Conflict of Interest Chaos: Commissioners Break Recusal Laws to Push Fraudulent Seeding Success Agenda

By: Public Affairs Staff on December 16, 2024

MEMPHIS, TN – In a shocking display of corruption, silencing of dissent, and blatant disregard for Tennessee ethics and conflict-of-interest laws, the Shelby County Commissioners’ meeting on December 16, 2024, revealed deep cracks in local governance. What should have been a forum for fair public discourse turned into a staged manipulation favoring More for Memphis and its fiscal agent, Seeding Success, while sidelining concerned citizens and exposing commissioners’ troubling ties to political donations from Tennessee Prosperous, a Seeding Success-affiliated political entity all the while the fraudulent More for Memphis ordinance keeps passing right along as it passed the second vote tonight.

From the arbitrary silencing of public speakers to glaring violations of recusal laws, the meeting underscored a growing scandal that demands federal investigation. Below are the five key violations from the meeting and their implications:

 

1. Silencing the Public While Elevating Seeding Success

The Commissioners cut the public’s speaking time from three minutes to one minute for both opponents and proponents of the More for Memphis ordinance, a 66% reduction, citing a high number of speakers—despite fewer than ten speakers registering to comment. However, Seeding Success and More for Memphis were granted their own extended segment to present and respond to commissioners’ questions with no time limit.

This deliberate suppression of public voices in contrast to Seeding Success’ privileged platform violates fundamental principles of equal access and transparency in public governance. It directly undermines Tennessee’s Open Meetings Act (T.C.A § 8-44-102), which mandates equal opportunities for public engagement.

The Law Broken: The arbitrary reduction of public comment time from three minutes to one minute for both opponents and proponents of the More for Memphis ordinance was a thinly veiled attempt to suppress opposition voices, violating the public’s constitutional right to equal treatment and free speech under the First Amendment. While both sides were nominally subjected to the same restriction, the true intent became clear: to limit the time of articulate and intellectually sound opponents—those most capable of exposing the fraudulent misrepresentation and unethical conduct tied to the ordinance.

This reduction, under the pretense of “many speakers” despite fewer than ten participants, effectively chilled dissent and restricted speech to stifle the voices who posed the greatest threat to the ordinance’s legitimacy. Meanwhile, Seeding Success and More for Memphis representatives were granted their own unrestricted segment, allowing them unlimited time to speak, answer questions, and shape the narrative—without any equivalent opportunity provided to the opposition. This imbalance reflects procedural bias and viewpoint discrimination, both clear violations of the First Amendment, which prohibits government entities from favoring one perspective over another in a designated public forum.

The unequal application of rules—where public commenters had their time severely limited while favored parties received free rein—constitutes a violation of procedural due process. Courts have consistently held that public meetings, as designated public forums, must ensure rules are applied fairly and without bias. The deliberate amplification of proponents while suppressing opponents—who presented far more substantive, articulate, and evidence-backed concerns—demonstrates clear content-based discrimination, an unconstitutional practice that erodes public trust in government processes.

Moreover, by intentionally reducing the time of speakers most capable of exposing misconduct and holding the commission accountable, the Shelby County Commission engaged in an effort to silence dissent. This suppression of speech represents not only a chilling effect on free expression but also a violation of the public’s right to transparency and accountability from elected officials.

The favoritism shown to Seeding Success and More for Memphis—providing them unrestricted time to advocate for the ordinance while intentionally minimizing and sidelining dissent—was an orchestrated violation of the First Amendment and equal protection principles. These actions amount to a breach of democratic norms, designed to shield unethical and potentially illegal conduct from public scrutiny. Such blatant disregard for constitutional rights demands immediate legal scrutiny and accountability.

 

2. Commissioner Brittany Thornton’s Question on Political Donations Ignored

Commissioner Brittany Thornton exposed a key conflict when she asked Seeding Success representatives to disclose which County Commissioners and Memphis City Council members had received political contributions from Tennessee Prosperous. Instead of answering, Seeding Success ignored the question entirely, leaving the issue unresolved.

Why It’s Illegal: Tennessee ethics laws (T.C.A. § 2-10-125 and § 8-50-501) prohibit elected officials from receiving political contributions that create a conflict of interest or influence their decision-making. The commissioners’ failure to address these donations while continuing to advocate for More for Memphis constitutes a breach of their legal and ethical responsibilities.

