever items stir her passions. Follow her on Bluesky here.

Councilmember Joy Styles is at war with the mayor’s office.

The outspoken second-term councilmember has made no secret of her disdain for Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s approach to — well, pretty much everything. The latest skirmish concerns the focus of a special working group, convened by the mayor to review the current functioning of Metro’s many boards and commissions. The group — which Styles recently referred to as a “cabal” — has been toiling away behind closed doors on legislation it hopes will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of boards and commissions.

Styles has proven that she’s more than willing to fight a losing battle. And every once in a while, she actually wins. At a council meeting earlier this month, Styles successfully forced an indefinite deferral of the mayor’s bill to strip the Music, Film, and Entertainment Commission of its authority to hire and fire a director for the office. On Tuesday, though, she failed to win enough support for an attempt to defer on first reading another bill coming out of the working group. The bill would change the number of members for about a dozen boards and commissions that have struggled to establish a quorum for their meetings, due to spotty attendance.

This move prompted a debate about the wisdom of pulling items off of the first reading consent calendar. Ordinances must be approved on three separate readings in order to take effect. First reading is generally perfunctory; passage on first reading simply initiates the process of committee referrals and council staff analysis.

In councils past, this was understood and respected. Everybody seemed to realize that engaging in premature floor debates over bills that haven’t even been assigned to a committee is a colossal waste of time. This council has not learned that lesson. They’ve gotten in the unfortunate habit of pulling controversial bills off of first reading to try to kill or delay their passage. It literally never works. Not a single time this term. Never. 

Councilmember Emily Benedict has had enough. She called the practice “sophomoric,” a comment that Styles, in turn, referred to as “childish.” 

I’m with Benedict on this one. In my view, the tendency to interrupt normal order reflects poorly on the council’s understanding of the process. First reading on the floor of the council is not the time to try to work through your feelings about a bill. Nobody with any sense believes that voting to advance a bill on first reading is an explicit endorsement of the legislation itself. It just gets you a sternly worded write-up in my column, which apparently isn’t much of a deterrent. 

My proposal: Amend the council’s rules to require all bills to be passed on first reading without debate. Full stop. Then, any attempt to pull a bill for separate consideration on first reading would require a suspension of the rules, a move that can be quashed by two or more councilmembers objecting. 

Councilmember Jordan Huffman recently advanced a similar proposal, but it’s got a fatal flaw: Huffman’s rule requires only two members of the council to request a bill be debated separately on first reading. That threshold is far too low. History has shown us that trying to gum up the works in this way is rarely, if ever, successful, so why does the council keep trying? We have a process for a reason. It’s time to start respecting it. 

The fate of my bedtime hangs in the balance.

Settling for More

A bill making changes to Metro Legal’s settlement authority passed on second reading Tuesday night. Currently, Metro Legal is severely limited in its ability to settle claims against the government without requiring council approval. The threshold for requiring council approval of a settlement offer is $15,000 for property damage claims and $5,000 for other claims, like injury or negligence. These thresholds were established decades ago, when you could — no joke — get gas for about 10 cents a gallon.

On First Reading: Rezoning, Settlements and Fast Food

In her latest column, @startleseasily weighs in on a big settlement agreement and some memeable moments

The council approved an amendment by Councilmember Benedict that will increase the thresholds for all claims to $25,000. Benedict’s amendment also explicitly requires Metro Legal to consult with department heads before settling — something Metro Legal says they’re already doing — and to provide a report of any money paid to outside legal counsel working on the city’s behalf. 

Benedict tells the Scene this amendment is a necessary move toward transparency. “Today we don’t know how much money we are spending on outside attorneys that Metro Legal needs support from,” says Benedict. “Council has the power of the purse, so we need to know where our budget allocations are going. These are the public’s tax dollars.”

Property Wrongs

Earlier this month, I wrote about Councilmember Courtney Johnston’s bizarre decision to bring a rezoning to the council that she did not support, due to outrage from nearby neighbors. 

At this week's meeting, Johnston explained that the vehement opposition to the rezoning was rooted in a desire to maintain the “charm” of their single-family zoning and to deter two-story homes. But the single-family zoning was established only five years ago. The entire neighborhood was zoned for two-family housing dating back to the establishment of zoning in Nashville. And anyone in the neighborhood could build a two-story home if they wanted; there’s nothing a rezoning would do to make that more or less likely, particularly given the large size of the parcels in the area. They’re not in danger of any tall-and-skinnies popping up on the lot next door. 

In defending her decision to oppose the rezoning, Johnston stated that she was reflecting the will of her district. But if councilmembers are just supposed to be mouthpieces for the loudest voices in their district, then why even have a Metro Council? Let’s just go to direct democracy. Put every piddling rezoning to a vote of the entire electorate and see how that works out. 

Sometimes, the popular thing isn’t the right thing. Johnston wasn’t willing to take the hit, so she made her colleagues carry her water. And carry her water they did, with 24 members voting to approve the minor rezoning.