General Forum, 2023-2027 Term

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Zulfat Suara in response to a CouncilConnect post regarding reforms to the budget process and Metro Nashville Public Schools.

From CM Suara:

CM Webb. Thank you for raising these ideas. I fully support efforts that promote transparency and accountability in our public institutions. At the same time, it is important that our discussions are grounded in a clear understanding of what oversight mechanisms already exist, what authority the Council has under state law, and where there is room for improvement.

To provide clarity, I have organized my response into three sections:

1. Oversight measures that already exist
2. Actions the Council cannot take under current law
3. Opportunities for additional oversight and engagement

1. Oversight Measures Already in Place

Annual Audits

MNPS already undergoes an annual independent audit as part of the Metro Government audit conducted by Crosslin, which is submitted to the State Comptroller. Metro Internal Audit has also conducted program audits of MNPS in the past. If there are specific areas of concern, any Councilmember may request a targeted audit through Metro Internal Audit.

Monthly and Quarterly Financial Reporting

MNPS provides monthly financial reports to the Council. These are distributed by Maria Caulder, and the most recent report was sent on January 7. Like Metro’s own financials, these reports often lag by a few months because they rely on state data.

Public Access to Budget Information

MNPS publishes its operating and capital budgets online at:

https://www.mnps.org/departments/budgets

2. Actions the Council Cannot Take

Attaching Conditions to Budget Approval

State law limits our ability to condition or reduce MNPS funding. Tennessee’s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement (T.C.A. § 49‑3‑314) mandates that local governments fund schools at least at the prior year’s level. This prevents the Council from reducing or conditioning MNPS funding based on performance metrics or other criteria.

Because the state has reduced its share of funding over time, Metro has had to increase its contribution to maintain compliance. I discuss this in more detail on my blog, which includes analyses of MNPS budgets over the past five years: https://zulfatsuara.com/blog/

Mandating Council Votes on MNPS Expenditures:

The authority to approve MNPS expenditures rests with the MNPS Board, not the Council. We cannot require votes on spending above certain thresholds.

3. Opportunities for Additional Oversight

Reestablishing Regular Committee Engagement

Metro previously had an Education Committee, which I chaired. During that time, we held regular meetings with MNPS leadership to review expenditures and discuss budget variances. Although the committee is now part of Budget & Finance, it would be reasonable to schedule quarterly MNPS budget discussions—either with the full committee or a working subgroup.

A real-time spending dashboard is a reasonable idea. Metro Finance recently implemented one, and MNPS could consider adopting a similar tool.

Information Requests: 

Councilmembers may request information from MNPS at any time, and MNPS has historically been responsive.

Community Engagement: Residents 

Can attend MNPS Board meetings and communicate directly with their elected school board representatives.

Additional Context

MNPS student performance has improved in recent years, and I encourage reviewing their achievement data. Many of the challenges MNPS faces stem from state-level decisions, including the voucher program and the state’s funding formula. Currently, the state funds MNPS at a 25/75 ratio—Metro pays 75% while the state pays 25%. In contrast, the state funds some other districts at a 75/25 ratio.

Conclusion

While I appreciate the call for increased transparency, the creation of a new oversight committee is neither necessary nor permissible under current law. Much of what you propose already exists, and where improvements are possible, we can pursue them within the authority granted to the Council.

If deeper involvement in school governance is the goal, the most direct path is through service on the MNPS Board.

I am happy to provide additional information or discuss any of these points further. My blog includes several years of budget analysis that may be helpful for understanding both MNPS and Metro’s broader financial structure.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Jennifer Webb regarding reforms to the budget process and Metro Nashville Public Schools.

From CM Webb:

I want to create oversight of the public school system. (I know there are state laws involved here.)

I want to establish a committee with council members, independent auditors, and community reps to review school expenditures.

Regular audit reports - require annual independent audits to the council before budget system (auditor chosen by committee).

Council can investigate any expenditure exceeding thresholds and request justification from MNPS.

Why can’t we do a charter amendment?

Ideas:

***I am advocating a state level for city councils more oversight on their budgets.

***I want a DETAILED by line financials submitted to council monthly.

***I think we need to attach conditions to budget approval

• Student performance metrics
• Facility standards
• Staff to student ratio

***Require council approval before capital funds are allocated

***Require dashboard for MNPS to track spending by department in real time

***Council should pass resolution requiring MNPS to submit quarterly expenditure reports

***Mandate a vote for expenditures over a certain amount.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Tasha Ellis regarding a proposed resolution relative to NES oversight and public notice .

