General Forum, 2023-2027 Term

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Ginny Welsch concerning issues regarding the Office of Homeless Services.

From CM Welsch: 

I am calling for a change in leadership at the Office of Homeless Services.  

Yesterday at the Public Health & Safety committee meeting, we learned that OHS is not fully functioning, despite having $50M in ARP funds at their disposal, and an (over)staffed office funded with $6 million per year by Metro, and leadership is non-existent. (see the link to the meeting, at mark :43)

OHS admitted yesterday that they are deliberately keeping beds open that could be filled right now with the unhoused, and get people indoors. Instead they are holding those beds for people displaced by encampment closures. Specifically only 30 out of about 110 rooms are currently occupied at one of their transitional housing places. Why are residents in specific encampments prioritized over others who are unhoused?  I believe for propaganda. It makes for good media to close an encampment, and get the unhoused out of sight, out of mind, but it doesn’t make for good policy.   Holding beds intentionally open is unconscionable, and it’s not in alignment with best practices or a Housing First approach that OHS has been claiming to promote.

We also learned yesterday that the Salvation Army, the recipient of almost one third of Metro dollars designated for support services for the homeless, is pulling out of their contract to provide those services. But are they really?  When you look at the contract, it does not say what leadership at Metro says it says. It is poorly written, and the scope of work is unclear.  But even worse is that OHS could not immediately start the process of contracting with other community providers to step in and fill the gap. That process takes time, but if there was a real coordinated system in place at OHS, that process would already be moving forward.  (see contracts linked below)

The structures at Old Tent City were demolished yesterday (October 15,) and OHS says they gave residents there ample time to prepare. But the notice they gave to residents had the wrong date for demolition listed. According to the notice, demolition is actually set for October 25.  OHS has 34 staff, and no one bothered to proofread the notice? (see notice linked below)

These are just the tip of the iceberg. OHS is attempting to consolidate power over the community, and is building bureaucracy within its office to that end. OHS, and it appears Metro, is trying to build a top-down system, with OHS alone calling the shots on how homelessness is addressed in Nashville. Not only will that not work, it will cause even more chaos within the community.  Trust in Metro leadership is virtually non-existent within the community right now, as OHS leadership keeps pointing the finger and blame at nonprofits they are supposed to collaborate with, rather than listening and working with them.  And the people whose lives are on the line are the ones suffering for it.

Part of this falls back on Metro council. Where has true oversight been? These are Metro dollars we are talking about. We are the entity at Metro that needs to provide oversight. We have for too long taken the word of OHS and its ever-rosy assessment of the work they are doing. It has to stop, or we will have burned through $50M and accomplished nothing of lastly import. That is unacceptable.

I call again for the leadership at OHS to be removed, either by resignation, reassignment, or termination.

Link to Public Health & Safety Committee Meeting: https://www.youtube.com/live/bioPccjHICQ?si=Pzb5jMFjbQjRNoD7&t=2505

Grant Contract Exhibit 1.pdf 

Grant Contract Exhibit 2.pdf  

OHS OTC Notice

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Delishia Porterfield regarding Resolution No. RS2024-792, which would approve an amendment to a sole source contract between the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County and Fusus, LLC.

From CM Porterfield: 

Hello everyone. RS2024-792 (FUSUS) will be on the agenda Tuesday, Oct. 15th.  I will be requesting a 1 meeting deferral in Budget and Finance and in Public Health and Safety.  This will also defer the public hearing until the 1^st meeting in November, which will be Nov. 7th.  

I have requested that MNPD provide the opportunity for Councilmembers to see a demonstration of the FUSUS software.  Please email Chief Blair or Chief Guilder with MNPD to schedule a demonstration. To comply with Open Meetings Acts, these will be scheduled as 1 on 1's with CMs as opposed to a group demonstration.

I also requested that Chief Guilder send the FUSUS policy that MNPD has in place. Here’s the link to the portion of the MNPD website which contains the FUSUS policy, an email link for feedback (fususfeedback@nashville.gov), as well as some FAQs: https://www.nashville.gov/departments/police/crime-control-strategies/camera-network

There were several guardrails that Chief Guilder and I discussed that MNPD have put in place regarding the use of FUSUS; however, many of them do not appear to be listed in the policy.  For example, I confirmed with Chief Guilder that this is for Commercial and not Residential use.  I am requesting that the policy be updated to reflect that it will not be used for residential use.  Previously, I was advised that FUSUS would only be used for more serious crimes and not low-level offenses.  I will be asking Chief Guilder to clarify if that is still the case and if so, if it can be spelled out in the policy, as well as the additional guardrails that we discussed.

