Pickler Makes the Washington Post

Former Chairman of the (1.0 version of the) Shelby County School Board, current District Five School Board Commissioner, and newly-installed President of the National School Board Association David Pickler wrote a piece for the Washington Post last month.  In an article called "What's Wrong with School 'Choice'?  Here's what", Commissioner Pickler takes a strong stand against school vouchers.

Do we remember the competing voucher bills in the Tennessee legislature?  Back when our very own Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) kept trying to expand the governor's proposed voucher program to folks with higher incomes?  Back when he became Exhibit A of the supermajority's inability to parlay their elective success into actual governance?  Back then, we learned that Republicans, even when they can't agree on how such a program should look (or just how much money should be transferred to religious schools), support vouchers.

That the various voucher programs keep getting declared unconstitutional, as they have in Louisiana and in a new iteration in New Hampshire, is irrelevant.  But Republicans generally have adopted vouchers as a legislative priority, and a fair number of Democrats also support voucher programs.  They have a number of euphemisms for the concept:  "school choice", "opportunity scholarships", "subsidizing religious schools with low endowments who need a quick way to increase enrollment."

Dems have been dealing with internal disagreements over education reform issues for quite some time - after all, Michelle Rhee claims to be a Democrat, and we've seen a rise in astro-turf-not-quite-grass-roots groups like Democrats for Education Reform trying to take root on college campuses.  Maybe some internal disagreements on education reform issues exist among Republicans as well.  I can't speak for Commissioner Pickler (and hey, he might not want me to), but my best guess is that he is a Republican.  Interesting.

Commissioner Pickler's Washington Post piece is good stuff.  Though it was published after the heat of the state legislature's debacle, and focused more on the national debate than the vagaries of the proposals in Tennessee, the piece is chock full of actual argument instead of fluffy talking points.

Some of the lines that "resonated" with me (that's consultant-speak for "stuff I liked"):

• "Imagine a state outsourcing the education of its disadvantaged children to dozens of private entities, asking for only minimal updates on the students’ learning and their financial management of taxpayers’ dollars."
• "This ill-devised [Louisiana] law—which was designed as a template for other states—was driven primarily by outside forces that want to make big profits on the backs of our nation’s most vulnerable children."
• "The Louisiana voucher law gives up most accountability for school finances or student achievement when it hands over the taxpayers’ check. The schools that take fewer than 40 voucher students are not even required to show any data for their students’ learning. These schools are not required to hire certified teachers or teach the skills students need for higher education and the workplace in the 21^st century."

Good job, Commissioner Pickler.

Commissioner Pickler Did the Right Thing

Commissioner David Pickler has found himself under an ethics cloud since mid-December.  His colleague, Commissioner Martavius Jones brought the allegations at a Board meeting in a surprise resolution.  I've done some thinking, and in the end, was not all that surprised that the Ethics Committee called off its investigation of the allegations.  Not exonerated, not investigated, and still handling funds on behalf of MCS and SCS, Commissioner Pickler was not quite out from under that ethics cloud.

I'm relieved that Commissioner Pickler has now taken affirmative steps to remove even the appearance of impropriety.  Elected officials that do business with the bodies on which they sit should always face increased scrutiny and abide by high standards of disclosure and transparency. 

Without checking the budget myself, I believe Commissioner Pickler and SCS General Counsel Valerie Speakman when they say that the nature of the $12 million investment and its inclusion in the budget approved in June 2012 did not have enough information attached to it to indicate to Commissioner Pickler that his firm or employees would benefit from the investment.  All of that said, I believe that as an elected public offical, at the point that Commissioner Pickler understood from his position as the head of a wealth management firm, that the firm was managing a large investment initiated by a government body of which he as a Board member, he had a duty to investigate his involvement in the investment.  Specifically, he should have investigated how the investment originated, and then reviewed whether or not he voted in favor of the investment.  Had he done that kind of investigation, he would have discovered that, in fact, he had voted in favor of the investment.  Commissioner Pickler's next action should have been to satisfy his to duty to disclose the conflict of interest, and advise the Shelby County School Board of the situation.  I hold public officials to a high standard, and regardless of what the written rules are, there are just minimum standards of conduct by which public and elected officials should abide.  Pie in the sky, no?