The refusal to disclose confirms suspicions of undue influence and raises serious legal implications about bribery and misrepresentation.

 

3. Edmund Ford Jr.’s Theatrics to Shield More for Memphis

Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr. raised six critical questions, he claimed to have received from the city of Memphis side and others, including the vital inquiry about where the alleged $100 million in private funds is being held. However, Ford Jr. inexplicably allowed Seeding Success to evade answering this crucial question, betraying his role as a watchdog for public accountability.

Observers noted that Ford Jr.’s questioning was nothing more than political theater—a move designed to appear diligent while shielding More for Memphis from scrutiny.

Why It’s Illegal: Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr.’s failure to demand answers to critical financial questions regarding the $100 million allegedly “secured” funds is more than just negligence—it’s a clear violation of his fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Shelby County. Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-16-402, official misconduct occurs when a public servant “intentionally or knowingly… refrains from performing a duty imposed by law or inherent in the nature of the office,” particularly when it results in harm to the public interest. Ford Jr.’s deliberate avoidance of meaningful follow-up to his own questions—questions directly tied to the transparency and legitimacy of public funds—constitutes willful neglect of duty, as he failed to act in the best interests of his constituents.

Instead of pressing for clear and substantive answers regarding where the $100 million in claimed private funding is held, Ford Jr. appeared to use his questions merely for performative purposes—raising issues on record but allowing Seeding Success and More for Memphis to escape scrutiny without accountability. This creates a false appearance of oversight while facilitating the approval of an ordinance that misrepresents key financial facts. Such misconduct is not only unethical but also illegal under Tennessee law, which holds elected officials accountable for misuse of authority or willful failure to perform their duties.

Adding Context to Ford Jr.’s Actions

Ford Jr.’s questionable conduct at the December 16th meeting takes on greater significance given his history of alleged financial impropriety. On May 25, 2023, the FBI conducted a search at Ford Jr.’s home as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into his dealings with Junior Achievement of Memphis and the Mid-South. Investigators allege that Ford Jr., in his official capacity, supported a $450,000 grant contract for Junior Achievement and then personally profited by selling used computers to the organization—an arrangement rife with conflicts of interest and potential violations of federal law.

In light of this investigation, Ford Jr.’s reluctance to demand accountability from Seeding Success and More for Memphis raises even more serious concerns. The commissioner’s failure to challenge the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding the ordinance suggests a pattern of behavior: neglecting oversight duties while advancing initiatives that benefit favored entities or align with personal or political interests. This raises further ethical and legal questions about his motivations and potential conflicts in his dealings with More for Memphis.

Why It Matters

The role of elected officials is to act as stewards of public trust, demanding transparency, accountability, and integrity in the allocation of funds that impact the community. Ford Jr.’s actions—or lack thereof—violate these basic principles. By refusing to pursue clear answers on the existence and location of the $100 million in private funding, Ford Jr. facilitated the advancement of an ordinance based on fraudulent misrepresentation, potentially aiding and abetting deceptive practices.

His apparent unwillingness to hold Seeding Success accountable, combined with his history of being under FBI investigation for alleged misuse of public trust, underscores a dangerous pattern of official misconduct that cannot be ignored. Shelby County taxpayers deserve elected representatives who uphold their constitutional and legal responsibilities, not public servants who turn a blind eye to fraud and deception. Ford Jr.’s conduct requires immediate investigation for potential violations of both state and federal law.

 

4. Commissioner Shante Avant’s Conflicts of Interest and Recusal Failure

Commissioner Shante Avant, who serves as President and CEO of the Women’s Foundation of Greater Memphis, revealed that Seeding Success and More for Memphis plan to funnel millions of dollars into the Women’s Foundation’s accounts to “hold” the funds. Avant recused herself from the vote but failed to recuse herself from discussions and behind-the-scenes influence.

Why It’s Illegal: Under Tennessee law, specifically T.C.A. § 12-4-101 and § 8-50-501, the legal obligation of an elected official to recuse themselves goes far beyond simply abstaining from a vote. The statutes make it clear that recusal requires a complete withdrawal from participation, discussion, and any form of influence over decisions where the official has a direct or indirect financial interest. Commissioner Shante Avant’s role as President and CEO of the Women’s Foundation for a Greater Memphis—an organization that has been promised a share of funds managed by Seeding Success and More for Memphis—represents a glaring and unlawful conflict of interest.

