@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 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 Twitter here.
In December 2022, Jacqueline York died by suicide at the Davidson County Correctional Development Center.
Jacqueline was on psychiatric medication and under the treatment of Wellpath, the contracted mental health provider for the jail. She expressed multiple times in the months leading up to her death that the medication was not working. Her mother Beth made similar complaints to Davidson County Sheriff’s Office staff.
Both women’s pleas apparently went unanswered.
Wellpath made no changes to Jacqueline’s medication, and DSCO staff took no action to place Jacqueline on suicide watch, despite Jacqueline’s expressions of suicidality and efforts at self-harm.
The consequences were dire. Jacqueline is dead, in what could have been a preventable tragedy.
As consolation, the city will pay Jacqueline’s mother $125,000 in a settlement approved by the Metro Council on Tuesday.
So Saad
The council rejected a proposed $150,000 settlement for Jonathan Saad, a former Metro Arts staffer who alleged discrimination and retaliation in a lawsuit filed earlier this year.
Further consideration by the council after a two-meeting deferral last month resulted in a resounding rejection, with only seven members voting in favor of settling. In committee and on the floor, Metro litigator Melissa Roberge and mayor’s office staffer Dave Rosenberg failed to make a compelling case for the settlement.
Roberge fielded questions about the veracity of the claims and the appropriateness of the settlement amount — $150,000 — and presented the proposal as a “business decision” for a case that, by her estimation, has about a 50-50 chance of succeeding on the merits.
Much of Saad’s complaint centered on a “failure to hire” claim. According to Saad, he was eminently qualified for the grants manager position that was posted while he was working in a contract grants management role. Then-director Daniel Singh, says Saad, chose not to hire him because of Saad’s race, color, sex, age or a combination of the four. If you don’t buy that the decision not to hire Saad was discriminatory, he also says it was retaliation for whistleblowing.
Councilmember Sean Parker seized on the claim that Saad was performing his job “successfully” at the time he was denied employment, around July 2023 — around the time all hell broke loose at Metro Arts, particularly as it concerned grants.
“We have spent the last 16 months trying to clean that mess up,” said Parker, “so, you know, the claim that he was successfully performing one of his jobs and thus felt entitled to the position, I think, is absurd.”
The council chose to call Saad’s bluff. Well, I shouldn’t say the council chose to call his bluff, because only 23 of the councilmembers at the meeting Tuesday had the guts to pick a side.
Duty to Vote
Eleven councilmembers — more than a quarter of the body — abstained on the Saad settlement vote. Councilmembers Clay Capp and Sandra Sepulveda declared conflicts in the vote, so that leaves nine councilmembers who just decided not to put a “yes” or “no” next to their names.
One councilmember, Jacob Kupin, took a walk, opting to vacate the chamber during the vote rather than put his name on the board at all. When asked about that decision, Kupin responded, “No comment.” Well, here’s my comment to Kupin and all those who abstained out of convenience: Y’all need to do your job.
The biggest part of a legislator’s job is to legislate. And legislators legislate through votes.
On all manner of controversial topics, though, councilmembers have opted to abstain — in effect, passing off the weight of their responsibilities onto their colleagues. It’s a real “fuck you” to the people who are then forced to make the decision on their behalf.
Councilmembers cannot be compelled to vote; Robert’s Rules of Order, which governs the parliamentary procedure of the council in cases when the council rules are silent, makes that perfectly clear. But that doesn’t mean it’s politically or ethically acceptable to pass the buck.
Some votes are hard. I get it. But as I often remind councilmembers, nobody forced them to run. They asked for this job. They raised money, they campaigned, they courted our votes. To then use the power we’ve given them to chicken out of taking hard votes is unconscionable.
Over the past year, councilmembers have justified their abstentions to me in a number of ways. On board and commission appointments, they’re reluctant to vote no, often because they don’t want to hurt the feelings of a nominee. Some councilmembers have also expressed fear that they could provoke the mayor’s ire by voting “against him.”
Y'all, Freddie O’Connell cannot hurt you. He gets one vote in determining whether you’re reelected, just like the rest of us do. And honestly, I don’t think O’Connell would harm the residents of Nashville by withholding funding for critical district-specific projects out of spite.
And let’s not forget: O’Connell himself was not a yes man. He stood up to John Cooper countless times. One might argue that’s a big part of the reason he got elected.
The people of Nashville respect a spine. Councilmembers, if you’ve misplaced yours, you should probably start the process of locating it before Election Day 2027.