Commissioner Pickler has now corrected the situation as best he can, give the timeline of events.  Michael Kelley reports that Commissioner Pickler will no longer manage Tennessee School Board Association investments associated with MCS or SCS:  "Pickler, who owns Pickler Wealth Advisers, has been the broker for the TSBA fund for several years, but he said he turned the account over to an employee whose commissions were not shared with him.
     The TSBA last Tuesday accepted Pickler’s offer to withdraw his firm completely from any involvement with funds contributed by either MCS or Shelby County Schools."

The buffering from the live online broadcast of the Board meeting last night was abysmal, but I gathered that Commissioner Pickler stated that he also offered to resign from his position at the Tennessee School Board Association, and that the offer was rejected.

Commissioner Pickler's withdrawal of his firm as an investment manager for any MCS and SCS funds is appropriate, and will erase any appearance of impropriety going forward related to Commissioner Pickler's ability to vote in favor of local district investments in TSBA's trusts.  That the TSBA has determined that it has no problem regarding doing business with one of its members and officers is not my concern.

Some further assessment of the accounts that were opened last summer will be necessary, in order to determine that the MCS investment is not assessed two separate annual fees due to the transfer of accounts to another wealth management group.  Either the receiving wealth managers should waive the initial fees or first set of annual fees to which they may be entitled, or Pickler Wealth Management should refund the fees that it collected.  Under no circumstances should the change in the investment managers result in any duplicative fees or debits to the initial MCS investment.  Given the scrutiny on these accounts, we can expect that Board Chair Billy Orgel and the MCS finance folks will be double-checking to make sure that the MCS investment proceeds in a fair and orderly manner.

Ethics Investigation Called Off

The ethics committee investigation into allegations against Shelby County School Board Commissioner David Pickler made by Martavius Jones has completed its work.  Here's an article, but the headline doesn't exactly match the contents of the article.

Commissioner Pickler has taken the opportunity to claim that he has been "exonerated", and to carefully not comment on any action he might pursue against Commissioner Jones.  Commissioner Pickler believes that his business and his family have been affected by the allegations.  This information might match the headline "Panel in Memphis Clears School Board Member of Ethics Charge."

In fact, the committee declined to investigate the allegations against Commissioner Pickler because "it has neither the evidence nor the power to investigate the accusations."  It sounds like the committee needed some more information about the allegations but did not have the power (or ability) to get that information.  No ability to subpoena records or take sworn testimony likely posed a problem.  The chair of the committee explained that the committee's recommendation is to revise the policy - ostensibly, so that a future committee could complete an investigation.

This is a good news/bad news situation for Commissioner Pickler.  "Committee member David Reaves and school board attorney Valerie Speakman noted that Pickler had carefully disclosed his brokerage connections in business with Shelby County Schools. Speakman also noted that Pickler could not have been expected to disclose in this case because there wasn't a way for him to know what the expense was when the budget was presented to the board last June."  This is good for Commissioner Pickler:  in the past, he "carefully disclosed" the conflict of interest.  The SCS General Counsel squarely supports Commissioner Pickler when she says that the investment as itemized in the budget approved in June would not have reasonably indicated to Commissioner Pickler that the investment would end up with his firm, or that he should disclose his conflict of interest.  All fair, and it resolves some of the concerns that I've raised in previous posts.

The bad news for Commissioner Pickler is that the Committee was not able to get to the actual allegations and issue an opinion one way or the other.  Two of the three members of the committee pretty clearly thought there was some smoke, but didn't get to investigate whether there was fire.

But let's take Commissioner Pickler's word for it.  He's an honest guy.  He previously disclosed his business relationship with the TSBA accounts.  And he didn't know that when he voted on the budget, he was voting in favor of a $12 million investment with his firm.

This should be a major lesson for the school district and for the staff (or highly-paid consultants) who put together the budget.  The line items for expenditures, contracts, investments, whatever should be detailed enough that Board members who do business with the district, or business near the district, can reasonably determine whether their business will be affected by the budget.  This would allow Board members to appropriately disclose their conflicts of interest, and recuse themselves from any votes if necessary.

This is a different problem than Commissioners not reading the budget or the supporting information that they are provided.  It should not be up to district staff to flag conflicts for Board commissioners - each Board commissioner should be on top of their business relationships with the district (or near the district) and review the budget for any possible conflicts of interest.