By participating in the lead-up to this vote and remaining involved in the broader deliberations around More for Memphis, Avant not only breached the spirit of recusal laws but also violated her fiduciary responsibility as an elected official. Her recusal from the vote does not erase her prior involvement, where her role as both a decision-maker and the leader of a directly benefiting organization calls into question the integrity of the entire process.

The Legal Standards on Recusal

1. T.C.A. § 12-4-101: This statute explicitly prohibits any public official from participating in decisions where they have a direct pecuniary interest. It states that no elected official “shall vote for or advocate the passing of any measure in which the officer is directly or indirectly interested.”

• What this means: Avant’s leadership role at the Women’s Foundation—a beneficiary of More for Memphis funds—constitutes a clear financial interest. Her involvement in discussions, deliberations, and influence behind the scenes violates this statute, even if she abstained from the final vote.

2. T.C.A. § 8-50-501: This statute outlines that recusal includes avoiding participation, discussion, and influence in any matter where there is a conflict of interest, whether direct or indirect. The law does not allow officials to “recuse themselves in name only” while still exerting influence over decisions or the process.

• What this means: Avant’s mere act of recusing herself from the vote does not absolve her. If she participated in meetings, shared opinions, or influenced her colleagues’ understanding of the ordinance—whether directly or indirectly—she has failed to meet the legal standard for recusal.

 

Why Avant’s Actions Compromise the Integrity of the Process

Commissioner Avant’s participation is not just unethical—it taints the entire More for Memphis ordinance. Her role as President and CEO of the Women’s Foundation places her organization in a position to financially benefit from funds that the ordinance enables. This dual role creates an unavoidable appearance of impropriety, undermining public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the commission’s decision-making process.

Moreover, the promise of funds to the Women’s Foundation raises legitimate questions about whether Avant’s influence—even behind closed doors—shaped the proposal, facilitated favorable terms, or swayed other commissioners. Her participation breaches the fundamental duty of elected officials to act solely in the public’s interest, not for the benefit of the organizations they lead.

 

The Consequences of Violating Recusal Laws

Under Tennessee law:

• Violations of T.C.A. § 12-4-101 can lead to criminal penalties, including fines, removal from office, and prosecution for misconduct.
• Conflicts of interest that result in public funds being allocated under questionable circumstances can also open the door for civil litigation and further investigation.

Avant’s failure to completely remove herself from the process exposes her—and the Shelby County Commission—to potential legal liability. Furthermore, it undermines public trust, as the very officials tasked with upholding transparency and accountability appear complicit in self-serving actions.

 

5. Commissioner Erica Sugarmon’s Admission of Financial Ties

After Commissioner Thornton’s revelations about the hidden role of Tennessee Prosperous in contributing heavily to both the city council and county commissioners including herself, in a stunning reversal, Commissioner Erica Sugarmon admitted during the meeting that she received political contributions from Tennessee Prosperous, contradicting her earlier denial on December 9 regarding receiving contributions from More for Memphis or its affiliates. However, Sugarmon remains a co-sponsor of the ordinance, further entangling herself in a clear ethical breach.

 

Why It’s Illegal: Commissioner Sugarmon’s Financial Ties and Conflict of Interest

Commissioner Erica Sugarmon’s failure to recuse herself while advocating for the More for Memphis ordinance, despite her financial ties to Tennessee Prosperous—a political action committee (PAC) aligned with Seeding Success—constitutes a direct violation of Tennessee’s conflict-of-interest laws and highlights a serious breach of public trust.

1. Violation of Tennessee Conflict-of-Interest Statutes

Under T.C.A. § 2-10-125, it is unlawful for elected officials to advocate, sponsor, or vote on policies that directly or indirectly benefit organizations or entities that have contributed to their campaigns. This statute aims to prevent self-dealing, undue influence, and the appearance of corruption in public office.

• What This Means:

Commissioner Sugarmon’s public admission of receiving funds from Tennessee Prosperous—a PAC affiliated with Seeding Success—directly ties her to an entity that stands to benefit from the ordinance. By continuing to sponsor and advocate for More for Memphis, Sugarmon violated the ethical boundaries established by law to safeguard unbiased decision-making.

• Why This Matters:

Sugarmon’s dual role—both as a co-sponsor of the ordinance and as a financial recipient of Tennessee Prosperous—creates a clear conflict of interest. Her involvement undermines the integrity of her role as an elected official, whose duty is to serve the public interest rather than advance policies that benefit her financial contributors.