From CM Ellis:

RESOLUTION SUMMARY

Sponsor: Council Member Tasha Ellis (District 29)

Subject: A Resolution calling for Council oversight of Nashville Electric Service's response to the January 2026 ice storm

Summary: This resolution requests a Special Meeting of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee within fourteen days to conduct an oversight hearing on NES's storm response. The resolution requests that NES President and CEO Teresa Broyles-Aplin, Chief Operations Officer Brent Baker, and the Chair of the Electric Power Board appear before the Committee to provide testimony regarding:

• Pre-storm staffing levels and emergency preparedness planning
• Mutual aid request timeline and decisions regarding contractor assistance
• Communication failures including the delayed outage tracking tool and inability to provide restoration timelines
• Restoration prioritization methodology, including treatment of Critical Care Referral Program customers
• The decision not to dedicate crews to single-customer outages and simple reconnects

The resolution further requests that NES commission and fund an independent third-party after-action review to be completed within ninety days, establishes quarterly reporting requirements to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and requests an immediate written report on current outage status, Critical Care customers affected, and mutual aid crew disposition.

Emergency Basis: More than 51,000 NES customers remain without power seven days after the storm, with dangerous cold forecast for this weekend and no restoration timelines provided.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Quin Evans Segall regarding a special called meeting of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

From CM Evans Segall:

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Emily Benedict regarding the reappointment of Campbell West to the Metropolitan Arts Commission.

From CM Benedict:

The Mayor’s office has nominated Campbell West to be reappointed to the Arts Commission. Ms. West is a District 7 resident, and has been very involved in the community, especially Nashville’s art community. 

Ms. West is the current Chair of the Commission, as confirmed unanimously by her fellow Commissioners. She is the longest serving member of the Arts Commission. She has institutional knowledge that the new members have found beneficial, all of whom have been on the Commission for less than two years. While we have, importantly, changed the structure and membership of this Commission, having someone on the Commission who helped create the needed change has been to artists’ benefit, especially smaller art organizations and artists directly. 

We are receiving emails of opposition to her reappointment. For that reason, I wanted to share information with you that I have gathered from Arts Commission Interim Director Ashley Bachelder, as well as my own take on her work. The points raised in those form emails fall under a couple of categories: 1) either patently false or misleading, and 2) decisions made by the entire Commission, not made solely by Ms. West.

I encourage you to watch her interview with the Rules Committee from the December 16 meeting which you can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/live/AR-oRHBKkgQ?si=vrqp34dTnfwd_fxK&t=2194

On to the content of the emails of opposition we have received:

1. She is the last defunder from August 2023 on the Arts Commission; Patently false. This has been discussed at length and resolved in the 2.5 years since 2023, but of note, Campbell West was not even present at the August 2023 meeting.
2. She seconded Tim Jester’s motion in April 2024 to fire Daniel Singh while he was on FMLA; Misleading. As we know, seconding is a matter of procedure for deliberating. All of us frequently second a motion for discussion, and then vote against the agenda item. However, I do not believe this motion was even voted on at that meeting; but discussing personnel issues is not appropriate nor relevant to this reappointment.

3. She supported the removal of an equity worker in June 2024, resulting in a department without a leader and no grants coming out on time in FY25; Misleading. HR decisions are made by the entire Commission. Ms. West was not Chair during the period of extended delays where no grant related activities occurred from March to November 2024. Further, when she became Chair in November 2024, things began happening and steps were taken that resulted in the grant process moving again. 

4. She believed Metro Legal and Metro Finance’s definitions that “Thrive is illegal,” and so approved mandatory fiscal sponsorship, despite public outcry and 108 artists signing against the policy in December 2024; Misleading. This was a unanimous Commission decision. It has been approved twice now, and twice by the Council.
5. She denied local artists’ appeals for the debacle that was FY25; Patently false. Grants were approved by full Commission. The operational breakdown and delays of the FY25 cycle have been discussed at length and no single Commissioner is responsible for them.  

6. She allowed massive changes to Thrive ONLY (not to General Operating) in summer 2025, ignoring community feedback; Patently false. All fiscal work was unanimously approved by Commission twice, and also approved by Council twice.

7. She supported defunding 73 eligible Thrive artists in order to fund art monopolies; Patently false. The Commission (including Chair West) has allocated the highest percentage of the total grant budget to the Thrive program for two cycles in a row, and they are funding 86 Thrive projects this cycle.

