If there was any question about how a supermajority would work, we're learning quickly. Step 1: Stack the committee. Step 2: File legislation (HB702) and consider it the next day. This allows Step 3: Solicit as little public input as possible. Step 4: Carefully select speakers that only support the narrow view that supports your side of things. Last Tuesday, we watched this unfold in a House education subcommittee.
We also got to see a little blameshifting about who was responsible for deciding who would speak to the subcommittee. Rep. Brooks (R-Knoxville) and Rep. White (R-Memphis)'s staffs couldn't quite decide who put together the lobbyist lineup. Breakdown in communication or conspiracy? Hard to say.
We also saw some subcommittee discontent. Rep. Joe Pitts (D-Clarksville) extended an offer to Tennessee citizens who wished to speak in opposition to the bill. Here's the video of Metro-Nashville Public Schools School Board member Amy Frogge speaking to the committee. Rep. Pitts also spoke against the bill. Rep. Joe Forgety (R-Athens) also spoke against the bill. The idea of having a state charter authorizer is not a partisan idea - it is supported and opposed by both Republicans and Democrats. The Republican opposition is usually rooted in added layers of bureacracy and removing local control from elected officials. Here's another summary of the legislative activity, with the highly notable gem that the body designated to be the state charter authorizer, the appointed state Board of Education, actually opposes the idea of having a state charter authorizer. Instead, the state Board prefers that its decisions on charter appeals have "binding power to reverse charter school rejections instead of ordering local school boards to change their minds." Interesting. Like I said last week, Tennessee basically already has a state charter authorizer.
It's also worth mentioning that Rep. Forgety filed a bill that prevents a state charter authorizer from being the final word on charter applications. Also worth mentioning that the bill was filed BEFORE the bill currently under consideration, and has not yet been set for consideration by the subcommittee or committee. Talk about a steamroller.
The folks behind Standing Together 4 Strong Community Schools put two and two together and determined that Tennessee Speaker of the House Beth Harwell is in the driver's seat. Here's a hilarious Q&A with Rep. Harwell that doesn't reflect all that well on the thought process that is driving this piece of legislation.
This is all building up to tomorrow's consideration of Rep. Harwell's bill by the full education committee. Aligned in favor of the bill are several national groups including Michelle Rhee's Students First group, and the Tennessee branch of Stand for Children, Democrats for Education Reform, along with Tennessee Charter Schools Association. If you're against a state charter authorizer, some actual Tennessee residents have put together a petition. As always, be careful about what you click on the change.org website or they might accidentally sign you up for Michelle Rhee's group without your explicit consent. Please consider signing the petition - it will have the effect of sending an email to everyone on the Education Committee.
There is no reason to remove local control of which charters are located where from local jurisdictions. The focus is currently on Memphis and Nashville, but make no mistake, charter schools are coming for every kind of community. If the idea is that good government is the government closest to the public, then this bill just does not make sense. This bill is about disagreements between lobbyists, "reformers", and the cities of Memphis and Nashville. There is no need for the rest of the state to get involved in this - there are already plenty of remedies for when the state disagrees with local action.
Remember, our own Shelby County School Board has already registered its opposition to a state charter authorizer. Tomorrow is their annual trip to Nashville - hopefully, they'll take the opportunity to chat with legislators about why this bill should not move forward.
Please sign the petition.
Please also email the members of the Education Committee with your views. I can assure you that the lobbyists already have. Rep.Harry.Brooks@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.John.DeBerry@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Joe.Pitts@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Harold.Love@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.John.Forgety@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Roger.Kane@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Debra.Moody@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Dawn.White@capitol.tn.gov, Rep.Mark.White@capitol.tn.gov, rep.kevin.brooks@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jim.coley@capitol.tn.gov, rep.lois.deberry@capitol.tn.gov, rep.bill.dunn@capitol.tn.gov, rep.ron.lollar@capitol.tn.gov, rep.ryan.williams@capitol.tn.gov.
You can also find their phone numbers at the following link: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/committees/education.html
Showing posts with label Municipal School Districts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Municipal School Districts. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Legislature's Charter Authorizer Steamroller Revving Its Engine
As promised, state legislators that are beholden to the highly organized and very generous self-proclaimed "education reformers" are moving forward with efforts to remove decision-making power from local school boards who currently vote on which charter management organizations may operate in their communities. The Shelby County School Board voted unanimously (with one recusal) to oppose a state charter authorizer because it wants to retain the ability to carefully vet the charter schools that are allowed to open in Memphis and Shelby County.