It is my understanding that this legislation would do 2 things:
1. Allow businesses to register their cameras, letting MNPD know who to contact to request video footage (but doesn't allow MNPD to access footage).

2. Allow businesses to sign up to give MNPD access to their cameras for a specific time, outlined by the business.

I believe a robust discussion is needed, including information from MNPD and input from the community, as we weigh the pros and cons of this legislation.

I look forward to our discussion on Monday and Tuesday, prior to the deferral, as well as hearing from the community in November prior to Council taking a vote. 

Thank you 

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Ginny Welsch regarding Resolution No. RS2024-708, the proposed settlement with Jonathan Saad.

I have many questions and concerns about the settlement we are being asked to approve.  To quickly recap, Mr. Saad threatened to sue Metro for discrimination because he was not rehired and given the position of Grants Manager, a position he had previously held.  Metro Legal would like to settle with Mr. Saad or $150,000.  

The complaint filed by Mr. Saad is extremely vague. There are many claims of discriminatory behavior based on age and ethnicity on the part of the former director of Metro Arts, Daniel Singh, but there is no evidence or documentation to support those claims.  Mr. Saad also claims his application for the permanent position was not seriously considered, which resulted in someone with less experience being hired. 

Much of Mr. Saad’s complaint seems predicated on his belief that he should have been given the permanent position of Grants Manager, and had he been adequately vetted, Mr. Singh  would have come to the conclusion.  But Mr. Saad wasn’t owed that position. Daniel Singh was brought in to Metro Arts to change the culture, and Mr. Saad was a part of the existing Art culture.  So I am failing to see how the Director was obliged to give Mr. Saad the position. As we know, even a small personality clash is enough reason for someone to not be hired, and I believe the director was well within his rights as head of Metro Arts to choose who he wanted to serve alongside him.

Another large concern is that despite Metro legal calling Mr. Saad a contract employee, he was actually a temporary employee, hired by and paid by the temp agency that Metro regularly uses. There is never a guarantee that a temp employee will be permanently hired. So again, I fail to see how Mr. Saad can threat legal action for not being given the position. 

Other concerns include the settlement amount, which is supposed to be based in part of paying out lost compensation, something that is impossible to determine from the attached contract under which  Mr. Saad was being paid as a temp (at least to me), and the fact that Metro legal pretty immediately agreed to settle instead of truly investigating and litigating the complaint, which I fear could lead to others  to simply threaten Metro with legal action in hopes of getting a settlement without having to go to trial. 

Finally, even if settling is, in fact, the correct course of action, I believe the $150,000 settlement amount is too high. I am still gathering information, but my sense is that in comparison to other settlements Metro has made, including with Daniel Singh, Mr. Saad would be receiving an amount out of proportion to other settlements. I believe if Metro settles, the amount should be no more than $50,000.

Thoughts?

Here is a link to Mr. Saad's complaint.

Here are links to the Goodson Contract: Part 1; Part 2

Documents discussed in this topic can be found at this link: RS2024-708 - Jonathan Saad Settlement

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Burkley Allen regarding the Non-profit Funding Process Working Group of the Budget & Finance Committee. 

From CM Allen: 

The non-profit process committee seeks to clarify and streamline the budget process for non-profits to receive Metro funding, aligning the direct appropriations and community partnership fund request process in a transparent and equitable application and selection process.  This would rely on department expertise to evaluate what Metro functions can be augmented or better performed by non-profits.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Sheri Weiner regarding Ordinance No. BL2024-469. 

From CM Weiner:

I appreciate CM Preptit for bringing to our attention the need for protections against hate groups.

I would hope that no one objects to the basic premise of the proposed ordinance that any Metro employee’s participation in hate groups and/or paramilitary gangs has zero place in our society anytime, anyplace and for any reason and that such engagement is considered discriminatory and unfair to the constituents of Davidson County.

We do our best to present legislation that is comprehensive and  doesn’t require future band-aids to fix things we didn’t address.  Think how many times we had to go back and fix STR legislation and now are dealing with some tweaks to Public Comment rules thanks to CM Suara.  

That said, I have a slew of questions about CM Preptit’s bill:

1. What happens if, in the age of Artificial Intelligence, someone decides to create an alternate website, social media profile, and/or posts or reports videos that depict anyone of us in this room or, for that matter any of our metro employees, board and commission members in a way that is not true…setting anyone of them up for false accusation?  We have not yet addressed the impact and/or management of AI in either proposed ordinance.
2. What happens if this occurs before a procedure is in place for managing those bad actors who have really violated the scope of either of these proposed ordinances?  
3. What’s the remedy in the event that a violation occurred?
4. Why do we need to move this forward now and, instead, take the time to work collaboratively on a deeper dive so we don’t do this wrong or incomplete?

