Before, during, and after becoming an elected official, I have never shied away from accountability. I won’t claim to like it, but it is necessary and right, and that includes journalists, pundits, and others with a public platform.
Just a few weeks ago, I made seven predictions about the MSCS Takeover. Some of those were specific to the appointment of the members of the Board of Managers by the Governor, Lt. Governor, and the Speaker of the House. To date, 8 of 9 appointments have been made. I missed the mark on a few predictions; I got some others correct; and there are some still pending.
Here’s the latest:
1. Superintendent Roderick Richmond will be fired—PENDING
The Board of Managers begins its work July 1st. Based on the appointments so far, I doubt the Board will be hasty in its decision about Superintendent Richmond, but if I were investing in the prediction markets, I would put my money on a change in this position.
Perhaps it won’t happen within the first 30 days of the Board of Managers’ reign; maybe not even within the first six months, but Superintendent Richmond is likely a short timer. The proverbial camel-debilitating straw leading to the introduction of the takeover legislation was the dubious firing of Dr. Marie Feagins by the MSCS Board after only nine months on the job, followed by the hiring of Richmond. As the meeting became more rancorous and supporters of Feagins were shouting, Richmond was videoed responding,
During her short tenure, Feagins garnered the support of legislative sponsors Mark White and Brent Taylor for her sweeping cuts, including 1000 jobs. Those job cuts were cited as a reason for the loss of institutional knowledge, leading to findings in the recent preliminary forensic audit report.
Feagins sued the school board for wrongful termination, gender discrimination, and violating the Open Meetings Act, then promptly filed to run for Mayor of Shelby County. In the meantime, Richmond was elevated to the role of permanent superintendent.
Whether Richmond is making strides in the role or not is irrelevant because from the perspective of White, Taylor, and a majority of appointees to the Board of Managers, Richmond is the “fruit” of the school board’s “poisonous tree.”
2. Appointment of Sen. Taylor and Rep. White to Board of Managers – WRONG
There is only one spot left to be appointed to the Board of Managers. That appointment belongs to the Speaker of the House. It is possible that it could be Rep. Mark White, the sponsor of the legislation and the chair of the House Education Committee. Senator Taylor, however, is running for Congress. This could have turned out differently had redistricting not occurred. If White is not appointed, it is surprising based on the political capital he spent bringing the takeover to fruition.
Speaking of fruits, Taylor and White are nearly certain to enjoy the fruits of their labors by receiving appointments to the Board of Managers. From their ceaseless claims that the legislation was simply an intervention, not a takeover, to convincing their colleagues to spend $8 million on a forensic audit that so far has found no evidence of fraud, the pair has earned the appointments. To the victors go the spoils.
3. Appointment of someone from the Hyde or Poplar Foundation to the Board of Managers – Sort of Right
Hear me out. While there are no employees or board members of these foundations who were appointed, I am confident that the foundations were consulted. Former superintendent Dorsey Hopson is with City Fund and sits on the board of Memphis Education Fund, which receives substantial funding from the Hyde Foundation. Beverly Robertson was the CEO of the National Civil Rights Museum, and the Hyde Foundation was a major driver behind establishing NCRM in Memphis. Pitt Hyde and Billy Orgel are both part owners of the Grizzlies. There are numerous other connections, but to be sure, these foundations have and will continue to be integral to the work of the Board of Managers.
The Hyde Family Foundation and the Poplar Foundation have been at the forefront of education policy and education reform in Memphis for decades. Millions in philanthropic dollars have been donated to launch charter schools, fund organizations like The New Teacher Project and Teach for America, promote literacy, and expand pre-kindergarten, among others. If leaders in either or both foundations desired an appointment to the Board of Managers, it would be unlikely that the Governor, Lt. Governor, or Speaker of the House would say “no.” While not everyone supports their education improvement efforts, because of their generosity and consistency on the issues of education, there is more upside to their representation on the Board of Managers than downside for Lee, McNally, and Sexton.
4. The Board of Managers will be majority white – WRONG
This is one time I am glad to be wrong. I had little confidence that the Board of Managers would be diverse and reflect the makeup of the students. At present, 6 of the 8 members appointed are persons of color. However, I think it is likely that this would not have been the case were it not for public outcry over redistricting, in which a majority Black district was imploded by the redistricting vote. Failing to appoint a majority minority board of managers would have confirmed what many have said about the legislature’s attitude toward Memphis.
Even though President Trump’s approval is at a record low, the supermajority in the legislature continues to embrace him and his policies. In this anti-DEI era, no one should believe that any effort will be made to ensure that a representative number, or even a bare majority, of the appointed managers are persons of color. The language in the legislation specifies that the appointing authorities should consider appointing people with specific skills and experience, all but one must be from Shelby County, but no mention of the need for managers to resemble the 90% of students who are Black or brown.
5. Parents of children attending MSCS will have little representation—RIGHT
Unless the final appointment happens to be a current MSCS parent, then parents will have no representation on the Board of Managers, and neither will teachers. A few of the members have had children who attended in the past.
It is possible, perhaps likely, that a member or two of the Board of Managers will have a child in an MSCS school. Maybe their children used to go to MSCS before they transferred to a private school or one of the suburban districts. There could be an appointee whose children attended an optional school. Nothing in the language even urges, much less compels, the appointment of a current MSCS parent. Since the legislature has already determined that it knows better than the voters who elected the school board, it is hard to believe that they don’t feel the same way about MSCS parents.
6. Two-thirds or more of the Board of Managers will be donors of one of the sponsors or appointing authorities – WRONG-ISH
Right now, half of the members are donors. There is one member left to be appointed. However, I have not extensively checked the records of affiliated PACs or the disclosures of offices previously held by some of the appointing authorities.
It won’t surprise you. It’s the way the world works. There is a greater chance than not that a supermajority of the Board of Managers will be found on the financial disclosures of the politicians pushing the legislation and doing the appointing.
7. Chaos -- PENDING
The level of chaos that will ensue could comprise several independent articles. Among the first questions will be, “Can the school board sue the state?” Is the law that prohibits using school district funds to sue the state over accountability measures constitutional? Is the takeover statute itself constitutional, considering it clearly targets a single school district? While those suits are filed, judges grapple with motions to dismiss, temporary restraining orders, and various other legal questions.
The Board of Managers will convene, as will newly elected members of the school board, who will have legitimate questions about their roles and authority. Members of the administration will ponder whether they must be responsive to the elected board or only the appointed one.
The notoriously slow MSCS procurement process may grind nearly to a halt when the Board of Managers becomes the final step in approving contracts, since the elected board can no longer make those decisions. Then there are the legal actions vendors take against the system when the Board of Managers moves to end long-term agreements.
Presently, MSCS is in budget season and must adopt a budget by June 30th, summer programs start in about a month, and the beginning of the 26-27 school year begins in August. It’s nearly the first of May, and all of those plans, policies, and functions can be revised or eliminated by a board yet to be appointed.
The appointment of the members of the Board of Managers will foreshadow how rough a ride we all have in store for at least the next four years.