Recent examples of alleged political corruption in Memphis include bribery, dead voters swinging elections, race-based campaigning, and now preferential treatment granted by the public utility over a delinquent account… and that’s just one family!

Much has been said about Memphis Light Gas and Water’s “Third Party Notification” list, which included the names of several politicians, journalists and other public figures, and allowed utility officials to be alerted when any of these folks had problems with their personal accounts. While the very idea of this alert system might seem shady to some, it really only became a problem once Memphis discovered that MLGW has been protecting one city councilman on the list who had months of overdue bills and owed the utility thousands of dollars. Now both the councilman and the utility CEO are under fire.

Friday’s New York Times article, however, calls the notification system “a protected list… intended to prevent [certain individuals] from having their power cut off in case of nonpayment.”

From what I understand, the list was set up by former CEO Herman Morris (now a candidate for Mayor) not in order to protect certain prominent customers, but rather to notify upper management of any problems.

According to the Commercial Appeal, Morris asked his staff to develop a list of customers that would require his awareness, following a complaint by one of the paper’s editors. In other words, the list was created in response to a public relations crisis and was intended to protect the utility from damage to its reputation among opinion drivers and policy makers, rather than to protect politicians and insiders from service interruptions.

How such a list may have been used and abused by a succeeding administration is quite another story.

As this news was first breaking, Mayor Herenton tellingly admitted that MLGW was suffering from a “public relations problem.” It’s ironic that such a problem would arise from a policy intended to prevent one in the first place. But it’s a problem that Herenton himself shares, and not only in this context.

It seems our friends at the New York Times, and plenty others here in Memphis, fail to grasp the full implications of what it could mean for the city if it were to replace the current mayor this year with someone who is infinitely better at managing media meltdowns.

While Morris created a system to deal appropriately with the most influential customers, Mayor Herenton and his cronies at MLGW managed to turn a PR tool into a public disaster.

Interestingly, Herenton is asking his supporters to encourage him to “stay on the wall,” while Morris has offered himself as a “bridge.”

And though other candidates may influence the result, it seems this year voters will decide mainly between these two structural elements, and determine which is more appropriate to the bluff city.