To that end, I think a two-meeting deferral of BL2024-469 is appropriate so that we and Metro legal can focus on the questions being asked and make sure we have a product that addresses the issue without going too far afield and running counter to state or federal laws.  I would hate to build something that ensnares the innocent while not comprehensively managing the bad actors in a meaningful way.  

Thanks, y’all.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Kyonzte Toombs. 

From CM Toombs:

During the group's last meeting, we discussed creating questions for departments, so that those departments could explain how they spent salary savings.  Well, until we get more data from Finance, we really don't know how much money was spent so that we can ask pointed questions, and we don't know of which departments we want to ask questions.  So, I think we should wait until our next meeting on the 18th, get the data from Finance, discuss it, and then create our list of departments along with questions.  Thoughts?

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Joy Styles. 

From CM Styles:

The Arts, Parks, Libraries and Entertainment Committee had General Services Director Gerald Smith present their needs on September 3^rd and he will be completing his presentation on the 17th. He was asked to bring a deferred fleet maintenance list of all department needs that fall under General Services, but he has informed us that our fleet vehicle maintenance program needs to be properly assessed. He shared that he performed this same work in his previous job and it cost between $600-700k to have a third party pull the data together and it was completed in over nine months. 

Director Smith also shared that many of the vehicles that we have heard about being out of commission, are not the result of sudden breakdowns, but rather a failure to complete regular maintenance in a timely manner. Once the vehicles are outside of the needed maintenance window, they often become beyond repair and new vehicles are needed. There is a platform that he would like to purchase called Telematics that would alert staff to needed maintenance for the whole fleet. via computer. This would cut back on having so many inoperable vehicles at one time. 

He is also asking to upgrade the sound and voting system at Howard School.

Be on the lookout for these capital requests. Thank you!

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Quin Evans Segall. 

From CM Evans Segall:

We have a few policy updates coming out of T&P that I’m getting questions about. I’ll be posting those here. Please also let me know if there is anything else related to T&P that would be helpful to post or that anyone wants to discuss!

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Joy Styles. 

From CM Styles:

After a brief hiatus, Pet Policy Working Group has come back together to resume conversations about pet policy and improvements to MACC. In this chat, we will post notes from our conversation on August 26th about the audit performed on MACC and plans to move forward ahead of our next community meeting.  

Documents discussed in this topic can be found at this link: Pet Policy Working Group  

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Emily Benedict to discuss Ordinance No. BL2024-515. 

From CM Benedict:

Colleagues, this bill would change the zoning table for one- and two-family zoning to be allowed without conditional approval. Importantly, this bill does not change any parcels to two-family zoning if they currently do not allow two-family zoning. In other words, all of the zoning codes that would be updated through this bill already allow two-family zoning. RS zoned parcels would not have been impacted by this bill.

Some context: in 1984, a new designation “RS” zoning was established, which created single-family home zoning only. At the same time, new rules were created for R zoning, which placed conditions on duplexes for newly-subdivided lots. 

The unintended consequence of the 1984 rule is that the Zoning Department has to review every permit for nearly every parcel where an owner seeks to construct a duplex. This review was fairly straightforward in 1984, but the types of development have changed now with much more infill of existing neighborhoods. Because parcels have often been subdivided and reconfigured, duplex eligibility is not as simple as pre-1984 vs. post-1984. It is customary for owners to request a determination letter for every lot before building on it to ensure they are compliant. This letter requires an inordinate amount of staff time and resources, even though nearly all parcels that have permits applied for end up being issued today.

That departmental process is very time-consuming, and often Zoning has to go to the city archives to find a paper copy - if they can - of the plat to make their determination. This is costly and time consuming for a department that is already spread thin. This mainly slows down the permitting timeline, something that the State and the Federal Government have been trying to speed up. This bill would remove the conditional approval to free up staff time and resources. Since 1984, we have developed many new zoning tools that make this rule obsolete. This was the impetus for the filing of the bill. Nothing more.

My original plan with the bill was to have a public hearing at the Planning Commission with then a month deferral so the Planning Department could review the bill to see if there were any unintended consequences, and then the bill would go back to the MPC for consideration. If passed there, then it would have been on the Council agenda two months from now. The goal is to make good legislation that helps our departments while also maintaining the integrity of our zoning code.

In thinking through this bill, I think it’s premature because Planning is already working on a citywide study that hopefully will include this update. The Zoning Administrator was enthusiastic that I wanted to look at this due to the challenge the current zoning provisions present his department. I will work with him prior to taking any legislative action to see what we can do to limit that burden on his team. I’m hopeful at some point we can pass a provision that will streamline our processes while maintaining the integrity of our Community Plan.

Thank you,

Emily Benedict