Is Bill Purcell’s departure from Nashville a net gain or a tough loss for the city? The former mayor’s critics, who appeared to increase in number during his last couple of years in office, certainly would argue that it’s a plus to have the Philadelphia native headed back to the Northeast.

As someone who took the good with the bad during Purcell’s tenure and thought the mayor served the city very well, I’m sad to see him go. That said, is having a well-spoken (albeit a little long-winded) and passionate advocate for Nashville in an influential community such as Harvard such a bad thing? Where it may hurt Nashville (and Tennessee) the most is in 2010, since Purcell is now unlikely to run for governor. Then again, if Purcell were to run, would Tennesseans really elect a former Nashville mayor as the state’s top official twice in a row?

Former Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell, now working out of an office at Tennessee State University’s Avon Williams downtown campus, didn’t hear good news about the U.S. economy during his time at Harvard University last fall. I had the opportunity to hear Purcell’s account of that news earlier today.

According to Purcell, Harvard President Larry Summers expects that the economy will “bottom out” in October and that the forecast for the future looks a lot more like 1991 than 2001. The recession in 2001 was rough, but 1991 was worse. Summers told a group of new mayors, including Nashville’s Karl Dean, that it would be “two years before you can do anything significant” because of the forthcoming economic stagnation.

While in Massachusetts, Purcell also heard economic historian Niall Ferguson say that the economy looks like 1930, the beginning of the Great Depression, most of all. Unlike in prior lean economic times, though, Ferguson expects that the third world (especially China and the Middle East) will sustain the first world (rather than the other way around). Ferguson anticipates a “fire sale” of U.S. assets because of the dollar’s low value. It may not be a depression we’re headed toward, but it could be a bumpy road.

Nashville’s former mayor won re-election in a 2003 landslide and was widely hailed for his focus on neighborhoods and his smart and pragmatic approach to government. Purcell also received high marks for his eloquence, particularly in describing the city of Nashville in front of audiences local and elsewhere.

Despite these and many other accolades and accomplishments, another take on Purcell has been emerging since the runoff election that made Karl Dean his successor. Yesterday, the City Paper’s Richard Lawson reported on the business community’s “love-hate relationship” with the mayor and Purcell’s habit for “slow-walking” initiatives he didn’t support. The Sounds downtown stadium deal and plans for a new convention center are high-profile examples.

Outgoing Predators owner Craig Leipold was quoted in The Tennessean over the weekend praising Dean for his work in negotiations with David Freeman’s ownership group. I don’t think I’m assuming too much in saying that the following quote speaks volumes about Leipold’s opinions on Dean and on his predecessor: “It’s so exciting to have a mayor that understands the value this team has for Nashville. I was very impressed with his commitment to make it work.”

Privately, I’ve heard one insider discuss the major shift in leadership style that is taking place as Dean begins to make the mayor’s office his own. No one’s sure who knows how to manage a department, the source said, because none of the managers have been allowed to manage in eight years. Everything has been controlled centrally. It all had to come through the mayor’s office. The insider also mentioned that some council members were enthusiastic to have the new mayor meet individually and cordially with them after “having been ignored” for years.

Only time will tell how history regards Nashville’s most recent former mayor. There’s no risk here of another Bill Boner emerging from the aftermath that’s under way, but when the dust finally settles, what will the conventional wisdom look like on the space between the Bredesen and Dean administrations?

Governor Phil Bredesen, who gave most of the limelight to first lady Andrea Conte today, spoke briefly at the Preds rally. He thanked the key players and, most significantly, lauded praise on new Mayor Karl Dean and his efforts negotiating with the new ownership group.

“You really have done a great job with this,” Bredesen said. “It would have been easy for a newly elected mayor to offer verbal support and not much else.” Bredesen went on to say that negotiations such as these are “difficult technically and politically” and thanked Dean for his willingness to step up and get a deal done. “It’s an honor to be here with you today,” he said. “I’m a fan.”

