Erika Sugarmon
Taxpayer Betrayal and Backdoor Deals: Commissioner Erika Sugarmon’s Blind Support Raises Eyebrows as She Cites Republican Voucher Policies to Defend the Poorly Proposed Taxpayer-Funded ‘More for Memphis’ Scheme
By Public Affairs Staff on November 24, 2024
Memphis, TN — In a glaring display of poor reasoning and political double standards, Commissioner Erika Sugarmon’s remarks at the November 18 meeting have drawn sharp criticism for her unwavering support of the controversial More for Memphis ordinance, a taxpayer-funded initiative lacking verified financial backing or transparency. Sugarmon’s defense of the ordinance—centered on comparing it to Republican-led school voucher policies—has raised serious questions about her commitment to fiscal responsibility, her judgment as a public servant, and whether her actions violate her sworn oath to serve the public interest.
The suspect ordinance passed the 1st of 3 required readings
Citing GOP Voucher Policies to Justify Taxpayer Risks
During the meeting, Sugarmon attempted to justify her blind support for More for Memphis by referencing Tennessee’s Republican majority’s push for school voucher programs. “If you think about Tennessee,” Sugarmon said, “Tennessee is in the process of expanding the vouchers. And so now we’re taking public money and giving to private schools.” One observer noted, Commissioner Sugarmon is essentially saying, ‘If they can waste money, so can we.’ That’s not leadership—that’s a betrayal of the voters who trusted her.”
A False Comparison: Republican Voucher Model vs. More for Memphis
A closer examination reveals that this comparison is not only flawed but also misleading, as the two systems are fundamentally different.
Years of Legislative Deliberation vs. Rushed Scheming
The school voucher program underwent years of legislative debate, revision, and public scrutiny before it was implemented. While controversial, the program’s framework is publicly documented, includes specific eligibility requirements, and has established guidelines for accountability. In contrast, More for Memphis is being pushed through without proof of funding, without adequate public input, and with vague promises of a “living document” that will dictate future priorities. It is, in essence, a blank check for an unelected fiscal agent to wield taxpayer dollars with little oversight.
Transparent Funding vs. Imaginary Millions
The Republican voucher model operates within the constraints of a state budget with clear appropriations and spending limits. Taxpayer money is allocated based on documented budgets, leaving little room for mystery about where the funds come from or how they will be used. Meanwhile, More for Memphis claims to have secured $100 million in private philanthropic funding—a claim that remains entirely unverified. Without proof of this funding, the scheme asks Memphis taxpayers to invest in a financial black hole with no assurances that their money will achieve the promised results.
Direct Impact vs. Bureaucratic Layers
The voucher program directly impacts families by providing funding for their children’s private education. While controversial, the funds go straight to their intended purpose. By contrast, More for Memphis creates a new bureaucratic structure, siphoning taxpayer money into administrative costs, consultant fees, and operational expenses for a fiscal agent. This additional layer of bureaucracy dilutes the impact of public funds, ensuring that fewer resources reach the people who need them most.
Accountability vs. Opacity
While school vouchers are overseen by the state with established reporting requirements, More for Memphis lacks the same transparency. The fiscal agent—an unelected entity—will have broad discretion over millions in taxpayer dollars, with little public oversight. The scheme effectively removes decision-making from elected officials, leaving taxpayers with no clear avenue to challenge misuse or inefficiencies.
Sugarmon’s attempt to justify More for Memphis with this false equivalence only highlights the weaknesses of the ordinance. It’s not just bad logic—it’s a reckless betrayal of her duty to protect taxpayers and ensure transparency in public spending. Instead of addressing the ordinance’s glaring flaws, she has chosen to mislead and distract, further eroding public trust.
No Proof of $100 Million: A Scheme Built on Fantasy?
Sugarmon’s support for More for Memphis is even more troubling given the ordinance’s central claim—that it has already secured $100 million in private philanthropic funding. To date, no proof of this funding has been provided. Despite this glaring omission, Sugarmon has championed the initiative, praising it as a way to “bridge the divide between city government, county government, and Memphis-Shelby County Schools.”