Recently, Commissioner Joe Clayton raised the issue that several Board commissioners are retirees of either MCS or SCS, and therefore have a very personal financial interest in some of the TPC recommendations related to district benefits, mainly health insurance, for retirees.  He asked if recusal would be necessary.  SCS General Counsel explained that if MCS and SCS retirees were required to recuse themselves, that it is unlikely that the Board would even be able to achieve a quorum to vote on any proposals.  That's a tough situation, but at least the conflict has been publicly discussed.  We should hope that as these matters come up for votes that each Board member with a personal financial interest will explicitly disclose the conflict.

Given all of that, Commissioner Pickler still might have a problem.  Obviously, best case scenario is that you disclose your conflict of interest on the front end - prior to the vote.  But what if you didn't know you were voting in favor of your financial interest?  Does your duty to disclose expire?  Or do you have a duty to disclose the conflict of interest at the point that you become aware of the conflict of interest?  I don't know anything about wealth management, but just the name of the profession seems to imply that you're dealing with large amounts of money.  When you're in that profession, is it fair to assume that as the owner of a wealth management firm, you would be aware of a new $12 million investment?  My sense is that in this area of the country, a $12 million investment would be notable.

Certainly, in a monthly or quarterly review of the accounts, a new $12 million investment seems like it would cross the purview of the owner of the business.  It would be up to the owner to make sure that commissions and account fees are distributed appropriately to his or her employees, at the very least.  We could suppose that it would be possible that the first that Commissioner Pickler heard about the $12 million investment was in Commissioner Jones' resolution, but we should probably consider how likely that is.  It probably still matters what Commissioner Pickler knew, and when he knew it.

In an editorial, the Commercial Appeal argues for a ethics policy that would empower an ethics committee to investigate and gather information in order to investigate ethics allegations.  Well, now that we know that the current policy did not allow either to take place in this case, we can hope that the attorneys or the policy people are working on a re-write.  Now that we know, we should respond appropriately.  Because when you find out about a potential problem, you should seek to remedy it.

School Board Commissioners Gone Wild, Ignore Sunshine Laws

Shelby County School Board Chairman Billy Orgel is having trouble herding his cats, I mean, colleagues.  I've mentioned the poor behavior of some Commissioners directed to their peers, and we apparently will have no end to surprise resolutions and ethical questions.

A little over a week ago, on a Sunday afternoon, three School Board commissioners hosted a community forum at Houston High School to hear comments and concerns from parents and community members on the piecemeal budget information that was to be considered at last week's special call meeting.  Here's the write-up.  Former (old) Shelby County School Board Chair David Pickler, along with longtime colleague Commissioner Joe Clayton, and new colleague Mary Anne Gibson listened avidly to budget concerns and apparently some "outright hostility".  No harm, no foul, right?

I was interested to read about this forum because I had not heard about it.  I didn't see it on the School Board calendar, nobody mentioned it to me.  And we all know that if two or more public officials plan to be in the same room to discuss, well, anything, notice of the meeting must be published 48 hours ahead of time.

Guess I wasn't the only one with some questions.  Turns out that they didn't just not tell me, they didn't tell the rest of the School Board.  Commissioner Pickler justified the lack of public notice and notice to the Board by explaining that there was no official agenda, no official business conducted, and that the meeting had been officially announced on facebook and through word-of-mouth.  Some Commissioners are annoyed by the lack of invitation, some think it's fine and want their own separate meetings.

At the very least, we're seeing some very fundamental breakdowns in procedures and communication among Board members.  Commissioner Gibson might be able to credibly claim ignorance of state law - state law with which she is obligated to comply, and for which ignorance is no excuse.  But Commissioners Pickler and Clayton have been around for a long time.  They know better.

So what can we do?  Anybody want to file a lawsuit?

Board Members Getting on Each Other's Last Nerve

One of the really fantastic things about the current ridiculously large, dysfunctional Shelby County School Board is that it is really diverse.  You've got millionaires millionaire millionaires and retired teachers.  You've got folks who only leave their municipalities (or neighborhoods) to come to the board meetings, and folks that don't have to buy groceries because they go to so many nighttime events.  You've got earnest up-and-comers and some - well, you get the idea.