It’s remarkable to observe this sincere goodwill from Bredesen, who many have speculated did not get along with former Mayor Bill Purcell. Bredesen’s show of favor on Dean, who now at long last has breathing room to start the rest of his term, can’t hurt as he turns his attention to the rest of his agenda.

At least one former candidate in the Nashville mayor’s race is making an endorsement: Kenneth Eaton.

We Support Bob Clement As Our Next Mayor! Check Back soon for a full Site Update, as Well as a letter of Support from Mr. Eaton. Karl Dean Does not have the Experience to run this city. Karl Dean Is a Continuation of the Purcell Administration. Bob Clement Is the Change Nashville Needs!

Buck Dozier followed the odd tradition of politicians referring to themselves in the third person earlier this week, and Eaton has taken it one step further by opting for the second person “we.” Both Clement and Dean have understandably coveted endorsements that don’t appear to be coming from Dozier, David Briley, and Howard Gentry. Is this an endorsement that Clement wants, though?

I’ve read the phrase a “continuation of the Purcell administration” a few times lately in a negative light. Is following in Purcell’s footsteps a bad thing? Some Nashvillians, and they’re not all in Eaton’s camp, would say yes.

It’s a poorly kept secret that Bill Purcell is quietly supporting Karl Dean’s effort to become Nashville’s next mayor. At this week’s Night Out Against Crime event in Sylvan Park, Purcell had some fun on stage making his preference in the race a little clearer:

“Anyone who’s here with you here in Sylvan Park is definitely doing something right . . . I’m not involved in this [mayoral] race, but I do happen to see one candidate over there  [motioning to Dean].”

It should be noted that Dean opponent Bob Clement visited the event earlier in the evening, but there wasn’t much confusion about where Purcell’s loyalty lies. More than one attendee within my earshot noted the remarkable “coincidence” that Dean happened to show up only a few minutes before Purcell arrived.

[Note: Boy, does my camera phone struggle in the dark. Yikes.]

Mayor Bill Purcell is reportedly at today’s news conference. That’s an encouraging sign since the mayor has been noticeably quiet about the team’s future here.

Did Bill Purcell’s relatively early announcement that he would not seek a third term (a possibility which, to be fair, may not have been legal under the city charter) throw a wrench in the mayoral race, too? Reading this Nashville Scene article written one year ago, I can’t help but wonder:

District Attorney Torry Johnson was at the YMCA working out earlier this week when a curious voter asked him the question everybody wants answered: is he or isn’t he running for mayor? Johnson’s answer hasn’t wavered, whether he’s talking to constituents or impatient reporters: he’s still trying to decide.

He says the office of mayor is “interesting” and “intriguing”—the kind of position he’d be willing to make sacrifices for. At the same time, he’d been planning to run for district attorney last spring when Mayor Bill Purcell announced he wouldn’t try for a third term, leaving the field open for three candidates who leapt into the void. “The announced candidates said they were in practically from the minute Mayor Purcell’s announcement reverberated through the city,” Johnson says. “I’d been focused on the DA’s race up to that point. Only then did people start talking to me about being mayor. So I’m coming at this a little bit differently.”

According to a source with knowledge of the DA’s inner circle, Johnson is almost certain to run. The same source says Johnson’s closest confidants put the likelihood at 90 percent.

Here’s hoping no one had money on Johnson as a 90-percent “sure thing” last summer. There’s a funny thing about the near certainty of 90 percent, too: That 10 percent still keeps coming back around and winning out oh, about one out of every 10 times.

Tennessean columnist Gail Kerr applauds Mayor Purcell for his recent veto of the English-first bill in this morning’s paper.

I wholeheartedly agree. Despite Councilman Eric Crafton’s plans to continue his quest for this legislation with a public referendum, I think Purcell’s veto was a noble action in the best interest of our city. Thanks again, Bill.

It’s been a good week. First off, my wife and I were seated next to Mayor Purcell for our Valentine’s Day dinner on Wednesday, and today I participated in a lunch along with several other local bloggers hosted by mayoral candidate David Briley. Even better, unlike Purcell, Briley and I actually had a conversation while I was there.