Here's a great, explanatory article on the proposed legislation - proposed legislation that was submitted yesterday that will be discussed today at 3 p.m. It's clear that the legislators are trying to collect as much public input on this as possible before making any decisions, right? Here's the Commercial Appeal's coverage last month on the expected legislation.
Of particular interest here in Shelby County is what appears to be a provision allowing a Local Education Authorizer (LEA) to apply directly to the state to operate charter schools. This would probably allow the suburbs of Memphis to form charter management organizations to operate their own schools. But really, that's a separate issue from the overall state charter authorizer issue.
Here's why proponents of this policy say it is needed: (1) there's a conflict of interest for the local school boards when they make their charter decisions because charter schools are in enrollment competition for public school students, and (2) school boards are too slow in their process.
The truth is that nationally, less than 20% of charter schools perform better than their traditional public school counterparts. Here's the exective summary from the famous 2009 CREDO report, based out of Stanford University. It is generally accepted that Tennessee's charters schools do better than the national average. I've written before on the 10 out of 23 Memphis charter schools studied that outperformed their MCS counterparts. From that post: "Charter school proponents will want to tell you that the important takeaway from the CREDO Memphis research is that just over 65% of Memphis charter schools perform as well as or better than traditional public schools (that's the 10 + 5 of 23). But just as important is the 57% of charter schools that, at best, only perform as well as traditional public schools, and the 35% that cannot manage to perform as well as Memphis public schools - Memphis public schools which are famously under-performing (that's the 5+8 out of 23, and the 8 of 23, respectively)."
Let's talk about why Tennessee's charter schools do better than the national average. First we have to dispense with the notion that we're talking about Tennessee's charter schools. We're really talking about Memphis' (+1 in Bartlett), Nashville's, and Chattanooga's charter schools. Here's the map of Tennessee charter schools produced by the Tennessee Charter School Association. So really what we're seeing is that Memphis, Nashville, and Chattanooga have actually done pretty well - better than the national average (a feat Tennessee is not exactly accustomed to) - in selecting which charter schools to approve. If we were seeing a true conflict of interest, then we would see these school districts approve under-performing charters on purpose. Instead, from Matthew Throckmorton, head of the Tennessee Charter School Association, we hear not that these three school districts have done well and represented Tennessee well by approving better-than-average charters chools - we hear that these districts are not approving enough charter schools.
So why would he think such a thing? Mr. Throckmorton is in a tizzy because last year Memphis rejected 17 applications due to the financial impact on the district (the state granted the applications on appeal), and because this year, Nashville refused to follow orders and refused to allow Great Hearts, an Arizona charter management organization, to open a school in an affluent section of Nashville where schools are already performing well.
These reformers toss around words like "accountabilty," but this is actually an attempt to narrow accountability. Instead of being able to hold our elected school board members accountable for their decisions, you know, by voting, the proposal is to put the "accountability" on the unelected, appointed state Board of Education. Who's on the state Board of Ed? Here they are. Who represents Memphis? Hyde Foundation Executive Director Teresa Sloyan. Anything odd about this? Well, her employee Terence Patterson commented on the possibility of a state authorizer here, when he stated "Hyde does not take a position on legislation, 'proposed or otherwise,' Patterson said in a recent email. However, the foundation believes a statewide charter authorizer 'is a national best practice' and that its merits 'should certainly be evaluated in the context of Tennessee.'" Interesting.
The Nashville Great Hearts debacle really deserves its own post, but I try not to go with straight invective. The state's heavy-handed approach in that situation make it difficult to write a rational summary. Clearly, the state has decided that as part of the plan to comply with the Race to the Top goals, it should actively recruit charter schools in other places to plant themselves in Tennessee. Nashville rejected Great Hearts, a group that had been recruited by our state Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman. The punishment for Nashville was a loss of $3.4 million in state funding.
So it's not like the state has no recourse for when local districts won't behave as the state has strongly suggested. The Shelby County School Board, when it had the chance to stand up to the state's dictate that it allow 14 schools to open, chose not to. It turns out that it had good reason to avoid that hornet's nest. The state is not playing.