But we knew that this could not be all rainbows and sunshine, right?  Not only did we not really expect all of these folks to get along, but actually, for the purposes of good government, we don't actually want them to all agree with each other all of the time.  I'm not saying we need some more "Days of Our Lives" drama, but we should have robust discussion on these critical issues - where the real philosophical disagreements are publicly aired and pushed against each other.

When this happens, we really get to know who our publicly elected representatives are and we find out how we really feel about them.  The most important part is that we find where we agree and disagree with them on policy matters, so that we can figure out where our collective dealbreakers are, and vote accordingly.  For instance, last week we found out that Commissioner David Reaves believes that public school discipline should continue to be based on principles of the Old and New Testament.  Let's hope he hasn't read Leviticus.  And however this Martavius Jones resolution against David Pickler goes, the conversation about the nexus between public dollars and private business as it relates to Board commissioners is an important one.

We're now a year in to this Board, give or take a couple of members losing an election, and a couple of new appointments.  But we're starting to see more and more soapy moments.  I intended that as another "Young and the Restless" reference, but folks are getting themselves worked into a lather.

I've mentioned before that Commissioner Chris Caldwell can overstate his position.  During a recent discussion on employee benefits related to increasing the employee's share of the premium for both current and retired employees, Commissioner Caldwell sympathized with the district staff making the presentation who, admittedly, stood at the podium for over an hour while Commissioners discussed the efficacy of the staff proposal.  But he didn't just sympathize with them.  He thought his colleagues on the Board had engaged in public discussion of this (critical, very important) proposal for far too long.  So his proposal was that when Board commissioners disagree with the staff proposals, they should stand up for as long as it takes to discuss the proposal, just like the staff members.  Commissioner Sara Lewis, who had several questions and comments about the proposal, did not take this as a friendly suggestion.  Commissioner Lewis asked Chairman Billy Orgel if commissioners were permitted to chastise each other.  Commissioner Caldwell found himself in the awkward position the following week of feeling, upon reflection, that perhaps he had overstepped and he apologized to his colleagues.  But with that kind of proposal, it's hard to say who got on whose last nerve first.

And Commissioner Caldwell is not the only commissioner to throw some shade on Commissioner Martavius Jones with a little dramatic side comment.  At last week's meeting, Commissioner Caldwell moved to appoint MCS General Counsel Dorsey Hopson as the interim superintendent.  This took several commissioners by surprise, and Commissioner Jones moved to substitute Dr. Roderick Richmond as the interim superintendent.  As part of that discussion, Commissioner Kevin Woods told Commissioner Jones to "stop dividing this Board."  It is unclear who Commissioner Woods was sticking up for in this situation - Dorsey Hopson was an unconventional choice, and it would seem likely that more than one person would be considered for the interim position.  But perhaps it wasn't enough to disagree, perhaps it was more important to question a person's motives and accuse them of willful division for the sake of division.  How very "Santa Barbara."

Now these are all grown-ups.  I'm not all that worried about Sara Lewis' and Martavius Jones' self esteem and ability to withstand a little criticism.  But it's worth noting who is making things personal - or at least overly dramatic - and who is not. 

I understand that some could argue that Commissioner Jones has made things very personal with Commissioner David Pickler.  But I think most of that has to do with their tortured history, and not the actual allegations.  As I've argued before, if any Commissioner became aware of this kind of situation with any other Commissioner, I would hope the Commissioner who became aware of it would raise the issue for public resolution.  Because they have an obligation to do so.  We can disagree on the surprise motion, but Commissioner Jones didn't try to undermine Commissioner Pickler by spreading rumors - he kept it public, as it should be.  We'll see what happens in the Ethics Committee.  It's also worth noting that what we don't see with these two is public sniping and snide comments - they both pretty much point to the intense papers they've submitted.

We can all agree that this is all breathlessly dramatic, no?  Whether it's a farce or a Greek tragedy or an afternoon soap opera, Chairman Orgel has decided that the Board needs to meet more often in preparation for the merger.  If these folks aren't already getting on each other's last nerve, they will soon.

But maybe it will be like last night's "Budget" community session, where only 11 of the 23 Commissioners bothered to show up to listen to public comments in person.  With such dismally low attendance, it should be easier to get along.  Well, that, and the fact that none of the Board commissioners were allowed to talk.

