Measure would shift power to state
The shift in authority from Tennessee cities to state government would continue at its relentless pace with passage of a controversial bill offered by Sen. Mark Green that also reeks of discriminatory intent.
The Clarksville Republican, a 2018 gubernatorial hopeful, wants to prohibit local government from taking into account the internal personnel policies and benefits of businesses with which cities contract so long as those policies are already compliant with state law.
Green is also a proponent of so-called “constitutional carry,” which would do away with a Tennessee firearms regulation that requires people who want to carry guns to undergo training and qualify for permits. Allowing people to carry guns virtually whenever and wherever they wished, of course, is one of the ultimate goals of legislators who have already snatched cities’ authority to establish reasonable firearms policies.
He is also the sponsor of legislation that would withhold state funding for any municipality with policies that shield undocumented foreign nationals from federal immigration enforcement.
The measure would up the ante on an executive order issued by President Trump to withhold federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities,” or cities that limit cooperation with the federal government on enforcing immigration laws.
Green’s latest power grab, which has drawn skeptical looks from Democrats and Republicans across the state, is another manifestation of the tension between rural-oriented Republican legislature and the more urban, Democraticleaning cities such as Nashville and Memphis where priorities may differ.
The bill would eliminate a tool that can prove to be useful to local governments that want to ensure minority participation in government contracts, provide some degree of financial security for employees of government contractors and the like.
Critics believe that passage would enable companies that do business with local governmental entities to use discriminatory employment practices. It could also keep cities in court defending policies they don’t agree with and that don’t take into account discrimination against individuals not protected by state law, based on such factors as sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status.
Critics argue persuasively that adoption of this legislation could interfere with local government efforts to require background checks or prohibit conflicts of interest.
The legislation simply would not serve any valid state purpose. The General Assembly would be licensing companies to discriminate against their employees and perpetuating an erosion of authority from local to state government.
In cities and small-town Tennessee, as well, local officials in many cases are in a better position than the state to solve local problems and decide what’s best for their communities.