But it turns out that the state is not satisfied with just having the ability to grant appeals and withhold funding (a particularly devastating punishment). Tennessee already, in effect, has a state charter authorizer due to the strong remedies the state has against local districts. But it's just not enough. If you want to speak against a particular charter group considered under the proposed state charter authorizer, you have to travel to Nashville to speak (if they'll let you) to the state Board of Ed. Limiting public input, and shifting accountability out of the hands of voters.
What if we, as Tennessee citizens, disagree with a decision of the Tennessee Board of Ed.? Well, you could write a note to the governor, when that Board member's term is sheduled to end, and ask the Governor not to renew the Board member. And I guess that's it. You can't email them because the state does not publish their email addresses. If we, as Memphis citizens or Nashville citizens or Chattanooga citizens disagree with a decision by our local school boards, what can we do? Vote. Directly contact our board members by email, by phone, or when we see them in the grocery store. All the usual ways we hold our elected officials accountable for the decisions they make and how they spend our money. Accountability for state Board of Ed. members? I don't think so. This is about providing political cover for continuing expansion of charter schools, whether they are needed or not, and limiting public input into these decisions.
Why would I think the state legislature is interested in limiting public input on the expansion of charter schools via a state charter authorizer? Because Representative Brooks (R - Knoxville) and Representative White (R- Memphis) are actually limiting public input TODAY on whether a state charter authorizer should be adopted in Tennessee. Representative Brooks is the head of the Education Committee and Representative White heads up the sub-committee considering the bill today at 3 p.m. Standing Together 4 Strong Community Schools, a grassroots group out of Nashville opposed to vouchers and a state charter authorizer, has been trying to get time in front of the subcommittee all day - today, because they had no advance notice that the bill filed yesterday would be discussed today. Rep. White says that it's Rep. Brooks' decision. Rep. Brooks says to contact Rep. White. You know, the usual runaround. Big government grinding along.
Here are the email addresses for today's education sub-committee members. You know, the elected officials, who might remove accountability from other elected officials and grant tha power to unelected appointees. Feel free to cut and paste. Rep.Harry.Brooks@capitol.tn.go
Let them know that you don't approve of any additional shenanigans. Or ask them how much money they got from Michelle Rhee and Students First. Let me know what they say!
Here's a great, explanatory article on the proposed legislation - proposed legislation that was submitted yesterday that will be discussed today at 3 p.m. It's clear that the legislators are trying to collect as much public input on this as possible before making any decisions, right? Here's the Commercial Appeal's coverage last month on the expected legislation.
Of particular interest here in Shelby County is what appears to be a provision allowing a Local Education Authorizer (LEA) to apply directly to the state to operate charter schools. This would probably allow the suburbs of Memphis to form charter management organizations to operate their own schools. But really, that's a separate issue from the overall state charter authorizer issue.
Here's why proponents of this policy say it is needed: (1) there's a conflict of interest for the local school boards when they make their charter decisions because charter schools are in enrollment competition for public school students, and (2) school boards are too slow in their process.
The truth is that nationally, less than 20% of charter schools perform better than their traditional public school counterparts. Here's the exective summary from the famous 2009 CREDO report, based out of Stanford University. It is generally accepted that Tennessee's charters schools do better than the national average. I've written before on the 10 out of 23 Memphis charter schools studied that outperformed their MCS counterparts. From that post: "Charter school proponents will want to tell you that the important takeaway from the CREDO Memphis research is that just over 65% of Memphis charter schools perform as well as or better than traditional public schools (that's the 10 + 5 of 23). But just as important is the 57% of charter schools that, at best, only perform as well as traditional public schools, and the 35% that cannot manage to perform as well as Memphis public schools - Memphis public schools which are famously under-performing (that's the 5+8 out of 23, and the 8 of 23, respectively)."