2. Self-Dealing and Abuse of Office

By sponsoring and promoting the More for Memphis ordinance, Sugarmon engaged in what amounts to self-dealing—using her public office to support legislation connected to entities with whom she has a financial relationship. This breach falls under the broader category of official misconduct, which is criminalized in Tennessee under T.C.A. § 39-16-402.

• Definition of Official Misconduct (T.C.A. § 39-16-402):

An official commits misconduct if they intentionally or knowingly:

• Fail to perform a duty imposed by law;
• Act with intent to obtain a benefit for themselves or another; or
• Violate any law relating to their office.

Sugarmon’s sponsorship of the ordinance after receiving funds from Tennessee Prosperous fits squarely within this legal definition. Her actions suggest an abuse of office for private gain, as her financial relationship with Tennessee Prosperous creates an undeniable appearance of impropriety and raises questions of undue influence.

3. Ethical Breach and Appearance of Corruption

Even if Sugarmon claims her involvement was free of direct influence, Tennessee ethics laws recognize that the appearance of a conflict is equally damaging to public confidence. Under these principles:

• Elected officials must avoid any conduct that gives the impression of impropriety, bias, or self-enrichment.
• Accepting financial contributions from PACs connected to entities like Seeding Success and then advocating for their initiatives fundamentally violates the public’s trust.

Sugarmon’s failure to fully disclose this conflict before sponsoring the ordinance compounds the violation. The public deserves complete transparency, yet her actions suggest an effort to hide financial ties while championing policies favorable to her contributors.

4. Failure to Recuse and Its Legal Consequences

Recusal is not limited to abstaining from a vote; it includes removing oneself from participation, discussion, and influence regarding any matter involving a conflict of interest. By co-sponsoring the ordinance and actively advocating for its passage, Sugarmon ignored her legal obligation to fully recuse herself from all stages of the process.

• Legal Standard for Recusal (T.C.A. § 12-4-101):

Elected officials must not vote for, advocate, or participate in decisions where they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest.

• Sugarmon’s actions violated this standard by using her position to promote legislation that benefits entities financially tied to her.
• Consequences of Non-Recusal:

Failure to adhere to recusal laws can result in:

• Criminal prosecution under conflict-of-interest statutes;
• Civil penalties for misuse of public office;
• Removal from office for breaches of ethical and legal duties.

The Broader Impact: Erosion of Public Trust

Sugarmon’s actions set a dangerous precedent, sending the message that elected officials can serve financial contributors rather than the people they represent. This type of conduct undermines the very foundation of public service, where officials are expected to act with integrity, impartiality, and accountability.

• By failing to recuse herself, Sugarmon effectively nullified the principle of good governance.
• Her financial ties to Tennessee Prosperous create reasonable doubt about whether her advocacy for More for Memphis was driven by the public’s best interests or by her political affiliations.

 

The Bigger Picture: A Coordinated Scam

The December 16 meeting pulled back the curtain on a coordinated effort by More for Memphis, Seeding Success, and complicit County Commissioners to mislead the public and push through a fraudulent ordinance. While the public was silenced and stonewalled, Seeding Success was allowed to evade accountability and present an illusion of legitimacy.

The fraudulent misrepresentation of $100 million in “secured” funds—repeatedly debunked by commissioners like Brittany Thornton and Henri Brooks—stands as the cornerstone of this scandal. The ordinance, sponsored by commissioners with financial ties to Tennessee Prosperous, was built on deliberate deceit to funnel public funds into private hands under the guise of economic mobility.

Time for Accountability

The Shelby County Commissioners meeting revealed not just incompetence but willful disregard for Tennessee laws and ethical governance. Key violations include:

1. Silencing Public Input while favoring Seeding Success.
2. Failure to Disclose Political Donations that influence public policy.
3. Neglecting Fiduciary Duties by failing to demand financial transparency.
4. Abusing Recusal Rules to protect conflicts of interest.
5. Promoting Fraudulent Misrepresentation of “secured” funds.

The citizens of Shelby County deserve answers, accountability, and legal action against those who have conspired to mislead the public. This is no longer a debate about policy; it is a scandal that demands state and federal investigation into corruption, fraud, and ethical misconduct.

The question remains: Will Shelby County residents accept this assault on democracy, or will they demand that those who abused their positions be held accountable?

Because the truth is clear—when you allow corruption to fester, the bed you made will surely swallow you whole.