Analysis: Don’t expect Jameson to leave Council quietly

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 12:58pm

The scene had the feel of a rock star working the rope line after a three-hour concert for adoring fans.

It was the morning of the Tomato Art Fest 5K run in East Nashville, and Mike Jameson was making his way through a crowd of constituents to a chorus of, “Atta boy Mike!” and “Give ‘em hell Councilman!”

Just days before Jameson appeared on a NewsChannel5 investigative report and, with appropriate gall and the expected eloquence, blasted the Metro Development and Housing Agency, which is under the direction of an old family friend, in addition to Nashville’s most powerful public relations firm and, oh yeah, the Mayor Karl Dean administration.

It was appropriate that Jameson received the affirmations just minutes before a race in East Nashville, because in his own words, the second-term District 6 Metro Councilman is sprinting “to the finish line” of his own political career.

Come 2011, Jameson will be finished with politics, he says, content to return to his family and his law practice.

Jameson, whose dream job was to be a judge like his grandfather, who maintains unparalleled popularity in Nashville’s most civically engaged district and who possesses as much political sway as anyone on Council, is reportedly ready to sail off into the East Nashville sunset.

But before he does?

“I’m gonna sprint to the finish line,” Jameson said. “I’m gonna try to make the last two years productive and look back on this period with pride.”

No. 1 antagonist

Jameson’s retirement from politics bears mentioning, because his critics believe his outspoken criticisms of Dean have come across as grandstanding. Jameson claims he’s even had to tell political insiders, to their utter skepticism, that he is not going to run for mayor in two years.

The fact he’s taken on the role of Dean’s No. 1 antagonist comes as a surprise to Jameson himself, since not long after the 2007 inauguration, he was quoted as calling the new administration a “breath of fresh air.”

But then came Planner Gate, where Jameson accused the administration (although not Dean himself) of attempting to fire Metro Planning Department staffer David Kleinfelter. During an intensely awkward Planning Department budget hearing with Council, Jameson interrogated the outmatched Planning Director Rick Bernhardt about why Kleinfelter’s job was suddenly in jeopardy.

The insinuation — never fully proved beyond a shadow of a doubt — was that Kleinfelter had rubbed the wrong developer the wrong way and would be paying for it with his job thanks to Dean’s top aides.

In truth, Jameson wasn’t interested in proving anything when he questioned Bernhardt. He was merely using his bully pulpit to put the story in the news, which worked, and kept Kleinfelter safe until he took a job in the private sector late last year.

If the developer and administration were playing politics to get rid of Kleinfelter, a pro-neighborhood planner with poor bedside manners at times, then Jameson was playing the same game only with the intention of saving the job of his old college roommate.

Jameson claims it was the subterfuge and the fact Kleinfelter seemed to be losing his job for no reason that motivated him to bring the situation public. But those close to the Dean administration say Jameson easily could have handled the situation behind closed doors and without the media’s involvement.

Putting up a river front

Cemented in the Dean doghouse, Jameson mostly stayed quiet until March, when he claims he got wind of the administration’s intentions to alter the long-planned redevelopment of the Nashville riverfront. East Nashville had made it clear that before anything else, it wanted a public park on the river. The first phase of redevelopment, approved during the Mayor Bill Purcell administration and with significant public input, called for an adventure water park on the river.

But according to Jameson, Dean was ready to scrap everything and begin redevelopment by focusing on the downtown side of the river — the side closer to the proposed new convention center, Jameson pointed out.

A public meeting was called in East Nashville and, with media on hand and cameras rolling, Jameson warned the crowd that if the adventure park wasn’t installed in phase one of redevelopment, then it was never going to become a reality. The community reacted, quite angrily, and lo and behold, Dean included the adventure water park in his first capital spending plan.

In between the March public meeting and August, Jameson was sufficiently on the outs with the Dean administration. But that was nothing new or out of the ordinary. Council members have aggravated every mayor in Metro government’s history and they’ve paid the price for it. Metro departments respond a little slower to district concerns, if they respond at all. Questions get answered less frequently.