Critics have called her blind endorsement of the ordinance reckless and irresponsible. “Where’s the $100 million? Show us the receipts,” said one taxpayer advocate. “Sugarmon and her colleagues are ready to gamble millions of taxpayer dollars on a scheme that sounds more like a bedtime story for the wealthy than a real plan to address poverty in Memphis.”
The Power of Taxpayer Watchdogs: Joe Kent’s Early Warning
The More for Memphis scheme might have quietly slipped through the cracks if not for the vigilance of taxpayer watchdogs like Joe Kent, who first exposed the flaws of this ordinance on his renowned JustMyMemphis blog. In his widely read article, The Whaley Blotch, Kent detailed how the initiative lacked transparency, verifiable funding, and accountability—warning Memphis taxpayers of the financial risks tied to blind support for the ordinance.
“Joe Kent’s JustMyMemphis blog has been a clarion call for fiscal responsibility,” said a local activist. “He’s shining a light on schemes that local elected officials would rather keep hidden in the shadows. His work on this issue has given taxpayers the tools to demand answers and accountability.”
Kent’s relentless commitment to exposing local government overreach and misuse of public funds underscores the vital role that independent watchdogs play in safeguarding taxpayer interests. Thanks to his early warnings, the More for Memphis scheme is now under intense public scrutiny, and its proponents—like Commissioner Sugarmon—are being held accountable for their questionable decisions.
Diversion Tactics to Avoid Accountability
Instead of addressing the ordinance’s lack of transparency, Sugarmon employed diversion tactics to shift the conversation away from its flaws. She invoked the poor conditions of Memphis schools, describing her own classroom as filled with the smell of mold, and emphasized the need for “wraparound services” and “community-type schooling.” While these issues are undeniably important, they have no bearing on the legitimacy of More for Memphis. Critics argue that Sugarmon used emotional appeals to distract from the ordinance’s lack of financial proof and exclusionary practices.
“Sugarmon’s rhetoric is a classic bait-and-switch,” said a Shelby County Government staff member familiar with the ordinance who spoke on conditions of anonymity. “She highlights real problems, like mold in schools, to divert attention from the ordinance’s serious deficiencies. The people of Memphis deserve solutions, not sleight-of-hand tactics.”
Violations of Her Sworn Oath
Sugarmon’s actions also raise questions about whether she has violated her oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and serve the public interest. By supporting an ordinance that lacks transparency, proof of funding, or accountability, she may have breached her fiduciary duty to taxpayers.
Possible Misconduct: Conflicts of Interest?
Sugarmon’s blind support for More for Memphis also raises the specter of potential conflicts of interest. What, if any, are her connections to the individuals or organizations behind the initiative? Her refusal to demand accountability or transparency has fueled speculation that backroom deals may be at play.
“Recusals and blind endorsements often mean one thing: someone’s already been in bed with the devil,” said a political observer. “If Sugarmon has ties to More for Memphis or its fiscal agents, that’s a serious issue—one that warrants investigation.”
FBI, TBI, and DOJ Attention Sought
The combination of unverified funding claims, diversion tactics, and potential violations of constitutional mandates has drawn the attention of local activists, who are calling for investigations by the FBI, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), and Department of Justice (DOJ).
“This isn’t just bad governance—it’s potentially criminal,” said a local law professor who spoke on conditions of anonymity. “The lack of transparency, coupled with the possible misuse of public funds, raises red flags that federal and state authorities should investigate immediately.”
A Call for Accountability
Commissioner Sugarmon has a duty to represent the people of Memphis with integrity, transparency, and accountability. Instead, her blind support for More for Memphis has left taxpayers questioning her motives, her logic, and her commitment to the public good.
If Sugarmon truly believes in this initiative, she must provide answers to the 16 questions submitted by community activist Rev. Stephanie Williams at her Shelby County Commissioner committee meeting November 13. Five days later, at the November 18 meeting, Commissioner Brittany Thornton expressed her frustration that these questions were never answered, despite her request for the More For Memphis Team to address them. Two of those 16 questions were directed specifically to Commissioner Sugarmon:
- Where is the proof of the $100 million in funding?
- What are her connections to More for Memphis and its stakeholders?
Until these questions are answered, the shadow of backdoor deals and betrayal will continue to hang over her leadership. The people of Memphis deserve to know.
About Post Author
