Was the $250,000 for Memphis added so lawmakers could take it away? Debate swirls in the statehouse

It was clear from the debate in the state House that the decision by lawmakers to strip $250,000 dedicated to Memphis' bicentennial celebration out of the budget was their way of punishing the city for its removal of Confederate statutes.

But whether the move was pre-mediated partisan politics or a last-ditch effort to punish the city after months of failed efforts to do so legislatively is a debate swirling through the statehouse.

Some Republicans familiar with the discussions leading up to Tuesday’s vote say the money was initially added to the state budget only so that it could be later taken away, all as part of an effort send a message to Memphis.

But others deny that any such calculus took place.

Either way, the reaction in Memphis was swift. City officials decried the move, which led to a GoFundMe effort to replace the rescinded funds.

► More: House punishes Memphis for removing Confederate statues with $250,000 budget cut

► More: Memphis raises $50K+ after state pulls funding — now what?

Legislative initiatives

Each year, lawmakers submit proposals, known as legislative initiatives, that they hope will be added to the budget.

Among a list of more than 200 House initiatives was one from Rep. Karen Camper, D-Memphis, seeking to dedicate $250,000 for Memphis’ bicentennial celebration. This year, Camper sponsored eight budget amendments.

Unlike bills, legislative initiatives do not need a sponsor in both chambers. That means there are slight differences between the House’s list of initiatives and the Senate, which had about 160 proposals.

► Opinion: Weathersbee: Posturing to punish Memphis for removing statues was a page out of a plantation master's playbook

► More: Social media fires back on state's $250,000 budget cut after Confederate statue removal

Once such initiatives are introduced, the next step is for them to be discussed, in large part, behind closed doors, among House and Senate leadership.

On the House side, such negotiations typically include Speaker Beth Harwell, Majority Leader Glen Casada, GOP caucus chairman Ryan Williams, finance committee chairman Charles Sargent, and others on the finance committee, including Reps. Steve McDaniel and Gerald McCormick.

The group of lawmakers work with their counterparts in the Senate to come up with a list of budget amendments agreed upon by each chamber.

Differing views on approving Camper's amendment

On Monday, the House finance committee officially announced the finalized list. Among the laundry list of approved budget amendments was Camper’s $250,000 proposal.

Camper, who is also on the House budget committee, said she found out about the inclusion of her proposal minutes before the panel met Monday afternoon.

Depending on who you talk to, there’s varying views on why Camper’s amendment was even approved.

Williams said the proposal was funded “mainly because we love and respect Representative Camper and it’s something she wanted on the list.”

Others familiar with the budget discussions offer a different perspective.

The reason it was added, according to two people with knowledge of the talks, was simple: to give lawmakers an opportunity to send a message to Memphis.

“It was important to remind Memphis that there are consequences for actions, especially when a city blatantly violates the spirit of the law,” a Republican familiar with the House budget amendment talks said.

The sentiment was confirmed by another Republican familiar with the talks.

Last year, the city drew the ire of lawmakers after the removal of controversial statues.

After being denied a waiver by the Tennessee Historical Commission, Memphis sold two public parks in December to a nonprofit, which then removed statues of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest and Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

► More: Memphis removes Confederate statues from Downtown parks

The 9:01: In punishing Memphis, state lawmakers embarrassed themselves

“We were just looking for opportunities – some way to withhold some money from Memphis,” McDaniel said in an interview on Thursday. “We were looking for any opportunity we could to send that message and that’s what we did.”

But Sargent, the budget chairman, said he would never agree to play games with the budget.

“If that was the main purpose of doing that, I probably would never have put it in the budget to start with,” he said.

Sargent said he heard a rumor about the suggestion that Camper’s amendment was only approved to take it away but denied being part of any such talks.

Williams also brushed aside any such suggestion about gamesmanship with Camper’s proposal.

Although Sargent and Williams contend otherwise, one detail that provides further fuel to the belief that there was never an intention to fund Camper’s proposal was this: The Senate budget never included the money.

That means the House’s version of the budget, which included Camper’s proposal, and the Senate’s budget were not aligned.

Removing the money

On Tuesday — the day after Camper’s proposal was approved in the finance committee — the full House was set to vote on the budget. When the massive funding bill was up for consideration, Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, introduced and amendment to remove the $250,000 proposal.

McDaniel said he talked with Hill beforehand.

“I said here you are Matthew, if you want to file this amendment, then here’s your opportunity,” McDaniel said. “He was one of many wanting to find a way to do this.”

Hill, who did not respond to a request for comment, said on the House floor that his amendment would not impact Memphis' ability to plan their bicentennial celebration.

"What we are getting ready to vote on is a common practice in the budgetary process," he said, arguing his measure was simply seeking to reallocate money elsewhere in the budget.

The amendment generated significant debate in the chamber, with Rep. Antonio Parkinson, D-Memphis, arguing that some lawmakers idolized Forrest as if he were god.

Prior to the chamber’s 56-31 vote, Camper said no one had approached her to raise an issue about her proposal.

“I was surprised because I would’ve expected some respect enough to come to me,” she said.

Camper said while she was embarrassed at the chamber’s move to eliminate the money from the budget, it was part of an ongoing effort that included several bills, which were unsuccessful, seeking to reprimand the city.

“This, I think, was just an opportunity, a last-ditch effort if you will,” she said, chalking it up to politics. “I think they just seized the moment.”

Reach Joel Ebert at jebert@tennessean.com or 615-772-1681 and on Twitter @joelebert29.