8. She is complicit in obscuring meetings that affect the community, with the sudden stop of live broadcasts and accurate meeting agendas; Patently false. The Commission meetings are broadcast and recorded. Metro ITS and MNN discontinued streaming of committee meetings months ago for all departments’ committee meetings. The Arts Commission did not request this change, and Ms. West clearly had no part in MNN’s systemwide change.

9. She supported the dissolution of CARE (Committee on Anti-Racism and Equity) against public outcry; Misleading. This was a unanimous Commission decision.

10. She has not been able to increase Metro Arts’ funding budget in two fiscal years due to inequitable practices. Misleading. Funding is not a function of the Chair of the Commission, but rather the function of the Council’s budget ordinance, therefore this is not relevant and not attributable to a Commissioner.

One other item mentioned is that a complaint has been filed against Metro Arts. In the December MHRC Commission meeting, Director Tucker stated that they received an inquiry from the Arts Equity group, and went on to tell the Commissioners there is nothing for them to review, also noting that “95% of complaints are not actually complaints.” I’d encourage you to engage with Director Tucker for any questions regarding this.

Sometimes appointments to Boards and Commissions are met with opposition. Sometimes that is clearer than others. I hope this information provides clarity to her service and reasons for reappointment consideration.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Sheri Weiner regarding The Boring Company's response to RS2025-1712.

From CM Weiner:

Colleagues, 

Please see here an email string between David Buss, The Boring Company CEO, and me.  This is the entire string – read from the bottom up:

1. his email to Council
2. my email reply to him
3. his response to me

I’d like to share these emails, as I think it will be helpful as we wrap our heads around the potential impact of their tunnel(s).  As I converse with him, I intend to ask him (and I know I’m not the first to ask) to come to Nashville and engage us face to face answering these questions (but I also want them in writing).

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Ginny Welsch regarding BL2025-1006, regarding height restrictions.

From CM Welsch:

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Tasha Ellis regarding a request for information from MTA and a requested deferral for Resolution No. RS2025-1663.

From CM Ellis:

I am requesting a deferral of RS2025-1663, which appropriates $8 million to the Metropolitan Transit Authority for the purchase of replacement buses, bus chassis, and paratransit vehicles.

I want to be clear: I am not opposed to ensuring MTA has the vehicles it needs to serve our community. However, I believe this appropriation presents an opportunity for the Council to exercise thoughtful oversight given the significant changes underway at our transit authority.

Why I'm requesting this deferral:

With the passage of the Choose How You Move referendum, MTA is entering a new chapter. For the first time, our transit system has dedicated funding. This fundamentally changes how MTA should be planning, budgeting, and operating.

Before we continue moving money under the old model, I believe it's prudent to pause and ask some basic questions:

• What is the current state of MTA's fleet, and what is their replacement strategy?
• How are Choose How You Move revenues being integrated into capital planning?
• Does this $8 million request align with a comprehensive plan, or is it a one-off ask?

What I'm requesting from MTA:

Before this resolution moves forward, I am asking MTA to provide the Council with the following information:

1. A current fleet inventory and condition assessment, including the age, mileage, and maintenance status of all revenue vehicles
2. A detailed fleet replacement schedule and procurement plan for Fiscal Years 2025 through 2030
3. An accounting of all revenues received or anticipated from the Choose How You Move program and how such revenues are being integrated into capital and operating budgets
4. An explanation of how this requested appropriation aligns with the transit authority's updated capital plan in light of dedicated transit funding now available

If this information is not provided in a timely manner, I intend to file a resolution requesting the Metropolitan Auditor conduct a financial and operational audit of MTA.

This is about good governance, not obstruction.

We are about to enter a new era of transit investment in Nashville. Council should have a clear picture of where MTA stands before we continue appropriating funds piecemeal. This deferral gives MTA the opportunity to demonstrate transparency and alignment with the new funding reality.

I welcome input from colleagues. If you have additional questions you believe should be included in this request, or relevant context I should consider, please reach out.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Joy Styles regarding Resolution No. RS2025-1655, relative to the Department of Emergency Communications.

From CM Styles:

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Jacob Kupin regarding Resolution No. RS2025-1659, relative to a proposed Downtown Public Safety Grant and MOU.

From CM Kupin:

1. When was this first discussed and who have been involved in these conversations?
2. Is this the application for the grant or the acceptance of funds?
3. Will the spending of funds allocated to Metro be subject to council approval?
4. What if any oversight does the council have over the money granted to the BID (and NDP)?
5. Without this MOU, will NDP still get these funds? Or is the MOU a requirement of the state grant?