The Dean administration probably isn’t going to ask Jameson for political help on big issues the way it might ask Council members like Jim Forkum, Ronnie Steine or Erik Cole.

But then came the fiasco surrounding invoices turned in by PR firm McNeely, Pigott & Fox, and there was Jameson leading the rather small chorus of outraged Council members. The invoices totaled $458,000 for a contract, managed by MDHA, originally capped at $75,000.

During Metro Council announcements on Aug. 6, Jameson called for an independent audit and public answers to questions about the invoices. Without ever giving Jameson credit, the administration responded by calling for an independent audit on the same day McNeely, Pigott & Fox resigned from the communications contract for the convention center project.

Dean’s office also moved to switch control of the project from MDHA to a new volunteer citizen board. Jameson, along with partner in crime Councilwoman Emily Evans and consistent irritant Councilman Eric Crafton, battered the administration in the media.

Jameson said Dean was fast-tracking the creation of the Convention Center Authority as a Band-aid to a problem that needed a more nuanced approach. Jameson had questions he wanted answered from the administration as to why the authority needed to be created so quickly.

Instead of e-mailing his questions, Jameson called out Finance Director Rich Riebeling during the Council convention, tourism and public facilities committee meeting on Aug. 18. Jameson used a sparsely used procedural rule to force Council to re-consider the legislation authorizing the creation of the authority. And in between he badgered the Dean administration with Council floor speeches and media comments.

Flair for the dramatic?

In off-the-record conversations, Dean supporters and staffers question Jameson’s motives. They speculate his desire for a higher office, perhaps a run for a circuit court judgeship, and they loathe his flair for the dramatic.

As one Council member, who has sided with both Jameson and the administration on different issues puts it, “Mike’s style doesn’t lend itself to helping the cause along.”

Issues with style aside, Jameson is adamant that his public stances on policy issues are not designed to help himself along politically in the future. Jameson’s take-home pay is 25 percent of what it was before he was elected to Council in 2003 and he maintains a romantic view on the value of term limits.

“I like the idea of serving eight years, giving everything you’ve got, and then stepping aside so some new blood can come in,” Jameson said. “It would be audacious of me, living in this district, to say, ‘I’m the best there is, there’s nobody better than me.’”

And for the East Nashville residents who gave their Councilman high-fives before the Tomato Art Fest run, they can rest assured Jameson isn’t going to turn sheepish his last two years in office.

“I never thought about this office ever until a year before running for it,” Jameson said. “and it’s opened the door to a brand new realm you can actually do some good occasionally, and expand your horizons and better your neighborhood. But it’s amazing how few people ever believe anybody when they say, ‘I’m not going to do it any more.’

“I ain’t running for anything. I just want to do a good job with the time I have.”

 

9 Comments on this post:

By: govskeptic on 8/27/09 at 9:30

Jameson is -Right on - concerning the MCC and the Riverfront
Redevelopment. The Mayor sold out the taxpayers of Davidson
County before the election by promises to the Downtown Partnership and others for support of the MCC. Changes to the long planned Riverfront Development are being scrapped to also work for the MCC and their wishes for the area. Caution-expensive failure looming.

By: Time for Truth on 8/27/09 at 10:22

All those accolades and high fives at the Tomato Festival are indicative of the level of support for the MCC.

Erik Cole should note that support for the MCC just to the north of East Nashville is similarly very low.

Those who work in the hospitality industry or who stand to make a fast buck off of this turkey are the only real supporters.

By: Time for Truth on 8/27/09 at 10:25

I will take Jameson at his word but wish he would stay in the game. All the good ones on council leave politics and the bad ones just never seem to go away. I was amused by Nate's reference to Eric Crafton as a "consistent (sic) irritant".

By: producer2 on 8/27/09 at 1:29

I would check with the Councilman before I said the phrase "against the MCC" I do not want to put words in his mouth but the way he explained his stance to me was he was opposed to the current process but would be for the facility if the finance package made sense. Maybe I misunderstood what he said but i am pretty sure he never said he was totally against the MCC.

By: producer2 on 8/27/09 at 4:02

thought you might find this interesting reading:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081909dnmetbondsale.41c1406.html

especially you JeffF

By: JeffF on 8/27/09 at 5:09

Dude I posted this same story 2 days ago.

