So why'd you have to rain on my parade?
I'm shaking my head and locking the gates
This is why we can't have nice things, darlin'
Because you break them, I had to take them away
This is why we can't have nice things, honey (oh)
Did you think I wouldn't hear all the things you said about me?
This is why we can't have nice things
Taylor Swift, This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things
The “Chairman of the Tortured Poets Department” seems to know about much more than just relationships. Apparently, she knows something about local government, too.
This week, local media coverage has focused heavily on the revelation that the winner of the Democratic primary in County Commission District 10, LaShanta Rudd, misused Memphis City Council grant funds awarded to her nonprofit. Rudd is unopposed in the August general election and expected to be sworn in as County Commissioner in September.
Rudd’s nonprofit, Serving in Christ Outreach (SICO), claims to provide case management, job skills training and placement, and domestic violence support. The organization received $13,750 in fiscal year 2025 and more than $88,000 over a period of several years. A confidential report issued in January by an internal City auditor found that Rudd may have misappropriated $10,500 of the grant funds.
The report, which has not been made public but was leaked to local media, shows Rudd spent $5,000 on a 2015 Nissan Sentra, an oil change for a 2007 Honda Odyssey, repairs and upgrades to her personal residence, a JBL flip speaker, a laptop, a billboard, and computer software. It may surprise some to learn that some of these expenses, apart from the home repairs, could have been legitimate. Nonprofits, like businesses, need laptops, software, and even transportation in some cases to fulfill their missions. If that were the case for SICO, then it should have been outlined in the grant request approved by the City Council and documented with receipts. There is no legitimate circumstance under which the leader of a nonprofit could legitimately use grant funds for repairs to a personal residence.
Voters and taxpayers should be concerned that the internal 5-page report dated January 2026 was kept confidential for 6 months. In fact, it would still be confidential if not leaked by a source. The findings might have been consequential information for individuals casting their votes in the Democratic primary for County Commission. A question we should all want answered is whether the report was “sat on” because of Rudd’s political connections. Anyone who has applied for funds from the City Council grant program knows that a council member must champion your application for it to have a chance to be funded. The process is inherently political.
The reports of the mishandling of these grant funds would be troubling enough on their own, but this comes on the heels of the indictment and guilty plea of former County Commissioner Edmund Ford, Jr., for his misuse of the County Commission grant program. Ford was indicted in March of 2025 for bribery and tax evasion. Prosecutors contend that Ford used his influence to steer $570,000 in County Commission grants to 3 nonprofits that used those funds to purchase goods and services from Ford. Ford resigned his seat on the County Commission and pleaded guilty to multiple charges of tax evasion earlier this year. He is set to be sentenced on July 20th. Ford’s misconduct reinvigorated calls by Commissioners Amber Mills and Mick Wright to eliminate the County Commission grant program. The move failed for now, but there is some momentum to tighten the rules, and undoubtedly, the revelations about Rudd and SICO will fuel similar discussion across the street at City Hall.
There has long been a belief held by many that the private sector, which includes nonprofits, is sometimes more efficient and skilled at providing services that might otherwise be provided by local government. Historically, the City and County have contracted with nonprofit organizations to provide all types of services, such as domestic violence counseling, poverty mitigation, mental health services, or management of parks and recreational areas, to name a few. The nonprofit structure sometimes attracts funding from philanthropies that cannot or will not donate directly to local governments. The mayors include funds within their budget for the various departments for these services. The legislative bodies approve the budgets. Then the administrations follow a procurement process that leads to a contract with the organization. There are multiple steps and opportunities for scrutiny.
It was barely over a decade ago, in 2015, when the County Commission, with good intentions, launched the Milton Community Grant Fund, named after former Commissioner Reginald Milton. Milton is a long-time nonprofit leader in the community and championed the establishment of the fund. Not to be outdone, the City Council created its grant program in 2021.
The idea was noble in that these legislators from both sides of North Main Street realized that there are many nonprofits doing critical neighborhood work that are lacking the capacity to contract with the City or County government but still provide a valuable service. Of course, there was no doubt some, if not all, saw the political advantage of handing out checks within their districts in the same way state legislators and members of Congress do. If someone were to evaluate the grants awarded by both entities over the last 11 years, the positive impact of reputable nonprofits would be obvious.
Unfortunately, it only takes one (now two) to compromise taxpayer trust and cast a shadow over the good.
And therein lies the issue, friends don't try to trick you
Get you on the phone and mind-twist you
And so I took an axe to a mended fence
Taylor Swift, This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things