Let's talk about why Tennessee's charter schools do better than the national average. First we have to dispense with the notion that we're talking about Tennessee's charter schools. We're really talking about Memphis' (+1 in Bartlett), Nashville's, and Chattanooga's charter schools. Here's the map of Tennessee charter schools produced by the Tennessee Charter School Association. So really what we're seeing is that Memphis, Nashville, and Chattanooga have actually done pretty well - better than the national average (a feat Tennessee is not exactly accustomed to) - in selecting which charter schools to approve. If we were seeing a true conflict of interest, then we would see these school districts approve under-performing charters on purpose. Instead, from Matthew Throckmorton, head of the Tennessee Charter School Association, we hear not that these three school districts have done well and represented Tennessee well by approving better-than-average charters chools - we hear that these districts are not approving enough charter schools.
So why would he think such a thing? Mr. Throckmorton is in a tizzy because last year Memphis rejected 17 applications due to the financial impact on the district (the state granted the applications on appeal), and because this year, Nashville refused to follow orders and refused to allow Great Hearts, an Arizona charter management organization, to open a school in an affluent section of Nashville where schools are already performing well.
These reformers toss around words like "accountabilty," but this is actually an attempt to narrow accountability. Instead of being able to hold our elected school board members accountable for their decisions, you know, by voting, the proposal is to put the "accountability" on the unelected, appointed state Board of Education. Who's on the state Board of Ed? Here they are. Who represents Memphis? Hyde Foundation Executive Director Teresa Sloyan. Anything odd about this? Well, her employee Terence Patterson commented on the possibility of a state authorizer here, when he stated "Hyde does not take a position on legislation, 'proposed or otherwise,' Patterson said in a recent email. However, the foundation believes a statewide charter authorizer 'is a national best practice' and that its merits 'should certainly be evaluated in the context of Tennessee.'" Interesting.
The Nashville Great Hearts debacle really deserves its own post, but I try not to go with straight invective. The state's heavy-handed approach in that situation make it difficult to write a rational summary. Clearly, the state has decided that as part of the plan to comply with the Race to the Top goals, it should actively recruit charter schools in other places to plant themselves in Tennessee. Nashville rejected Great Hearts, a group that had been recruited by our state Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman. The punishment for Nashville was a loss of $3.4 million in state funding.
So it's not like the state has no recourse for when local districts won't behave as the state has strongly suggested. The Shelby County School Board, when it had the chance to stand up to the state's dictate that it allow 14 schools to open, chose not to. It turns out that it had good reason to avoid that hornet's nest. The state is not playing.
But it turns out that the state is not satisfied with just having the ability to grant appeals and withhold funding (a particularly devastating punishment). Tennessee already, in effect, has a state charter authorizer due to the strong remedies the state has against local districts. But it's just not enough. If you want to speak against a particular charter group considered under the proposed state charter authorizer, you have to travel to Nashville to speak (if they'll let you) to the state Board of Ed. Limiting public input, and shifting accountability out of the hands of voters.
What if we, as Tennessee citizens, disagree with a decision of the Tennessee Board of Ed.? Well, you could write a note to the governor, when that Board member's term is sheduled to end, and ask the Governor not to renew the Board member. And I guess that's it. You can't email them because the state does not publish their email addresses. If we, as Memphis citizens or Nashville citizens or Chattanooga citizens disagree with a decision by our local school boards, what can we do? Vote. Directly contact our board members by email, by phone, or when we see them in the grocery store. All the usual ways we hold our elected officials accountable for the decisions they make and how they spend our money. Accountability for state Board of Ed. members? I don't think so. This is about providing political cover for continuing expansion of charter schools, whether they are needed or not, and limiting public input into these decisions.
Why would I think the state legislature is interested in limiting public input on the expansion of charter schools via a state charter authorizer? Because Representative Brooks (R - Knoxville) and Representative White (R- Memphis) are actually limiting public input TODAY on whether a state charter authorizer should be adopted in Tennessee. Representative Brooks is the head of the Education Committee and Representative White heads up the sub-committee considering the bill today at 3 p.m. Standing Together 4 Strong Community Schools, a grassroots group out of Nashville opposed to vouchers and a state charter authorizer, has been trying to get time in front of the subcommittee all day - today, because they had no advance notice that the bill filed yesterday would be discussed today. Rep. White says that it's Rep. Brooks' decision. Rep. Brooks says to contact Rep. White. You know, the usual runaround. Big government grinding along.
Here are the email addresses for today's education sub-committee members. You know, the elected officials, who might remove accountability from other elected officials and grant tha power to unelected appointees. Feel free to cut and paste. Rep.Harry.Brooks@capitol.tn.go
Let them know that you don't approve of any additional shenanigans. Or ask them how much money they got from Michelle Rhee and Students First. Let me know what they say!