Nashville will not have the luxury of this bond sell. Those Build America bonds are the ONLY reason this debt moved forward. There are hundreds of bond sells on hold because of the interest rates.

Sadly, the revenue streams in place here would not meet the annual obligation even with zero interest rates. We would have to enter the land of the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny to sell negative interest rate bonds in order to meet obligations. Then there is the paying for operational losses with these same revenue stream (see St Louis) or bond proceeds (see Baltimore). And of course Gaylord gets it share as hush money. And the various museums still need to receive their cut so they do not go on the direct taxpayer dole.

Even forming an "Authority" may not protect the center from hearing from the general public. I would bet that the moment Metro pledges to the "Authority" to cover deficiencies in the revenue stream that it will be enough to stage a petition for referendum. A direct pledge or indirect pledge may be carried to court. Does Dean want to risk hearing from the citizens that badly?

Newsflash from February 2010:
City officials regretfully will have to shelve the center project until the economy turns around. "There is just no way we can get this built by 2013" said an inside official in the shadow government. When contacted by NewsChannel5, the planner for one of the meetings that was due to be on e of the first meetings in the new center said "Don't matter to us, we can use the current center just as well as the new one. We were just asked to put our name on the new center so it would get built. The current center can hold a meeting well in excess of 10,000 people." Officials replied "no comment" to questions on why the meetings booked for the new building were well below the limits for the existing building.

MCC supporters have not booked one meeting that the current centers (downtown or Gaylord) and areas hotels are incapable of hosting. Not one. Dallas officials got caught in this lie before their election. Hotel supporters told everyone that several large booking would not come without the new hotel. When contacted by a single reporter with the Morning News, each of the meeting organizers said that the hotel had zero bearing on the booking and that they would come with or without the facility. That claim was not used in debates again.

Supporters will tell us that now is the time to build while the decline is happening. Of course that same now was first used 4-5 years ago as well when we had to build because the industry was leaving us behind. Soooooo it is a good time to build during bad times and good times? http://tinyurl.com/nn9m8m

Luckily as the last decade and a half has shown, good times in this industry have been gone for a long, long time. GWB was president I believe.

By: producer2 on 8/28/09 at 5:04

"MCC supporters have not booked one meeting that the current centers (downtown or Gaylord) and areas hotels are incapable of hosting. Not one."

This statement alone makes everything you say less than credible. All of the meetings booked for the MCC had every opportunity to go to Gaylord if they wished. They did not. Did you ever stop to think that maybe many of these groups have no interest in that property? Or that many might need more than the 250,000 square feet that Gaylord has? No you didn't because you don't think you just make things up in order to support your cause. Your getting backed into a corner with all this good economic news and votes that do not go your way. It is late in the game for you and the only salvation is to try and distract and tell your own untruths about this project in hopes of derailing it.

By: govskeptic on 8/28/09 at 7:12

Maybe the reason Gaylord property wasn't used on those mentioned by producer is price. I'm sure the current marketing staff is offering some bargains to potential clients to get bookings listed to show how "needed" this new center might be. Gads---what we have to listen to.

By: producer2 on 8/28/09 at 10:27

Actually Gaylord as well as all other hotel properties get to bid simultaneously on every prospective client that is interested in holding meetings in Nashville. It is a competitive business as most businesses are and you either want the business or don't want the business. If it makes sense for your business model then you go after it. Some of the groups however did need more space than was available at Gaylord. The CVB is only responsible for lead generation and does not close deals for the hotels. Each hotel must do that on their own.

I am not anti-Gaylord, they have been a phenomenal reason why there has been huge growth in the meetings industry in Nashville. But they do have a specific business model that either works for potential clients or it does not. There has been a huge need for an additional property in Nashville for years. Because of a former agreement with Gaylord the City was unable to expand or build a new facility. That time frame no longer exists and while I am sure many folks in the Gaylord organization would like to be the only game in town, that is not the most healthy scenario for a growing industry which despite all the rhetoric on these boards, is true of the tourism industry in Nashville (sans the last 16 months)