Thinking More About Jones' Resolution for Pickler's Resignation

I've written on this subject twice - first, when I thought the resolution should have been publicly available, and second, when I'd had a chance to read it and form some thoughts.  I now find myself in the unusual position of writing on the subject - again - when there hasn't been any public progress on the story, but needing to clarify a few things.  A few suggestions have been made to me (in bold, below) about what is important and what is not, and it seems appropriate to tease those out.

The resolution acknowledges that Commissioner David Pickler has disclaimed any financial benefit related to the TSBA trust for which he may have otherwise been eligible.  Here's the resolution and accompanying documents.  In fact, a close reading shows that in the eighth paragraph of the resolution, Commissioner Pickler acknowledged being the "broker of record" but "disclaimed any financial interest or benefit from this arrangement."  We should take Commissioner Pickler's statement at face value.  His statement about not personally gaining any financial benefit, is different from the question about whether the company that bears his name, or any of his employees (whether in W-2 or 1099 status) directly financially benefitted from the trust being housed by Pickler Wealth Advisors.  There is also a distinction between a direct financial benefit like fees related to an account, and an indirect benefit such as those related to financial advisor's position with a particular mutual fund company (more money in more accounts can result in a preferred status).  So we still need to know what exactly Commissioner Pickler means when he says that he has not gained any financial benefit related to the $12 million investment.

The important part is that Commissioner David Pickler did not disclose his business relationship with the TSBA trust immediately prior to the June 26, 2012 vote.  The way that this argument goes is that even if Commissioner Pickler has gained no benefit, financial or otherwise, from holding the TSBA trust account, he had an affirmative obligation to disclose the business relationship prior to the vote.  I happen to strongly agree with this argument.  I suspect that we'll continue to hear the argument that Commissioner Pickler made the appropriate disclosure to the old iteration of the Shelby County School Board (as made by Commissioner Mike Wissman at the December meeting where the resolution was presented).  It will be important to understand when the disclosure was made, if, in fact, it was made.  But I would also argue that whenever a vote related to a TSBA trust that either is or could be managed by Pickler Wealth Advisors, Commissioner Pickler should make the disclosure in advance of every vote.  He should also take the extra step of recusing himself from the vote itself.  Business relationships, when they are engaged in by elected officials, cannot remain confidential (or undisclosed) when the elected office can benefit or in any way affect - positively or negatively - the business relationship.  Even if Commissioner Pickler disclosed this relationship to the old Board prior to the constitution of the current Board, or to a Committee in the near past, Commissioner Pickler should have made the disclosure again when the possibility of another trust with school money that could be managed by his firm arose.  He should make the disclosure every time, and recuse himself from the vote.  We'll have to wait for the Ethics Committee to make its findings about when Commissioner Pickler's previous disclosures were made, and whether the current Board would have had any reason to know of the business relationship in light of any previous disclosures.  Here in Memphis and Shelby County, we are used to opaque, undisclosed business relationships - but we shouldn't be.

The business relationship between Commissioner Pickler's firm's employee, Teresa Bailey, and the TSBA trust should be disclosed.  Commissioner Pickler does not appear to be running a law firm.  In a law firm, if Commissioner Pickler was "conflicted out" of a case, everyone in his firm would be "conflicted out" and the firm would be unable to work on the case.  Clearly, the rules must be different for financial advisors.  All of that said, Commissioner Pickler is an attorney and an elected public official.  Even if he makes no money and receives no benefit from his firm's management of the TSBA trust, Commissioner Pickler should have disclosed that his firm's employee would have a business relationship related to the $12 million investment.  Now that he has not made the disclosure - at least immediately prior to the June 26 vote by the full Board - in order to straighten this out, he should disclose all accounts with public school money that are under Ms. Bailey's purview, along with any fees or other financial arrangements that may have been made.  If Ms. Bailey receives any compensation, salary or commission, related to any TSBA trust accounts - directly from the funds, or indirectly through the firm - this compensation should be disclosed.  Though it should go without being said, if Commissioner Pickler receives any compensation, commission or otherwise, related to these trust accounts, this should also be disclosed.