Monday, December 3, 2012
Judge Mays Did Not Find Munis Unconstitutional
We've been Waiting in Memphis for Forever! Well, not quite forever. In some parts of the country, getting a big federal decision like this within two months of the trial would be a feat unto itself.
Just as last week's school board meeting adjourned, U.S. District Judge Samuel H. ("Hardy") Mays, Jr. issued his decision on whether Shelby County's six municipalities, the six other than Memphis, can withdraw from the merged Shelby County Schools and create their own, individual school districts. Judge Mays' decision was a dampening "Not Yet". Here's the decision.
Decent coverage from Bill Dries. Strong coverage from Zack McMillin. Better coverage from Jackson Baker.
It's been almost a week, and the dust is settling. And new dust is kicking up. But let's start with the decision.
Judge Mays issued a very limited decision that answered only some of the questions surrounding whether the formation of municipal school districts in Shelby County may proceed. Of the three statutes in question, Judge Mays only addressed Chapter 905, leaving Chapters 1 and 970 for another day - and further briefing.
The result is that Chapter 905 was found unconstitutional. Chapter 905 governs the process that a municipality would go through to create its own school district. Judge Mays found that the law was unconstitutional for two reasons. Though I doubted he would do so, Judge Mays found that the law was actually a private act, and that the requirements for a private act were not followed - those requirements including the ability of the County Commission to vote on (and possibly reject) the law's application to Shelby County. The now famous passage from this aspect of the decision is: "There is in the history a sense of a wink and a nod, a candid discussion of the bill's purpose occasionally blurred by a third-party correction. The history is clear, however, that the bill never would have passed had it not been intended to apply only to Shelby County."
However, the Judge spent a much greater portion of the decision on the question of whether there are other counties where Chapter 905 could apply. Judge Mays went through a detailed discussion of the population forecasts given by the experts, finding the County Commission's expert credible and the municipalities' expert less so. Judge Mays decided that the law could not reasonably, realistically apply in any Tennessee county besides Shelby County based on current populations in current school districts. To Judge Mays, this called into question the intention of the state legislature, and allowed him to get into the legislative history. Once he got to the legislative history, and the many exchanges between the legislators, the decision was an easy one.
The result is that any actions taken under Chapter 905 are voided - including the referenda in all 6 municipalities to form their own school districts, and the elections of school boards. Those newly elected school boards will not be sworn in, and will have to at least go through the motions of another election (if the municipal school districts proceed).
Not voided is the possibility of municipal school districts. Though Judge Mays will hear further argument, and may eventually rule on Chapters 1 and 970, both are currently still in force. This means that once the merger is complete at the start of school in August 2013, the municipalities may again proceed their withdrawal process. But the schools of the future possible municipal school districts will remain in the merged district for at least the 2013-14 school year.
Further litigation - at least in the form of appeals - seems likely. The municipal mayors will meet tomorrow with their lawyers to map out their route. School Board Chair Billy Orgel is pushing for a negotiated peace without further litigation. Former SCS Board Chair David Pickler is working on a third way - proposing that the municipalities either form (or align with existing) charter management organizations to operate the schools in the municipal borders.
Judge Mays, in my view, has made it clear that he does not wish to rule on this. And I think he's right that it is not preferred that a federal judge decide these kinds of issues. But I think the open hostility among the parties has poisoned their ability to get to a negotiated peace, and that it will likely fall to him (or the Sixth Circuit above him, though probably not the Supreme Court) to decide whether the state legislature has acted appropriately.
No real winners here, and only one clear loser. Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris could pooh-pooh objections from other politicians who complained that his quickly (and poorly) drafted statutes did not meet constitutional muster and were a state attempt to meddle in local affairs. Senator Norris did not have to work very hard to work himself into an outrage when the state Attorney General interpreted Norris' law as it had been written, but reached a different result than Norris. But he's been working on this group of laws for nearly two years at this point - revising and editing the language, cajoling and pitching to his legislator colleagues. And in the end, a federal judge has agreed with the senator's detractors - that the law was ill-advised and did not meet the requirements of the Tennessee Constitution - a document, of course, that Norris has sworn to protect and defend - as a state legislator and an attorney. We'll find out what route Senator Norris will take in the next legislative session in January - whether he has been chastened or emboldened. I don't think there's a third way for him.