My general impressions were that Briley is a well-spoken, open-minded person who would like to make Nashville a better place to live. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but he appears to be someone I could vote for. At the very least, I don’t think I would be upset to see him serve as mayor, and that’s not insignificant with five months or so still remaining in the race. (In other words, that’s a compliment with so much campaigning left to go.)

Thanks, Sean, for setting this up, and to everyone else for participating (Brittney Gilbert, Adam Kleinheider, Sarah Moore, Ned Williams and John of Salem’s Lots). Here are some collected thoughts from today’s discussion, which I found to be respectful and good-natured throughout despite a wide variety of thoughts and opinions on the issues:

Regarding fellow progressive mayoral candidate Karl Dean, Briley said, “Karl Dean is a friend of mine, and I have nothing negative to say about him.” He did go on to say that he considers himself “better prepared after the past [nearly] eight years on the council” to serve as mayor, citing “broader experience” with budgeting, tax concerns, legislation, juvenile justice, crime and education compared to Dean’s fairly targeted tenure as the city’s director of law and as an adjunct professor of law at Vanderbilt.

When asked how to support Nashville’s improving but still ailing public schools, Briley quoted Lamar Alexander’s three keys to a successful school system: A good prinicipal, good teachers and good parents. He emphasized that involvement by parents is a major deficit right now and pledged to offer “unprecedented support” to encourage involvement by parents and by other role models. According to him, where our schools struggle most is in middle school. We do a decent job in elementary and high school, he argued, but not nearly as well for grades five through eight. Briley promised to get “every possible organization engaged in middle schools to get students through high schools in four years.” He also noted that 10,000 young adults ages 16 to 24 in Nashville are responsible for 80 percent of our crimes, and that taking measures now to reach out to struggling students may help change this.

Briley acknowledged that reforming an organization large enough to serve 70,000 students will take some work. At the same time, he said that the school system “can’t be one size fits all” and that it must be able to adapt to meet the needs of a diverse body of students. He emphasized the need for greater parental choice in the school system, stopping short of widespread adoption of charter schools but still acknowledging that parents are choosing now, for example, by moving to satellite counties when their children lose out in the lottery for magnet school slots.

Briley did say that he would like to see a “more objective” method for selecting charter schools and that the current system, where the school board has the primary say, is like “asking Wal-Mart to decide about putting a Target nearby.” He would also like to provide more choice for parents within the public school system by allowing different categories of schools and granting parents the option to choose among them: He mentioned schools with uniforms, single-sex schools and Montessori schools as possible options.

When asked specifically about the fact that he did not vote in the final tally for the Metro Council’s recent and controversial English-first bill, Briley explained that he voted against the bill on its second reading and had “nothing to gain by flip-flopping on the final vote.” Even though he stepped out during debate for the legitimate reason of checking on his children by cell phone, he acknowledged that it was “a mistake on my part” and “I would have voted against it.” He also claimed that he would have vetoed the bill, as did Mayor Purcell, if he had been mayor when it passed the council.

Explaining his stance on what he described as a merely “symbolic” bill,” Briley noted that Nashville is “not a homogenous place” and that legal immigrants are “here to stay whether we like it or not.” “We can’t as a community act in a way that pushes everyone into a corner by label,” he said. “We must empower immigrant communities to be a part of the culture.” Briley also said that the bill “does zero legally” and went on to say that Nashville is “an inclusive city where everyone is expected to conduct themselves appropriately.”

Philosophically speaking, I have the impression that Briley and I are in the same ballpark of many of the major issues. I did not have the impression during lunch that he ducked any questions, even tougher ones, but I will say that he has his talking points down pat. He did a good job of staying on his message without straying into territory that he didn’t want to address, such as whether his tenure on the council would make him more or less effective as mayor. On that issue, he answered by saying, “It’s up to the mayor to develop leadership in the council and to allow proactive, intelligent leaders [within the council] to raise issues … Changing term limits alone won’t solve the council’s recent problems.”