Tangentially, I'll comment on one of the side stories of the Shelby County School Board's consideration of this matter.  Shortly after the resolution was mentioned at the December meeting, Commissioner Chris Caldwell stated that he "would not do this to his worst enemy."  My read on Commissioner Caldwell is that he views himself as above the petty political in-fighting and a voice of reason in these petty squabbles.  I've complained before about his problem-solving skills.  He must view Commissioner Jones' resolution as either ill-timed, or perhaps not the appropriate vehicle to address the allegations.  I might (depending on my mood) argue about a resolution asking for an immediate resignation, versus something like a resolution requesting an investigation.  Perhaps Commissioner Caldwell found distasteful the "splash" that occurred when the bomb of a resolution landed.  However, I'm sure that Commissioner Caldwell would agree that if any generic school board commissioner became aware of another commissioner's alleged undisclosed conflict of interest related to any amount of money, much less $12 million, that generic school board commissioner would have an affirmative obligation to address the allegations.  The failure to affirmatively address the allegation would be an ethical violation in and of itself.  Commissioner Caldwell might quibble with the method, but I don't think he should dispute the necessity of Commissioner Jones having raised the issue once it came to his attention.

And so we sit, waiting for word from the hastily composed Ethics Committee.  Perhaps they will meet this month . . .

Jones vs. Pickler, Part 56, or Part Bajillion, or Whatever

School Board Commissioners David Pickler and Martavius Jones are surely shocked to find that their names will be forever linked in the histories that people will write about what has happened in the school systems in Memphis and Shelby County.  We've watched their relationship play out in public over the course of the last two two or so years.  It's hard to say how well they knew each other before this merger mania overtook all civil discussion regarding education in this region, but they've spent a lot of time together since late 2010.  Poor guys.

They've debated each other.  They've negotiated with each other in Judge Mays' chambers.  They've served on the TPC together, jointly chairing the Administrative Organization Committee, and sat next to each other as one of the school board's "odd couples."  My read is that they mostly don't like each other, but that they are both professionals who manage to tolerate each other in public.

Whatever personal detente they managed to forge as other parties duke it out in federal court to figure out what the school district will look like in 2013-14 and future years, it will be interesting to see how they interact going forward in light of the bomb that Commissioner Jones dropped at the most recent school board meeting.  As I wrote previously, Commissioner Jones basically claims that Commissioner Pickler voted in a favor of a resolution that personally financially benefitted Commissioner Pickler, without any disclosure of what Commissioner Jones calls a conflict of interest.  Here, again, is a full copy of the resolution.

Commissioner Jones clearly believes that he's got something on Commissioner Pickler, and I was surprised to read that this little maneuver almost didn't happen.  Commissioner Jones is a smart, talented guy (whatever else you've heard), and he's politically minded enough that he would not take the drastic step of calling out Commissioner Pickler (also smart and talented) in this way unless he believed there was some "there" there.  So the allegations deserve a look.

The allegations are that Commissioner Pickler voted in favor of a resolution that invested $12 million in a Tennessee School Board Association trust - a trust managed by Commissioner's wealth management company, in an account that generates fees that financially benefit Commissioner Pickler's company (and Commissioner Pickler).  The crux of the alleged wrongdoing is that Commissioner Pickler failed to disclose, as he is obligated to do, that he would benefit financially if the resolution passed.  [January 6, 2013 update:  I didn't do a great job of explaining this issue in this post, but tried to better explain it here.]

Hmmm.

As I said in my previous post, it comes down to whether or not Commissioner Jones is right about whether Commissioner Pickler is making any money on this $12 million investment.  It may very well be that Commissioner Pickler waived any fees (or other financial benefits) from managing this particular trust, and that his wealth management company manages the trust gratis.  The supporting documentation provided with the resolution only shows the opening of the accounts, and do not reflect any fees or payments collected by Commissioner Pickler or his company.  The supporting documentation only shows that Pickler Wealth Advisors, specifically Teresa Bailey (Executive Vice President and Senior Planning Partner) manage the accounts that make up the TSBA trust.

That's one possibility - and the only possibility where Commissioner Pickler comes out clean as a whistle.  Any other possibility - even the entirely legal ones - will likely cause Commissioner Pickler some grief.

Commissioner Pickler is an attorney, as well as the owner of a wealth management company.  The rules for attorneys and financial advisors are different, though there is some overlap.  In addition to abiding by those rules, and figuring out which of those rules to abide by at any given moment, Commissioner Pickler also has to abide by the ethical rules and obligations related to his public service.  Not making excuses, but it's important that we understand that even though something might be problematic for an attorney, it may be less problematic for a financial advisor.  And there may or may not be a relationship to the rules that govern Commissioner Pickler's public service.