Just as last week's school board meeting adjourned, U.S. District Judge Samuel H. ("Hardy") Mays, Jr. issued his decision on whether Shelby County's six municipalities, the six other than Memphis, can withdraw from the merged Shelby County Schools and create their own, individual school districts. Judge Mays' decision was a dampening "Not Yet". Here's the decision.
Decent coverage from Bill Dries. Strong coverage from Zack McMillin. Better coverage from Jackson Baker.
It's been almost a week, and the dust is settling. And new dust is kicking up. But let's start with the decision.
Judge Mays issued a very limited decision that answered only some of the questions surrounding whether the formation of municipal school districts in Shelby County may proceed. Of the three statutes in question, Judge Mays only addressed Chapter 905, leaving Chapters 1 and 970 for another day - and further briefing.
The result is that Chapter 905 was found unconstitutional. Chapter 905 governs the process that a municipality would go through to create its own school district. Judge Mays found that the law was unconstitutional for two reasons. Though I doubted he would do so, Judge Mays found that the law was actually a private act, and that the requirements for a private act were not followed - those requirements including the ability of the County Commission to vote on (and possibly reject) the law's application to Shelby County. The now famous passage from this aspect of the decision is: "There is in the history a sense of a wink and a nod, a candid discussion of the bill's purpose occasionally blurred by a third-party correction. The history is clear, however, that the bill never would have passed had it not been intended to apply only to Shelby County."
However, the Judge spent a much greater portion of the decision on the question of whether there are other counties where Chapter 905 could apply. Judge Mays went through a detailed discussion of the population forecasts given by the experts, finding the County Commission's expert credible and the municipalities' expert less so. Judge Mays decided that the law could not reasonably, realistically apply in any Tennessee county besides Shelby County based on current populations in current school districts. To Judge Mays, this called into question the intention of the state legislature, and allowed him to get into the legislative history. Once he got to the legislative history, and the many exchanges between the legislators, the decision was an easy one.
The result is that any actions taken under Chapter 905 are voided - including the referenda in all 6 municipalities to form their own school districts, and the elections of school boards. Those newly elected school boards will not be sworn in, and will have to at least go through the motions of another election (if the municipal school districts proceed).
Not voided is the possibility of municipal school districts. Though Judge Mays will hear further argument, and may eventually rule on Chapters 1 and 970, both are currently still in force. This means that once the merger is complete at the start of school in August 2013, the municipalities may again proceed their withdrawal process. But the schools of the future possible municipal school districts will remain in the merged district for at least the 2013-14 school year.
Further litigation - at least in the form of appeals - seems likely. The municipal mayors will meet tomorrow with their lawyers to map out their route. School Board Chair Billy Orgel is pushing for a negotiated peace without further litigation. Former SCS Board Chair David Pickler is working on a third way - proposing that the municipalities either form (or align with existing) charter management organizations to operate the schools in the municipal borders.
Judge Mays, in my view, has made it clear that he does not wish to rule on this. And I think he's right that it is not preferred that a federal judge decide these kinds of issues. But I think the open hostility among the parties has poisoned their ability to get to a negotiated peace, and that it will likely fall to him (or the Sixth Circuit above him, though probably not the Supreme Court) to decide whether the state legislature has acted appropriately.
No real winners here, and only one clear loser. Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris could pooh-pooh objections from other politicians who complained that his quickly (and poorly) drafted statutes did not meet constitutional muster and were a state attempt to meddle in local affairs. Senator Norris did not have to work very hard to work himself into an outrage when the state Attorney General interpreted Norris' law as it had been written, but reached a different result than Norris. But he's been working on this group of laws for nearly two years at this point - revising and editing the language, cajoling and pitching to his legislator colleagues. And in the end, a federal judge has agreed with the senator's detractors - that the law was ill-advised and did not meet the requirements of the Tennessee Constitution - a document, of course, that Norris has sworn to protect and defend - as a state legislator and an attorney. We'll find out what route Senator Norris will take in the next legislative session in January - whether he has been chastened or emboldened. I don't think there's a third way for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)