I’ll close with what I thought was a genuine and respectable statement by Briley that I would say sums up my impressions following lunch: “I won’t pretend to have all of the answers, but I will open up the doors for those who do.” Thanks, David, for inviting a few of us in the blogosphere to sit down with you and for letting us fire away today.

I had dinner with Bill Purcell for Valentine’s Day last night. OK, well, not exactly, but he did sit about four feet from my wife and me for about two hours yesterday evening. We had reservations at 6:30 at Eastland Cafe (which was excellent, by the way) and sat down at a cozy and candlelit little table for two. (We were about where the bald waiter is standing in the above stock photo from the Eastland Web site.)

As soon as we sat down, a friend of mine said my name and said hello. She was sitting at the table on the far side of the mayor from us, not that we had even noticed that his honor was in the room at that point. After thirty seconds or so of conversation across the mayor’s table with my friend, I sat down and began looking at the menu. Sure enough, Eastland Cafe has a beautiful set of mirrors at about eye level running the length of one wall, and there was Bill in the reflection right above my wife’s shoulder.

Unless I someday sit down across from Bono, I’m going to continue to try to not be “that fan” or “that guy.” You know, the one who makes an ass of himself by fawning all over a public figure. Granted, our mayor is a bit more local a celebrity than, say, a philanthropic rock-star who has won multiple Grammys and has been named Time’s Man of the Year, but it was still an awfully fun surprise. I managed to (hopefully) subtly steer my wife’s gaze in the mayor’s direction with my own eyes, and we did our best the rest of the evening to leave him alone.

I’m happy to report that it was the mayor, not me, who broke out his Blackberry during dinner to check e-mail, though my wife notes that, as mayor, he stood a lot better chance of getting away with that on Valentine’s Day than I did. (I kept my Treo in my pocket the whole time.) It should also be noted, for the record, that as far as I could tell, the mayor spoke almost entirely in English the entire evening. Then again, there were several French and Italian words on the menu, so I’m not sure whether Bill ordered by pointing at the menu or if he embraced his recent veto by pronouncing every single word. I hope it was the latter.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker has a great column in today’s paper regarding Mayor Purcell’s veto of the Metro Council’s English-first bill:

Profiles in political courage are rare, indeed, but there’s an early contender for the awards Caroline Kennedy hands out every May: Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell. On Monday, defying the xenophobes, know-nothings and nativists, Purcell vetoed a local ordinance that would have enshrined “English-only” as official city policy and dictated that virtually all government communications be in English.

“This ordinance does not reflect who we are in Nashville,” the mayor said at a press conference. Wow. Rather than taking the easy path to cheap acclaim, Purcell took the high but rocky road of leadership. Will his gesture be widely emulated? Probably not. Politics is too much about popularity, and Purcell’s stand against the nativism that has taken hold among so many Americans certainly won’t be popular.

I have no issue with continuing to monitor how our country is changing as new residents arrive and begin to contribute to our culture, but I do have a problem with passing legislation that accomplishes little except increasing divisiveness, which is one thing we don’t need to encourage. Tucker goes on to note that this is not the first time that xenophobia has been an active force in American politics:

Some demographers believe that widespread access to TV and the Internet is helping current immigrants learn English faster than immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The immigrants of yesteryear — Italians, Germans, Poles — often lived in contained neighborhoods where granddad and grandma never learned English. And they, too, were resented by WASPy native-born Americans who thought they’d ruin the country. They didn’t. Neither will the current crop of immigrants. We need more courageous politicians such as Purcell to say so.

Some pundits argue convincingly these days that media, technology and industry together have made our country more homogeneous, not less so. The regional differences that used to distinguish one part of the country are not as pronounced as they once were. That sounds a lot like a melting pot to me, and I see no problem with celebrating the unique elements of our culture while welcoming new arrivals. Thanks again, Bill. Your actions on Monday are already paying dividends.