The best practice is to disclose any fact that may indicate even the appearance of impropriety, and to recuse oneself from voting on matters that would provide a direct benefit.  That's not the exact rule for attorneys, financial advisor, or public servants - but that's what we should expect of all of them.

Among the other possibilities of what happened are:

• Commissioner Pickler previously disclosed the relationship between his company and the trust to the old Shelby County School Board, but did not make the disclosure anew in front of the newly constituted Shelby County School Board.  At the time of the resolution, Commissioner Mike Wissman suggested that "everyone" knew about this relationship except Commissioner Jones.
• Commissioner Pickler waived all fees that the wealth management company could collect, but did not waive the fees specifically due to Ms. Bailey as the manager of the account.  This would mean that an individual at Commissioner Pickler's company did benefit from the management of the trust.  This would also mean that while Commissioner Pickler would not have financially benefitted (directly) from holding the trust, he may have benefitted professionally from the prestige of managing a TSBA trust.  That probably would not run afoul of the rules for lawyers, financial advisors, or public officials - but would, nonetheless, be a benefit that I would argue that Commissioner Pickler should have disclosed.  Particularly, if the amount of assets that Commisisoner Pickler's company managed would impact his standing among or arrangements with the financial services companies with which Pickler Wealth Management is involved.

There are likely other permutations of the arrangement between Commissioner Pickler, the TSBA, the trust, his company and its employees, and the various disclosures Commissioner Pickler may have previously made.

I'm reassured that Vice-Chair Teresa Jones is on the Ethics Committee that will investigate the allegations - she's an attorney and will recognize the various sets of rules at play.  Commissioner Pickler should be relieved that his long-time colleague and political ally Commissioner David Reaves is also on the committee.  Commissioner Reggie Love is somewhat of an unknown, but we have no reason to doubt his ability to be fair in this matter.

Anything less than a complete refutation of Commissioner Pickler and his company making any money off of this arrangement - even if acceptable under the rules - will cause some problems for Commissioner Pickler.  In that scenario, even if he's not facing any discipline from any of the bodies that could discipline him, it could make it more difficult for him to operate politically in this very important next legislative session in Nashville.  So far, all of the parties involved have managed to avoid any taint of impropriety (beyond fundamental policy and factual disagreements).  Even the appearance of actual, financial impropriety will be unfortunate, even if it's legal.  Commissioner Pickler is also the president-elect of the National School Board Association - he's got a lot riding on this coming out in his favor.  And perhaps Commissioner M. Jones doesn't much care if Commissioner Pickler is officially cleared as long as the political connections to Nashville suffer.

I guess we'll find out . . .

Martavius Jones Declares War on David Pickler

Tuesday night's Shelby County School Board meeting was crazy.  ONE of the reasons that the Board did not begin working on its agenda for over two hours after its start time was due to a surprise resolution from Martavius Jones.

The resolution was to ask for the immediate resignation of School Board Commissioner, and former Chair/President David Pickler.  The result was the constitution of a long-dormant ethics committee, to be made up of Vice-Chair Teresa Jones, Commissioner David Reaves, and newly-named Commissioner Reggie Love.

Commissioner M. Jones basically claims that Commissioner Pickler voted in a favor of a resolution that personally financially benefitted Commissioner Pickler, without any disclosure of what Commissioner M. Jones calls a conflict of interest.  [January 6, 2013 update:  here's a better explanation of the issue.]

My full commentary on this resolution will follow, but since I haven't seen it posted in the media, please feel free to read it here.  My first thought is that it depends on whether Commissioner M. Jones has his facts correct.  Commissioner Pickler told the Board (while commenting much later during the meeting) that he would provide a full report on the allegations in the resolution in the near future.

I guess we'll find out.

I've been discouraged that even though this resolution was read into "the record" at Tuesday night's meeting, the document does not appear to be publicly available.  It is, without a doubt, a public document.  None of the media has published it, and it is not available on the website of either Memphis City Schools or Shelby County Schools.  Whether the resolution passes or not, and particularly because it is the subject of a committee's formation and what will be the committee's investigation, the public should have had immediate access to the full document and its supporting documentation.